conservativehome--2020-10-08--The most powerful player in Parliament on Coronavirus isn’t Brady, or even Johnson – but Starmer

The number of Conservative backbenchers willing to vote against the Government over Covid-19 policy has increased , is increasing , and shows no sign of being diminished ( to adapt the famous words of Dunning ’ s resolution ) .
Among the most dedicated opponents of the present restrictions and lockdowns are a small band of Eurosceptics that includes Peter Bone , Philip Davies , and Philip Hollobone – a group once described to this site as “ so hardline on Brexit that they make the European Research Group look like sellouts ” .
They were the core of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Coronavirus regulations last week .
Graham Brady joined them a few days ago over the rule of six , voting against the Government together with his fellow 1922 Committee Executive members , Charles Walker and William Wragg .
Steve Baker , who is acting as an unofficial whip for potential dissidents over the virus , is poised to join them in the No lobby when the Commons votes on the ten o ’ clock closing time for pubs and restaurants – as are others .
So if the Government doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the number of rebels will be larger still .
In short , there are concretic circles of rebels : some prioritise the economy and freedom ; others believe the big lockdowns in the North don ’ t take account of local factors ( see the speeches in yesterday ’ s debate by Jake Berry , Dehenna Davidson and our columnist Richard Holden ) .
The next ring out is former Ministers such as Mark Harper , who also pitched in yesterday , plus those who made up the 56 Conservatives who voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranging from Damian Green and Bob Neill on to the left to Bernard Jenkin and John Redwood on the right through the permanently discontented in the middle .
The last circle out consists of a fifth column with Government itself that believes the strategy is wrong – or that wants a major overhaul at the least .
Some Ministers are part of it .
It would be unfair to Rishi Sunak to count him among them , but he is certainly pushing for a less restrictive approach , and is the main force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those backbenchers support a Swedish solution , or the similar “ focused protection ” plan , but many of them do , and their numbers will grow – especially in Red Wall seats where lockdowns are presently concentrated – if the Government ’ s test and track continues to stutter , shutdowns rise , bankruptcies mount and unemployment soars .
Either way , the Parliamentary stage is set for growing pressure for a different policy approach from the Conservative benches .
Rebels may be joined in varying number by the minor parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate in the shadow of Nicola Sturgeon ’ s willingness to intensify lockdowns in Scotland .
But the opposition party that will count most is the biggest one – Labour .
Like many Opposition leaders at most times , Keir Starmer is in the classic position , when it comes to debates and votes in Parliament , of being willing to wound but afraid to strike .
On the one hand , Government reverses and defeats on the floor of the House are bad for the Government ’ s authority and coherence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks giving Boris Johnson a chance to counter-punch – arguing that the Labour leader is playing politics with people ’ s lives .
Starmer ’ s dilemma was vividly illustrated at yesterday ’ s Prime Minister ’ s Questions , where he attacked Johnson over the ten o ’ clock rule , and Johnson attacked back – mocking the Labour leader for supporting the rule of six in principle ( on the radio ) but not doing so in practice ( in the lobbies earlier this week ) .
The strategy that Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just on Covid-19 , is the classic Opposition one of sitting back , saying little , waiting for the Government to screw up , watching Ministers squabble – and undertaking no manoeuvre that might unite them by presenting them with a target to fire at .
The to-and-fro over the ten o ’ clock rule proves that he is willing to throw the dice if he thinks that the Government ’ s ground is especially weak .
But there is a more fundamental driver at work .
To date , there has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party to oppose lockdowns and restrictions .
The Labour left has tended to be pro-lockdown .
And no wonder : restrictions and shutdowns means that capitalism can ’ t function properly and that statism consequently swells in scope .
Nonetheless , six of the party ’ s backbenchers , including Rebecca Long-Bailey , voted for the Brady amendment , in defiance of their party whip .
Long-Bailey spoke for the civil liberties tradition within Labour ; Dawn Butler believes that the restrictions are being “ disproportionately used against people of colour ” ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The number of these dissenters might have remained very small , were it not for a significant development outside Westminster .
Local Labour leaders in the north could be expected to do what Andy Burnham has been busy doing – namely , to call for more consultation , more powers , and more money , as Harry Phibbs reported on this site yesterday .
That ’ s par for the course for a Labour Mayor co-existing with a Conservative Government .
However , other Labour mayors and council leaders are striking out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the absence of mini-lockdowns at a ward or single local authority level because test and trace isn ’ t delivering them , wider shutdowns range across whole cities or regions .
Some of those Labour leaders and some Tory MPs are converging on a common theme : that shutdowns ignore local variation in Covid-19 case rates , damage livelihoods and deepen poverty .
Consider the remarkable statement issued by the Labour leaders of Liverpool , Leeds , Manchester , and Newcastle city councils .
“ We want to be clear however that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ our italics ] …This requires a more nuanced approach than moving straight to a full local lockdown under the ‘ tier three ’ arrangements .
Our response should consider broader local impacts than absolute numbers of infections.
” The potential impact at Westminster of this change of mood in the north is very big indeed .
If Labour MPs in urban seats join those local leaders in demanding a more permissive Coronavirus policy , there will be pressure on Starmer to respond .
To be clear : we don ’ t expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection ” plan on an unwilling Johnson – at least , any time soon .
But we do anticipate Starmer being less afraid to strike , as the weeks go by and winter sets in .
Which will ratchet up the pressure on an already rickety and divided Government .
On the one hand , the whips and others will urge concessions , fearing defeats on the floor of the House .
On the other , the scientists – or rather those advising Ministers – will urge that Johnson stick to restrictions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of deaths ( like Matt Hancock ) .
Our fear is that , rather than strike out in a clear direction , the Commons will lop chunks off Government policy in a random and arbitrary way – as and when Tory rebels plus the Labour front bench finding themselves voting together in an alliance of convenience ( or , if you prefer , one of inconvenience ) .
That would be bad three times over .
Bad for the Government .
Bad for Covid-19 policy .
And above all , bad for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to live with the incoherent consequences of such developments – and the damage to lives and livelihoods that will follow .
Keir Starmer , over to you .

The number of Conservative backbenchers willing to vote against the Government over Covid-19 policy has increased, is increasing, and shows no sign of being diminished (to adapt the famous words of Dunning’s resolution).
Among the most dedicated opponents of the present restrictions and lockdowns are a small band of Eurosceptics that includes Peter Bone, Philip Davies, and Philip Hollobone – a group once described to this site as “so hardline on Brexit that they make the European Research Group look like sellouts”.
They were the core of the seven Tory MPs who voted against renewing the Coronavirus regulations last week. Graham Brady joined them a few days ago over the rule of six, voting against the Government together with his fellow 1922 Committee Executive members, Charles Walker and William Wragg.
Steve Baker, who is acting as an unofficial whip for potential dissidents over the virus, is poised to join them in the No lobby when the Commons votes on the ten o’clock closing time for pubs and restaurants – as are others. So if the Government doesn’t drop the measure before that debate comes, the number of rebels will be larger still.
In short, there are concretic circles of rebels: some prioritise the economy and freedom; others believe the big lockdowns in the North don’t take account of local factors (see the speeches in yesterday’s debate by Jake Berry, Dehenna Davidson and our columnist Richard Holden).
The next ring out is former Ministers such as Mark Harper, who also pitched in yesterday, plus those who made up the 56 Conservatives who voted for the Brady amendment – a coalition ranging from Damian Green and Bob Neill on to the left to Bernard Jenkin and John Redwood on the right through the permanently discontented in the middle.
The last circle out consists of a fifth column with Government itself that believes the strategy is wrong – or that wants a major overhaul at the least. Some Ministers are part of it. It would be unfair to Rishi Sunak to count him among them, but he is certainly pushing for a less restrictive approach, and is the main force for it within Whitehall.
Not all of those backbenchers support a Swedish solution, or the similar “focused protection” plan, but many of them do, and their numbers will grow – especially in Red Wall seats where lockdowns are presently concentrated – if the Government’s test and track continues to stutter, shutdowns rise, bankruptcies mount and unemployment soars.
Either way, the Parliamentary stage is set for growing pressure for a different policy approach from the Conservative benches. Rebels may be joined in varying number by the minor parties. The SNP contingent at Westminster will operate in the shadow of Nicola Sturgeon’s willingness to intensify lockdowns in Scotland.
But the opposition party that will count most is the biggest one – Labour. Like many Opposition leaders at most times, Keir Starmer is in the classic position, when it comes to debates and votes in Parliament, of being willing to wound but afraid to strike.
On the one hand, Government reverses and defeats on the floor of the House are bad for the Government’s authority and coherence. On the other, pushing for them risks giving Boris Johnson a chance to counter-punch – arguing that the Labour leader is playing politics with people’s lives.
Starmer’s dilemma was vividly illustrated at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions, where he attacked Johnson over the ten o’clock rule, and Johnson attacked back – mocking the Labour leader for supporting the rule of six in principle (on the radio) but not doing so in practice (in the lobbies earlier this week).
The strategy that Starmer has settled for overall, and not just on Covid-19, is the classic Opposition one of sitting back, saying little, waiting for the Government to screw up, watching Ministers squabble – and undertaking no manoeuvre that might unite them by presenting them with a target to fire at.
The to-and-fro over the ten o’clock rule proves that he is willing to throw the dice if he thinks that the Government’s ground is especially weak. But there is a more fundamental driver at work. To date, there has been no real pressure from within the Labour Party to oppose lockdowns and restrictions.
The Labour left has tended to be pro-lockdown. And no wonder: restrictions and shutdowns means that capitalism can’t function properly and that statism consequently swells in scope. Nonetheless, six of the party’s backbenchers, including Rebecca Long-Bailey, voted for the Brady amendment, in defiance of their party whip.
Long-Bailey spoke for the civil liberties tradition within Labour; Dawn Butler believes that the restrictions are being “disproportionately used against people of colour”; John Spellar leans towards a Sweden-type policy. The number of these dissenters might have remained very small, were it not for a significant development outside Westminster.
Local Labour leaders in the north could be expected to do what Andy Burnham has been busy doing – namely, to call for more consultation, more powers, and more money, as Harry Phibbs reported on this site yesterday. That’s par for the course for a Labour Mayor co-existing with a Conservative Government.
However, other Labour mayors and council leaders are striking out in a different direction – as, in the absence of mini-lockdowns at a ward or single local authority level because test and trace isn’t delivering them, wider shutdowns range across whole cities or regions.
Some of those Labour leaders and some Tory MPs are converging on a common theme: that shutdowns ignore local variation in Covid-19 case rates, damage livelihoods and deepen poverty. Consider the remarkable statement issued by the Labour leaders of Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, and Newcastle city councils.
“We want to be clear however that we do not support further economic lockdowns [our italics]…This requires a more nuanced approach than moving straight to a full local lockdown under the ‘tier three’ arrangements. Our response should consider broader local impacts than absolute numbers of infections.”
The potential impact at Westminster of this change of mood in the north is very big indeed. If Labour MPs in urban seats join those local leaders in demanding a more permissive Coronavirus policy, there will be pressure on Starmer to respond.
To be clear: we don’t expect the Commons to force a “focused protection” plan on an unwilling Johnson – at least, any time soon. But we do anticipate Starmer being less afraid to strike, as the weeks go by and winter sets in. Which will ratchet up the pressure on an already rickety and divided Government.
On the one hand, the whips and others will urge concessions, fearing defeats on the floor of the House. On the other, the scientists – or rather those advising Ministers – will urge that Johnson stick to restrictions and shutdowns, warning of hundreds of thousands of deaths (like Matt Hancock).
Our fear is that, rather than strike out in a clear direction, the Commons will lop chunks off Government policy in a random and arbitrary way – as and when Tory rebels plus the Labour front bench finding themselves voting together in an alliance of convenience (or, if you prefer, one of inconvenience).
That would be bad three times over. Bad for the Government. Bad for Covid-19 policy. And above all, bad for the people of Britain, who will have to live with the incoherent consequences of such developments – and the damage to lives and livelihoods that will follow. Keir Starmer, over to you.


conservativehome--2020-10-08--Garvan Walshe: Strife in the Caucasus. How Armenia and Azerbaijan are pawns in a new great game betw

Garvan Walshe: Strife in the Caucasus. How Armenia and Azerbaijan are pawns in a new great game between Russia and Turkey.

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party The Soviet Union ’ s strategy of ruling its non-Russian subjects by giving them autonomous regions where they would be in the local majority unravelled with the USSR ’ s collapse .
Instead of having locally-rooted patronage networks controlled by the Communist Party , Russia ’ s periphery became a zone of chaos , terrorism and frozen conflicts .
Vladimir Putin , who exploited the Chechen war in his rise to power , learned to live with this .
He was able to disrupt neighbouring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to fester , threatening their territorial integrity and ensuring they didn ’ t , as the saying goes , poke the bear .
This strategy is starting to wear thin in the Caucasus , however , as an increasingly assertive Turkey has begun to boost its own influence in the region .
The last big war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh , an Armenian-majority region which had some autonomy from the Azerbaijan Soviet Republic , ended in 1994 with an Armenian victory .
Nagorno-Karabakh itself was ruled by supposedly independent institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , helped itself to land between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia , guaranteeing access to the former enclave .
Azerbaijan considers these territories to be illegally occupied by Armenia and promotes a narrative and eventual “ return ” for the tens of thousands Azeris displaced from there and Nagorno-Karabakh itself , while Armenia tolerates the settlement of the territories with the support of major funding from the Armenian diaspora ( incidentally , Israel has good relations with Azerbaijan , which it sees as a check on Iranian influence ) .
Russia maintains two military bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capital Yerevan , and has signed a defence pact with the country , but the power balance has tilted in Azerbaijan ’ s favour since the 1990s .
First , Azerbaijan has prospered thanks to plentiful natural gas , but more importantly it now has strong backing from another important regional power and , historic enemy of the Armenians whose genocide it denies ever committing , Turkey .
Tensions have been building between Yerevan and Baku for the best part of a year , and serious skirmishes broke out in June .
Azerbaijan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been turned up a notch , while Nikol Pashinyan , Armenia ’ s new Prime Minister , who came to power following a popular revolution in 2018 , has also been happy to keep the temperature high .
Last week , Azerbaijan launched a much larger than expected offensive , even reportedly commandeering civilian trucks , and deploying mercenaries demobilised from the Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army .
It has bombed Stepanakert , the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh , and threatened the main highway supplying the enclave from Armenia ( Armenia retaliated by bombing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have yet met with much success , in part due to the mountainous terrain , and there ’ s not much time left before winter makes offensive operations difficult .
It also appears that Turkey is egging Azerbaijan on , adding to the flare-ups between Erdogan and Putin .
Having long been at loggerheads in Syria and Libya , Nagorno-Karabakh forms a third front in their proxy war .
Russia , which backs the Assad regime has the upper hand in Syria thanks to a major error of judgement by Erdogan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ American protection for Kurdish forces in Syria , tilting the balance of the war towards Assad .
In Libya , Turkey which supports the internationally recognised Libyan government , has come out on top , and General Haftar , backed by both Russia and France , is much weakened .
By backing Azerbaijan so strongly , Turkey is making two strong geopolitical claims .
First , it is getting involved against Russia not in North Africa or the Middle East , but in a conflict between former Soviet states .
Second , Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minsk Group , convened by the OSCE to address the Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute , but will surely have to be involved in any new ceasefire .
This is partly due to Erdogan ’ s ambitious ( some would say neo-Ottoman ) foreign policy , but it also reflects Turkey ’ s growing economic importance .
This significant shift would normally attract the attention of the United States .
It has a close ally of its own in the Caucasus – Georgia – and a significant and influential domestic Armenian constituency ( there are between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans ) .
Though if an election campaign is never the best time to attract Washington ’ s attention , the Trump Administration ’ s evisceration of the State Department meant the US couldn ’ t use its weight to damp the conflict down .
America ’ s absence has left two aggressive powers – Russia and Turkey – to begin to test their strength against each other in the small countries that border them .
Whatever happens in this particular conflict , it seems a new Great Game is afoot in the @ @

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party
The Soviet Union’s strategy of ruling its non-Russian subjects by giving them autonomous regions where they would be in the local majority unravelled with the USSR’s collapse. Instead of having locally-rooted patronage networks controlled by the Communist Party, Russia’s periphery became a zone of chaos, terrorism and frozen conflicts.
Vladimir Putin, who exploited the Chechen war in his rise to power, learned to live with this. He was able to disrupt neighbouring states enough by allowing “frozen conflicts” to fester, threatening their territorial integrity and ensuring they didn’t, as the saying goes, poke the bear. This strategy is starting to wear thin in the Caucasus, however, as an increasingly assertive Turkey has begun to boost its own influence in the region.
The last big war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-majority region which had some autonomy from the Azerbaijan Soviet Republic, ended in 1994 with an Armenian victory. Nagorno-Karabakh itself was ruled by supposedly independent institutions under Armenian protection. Armenia, meanwhile, helped itself to land between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, guaranteeing access to the former enclave.
Azerbaijan considers these territories to be illegally occupied by Armenia and promotes a narrative and eventual “return” for the tens of thousands Azeris displaced from there and Nagorno-Karabakh itself, while Armenia tolerates the settlement of the territories with the support of major funding from the Armenian diaspora (incidentally, Israel has good relations with Azerbaijan, which it sees as a check on Iranian influence).
Russia maintains two military bases in Armenia, including one near the capital Yerevan, and has signed a defence pact with the country, but the power balance has tilted in Azerbaijan’s favour since the 1990s. First, Azerbaijan has prospered thanks to plentiful natural gas, but more importantly it now has strong backing from another important regional power and, historic enemy of the Armenians whose genocide it denies ever committing, Turkey.
Tensions have been building between Yerevan and Baku for the best part of a year, and serious skirmishes broke out in June. Azerbaijan’s irredentism as been appears to have been turned up a notch, while Nikol Pashinyan, Armenia’s new Prime Minister, who came to power following a popular revolution in 2018, has also been happy to keep the temperature high.
Last week, Azerbaijan launched a much larger than expected offensive, even reportedly commandeering civilian trucks, and deploying mercenaries demobilised from the Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army. It has bombed Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, and threatened the main highway supplying the enclave from Armenia (Armenia retaliated by bombing Ganja). It does not seem to have yet met with much success, in part due to the mountainous terrain, and there’s not much time left before winter makes offensive operations difficult.
It also appears that Turkey is egging Azerbaijan on, adding to the flare-ups between Erdogan and Putin. Having long been at loggerheads in Syria and Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh forms a third front in their proxy war. Russia, which backs the Assad regime has the upper hand in Syria thanks to a major error of judgement by Erdogan. The Turkish leader persuaded Trump to withdraw American protection for Kurdish forces in Syria, tilting the balance of the war towards Assad. In Libya, Turkey which supports the internationally recognised Libyan government, has come out on top, and General Haftar, backed by both Russia and France, is much weakened.
By backing Azerbaijan so strongly, Turkey is making two strong geopolitical claims. First, it is getting involved against Russia not in North Africa or the Middle East, but in a conflict between former Soviet states. Second, Turkey is not currently a member of the Minsk Group, convened by the OSCE to address the Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute, but will surely have to be involved in any new ceasefire. This is partly due to Erdogan’s ambitious (some would say neo-Ottoman) foreign policy, but it also reflects Turkey’s growing economic importance.
This significant shift would normally attract the attention of the United States. It has a close ally of its own in the Caucasus – Georgia – and a significant and influential domestic Armenian constituency (there are between half a million and a million Armenian Americans). Though if an election campaign is never the best time to attract Washington’s attention, the Trump Administration’s evisceration of the State Department meant the US couldn’t use its weight to damp the conflict down.
America’s absence has left two aggressive powers – Russia and Turkey – to begin to test their strength against each other in the small countries that border them. Whatever happens in this particular conflict, it seems a new Great Game is afoot in the Caucasus.


conservativehome--2020-10-08--John Bald: Closing the education gap the Michaela way

John Bald is a former Ofsted inspector and has written two books on the history of writing and spelling .
He is Vice-President of the Conservative Education Society .
The Secretary of State is rarely the most important person in education .
With a few exceptions , such as Butler , Crosland , or Gove , they either don ’ t do much , or launch projects that don ’ t work or don ’ t last .
So it is no disrespect to the present holder of the office to say that the most important person in British education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either , to pioneers like the late Sir Rhodes Boyson and Sir Michael Wilshaw , or to others doing excellent work .
But Birbalsingh and her colleagues at Michaela have achieved the educational equivalent of squaring the circle .
While Sir Keir Starmer talks about closing the attainment gap between poor and advantaged pupils , they have done it .
This gap has set the scene for educational debate since I started in the early seventies , and it has widened during the pandemic .
Children with the least support and fewest resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teachers for opportunities to learn , and around 40 per cent have had little or no contact with them while schools have been closed .
A substantial number of parents have made the problem worse .
One of the few state schools to ignore union advice and provide online teaching during the lockdown reports that almost a third of pupils did not take part , and that some parents blocked its phone calls .
We can ’ t compel anyone to pick up a phone or switch on a computer .
The gap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the equivalent of eighteen months to two years ’ learning when children start school .
Thirty years ago , Harvard professor Jeanne Chall showed that it widened on transfer to secondary school , as the children of highly educated parents picked up on the more complex vocabulary used in school work , while the others could not , and so fell farther behind .
This makes closing the gap from a start with 11-year-old pupils even more remarkable .
So , am I right in saying that Michaela has done it ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it too ?
First , the evidence .
Last year ’ s examination results , from a non-selective intake , go beyond excellence .
They change our understanding of what can be achieved , perhaps particularly in Michaela ’ s four times national average success at the super A* Level 9 .
Such results show that the leftist argument , that achievement is inevitably limited by social background , is an error .
Nevertheless , it is set in stone among the progressive octopus that still controls most university education departments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their views from top to bottom , Starmer would have to ditch the whole of his Party ’ s thinking on education for the past 70 years in order to do it , and there is no reason to think he will do so .
I ’ ve described Michaela ’ s latest book , The Power of Culture , as the best I ’ ve ever read on schools education , and better than I ever expected to find .
Katharine Birbalsingh ’ s excellent chapter , on “ servant leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cardinal Hume ’ s address to Catholic headteachers .
Elsewhere , she edits , but the writing is the work of the staff .
Hin-Tai Ting was the head of the Year 11 that achieved last year ’ s results , and his chapter contains extensive testimony from pupils , many of them with special needs , serious behavioural problems , and disturbed and violent lives outside school .
Michaela has given them a future by enabling them to buy into its system and succeed .
These are precisely the pupils who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ting ’ s work shows that there is nothing elitist about Michaela ’ s excellence – like other schools it uses nurture groups , but expects the same standard of work and behaviour there as in other classes .
The GCSE results were so good that the bar for sixth form entry is among the highest in the country – at least 7 A grades or above ( Levels 7-9 ) .
This is the same as a typical offer from Manchester Grammar School .
For comparison , the published admission criteria of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjects at Level 5 or above ( girls ) and a grade average of 5.5 ( boys ) .
Jessica Lund ’ s 6th Form chapter shows how Michaela pupils are guided towards the highest aspirations for their talents and abilities , both through the teaching and by tackling the social issues that might otherwise hold them back .
Michaela streams , but without the stigma that has come to be associated with it .
Streaming enables teachers consistently to pitch work at the right level for the pupils , so that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The excellence of this teaching of less academically able pupils is a key point in Michaela ’ s success .
Every child matters , and everyone knows it .
The basis of this teaching is contained in four excellent chapters , respectively on religious education , history , geography , and art .
The RE chapter , in particular , stands out as the only piece of work I ’ ve ever read on the subject that does not involve some kind of preaching or self-righteous cant , and the art shows how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spontaneously .
Deputy Head , Katie Ashford ’ s chapter brings many of these threads together , and distinguishes Michaela ’ s approach from its critics ’ caricature of “ rote-learning ” .
The big difference is in the use of context , which builds understanding of what has been learned , and enables pupils to apply it .
Just as order and discipline free pupils by enabling learning to take place in peace , basing the curriculum on knowledge gives them the means to move towards independence .
The picture is complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long book at 400 pages , and the close argument and intensity of each chapter make it a most demanding read .
It has taken me a month to complete .
The significance of Michaela ’ s achievement makes it not only worthwhile , but imperative .
If Michael Gove ’ s goal of breaking down education ’ s Berlin Wall is ultimately to be achieved , it will be Katharine Birbalsingh and her colleagues who have made the first breach .
We now need to follow it up .

John Bald is a former Ofsted inspector and has written two books on the history of writing and spelling. He is Vice-President of the Conservative Education Society.
The Secretary of State is rarely the most important person in education. With a few exceptions, such as Butler, Crosland, or Gove, they either don’t do much, or launch projects that don’t work or don’t last. So it is no disrespect to the present holder of the office to say that the most important person in British education is Katharine Birbalsingh. No disrespect, either, to pioneers like the late Sir Rhodes Boyson and Sir Michael Wilshaw, or to others doing excellent work. But Birbalsingh and her colleagues at Michaela have achieved the educational equivalent of squaring the circle. While Sir Keir Starmer talks about closing the attainment gap between poor and advantaged pupils, they have done it.
This gap has set the scene for educational debate since I started in the early seventies, and it has widened during the pandemic. Children with the least support and fewest resources at home, depend entirely on their teachers for opportunities to learn, and around 40 per cent have had little or no contact with them while schools have been closed. A substantial number of parents have made the problem worse. One of the few state schools to ignore union advice and provide online teaching during the lockdown reports that almost a third of pupils did not take part, and that some parents blocked its phone calls. We can’t compel anyone to pick up a phone or switch on a computer.
The gap starts at birth, and can be the equivalent of eighteen months to two years’ learning when children start school. Thirty years ago, Harvard professor Jeanne Chall showed that it widened on transfer to secondary school, as the children of highly educated parents picked up on the more complex vocabulary used in school work, while the others could not, and so fell farther behind. This makes closing the gap from a start with 11-year-old pupils even more remarkable. So, am I right in saying that Michaela has done it? And, if it has, can others do it too?
First, the evidence. Last year’s examination results, from a non-selective intake, go beyond excellence. They change our understanding of what can be achieved, perhaps particularly in Michaela’s four times national average success at the super A* Level 9. Such results show that the leftist argument, that achievement is inevitably limited by social background, is an error. Nevertheless, it is set in stone among the progressive octopus that still controls most university education departments. As Labour’s thinking is infused with their views from top to bottom, Starmer would have to ditch the whole of his Party’s thinking on education for the past 70 years in order to do it, and there is no reason to think he will do so.
I’ve described Michaela’s latest book, The Power of Culture, as the best I’ve ever read on schools education, and better than I ever expected to find. Katharine Birbalsingh’s excellent chapter, on “servant leadership”, reminds me of the late Cardinal Hume’s address to Catholic headteachers. Elsewhere, she edits, but the writing is the work of the staff. Hin-Tai Ting was the head of the Year 11 that achieved last year’s results, and his chapter contains extensive testimony from pupils, many of them with special needs, serious behavioural problems, and disturbed and violent lives outside school. Michaela has given them a future by enabling them to buy into its system and succeed. These are precisely the pupils who are failing in droves elsewhere, and Mr Ting’s work shows that there is nothing elitist about Michaela’s excellence – like other schools it uses nurture groups, but expects the same standard of work and behaviour there as in other classes.
The GCSE results were so good that the bar for sixth form entry is among the highest in the country – at least 7 A grades or above (Levels 7-9). This is the same as a typical offer from Manchester Grammar School . For comparison, the published admission criteria of Maidstone’s grammar schools are 6 subjects at Level 5 or above (girls) and a grade average of 5.5 (boys). Jessica Lund’s 6th Form chapter shows how Michaela pupils are guided towards the highest aspirations for their talents and abilities, both through the teaching and by tackling the social issues that might otherwise hold them back. Michaela streams, but without the stigma that has come to be associated with it. Streaming enables teachers consistently to pitch work at the right level for the pupils, so that all know that they are making progress. The excellence of this teaching of less academically able pupils is a key point in Michaela’s success. Every child matters, and everyone knows it.
The basis of this teaching is contained in four excellent chapters, respectively on religious education, history, geography, and art. The RE chapter, in particular, stands out as the only piece of work I’ve ever read on the subject that does not involve some kind of preaching or self-righteous cant, and the art shows how attention to technique enables pupils to work spontaneously. Deputy Head, Katie Ashford’s chapter brings many of these threads together, and distinguishes Michaela’s approach from its critics’ caricature of “rote-learning”. The big difference is in the use of context, which builds understanding of what has been learned, and enables pupils to apply it. Just as order and discipline free pupils by enabling learning to take place in peace, basing the curriculum on knowledge gives them the means to move towards independence. The picture is complete.
The Power of Culture is a long book at 400 pages, and the close argument and intensity of each chapter make it a most demanding read. It has taken me a month to complete. The significance of Michaela’s achievement makes it not only worthwhile, but imperative. If Michael Gove’s goal of breaking down education’s Berlin Wall is ultimately to be achieved, it will be Katharine Birbalsingh and her colleagues who have made the first breach. We now need to follow it up.


conservativehome--2020-10-08--Tim Ambler: How to replace quangos

Tim Ambler: How to replace quangos

Tim Ambler is a writer , academic and Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute .
Westminster governments have for years festooned themselves with public bodies , collectively barnacles on the ship of state .
This summer , Michael Gove said , in a much touted speech : “ we surely know the machinery of government is no longer equal to the challenges of today.
” The Public Administration Select Committee and the National Audit Office have also complained of the lack of any clear taxonomy of these “ arm ’ s length bodies ” ( ALBs ) and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government needs to strip itself of quangos and other bodies that are not part of governing at all .
Over 30 years ago , Robin Ibbs created executive agencies to provide government departments with specialist units to deliver policies .
Crucially , their performance should be measured against pre-defined quantified targets and reported annually .
They are essentially part of governing .
Other ALBs include quangos – both independent and not independent of government at the same time .
Whitehall and ministers are confused by which ALBs are truly part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , is an independent regulator and the Secretary of State should not have overruled its judgement .
Public Health England , however , is an executive agency and Matt Hancock was wrong to claim he did not have direct control .
The NHS is , technically , a quango and that is clearly nonsense .
If being part of the government is more important , they should be “ executive agencies ” ; if being independent is more important , they should be accountable to another branch of state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is only one branch of the state – the others of note here being the legislature and judiciary .
Democratic accountability derives from Parliament , our elected representatives ; the executive is only democratic to the extent that it is accountable to Parliament .
The word “ independent ” needs clarification in this context .
Individuals and quoted companies are independent of government , but still have to do what the Government tells them to do .
Governments govern .
In the case of ALBs , it means managerial independence .
Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve , but not how to do so .
When Gordon Brown famously gave the Bank of England its independence in 1997 , the Chancellor set the objectives ( the target rate of inflation ) , but not how they should be achieved ; the setting of interest rates moved from the Treasury to the Bank itself .
The BBC ’ s objectives are laid down in its charter , and the funding , as with all ALBs , is a matter for the government , but the BBC itself has managerial independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are “ public corporations ” .
The Cabinet Office lists 16 “ non-ministerial departments ” and 185 quangos .
In a report released by the Adam Smith Institute today , I propose reclassification as either executive agencies , or as public corporations answerable to a branch of the state other than the executive , merger with another body or its parent department , privatisation , or closure .
Regulators and ombudsmen are also supposed to be fully independent of the executive and should therefore , like the National Audit Office , be answerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , namely Parliament .
Furthermore , economic regulators were only created to transition their markets from state monopoly to competition and then depart .
Ombudsman bodies should take over this function as part of continuing to ensure fair play for consumers .
Tribunals should be part of the third branch of the state , namely the judiciary .
This leaves a fourth category : national assets such as parks and museums , which are neither governing us , and therefore should not be part of the executive , nor do they fit into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geared to supervise each one of these bodies .
A clear taxonomy for all public bodies demands a further branch of state to supervise these public corporations , here termed “ Guardians ” .
These would be answerable to Parliament , and therefore be democratically accountable .
Commons ’ Select Committees already approve the appointment of the chiefs of major ALBs , although some consider they make rather feeble use of that authority .
Ideally , both the Government and select committees should agree appointments .
The logic of this paper is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the case of executive agencies , and select committees in the case of public corporations and other bodies reporting directly to Parliament .
Executives should focus on governing – no easy task .
The current Government is considering how it should be streamlined to do so most effectively .
This paper , and especially the proposed taxonomy , is a contribution to that discussion .
While savings are not the objective of the exercise , we estimate that streamlining the quango state could mean nearly 34,000 people off the taxpayer payroll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
As a result of abolishing all quangos , we are left with the following taxonomy : four branches of the state – Parliament , Government/executive , Judiciary and Guardians , the last three all reporting to Parliament .
In this paper ’ s analysis , the first group would be 30 ( NAO , Ombudsmen and Inspectorates ) and the existing 24 Ministerial Departments would remain with 69 executive agencies .
34 tribunal and court services would be added to the Judiciary and the Guardians would supervise 86 public corporations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ public body and removes those that should not be part of government .
The public have been clear for years that the quango has got to go , today then comes an idea that delivers that and a more accountable system .
A more slender and nimble government meets Gove ’ s call for better government too .

Tim Ambler is a writer, academic and Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute.
Westminster governments have for years festooned themselves with public bodies, collectively barnacles on the ship of state. This summer, Michael Gove said, in a much touted speech: “we surely know the machinery of government is no longer equal to the challenges of today.”
The Public Administration Select Committee and the National Audit Office have also complained of the lack of any clear taxonomy of these “arm’s length bodies” (ALBs) and their excess number. To govern well, the Government needs to strip itself of quangos and other bodies that are not part of governing at all.
Over 30 years ago, Robin Ibbs created executive agencies to provide government departments with specialist units to deliver policies. Crucially, their performance should be measured against pre-defined quantified targets and reported annually. They are essentially part of governing.
Other ALBs include quangos – both independent and not independent of government at the same time. Whitehall and ministers are confused by which ALBs are truly part of the executive and which are independent.
Ofqual, for example, is an independent regulator and the Secretary of State should not have overruled its judgement. Public Health England, however, is an executive agency and Matt Hancock was wrong to claim he did not have direct control.
The NHS is, technically, a quango and that is clearly nonsense. If being part of the government is more important, they should be “executive agencies”; if being independent is more important, they should be accountable to another branch of state.
Government, or the “executive”, is only one branch of the state – the others of note here being the legislature and judiciary. Democratic accountability derives from Parliament, our elected representatives; the executive is only democratic to the extent that it is accountable to Parliament.
The word “independent” needs clarification in this context. Individuals and quoted companies are independent of government, but still have to do what the Government tells them to do. Governments govern.
In the case of ALBs, it means managerial independence. Government sets their objectives: what they should achieve, but not how to do so. When Gordon Brown famously gave the Bank of England its independence in 1997, the Chancellor set the objectives (the target rate of inflation), but not how they should be achieved; the setting of interest rates moved from the Treasury to the Bank itself. The BBC’s objectives are laid down in its charter, and the funding, as with all ALBs, is a matter for the government, but the BBC itself has managerial independence. All ALBs falling into this category are “public corporations”.
The Cabinet Office lists 16 “non-ministerial departments” and 185 quangos. In a report released by the Adam Smith Institute today, I propose reclassification as either executive agencies, or as public corporations answerable to a branch of the state other than the executive, merger with another body or its parent department, privatisation, or closure.
Regulators and ombudsmen are also supposed to be fully independent of the executive and should therefore, like the National Audit Office, be answerable to the first branch of the state, namely Parliament. Furthermore, economic regulators were only created to transition their markets from state monopoly to competition and then depart. Ombudsman bodies should take over this function as part of continuing to ensure fair play for consumers. Tribunals should be part of the third branch of the state, namely the judiciary.
This leaves a fourth category: national assets such as parks and museums, which are neither governing us, and therefore should not be part of the executive, nor do they fit into the judiciary.
The legislature is not geared to supervise each one of these bodies. A clear taxonomy for all public bodies demands a further branch of state to supervise these public corporations, here termed “Guardians”. These would be answerable to Parliament, and therefore be democratically accountable.
Commons’ Select Committees already approve the appointment of the chiefs of major ALBs, although some consider they make rather feeble use of that authority. Ideally, both the Government and select committees should agree appointments. The logic of this paper is that the Government should have the casting vote in the case of executive agencies, and select committees in the case of public corporations and other bodies reporting directly to Parliament.
Executives should focus on governing – no easy task. The current Government is considering how it should be streamlined to do so most effectively. This paper, and especially the proposed taxonomy, is a contribution to that discussion. While savings are not the objective of the exercise, we estimate that streamlining the quango state could mean nearly 34,000 people off the taxpayer payroll, and a saving of £3.25 billion a year.
As a result of abolishing all quangos, we are left with the following taxonomy: four branches of the state – Parliament, Government/executive, Judiciary and Guardians, the last three all reporting to Parliament.
In this paper’s analysis, the first group would be 30 (NAO, Ombudsmen and Inspectorates) and the existing 24 Ministerial Departments would remain with 69 executive agencies. 34 tribunal and court services would be added to the Judiciary and the Guardians would supervise 86 public corporations.
This taxonomy clarifies the role of each public body and removes those that should not be part of government. The public have been clear for years that the quango has got to go, today then comes an idea that delivers that and a more accountable system. A more slender and nimble government meets Gove’s call for better government too.


conservativehome--2020-10-09--“I cannot support this policy”…”huge concerns”…”levelling over green fields with concrete”. Tory MPs

“I cannot support this policy”…”huge concerns”…”levelling over green fields with concrete”. Tory MPs on the Government’s housing plans.

“ This is not levelling up .
It is concreting out , ” Bob Seely wrote yesterday morning on this site about the Government ’ s White Paper on planning reform , and his Commons debate on the subject later in the day .
His article criticised the algorithm that sets out how many houses are needed in which places – which was originally brought to public notice by our columnist Neil O ’ Brien .
Would Seely ’ s colleagues agree with him ?
Here are some snap extracts from speeches by Conservative backbenchers who spoke yesterday .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning system….But we will not do that by removing local democracy , cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas .
Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to.
” • : “ The Government are being sent a clear message by Back Benchers today that they have got this wrong and they need to think again.
” • : “ I have huge concerns about the supposed new housing formula or algorithm .
I think we have all had enough of algorithms this year.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rethink this formula so that it actually hits the target .
Yes , we should build more houses , but we should do it in the right places.
” • : “ I regret to say that , even as a loyal supporter of the Government , I can not support this policy in its current form.
” • : “ In short , I am concerned that these proposals do not recognise serious risks…The Government must think again.
” • : “ This will not be levelling-up ; it will be levelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I encourage [ the Minister ] and the Government to think again about some of these important matters.
” • : “ The Housing Minister and I were first elected in 2010 on a manifesto that committed to no more top-down housing targets , and this algorithm looks suspiciously like a top-down target.
” • : “ The real flaw in the White Paper is that all it does is concentrate building in the south-east and central south of England ” .
• : “ I seriously worry about centrally designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account a local area ’ s capacity to deliver.
” • : “ I am also concerned that the formula does not take into account infrastructure , as has been mentioned , or future plans for generations.
” • : “ How can it be the case that the Government are now considering any form of central target , because that is exactly what the algorithm looks like ?
” • : “ As things stand , I think that the housing numbers will take precedence .
That is wrong and it goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party.
” • : “ The presentation that the Government have made is potentially catastrophic for delivering the wider objectives of Government policy.
” • : “ Let us move away from the Gordon Brown approach and the top-down imposition of Stalinist housing targets.
” • : “ I urge the Government to heed the words of hon .
Members in this debate and to revisit the proposals.
” • : “ Why are we going down a route that is likely to cause upset and tear up some local decision making when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing route ?
” • : The White Paper…says that the green belt will be protected , and that is right , but we see no evidence that this is being taken into account in the algorithm.
” That ’ s 19 backbenchers critical of important aspects of the proposals .
Furthermore , Scott Mann referred diplomatically to “ some challenges within the White Paper ” ; Gareth Johnson said “ it is essential that we bring local authorities with us in proposing these targets ” ; William Wragg wants to ” abandon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is done to communities ” , and Richard Fuller , while saying that the Government “ is on to something ” , also said the targets for his local area are unmanageable .
Only James Grundy spoke from the Tory benches without any criticism of the plans .
No wonder that Andy Slaughter , from the Labour benches , gleefully pointed out that “ there are 55 Conservative Back Benchers hoping to catch your eye , Madam Deputy Speaker ” .
Chris Pincher , the Housing Minister , pointed out that the proposals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( as in his recent ConservativeHome article ) that “ over the past two months my Department has actively engaged with the sector and is listening to feedback .
Many right hon .
and hon .
Members will know that I too have been listening and discussing carefully ” .
In short , he was distancing himself and the Government from the algorithm numbers .
But we think it worth grabbing some highlights from yesterday ’ s speeches because , on this showing , opposition on the Tory benches is not confined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central feature of their plans , top-down housing targets for local authorities , very difficult to get through the Commons , at least as presently constituted .

“This is not levelling up. It is concreting out,” Bob Seely wrote yesterday morning on this site about the Government’s White Paper on planning reform, and his Commons debate on the subject later in the day.
His article criticised the algorithm that sets out how many houses are needed in which places – which was originally brought to public notice by our columnist Neil O’Brien.
Would Seely’s colleagues agree with him? Here are some snap extracts from speeches by Conservative backbenchers who spoke yesterday.
Theresa May : “We need to reform the planning system….But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to.”
: “We need to reform the planning system….But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to.” Philip Hollobone : “The Government are being sent a clear message by Back Benchers today that they have got this wrong and they need to think again.”
: “The Government are being sent a clear message by Back Benchers today that they have got this wrong and they need to think again.” Jason McCartney : “I have huge concerns about the supposed new housing formula or algorithm. I think we have all had enough of algorithms this year.”
: “I have huge concerns about the supposed new housing formula or algorithm. I think we have all had enough of algorithms this year.” Neil O’Brien : “Ministers should fundamentally rethink this formula so that it actually hits the target. Yes, we should build more houses, but we should do it in the right places.”
: “Ministers should fundamentally rethink this formula so that it actually hits the target. Yes, we should build more houses, but we should do it in the right places.” Chris Grayling : “I regret to say that, even as a loyal supporter of the Government, I cannot support this policy in its current form.”
: “I regret to say that, even as a loyal supporter of the Government, I cannot support this policy in its current form.” Jeremy Hunt : “In short, I am concerned that these proposals do not recognise serious risks…The Government must think again.”
: “In short, I am concerned that these proposals do not recognise serious risks…The Government must think again.” Damian Green : “This will not be levelling-up; it will be levelling over green fields with concrete.”
: “This will not be levelling-up; it will be levelling over green fields with concrete.” Damian Hinds : “I encourage [the Minister] and the Government to think again about some of these important matters.”
: “I encourage [the Minister] and the Government to think again about some of these important matters.” Caroline Nokes : “The Housing Minister and I were first elected in 2010 on a manifesto that committed to no more top-down housing targets, and this algorithm looks suspiciously like a top-down target.”
: “The Housing Minister and I were first elected in 2010 on a manifesto that committed to no more top-down housing targets, and this algorithm looks suspiciously like a top-down target.” Geoffrey Clifton-Brown : “The real flaw in the White Paper is that all it does is concentrate building in the south-east and central south of England”.
: “The real flaw in the White Paper is that all it does is concentrate building in the south-east and central south of England”. Clare Coutino : “I seriously worry about centrally designed housing numbers which do not take into account a local area’s capacity to deliver.”
: “I seriously worry about centrally designed housing numbers which do not take into account a local area’s capacity to deliver.” Luke Evans : “I am also concerned that the formula does not take into account infrastructure, as has been mentioned, or future plans for generations.”
: “I am also concerned that the formula does not take into account infrastructure, as has been mentioned, or future plans for generations.” Karen Bradley : “How can it be the case that the Government are now considering any form of central target, because that is exactly what the algorithm looks like?”
: “How can it be the case that the Government are now considering any form of central target, because that is exactly what the algorithm looks like?” Laurence Robertson : “As things stand, I think that the housing numbers will take precedence. That is wrong and it goes against what we stand for as a party.”
: “As things stand, I think that the housing numbers will take precedence. That is wrong and it goes against what we stand for as a party.” Crispin Blunt : “The presentation that the Government have made is potentially catastrophic for delivering the wider objectives of Government policy.”
: “The presentation that the Government have made is potentially catastrophic for delivering the wider objectives of Government policy.” Harriet Baldwin : “Let us move away from the Gordon Brown approach  and the top-down imposition of Stalinist housing targets.”
: “Let us move away from the Gordon Brown approach and the top-down imposition of Stalinist housing targets.” Gareth Bacon : “I urge the Government to heed the words of hon. Members in this debate and to revisit the proposals.”
: “I urge the Government to heed the words of hon. Members in this debate and to revisit the proposals.” Kieran Mullen : “Why are we going down a route that is likely to cause upset and tear up some local decision making when we could tackle the issue through that existing route?”
: “Why are we going down a route that is likely to cause upset and tear up some local decision making when we could tackle the issue through that existing route?” Laura Trott : The White Paper…says that the green belt will be protected, and that is right, but we see no evidence that this is being taken into account in the algorithm.”
That’s 19 backbenchers critical of important aspects of the proposals.
Furthermore, Scott Mann referred diplomatically to “some challenges within the White Paper”; Gareth Johnson said “it is essential that we bring local authorities with us in proposing these targets”; William Wragg wants to ” abandon the notion that planning is something that is done to communities”, and Richard Fuller, while saying that the Government “is on to something”, also said the targets for his local area are unmanageable.
Only James Grundy spoke from the Tory benches without any criticism of the plans.
No wonder that Andy Slaughter, from the Labour benches, gleefully pointed out that “there are 55 Conservative Back Benchers hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker”.
Chris Pincher, the Housing Minister, pointed out that the proposals are out for consultation, and reiterated (as in his recent ConservativeHome article) that “over the past two months my Department has actively engaged with the sector and is listening to feedback. Many right hon. and hon. Members will know that I too have been listening and discussing carefully”.
In short, he was distancing himself and the Government from the algorithm numbers. But we think it worth grabbing some highlights from yesterday’s speeches because, on this showing, opposition on the Tory benches is not confined to the algorithm. Ministers will find a central feature of their plans, top-down housing targets for local authorities, very difficult to get through the Commons, at least as presently constituted.


conservativehome--2020-10-09--If test and trace is to succeed, a centralised approach won’t work

Despite being initially hailed as the main way to manage Covid-19 , test and trace has proven something of a nightmare for the Government .
From technological flaws in its contact tracing app , to u-turns on whether to use Apple and Google ’ s technology , the papers have been filled with negative stories about progress in this area .
Perhaps it could be said that this week has provided the biggest headache so far for ministers , beginning with the news that 16,000 people who tested positive for Covid-19 between September 25 and October 2 disappeared from official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to Public Health England ( PHE ) using an outdated version of Microsoft Excel to process data .
The spreadsheet could only handle a limited amount of information , hence why so many contacts were missed .
The result is that there are potentially tens of thousands of infectious people who have not been contacted ; indeed , NHS Test and Trace apparently had to track down an estimated 40,000 Covid-19 cases .
Matters were made worse by the fact that Ring Central , NHS Test and Trace ’ s call system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locking workers out of their profiles for prolonged periods .
As if that wasn ’ t troublesome enough , yesterday it was shown that NHS Test and Trace contact rate figures have reached their lowest rate yet , with 68.6 per cent of close contacts of individuals who ’ d tested positive for Covid-19 in England reached in the week ending September 30 ( the system needs to reach 80 per cent of contacts in order to be considered viable ) .
Furthermore , it was shown that fewer than one in four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results in 24 hours – a far cry from Boris Johnson ’ s initial pledge that , by the end of June , results of all in-person tests would be back within that timeframe .
With all of these events , the Government can look forward to even harsher criticisms from Keir Starmer and the opposition on testing , which has repeatedly been called a “ shambles ” .
No doubt many members of the public , too , are wondering how many more of these problems are to come in test and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work , and what it means for their livelihoods in the meantime .
So what exactly has gone wrong ?
Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the repeated weaknesses in the contact tracing system .
The first , straightforward one is that the Government simply did not plan enough for a pandemic .
Whereas countries like South Korea were able to deploy pre-existing infrastructure for contact tracing , the Government started from scratch – creating NHS Test and Trace , which has had to “ learn ” on the job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trace highlights an instinct of the Government that has run throughout this crisis ; its tendency to create large-scale , centralised solutions to managing Covid-19 , rather than utilising existing systems ( one of the main examples being its initial desire to build a centralised contact tracing app – instead of going with Apple and Google ’ s technology ) .
Many will remember Dido Harding announcing of NHS Test and Trace at its inception : “ This is a brand new service which has been launched at incredible speed and scale.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that might explain why there have been so many issues – as rushing something out of this complexity in a pandemic represents huge logistical challenges .
It could be said that the Government has missed a trick by not tapping into local teams and networks to carry out processes such as contact tracing .
This is why Germany , Italy and much of Asia have got ahead , using large-scale local investment and resources to do contact tracing .
And indeed , when England started to switch to using local contact tracers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates .
In the week to September 30 , for example , these teams were able to reach 97.1 per cent of contacts , much higher than NHS Test and Trace ’ s rate of 68.6 per cent ( done via online messaging or phone calls ) .
The added advantage of local teams is that they can help ensure compliance in those contacted , some of whom may want to avoid call centres – wary that a number beginning 0300 could mean a tracing team is getting in touch .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enhance the tracing process , but decentralisation can boost testing too – which smaller labs in universities and the private sector initially offered to help the Government with .
Instead , it has mostly relied upon PHE labs and NHS trusts to carry out this work .
While the Government should be praised for how quickly it managed to scale up testing , there have been problems with laboratories being too slow to process results ( allegedly as a result of over-reliance on post-graduate science students to analyse lab results , who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incompatibilities between systems – both of which might have been addressed with a more decentralised approach , and flexibility about which labs were used .
Robert Buckland , Secretary of State for Justice , since said that the Government would open 100 more test centres , including a “ mega lab ” on the way to enhance capacity .
But maybe this brings us back to the initial point – that the Government ’ s quest for new systems , as opposed to tapping into local and/ or existing solutions , might ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead of devolving powers , the Government ’ s instinct has always been to take more responsibility .
Will there be a change to the direction the Government is going in ?
The shift to using more contact tracing teams is certainly promising – and should be built upon , but given the amount of money , energy and investment that has gone into Test and Trace – along with the Government ’ s recent plan to merge PHE and NHS Test and Trace into the new “ National Institute for Health Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reticent to u-turn on .

Despite being initially hailed as the main way to manage Covid-19, test and trace has proven something of a nightmare for the Government. From technological flaws in its contact tracing app, to u-turns on whether to use Apple and Google’s technology, the papers have been filled with negative stories about progress in this area.
Perhaps it could be said that this week has provided the biggest headache so far for ministers, beginning with the news that 16,000 people who tested positive for Covid-19 between September 25 and October 2 disappeared from official records in England.
This was reportedly due to Public Health England (PHE) using an outdated version of Microsoft Excel to process data. The spreadsheet could only handle a limited amount of information, hence why so many contacts were missed.
The result is that there are potentially tens of thousands of infectious people who have not been contacted; indeed, NHS Test and Trace apparently had to track down an estimated 40,000 Covid-19 cases.
Matters were made worse by the fact that Ring Central, NHS Test and Trace’s call system, allegedly failed to work too – locking workers out of their profiles for prolonged periods.
As if that wasn’t troublesome enough, yesterday it was shown that NHS Test and Trace contact rate figures have reached their lowest rate yet, with 68.6 per cent of close contacts of individuals who’d tested positive for Covid-19 in England reached in the week ending September 30 (the system needs to reach 80 per cent of contacts in order to be considered viable).
Furthermore, it was shown that fewer than one in four people testing positive for Covid-19 receive their results in 24 hours – a far cry from Boris Johnson’s initial pledge that, by the end of June, results of all in-person tests would be back within that timeframe.
With all of these events, the Government can look forward to even harsher criticisms from Keir Starmer and the opposition on testing, which has repeatedly been called a “shambles”.
No doubt many members of the public, too, are wondering how many more of these problems are to come in test and trace; whether the strategy will ever work, and what it means for their livelihoods in the meantime. So what exactly has gone wrong?
Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the repeated weaknesses in the contact tracing system.
The first, straightforward one is that the Government simply did not plan enough for a pandemic. Whereas countries like South Korea were able to deploy pre-existing infrastructure for contact tracing, the Government started from scratch – creating NHS Test and Trace, which has had to “learn” on the job.
Even more significantly, NHS Test and Trace highlights an instinct of the Government that has run throughout this crisis; its tendency to create large-scale, centralised solutions to managing Covid-19, rather than utilising existing systems (one of the main examples being its initial desire to build a centralised contact tracing app – instead of going with Apple and Google’s technology).
Many will remember Dido Harding announcing of NHS Test and Trace at its inception: “This is a brand new service which has been launched at incredible speed and scale.” But it is this speed and scale that might explain why there have been so many issues – as rushing something out of this complexity in a pandemic represents huge logistical challenges.
It could be said that the Government has missed a trick by not tapping into local teams and networks to carry out processes such as contact tracing. This is why Germany, Italy and much of Asia have got ahead, using large-scale local investment and resources to do contact tracing.
And indeed, when England started to switch to using local contact tracers, it made a massive difference to success rates. In the week to September 30, for example, these teams were able to reach 97.1 per cent of contacts, much higher than NHS Test and Trace’s rate of 68.6 per cent (done via online messaging or phone calls).
The added advantage of local teams is that they can help ensure compliance in those contacted, some of whom may want to avoid call centres – wary that a number beginning 0300 could mean a tracing team is getting in touch.
It’s not only that devolving responsibilities can enhance the tracing process, but decentralisation can boost testing too – which smaller labs in universities and the private sector initially offered to help the Government with. Instead, it has mostly relied upon PHE labs and NHS trusts to carry out this work.
While the Government should be praised for how quickly it managed to scale up testing, there have been problems with laboratories being too slow to process results (allegedly as a result of over-reliance on post-graduate science students to analyse lab results, who were only there over summer), and incompatibilities between systems – both of which might have been addressed with a more decentralised approach, and flexibility about which labs were used.
Robert Buckland, Secretary of State for Justice, since said that the Government would open 100 more test centres, including a “mega lab” on the way to enhance capacity.
But maybe this brings us back to the initial point – that the Government’s quest for new systems, as opposed to tapping into local and/ or existing solutions, might ultimately hold it back in accelerating testing. Instead of devolving powers, the Government’s instinct has always been to take more responsibility.
Will there be a change to the direction the Government is going in? The shift to using more contact tracing teams is certainly promising – and should be built upon, but given the amount of money, energy and investment that has gone into Test and Trace – along with the Government’s recent plan to merge PHE and NHS Test and Trace into the new “National Institute for Health Protection” – centralisation seems one area it is reticent to u-turn on.


conservativehome--2020-10-09--Iain Dale: If Milling isn’t up to being Party Chairman, why was she appointed in the first place?

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
I have to admit that I didn ’ t watch any of the Conservative virtual conference online .
Judging by the number of registrations , it can be deemed a success .
Twenty thousand people registered , and there were often more than 6,000 people watching .
I ’ m told fringe meetings proved more popular than the set-piece cabinet minister speeches ( wasn ’ t it ever thus ? )
with some events , including those hosted by ConHome ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given that normal fringe meetings might attract a couple of hundred people at most , this ought to give the conference organisers food for thought for the future .
CCHQ told me this week that future conferences would almost certainly be hybrid events , and that ’ s exactly right .
The more people who are able to take part , the better .
Watching highlights of the US Vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris , it almost seemed like normal politics had returned .
For the most part , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good humour and dignity from both candidates .
Yes , there were some interruptions , but that happens in debates .
We had none of the abuse , insults and acrimony that characterised the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden a week before .
And it wasn ’ t just the President who was guilty .
We don ’ t know yet whether the next debate , due to take place in Florida next week , will go ahead .
If it does , let ’ s hope that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Tuesday , I deputised for Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph .
I thought long and hard about writing what I did – but it had to be said .
I wrote about the role of the Party Chairman , and how its importance has diminished over the years , and how the present incumbent , Amanda Milling , was performing no useful role , except to travel the country and eat a few rubber chickens It gave me no pleasure , and in many ways it ’ s not her fault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictated by Number Ten .
She has no power to change anything , and scant little influence .
Her co-chairman , Ben Elliot , is the one in control and we all know it .
The one role she could perform , but hasn ’ t got the experience to do , is to get out there on the media and be a lightning rod for the Prime Minister .
That ’ s what Cecil Parkinson did .
It ’ s what Norman Tebbit used to do .
It ’ s what Brian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s what Brandon Lewis did for Theresa May .
Amanda Milling went on Any Questions last Friday , and proceeded to read out lines from her briefing notes .
It was buttock-clenchingly embarrassing .
A programme insider reckoned she was the worst guest they had had on in recent memory .
Again , in many ways , I don ’ t blame her for that .
Everyone tells me that Milling was an excellent Deputy Chief Whip , but we all know that whips don ’ t do media , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So to appoint someone with little media experience as co-Party Chairman was bizarre to say the least .
It did her no favours whatsoever .
By all accounts , the Number Ten machine is frustrated by her performance .
No shit , Sherlock .
Well , they shouldn ’ t blame her for it , they should apportion the blame to the person who made the appointment .
I was disappointed but not surprised to see Liam Fox fail to reach the final two in the race to become the next director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The EU was always determined to scupper him , which says far about them than it does about him .
He is very well qualified to do the job , which will now be a straight fight between candidates from South Korea and Nigeria .
Péter Szijjártó , Hungary ’ s Foreign Minister , has spoken out and said the whole charade has not been “ to the greater glory of the European Union ” .
Just as the Conservative Party has had to put its conference online , so have literary festivals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve done quite a few on Zoom over the last few months , but appeared in person last Saturday at the Cheltenham Literary Festival , as trailed on this site last week .
The event was organised it very well , ensuring that both speakers and audience were safe .
Next Friday , I ’ m doing the Bristol Festival of Ideas remotely , but the Wells Festival of Literature in person on the same day .
Then on Sunday October 18 , I ’ m in Twickenham being interviewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allen , and then on October 24 in Diss , Norfolk .
On that occasion Brandon Lewis will interview me , which I suspect he ’ s going to relish , given he tells me I always give him such a hard time when he comes on my show .
Ticketing details can be found here .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
I have to admit that I didn’t watch any of the Conservative virtual conference online. Judging by the number of registrations, it can be deemed a success. Twenty thousand people registered, and there were often more than 6,000 people watching.
I’m told fringe meetings proved more popular than the set-piece cabinet minister speeches (wasn’t it ever thus?) with some events, including those hosted by ConHome) attracting online audiences in four figures.
Given that normal fringe meetings might attract a couple of hundred people at most, this ought to give the conference organisers food for thought for the future. CCHQ told me this week that future conferences would almost certainly be hybrid events, and that’s exactly right. The more people who are able to take part, the better.
– – – – – – – – – –
Watching highlights of the US Vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, it almost seemed like normal politics had returned.
For the most part, the debate was conducted with mutual respect, good humour and dignity from both candidates. Yes, there were some interruptions, but that happens in debates. We had none of the abuse, insults and acrimony that characterised the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden a week before.
And it wasn’t just the President who was guilty. We don’t know yet whether the next debate, due to take place in Florida next week, will go ahead. If it does, let’s hope that it’s more edifying than the first one.
– – – – – – – – – –
On Tuesday, I deputised for Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph. I thought long and hard about writing what I did – but it had to be said.
I wrote about the role of the Party Chairman, and how its importance has diminished over the years, and how the present incumbent, Amanda Milling, was performing no useful role, except to travel the country and eat a few rubber chickens
It gave me no pleasure, and in many ways it’s not her fault. She’s performing the role dictated by Number Ten. She has no power to change anything, and scant little influence. Her co-chairman, Ben Elliot, is the one in control and we all know it.
The one role she could perform, but hasn’t got the experience to do, is to get out there on the media and be a lightning rod for the Prime Minister. That’s what Cecil Parkinson did. It’s what Norman Tebbit used to do. It’s what Brian Mawhinney did for John Major. And it’s what Brandon Lewis did for Theresa May.
Amanda Milling went on Any Questions last Friday, and proceeded to read out lines from her briefing notes. It was buttock-clenchingly embarrassing. A programme insider reckoned she was the worst guest they had had on in recent memory.
Again, in many ways, I don’t blame her for that. Everyone tells me that Milling was an excellent Deputy Chief Whip, but we all know that whips don’t do media, and don’t speak in the chamber.
So to appoint someone with little media experience as co-Party Chairman was bizarre to say the least. It did her no favours whatsoever. By all accounts, the Number Ten machine is frustrated by her performance. No shit, Sherlock. Well, they shouldn’t blame her for it, they should apportion the blame to the person who made the appointment.
– – – – – – – – – –
I was disappointed but not surprised to see Liam Fox fail to reach the final two in the race to become the next director general of the World Trade Organisation.
The EU was always determined to scupper him, which says far about them than it does about him. He is very well qualified to do the job, which will now be a straight fight between candidates from South Korea and Nigeria. Péter Szijjártó, Hungary’s Foreign Minister, has spoken out and said the whole charade has not been “to the greater glory of the European Union”.
– – – – – – – – – –
Just as the Conservative Party has had to put its conference online, so have literary festivals – or at least some of them. I’ve done quite a few on Zoom over the last few months, but appeared in person last Saturday at the Cheltenham Literary Festival, as trailed on this site last week.
The event was organised it very well, ensuring that both speakers and audience were safe. Next Friday ,I’m doing the Bristol Festival of Ideas remotely, but the Wells Festival of Literature in person on the same day.
Then on Sunday October 18, I’m in Twickenham being interviewed on stage by LBC’s Steve Allen, and then on October 24 in Diss, Norfolk.
On that occasion Brandon Lewis will interview me, which I suspect he’s going to relish, given he tells me I always give him such a hard time when he comes on my show. Ticketing details can be found here.