conservativehome--2020-10-23--Our lives are still on hold

Our lives are still on hold

That was Rishi Sunak ’ s second major Commons statement in a month , and nearly his tenth in less than a year , since he delivered his first Budget mid-March .
By now , another politician might well have exhausted both voters and his party ’ s patience , but the Chancellor has been buttressed , first , by his fluency , authority and grasp ; second , by the extraordinary context of the pandemic and , finally , by the fact that there was no practicable alternative , as the economy bled when hit by the virus earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a blood tranfusion – in other words , higher spending .
There is a difference between the measures he introduced before Parliament broke for the summer , and those he has annnounced since it returned .
Earlier this year , he was casting around for a response programme , improvising as he went along .
( Remember the concessions in March to pressure from the self-employed . )
Yesterday , he largely tweaked measures already announced in September .
So it is that the Job Support Scheme will be made more generous for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover 40 per cent rather than 20 per cent of people ’ s incomes .
There is a new grants scheme for businesses impacted by the Tier Two restrictions .
It will be asked why the Chancellor didn ’ t announce that last intervention earlier this week – thus perhaps saving the Government its troubles with Andy Burnham .
Some of Greater Manchester ’ s Conservative MPs will quietly be taking that view .
However , it isn ’ t clear that the Greater Manchester Mayor would have been satisfied , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allow Burnham ’ s grandstanding to pay off .
The Government line is that Manchester shouldn ’ t get more favourable treatment than other cities .
Sunak will be accused of dragging his feet elsewhere , too – of not seeing , for example , that the original Job Support Scheme measure would risk low take-up .
Firms were being asked to pay 55 per cent of wages to staff who under the terms of the scheme could work for only 33 per cent of their previous hours .
Two-thirds of wages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the change either as a sign that the Chancellor now has a framework flexible enough to change quickly , or that Sunak should indeed have anticipated rising Coronavirus cases , further lockdowns and restictions – and more damage to the economy .
Perhaps the Downing Street tendency – the hope that something will turn up – has spread to the Treasury .
Sometimes , the stress from government is on a vaccine coming soon .
Previously , it was that track and trace would deliver .
Recently , it is that new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be that Sunak has been expecting more wins , in the debates at the top of the Government over Covid-19 policy , than he has managed to pull off .
And relied on Boris Johnson , who tends to veer about “ like a shopping trolley ” ( the Prime Minister ’ s own words ) , to come down less on the side of restriction .
At any rate , the Chancellor did his best yesterday to push that internal discussion along .
“ The Prime Minister was right to outline a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , “ taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down , while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people.
” It was prudent of him to borrow Johnson ’ s name for his push for a policy approach more attuned to what ’ s usually called “ the economy ” – i.e : jobs , wages and living standards .
But it ’ s worth remembering that it ’ s not yet a month since he told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer be put on hold ” .
However , they are essentially on hold , and too many aren ’ t “ living without fear ” ( to quote another of his lines ) .
If that ’ s to change , the Government will need collectively to try to change the tone of the Covid conversation – to consider the wider consequences of both the virus and restrictions for healthcare and the economy .
This site has called for a regular Treasury report on economic costs , a rolling Department of Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creation of an economic counterweight to SAGE that considers livelihoods as well as lives , thus ensuring broader advice to the Prime Minister .
We have not been alone .
And yesterday , Mel Stride , the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee , pointed out in the Commons that the Government ’ s Chief Economic Adviser , Clare Lombardelli , has been tasked with assessing an analysis of the economic impact of shutdowns .
He suggested that she or another “ similar economic expert should join the epidemiologists for No .
10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played that idea with a very dead bat , but Stride will want to keep pushing over Lombardelli ’ s analysis .
The committee itself is already been probing the effects of the virus and public policy on the economy – taking evidence as recently as Wednesday for its inquiry into them .
We look forward to its findings .

That was Rishi Sunak’s second major Commons statement in a month, and nearly his tenth in less than a year, since he delivered his first Budget mid-March.
By now, another politician might well have exhausted both voters’ and his party’s patience, but the Chancellor has been buttressed, first, by his fluency, authority and grasp; second, by the extraordinary context of the pandemic and, finally, by the fact that there was no practicable alternative, as the economy bled when struck by the virus earlier this year, but to rush for a blood tranfusion – in other words, higher spending to keep it alive
There is a difference between the measures Sunak introduced before Parliament broke for the summer, and those he has annnounced since it returned. Earlier this year, he was casting around for a response programme, improvising as he went along. (Remember the concessions in March to pressure from the self-employed.) Yesterday, he largely tweaked measures already announced in September.
So it is that the Job Support Scheme will be made more generous for employers, and self-employed income support will cover 40 per cent rather than 20 per cent of people’s incomes. There is a new grants scheme for businesses impacted by the Tier Two restrictions.
Why didn’t the Chancellor didn’t announce that last intervention earlier this week – thus perhaps saving the Government its troubles with Andy Burnham? Some of Greater Manchester’s Conservative MPs will be asking the question.
However, it isn’t clear that the Greater Manchester Mayor would have been satisfied, and it may be that Ministers were determined not to allow Burnham’s grandstanding to pay off. The Government line is that Manchester shouldn’t get more favourable treatment than other cities.
Sunak will be accused of dragging his feet elsewhere, too – of not seeing, for example, that the original Job Support Scheme measure would risk low take-up. Firms were being asked to pay 55 per cent of wages to staff who under the terms of the scheme could work for only 33 per cent of their previous hours.
Two-thirds of wages will now be covered. You can see the change either as a sign that the Chancellor now has a framework flexible enough to update quickly, or that he should indeed have anticipated rising Coronavirus cases, further lockdowns and restictions – and more damage to the economy.
Perhaps the Downing Street tendency, the hope that something will turn up, has spread to the Treasury. Sometimes, the stress from government is on a vaccine coming soon. Previously, it was that track and trace would deliver. Recently, it is that new mass tests will work.
It may be that Sunak has been expecting more wins, in the debates at the top of the Government over Covid-19 policy, than he has managed to pull off. And relied on Boris Johnson, who tends to veer about “like a shopping trolley” (the Prime Minister’s own words), to come down less on the side of restriction.
At any rate, the Chancellor did his best yesterday to move that internal discussion along. “The Prime Minister was right to outline a balanced approach to tackling coronavirus,” he said, “taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down, while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people.”
It was prudent of him to borrow Johnson’s name for his push for a policy approach more attuned to what’s usually called “the economy” – i.e: jobs, wages and living standards. But it’s worth remembering that it’s not yet a month since he told the Commons that “our lives can no longer be put on hold”.
However, they are essentially on hold, and too many aren’t “living without fear” (to quote another of his lines). If that’s to change, the Government will need collectively to try to change the tone of the Covid conversation – to consider the wider consequences of both the virus and restrictions for healthcare and the economy.
This site has called for a regular Treasury report on economic costs, a rolling Department of Health assessment of healthcare costs, and the creation of an economic counterweight to SAGE that considers livelihoods as well as lives, thus ensuring broader advice to the Prime Minister. We have not been alone.
And yesterday, Mel Stride, the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, pointed out in the Commons that the Government’s Chief Economic Adviser, Clare Lombardelli, has been tasked with assessing an analysis of the economic impact of shutdowns. He suggested that she or another “similar economic expert should join the epidemiologists for No. 10 Covid press briefings”.
The Chancellor played that suggestion with a very dead bat, but Stride will want to keep pushing over Lombardelli’s analysis. The committee itself is already been probing the effects of the virus and public policy on the economy – taking evidence as recently as Wednesday for its inquiry into them. We look forward to its findings.


conservativehome--2020-10-23--Iain Dale: The way the BBC and Sky News behave, you’d think we are the only country in the world wit

Iain Dale: The way the BBC and Sky News behave, you’d think we are the only country in the world with a second wave

It ’ s been another difficult week for the Prime Minister , who has come under attack from Labour both for the failure to come to an agreement with Andy Burnham , or to cave in to demands for kids to get free school meals in the next few school holidays .
Sometimes in politics it is right to say so far – but no further .
Bottom lines are important in conducting negotiations .
However , in the case of the money offered to Greater Manchester it is a little difficult to understand how the two sides could fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On free school meals , it would cost £157 million to provide them during the autumn half term , Christmas , February half term and Easter holidays to those children already due to receive them .
Given the U-turn that Marcus Rashford forced in the summer , I do wonder whether this has been worth the political and reputational fallout .
“ Tories rip food from starving children ’ s mouths ” is the narrative that ’ s already developing , and however ridiculous that is , sometimes it ’ s just not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is right to point out that circumstances are different now and schools are open .
But it cuts little ice .
The Labour Party is promoting the narrative that the Tories are happy to pay £7,000 a day to failing test and trace consultants , and £12 billion to fund the failing test and trace system , yet quibble over a few million to feed hungry children .
You can just see the election videos now… Mark my words , there will now be a further ratcheting of demands , and what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now be a campaign to permanently provide free school meals in school holidays , Covid or no Covid .
To do that would cost £350 million a year .
A small price to pay to protect our children ’ s health , the campaigners will say .
But it would be yet another way of the state taking over parental responsibilities .
Where does the role of the parent end and that of the state begin ?
This is an argument which is going to gain a lot of traction in the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitably take on a much bigger role in promoting an economic revival that it would normally do , it is yet further proof that all politics is cyclical .
When I was a teenager in the 1970s , the big state v small state argument was one of the big political debates of the day .
Fifty years later , I suspect it will dominate the 2020s .
The way the BBC and Sky News behave , you ’ d think Britain was the only country in the world experiencing a second wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one degree or another .
Belgium and France seem to be experiencing the worst of it , with Spain and the Netherlands also having massive problems .
Even in Germany , local restrictions are being introduced all over the country .
France ’ s track and trace system has more or less totally collapsed .
Does our insular looking media ever tell you any of this ?
You get a bit of coverage in The Times , and that ’ s about it .
It is absolutely the case that catastrophic errors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last eight months , and I do not seek to hide from that .
All I am saying is that many other countries have faced similar issues and made the same mistakes .
It ’ s not to defend the wrong decisions that have been made , but we rarely get any nuance or context .
The British people know that those in charge are having to make very difficult decisions day after day , and they have sympathy with that .
All they ask if for a bit of honesty when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold their hands up .
That ’ s where the Government ’ s comms strategy has been failing .
People appreciate honesty , not obfuscation .
Boris should take more of a lead from how Macron has handled failure and learn from it .
I ’ ve made more progress in reading Tom Bower ’ s new biography of Boris Johnson .
Having expected a complete hatchet job , I ’ m finding that it ’ s nothing of the sort .
Yes , there ’ s a lot about Johnson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine job in writing a book which provides real insight into the Prime Minister ’ s life and character .
His final two chapters on the Coronavirus crisis are incredibly powerful , and go totally against the conventional wisdom that the politicians have been a shambles , and the scientists and civil service have been on the side of the angels .
He doesn ’ t just assert that there have been major failings on the part of the latter – he provides the evidence .
This book is well worth £20 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5.25pm I ’ m appearing on Pointless Celebrities with Jacqui Smith as my partner in crime .
Honestly , the woman is taking over the BBC Saturday night schedule , what with her Strictly Come Dancing antics and everything .
Our Pointless episode was recorded back in January .
and I was beginning to despair that it would ever be shown .
We were up against Michael Fabricant and Martin Bell , Ayesha Hazarika and John Pienaar , and Camilla Tominey and Rachel Johnson .
I ’ ve never done a game show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest , I ’ m not sure I wholly enjoyed the experience .
I don ’ t mind doing things out of my comfort zone , but these sorts of shows present a huge opportunity to make a complete fool of yourself .
I didn ’ t – at least I don ’ t think I did – but there ’ s a tremendous pressure to say something hilariously funny or incisive .
I ’ m not wholly sure I stepped up to the plate .
Hopefully everyone will be too distracted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lady just call me scum ?
” Yes , apparently she did .
That was the question Chris Clarkson , a Conservative MP , asked Angela Rayner .
The deputy speaker , Dame Eleanor Laing was furious with her and told her off in no uncertain terms – although bizarrely she didn ’ t make her apologise .
Sky News , however , clipped the episode up without even including Dame Eleanor ’ s comments and made out that it was a matter of dispute as to whether Rayner had actually said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of editing which encourages distrust of the so-called Mainstream Media .
Anyway , I suspect that quote is going to hang in the air for a long time .
Several people suggested I should commission a mug with it on for my online shop .
So I have .
And it ’ s proved surprisingly popular among male purchasers… Should you wish to join them , buy it here .

It’s been another difficult week for the Prime Minister, who has come under attack from Labour both for the failure to come to an agreement with Andy Burnham, or to cave in to demands for kids to get free school meals in the next few school holidays.
Sometimes in politics it is right to say so far – but no further. Bottom lines are important in conducting negotiations.
However, in the case of the money offered to Greater Manchester it is a little difficult to understand how the two sides could fall out over a trifling £5 million.
On free school meals, it would cost £157 million to provide them during the autumn half term, Christmas, February half term and Easter holidays to those children already due to receive them.
Given the U-turn that Marcus Rashford forced in the summer, I do wonder whether this has been worth the political and reputational fallout. “Tories rip food from starving children’s mouths” is the narrative that’s already developing, and however ridiculous that is, sometimes it’s just not worth the political fight.
The Government is right to point out that circumstances are different now and schools are open. But it cuts little ice. The Labour Party is promoting the narrative that the Tories are happy to pay £7,000 a day to failing test and trace consultants, and £12 billion to fund the failing test and trace system, yet quibble over a few million to feed hungry children. You can just see the election videos now…
Mark my words, there will now be a further ratcheting of demands, and what I mean by that is that there will now be a campaign to permanently provide free school meals in school holidays, Covid or no Covid. To do that would cost £350 million a year.
A small price to pay to protect our children’s health, the campaigners will say. But it would be yet another way of the state taking over parental responsibilities. Where does the role of the parent end and that of the state begin? This is an argument which is going to gain a lot of traction in the next few years.
Since the state will inevitably take on a much bigger role in promoting an economic revival that it would normally do, it is yet further proof that all politics is cyclical. When I was a teenager in the 1970s, the big state v small state argument was one of the big political debates of the day. Fifty years later, I suspect it will dominate the 2020s.
– – – – – – – – – –
The way the BBC and Sky News behave, you’d think Britain was the only country in the world experiencing a second wave.
It’s happening virtually everywhere to one degree or another. Belgium and France seem to be experiencing the worst of it, with Spain and the Netherlands also having massive problems.
Even in Germany, local restrictions are being introduced all over the country. France’s track and trace system has more or less totally collapsed.
Does our insular looking media ever tell you any of this? You get a bit of coverage in The Times, and that’s about it.
It is absolutely the case that catastrophic errors have been made in this country over the last eight months, and I do not seek to hide from that.
All I am saying is that many other countries have faced similar issues and made the same mistakes. It’s not to defend the wrong decisions that have been made, but we rarely get any nuance or context.
The British people know that those in charge are having to make very difficult decisions day after day, and they have sympathy with that. All they ask if for a bit of honesty when things go wrong, and that politicians hold their hands up.
That’s where the Government’s comms strategy has been failing. People appreciate honesty, not obfuscation. Boris should take more of a lead from how Macron has handled failure and learn from it.
– – – – – – – – – –
I’ve made more progress in reading Tom Bower’s new biography of Boris Johnson. Having expected a complete hatchet job, I’m finding that it’s nothing of the sort.
Yes, there’s a lot about Johnson’s weaknesses, but Bower has done a fine job in writing a book which provides real insight into the Prime Minister’s life and character.
His final two chapters on the Coronavirus crisis are incredibly powerful, and go totally against the conventional wisdom that the politicians have been a shambles, and the scientists and civil service have been on the side of the angels.
He doesn’t just assert that there have been major failings on the part of the latter – he provides the evidence. This book is well worth £20 of anyone’s money.
– – – – – – – – – –
Tomorrow at 5.25pm I’m appearing on Pointless Celebrities with Jacqui Smith as my partner in crime.
Honestly, the woman is taking over the BBC Saturday night schedule, what with her Strictly Come Dancing antics and everything.
Our Pointless episode was recorded back in January. and I was beginning to despair that it would ever be shown. We were up against Michael Fabricant and Martin Bell, Ayesha Hazarika and John Pienaar, and Camilla Tominey and Rachel Johnson.
I’ve never done a game show before, and if I’m honest, I’m not sure I wholly enjoyed the experience. I don’t mind doing things out of my comfort zone, but these sorts of shows present a huge opportunity to make a complete fool of yourself.
I didn’t – at least I don’t think I did – but there’s a tremendous pressure to say something hilariously funny or incisive. I’m not wholly sure I stepped up to the plate. Hopefully everyone will be too distracted by my red suit…
– – – – – – – – – –
“Did the hon. Lady just call me scum?”
Yes, apparently she did. That was the question Chris Clarkson, a Conservative MP, asked Angela Rayner.
The deputy speaker, Dame Eleanor Laing was furious with her and told her off in no uncertain terms – although bizarrely she didn’t make her apologise.
Sky News, however, clipped the episode up without even including Dame Eleanor’s comments and made out that it was a matter of dispute as to whether Rayner had actually said it. It’s exactly the sort of editing which encourages distrust of the so-called Mainstream Media.
Anyway, I suspect that quote is going to hang in the air for a long time. Several people suggested I should commission a mug with it on for my online shop. So I have. And it’s proved surprisingly popular among male purchasers… Should you wish to join them, buy it here.


conservativehome--2020-10-23--Lord Ashcroft: “If you’re voting for Trump, you keep your mouth shut.” My American election focus gr

Lord Ashcroft: “If you’re voting for Trump, you keep your mouth shut.” My American election focus groups in Georgia and Ohio.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is a businessman , philanthropist , author and pollster .
For information on Lord Ashcroft ’ s work , visit www.lordashcroft.com .
This week , our virtual tour of America takes us to Georgia , widely seen as a toss-up this year , despite having voted for the Republican in every presidential election since 1992 , and Ohio , the quintessential swing state which has backed the losing candidate only once since 1944 .
As if often the case with political news , the Hunter Biden email scandal – the claim that Joe Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian energy company – seemed to have gained a great deal of attention without moving any votes .
Some thought there might be something in the story , including some who were leaning towards Biden , but they were unfazed : For Republicans , the bigger issue was that Twitter and Facebook had taken steps to prevent the story being shared : The reluctance of mainstream media channels to cover the story also appeared to provide a classic example of their bias .
By the same token , Trump ’ s tax returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fanfare by the New York Times , were also fading from memory , having moved few if any voters .
The story that he had paid only $ 750 in federal income tax in 2016 , and nothing at all in 10 of the previous 15 years came as no surprise to his opponents , who either believed either that he had fiddled the figures or that he was a less successful entrepreneur than he claimed .
His supporters either cheered him on or didn ’ t care .
Republican-inclined voters we spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlanta – often described as being queasy about Trump ’ s presidency – were largely resolute in their support , however disagreeable some of them found him : As in previous weeks , we heard that the direction of policy outweighed Trump ’ s personal shortcomings : This was especially true in comparison to what they feared from a Biden ( or Harris ) administration .
“ I am petrified of socialised medicine .
I ’ ve worked with Canadians and even though they had government healthcare , they also paid for private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Democrats are on the side of ‘ you want to be this way , no problem .
You want to be that way , no problem .
Your seven-year-old feels they are meant to be green , go dye them green and you need to accept that because that ’ s them expressing themselves ’ ” “ There are two issues – the Supreme Court , and I see a lot of problems with socialism .
The Democratic Party is moving way too far left.
” “ The Biden now is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago or even a year ago .
He ’ s referred to himself as running for the US Senate .
After the election they would take him to a doctor and give him a test and say ‘ oh , he ’ s deemed incompetent .
Here ’ s our new president ’ .
” Even so , not all Trump voters would enjoy the experience of turning out for him again .
A few had shed their qualms , however : Nor would they necessarily tell anyone what they were doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the polls were picking up the true level of support for the president .
In Georgia , we spoke to African American voters who had not turned out for Hillary Clinton in 2016 , either because they did not think they needed to or because they did not think she deserved their support .
“ She was a horrible senator and secretary of state .
The Clintons , back when Bill was in office , incarcerated more black people than anybody .
So you know , a lot of people weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ types of things.
” “ We just didn ’ t think he was going to win.
” This time most were resolved to get out and vote .
“ The stakes are high right now because we don ’ t know , it ’ s just up in the air.
” “ The difference between then and now is we have experience .
I think we ’ re woken up .
Now we see what could happen and what could possibly happen in the future.
” “ It ’ s traumatic to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in reality , he may very well be re-elected , because his followers are going to come out and vote .
So we have to not make the same mistake.
” “ You have a president stand there and say to the white supremacists , ‘ stand by ’ .
Not ‘ I ’ m not OK with it , it ’ s incorrect ’ , but ‘ stand by ’ .
What does that mean ?
” They were particularly exercised by the attitude they believed Trump had on race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand there and say to the white supremacists , ‘ stand by ’ .
Not ‘ I ’ m not OK with it , it ’ s incorrect ’ , but ‘ stand by ’ .
What does that mean ?
” “ He never once expressed his disdain for the actions of the white supremacy groups and the fact that people are bowling people over with their cars .
Instead of being presidential about it , he ’ s saying there are good people on both sides !
” “ His whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration policy , and it ’ s only escalated .
It ’ s gotten to the point where it ’ s not even surprising anymore ; ” “ We need a leader who is going to speak to us or at least directly at us , and not speak about us to other people , if that makes sense.
” “ I don ’ t understand why we are so beholden to the Democratic party .
They haven ’ t done anything for the people we are talking about.
” Even so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiasm in the group for Biden or Kamala Harris , or for the Democrats more generally .
“ Is Biden the best candidate ?
No , I ’ m not going to sit here and say he ’ s the best choice .
But the other option is just insanity ; ” “ I don ’ t think the Democrats have learned their lesson simply because they ’ ve got a weak candidate .
I like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , but they ’ re weak ; ” “ We have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s no difference .
Bernie Sanders was surging in the polls and had the popular vote among African Americans , then Biden sneaks in at the last minute and doesn ’ t really have much to offer .
There ’ s no agenda for black people ; ” “ Biden is like a lot of these presidents who kind of fake that they ’ re not racists , but I would rather vote for that than someone who ’ s out and proud that they ’ re racists ; ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As attorney general of California she locked up more black people than any Republican attorney general .
There ’ s no black agenda for the Democrats .
I don ’ t understand why we are so beholden to the Democratic party .
They haven ’ t done anything for the people we are talking about.
” “ I completely agree that there should be parties out there that speak for us .
But right now , I just feel like we ’ re in a hole and need to get out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden “ taking a knee ” in support of Black Lives Matter ?
For voters leaning either way , both campaigns ’ messages focused on their opponents , with policy largely absent from the debate : “ One of Biden ’ s main pitches is that Trump is mean .
‘ Nobody likes him , so come on over to our side .
You don ’ t want another mean guy for four years , do you ?
’ ” “ Trump is saying a vote for Biden is a vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying a vote for me is just a return to normalcy and some sense of stability and calm.
” “ I think people are hard pressed to understand what Trump will do in the next four years .
He just wants to be in office .
I think a large part of his success is that he doesn ’ t really stand for anything other than himself.
” “ People say ‘ I ’ m going to vote for peace ’ .
And I think to myself , be careful , because if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation to very progressive , socialist ideas , you might get peace , but you ’ re going to lose the America that you know.
” While people on both sides yearned for an end to the division and rancour of recent years , many – again on both sides – had their doubts that a Biden presidency would produce such an outcome “ We ’ ve had conflict well before this , with Trayvon Martin , and that was all with Obama .
So just because we have a new president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to end.
” Many in all our groups felt the election was going to be close , often echoing Biden ’ s observation that the race was neck and neck .
Whatever the outcome , there was a widespread expectation that things would get messy .
Naturally enough , each side thought the other would be the one to cause the trouble .

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is a businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For information on Lord Ashcroft’s work, visit www.lordashcroft.com.
This week, our virtual tour of America takes us to Georgia, widely seen as a toss-up this year, despite having voted for the Republican in every presidential election since 1992, and Ohio, the quintessential swing state which has backed the losing candidate only once since 1944.
As if often the case with political news, the Hunter Biden email scandal – the claim that Joe Biden’s son was involved in corruption involving a Ukrainian energy company – seemed to have gained a great deal of attention without moving any votes.
“The more they shut those stories down on social media, the more likely I am to believe that there’s truth to it.”
Some thought there might be something in the story, including some who were leaning towards Biden, but they were unfazed:
“There’s a little bit of influence-peddling going on, it would appear, but not much compared to his competitor.” “Politics are just a little messy, you know. Everybody’s a little messy.”
For Republicans, the bigger issue was that Twitter and Facebook had taken steps to prevent the story being shared:
“It’s starting to feel like China. The more they shut those stories down on social media, the more likely I am to believe that there’s truth to it.”
The reluctance of mainstream media channels to cover the story also appeared to provide a classic example of their bias.
“If Donald Trump can be cross-examined about his taxes, about when he take his coffee, then Joe Biden can be asked about what is going on with Hunter and whether or not the family’s getting kickbacks from foreign countries.” “If this story were about Trump it would be absolutely non-stop. You couldn’t get away from it, it would be everywhere;” “The media is stirring the pot in one direction only.” “If this story were about Trump it would be absolutely non-stop.”
By the same token, Trump’s tax returns, revealed four weeks ago to considerable fanfare by the New York Times, were also fading from memory, having moved few if any voters.
The story that he had paid only $750 in federal income tax in 2016, and nothing at all in 10 of the previous 15 years came as no surprise to his opponents, who either believed either that he had fiddled the figures or that he was a less successful entrepreneur than he claimed.
His supporters either cheered him on or didn’t care.
“Part of the reason I’m a Republican is because we pay too much in taxes, and because there are so many loopholes. I want simpler taxes. So if Donald Trump is using loopholes, that is Exhibit A as to why we need to overhaul our tax situation, and the Democrats are not going to do it.” “He doesn’t take a salary. Let’s just move on to issues that actually matter.”
Republican-inclined voters we spoke to in the suburbs of Cleveland and Atlanta – often described as being queasy about Trump’s presidency – were largely resolute in their support, however disagreeable some of them found him:
“He’s like a great surgeon who is very arrogant and has a terrible bedside manner, but he’s the one you want to do your surgery.” “I’m trying in this election to think long term instead of short term. I definitely do not enjoy Trump’s personality, but I definitely align with more of his policies, with the worldview that I carry.” “People are imperfect. I don’t think Trump is the answer to all our problems. I just think he’s the unlikely messenger for us right now.”
As in previous weeks, we heard that the direction of policy outweighed Trump’s personal shortcomings:
“One of the high points was the reform of the justice system to end mass incarceration, the First Step Act. I’ve never heard anyone give him props for that. Anyone who thinks Trump hates anyone who it not a white American male is clearly not thinking about this.” “There was a peace treaty in the Middle East, but none of that gets reported in the news because they look for the negative to talk about.” “The economy has been gangbusters. In January and February I was doing overtime like crazy.” “They would take him to a doctor and say ‘he’s deemed incompetent. Here’s our new president’.”
This was especially true in comparison to what they feared from a Biden (or Harris) administration.
“I am petrified of socialised medicine. I’ve worked with Canadians and even though they had government healthcare, they also paid for private healthcare because socialised healthcare sucked.” “The Democrats are on the side of ‘you want to be this way, no problem. You want to be that way, no problem. Your seven-year-old feels they are meant to be green, go dye them green and you need to accept that because that’s them expressing themselves’” “There are two issues – the Supreme Court, and I see a lot of problems with socialism. The Democratic Party is moving way too far left.” “The Biden now is not the same as the Biden of five years ago or even a year ago. He’s referred to himself as running for the US Senate. After the election they would take him to a doctor and give him a test and say ‘oh, he’s deemed incompetent. Here’s our new president’.”
Even so, not all Trump voters would enjoy the experience of turning out for him again.
“I will basically have to force myself into doing it like I did in 2016 and then go and cry in my car afterwards. I did.”
A few had shed their qualms, however:
“Last time I had a pit in my stomach because I didn’t want Trump but I definitely didn’t want Hillary, so I voted and did the walk of shame, and I was like, what did I do? This time, absolutely 100 per cent. I’m good with it. I’m happy.” “I would lose half my business if I came out with my political views. That’s how bad it is.”
Nor would they necessarily tell anyone what they were doing – something that made them wonder if the polls were picking up the true level of support for the president.
“If you’re well educated and in certain circles, if you’re voting for Trump, you keep your mouth shut.” “I’m afraid I would lose half my business if I came out with my political views. That’s how bad it is.” “Being a gay Republican is even more of a lynch mob, especially in Georgia. There is a preconception that I’m gay so I’m automatically a Democrat, but I can’t say anything because hell hath no fury if I do that. And I drive a pickup, so I’m automatically a redneck racist. So I got the best of both worlds!” “One of my neighbours said a lot of Trump supporters are leaners. I was like, leaners? What do you mean, they’re on the fence? He goes, no, they lean in and quietly say ‘yeah, I’m voting for Trump’, but they’re not going to publicly say it;” “I’ve heard people say that pollsters have asked them, and they flat out lied.”
In Georgia, we spoke to African American voters who had not turned out for Hillary Clinton in 2016, either because they did not think they needed to or because they did not think she deserved their support.
“She was a horrible senator and secretary of state. The Clintons, back when Bill was in office, incarcerated more black people than anybody. So you know, a lot of people weren’t really feeling the Clintons because of those types of things.” “We just didn’t think he was going to win.” This time most were resolved to get out and vote. “The stakes are high right now because we don’t know, it’s just up in the air.” “The difference between then and now is we have experience. I think we’re woken up. Now we see what could happen and what could possibly happen in the future.” “It’s traumatic to think that Trump could potentially be president again. But in reality, he may very well be re-elected, because his followers are going to come out and vote. So we have to not make the same mistake.” “You have a president stand there and say to the white supremacists, ‘stand by’. Not ‘I’m not OK with it, it’s incorrect’, but ‘stand by’. What does that mean?”
They were particularly exercised by the attitude they believed Trump had on race relations.
“You have a president stand there and say to the white supremacists, ‘stand by’. Not ‘I’m not OK with it, it’s incorrect’, but ‘stand by’. What does that mean?” “He never once expressed his disdain for the actions of the white supremacy groups and the fact that people are bowling people over with their cars. Instead of being presidential about it, he’s saying there are good people on both sides!” “His whole campaign started with him being divisive over immigration policy, and it’s only escalated. It’s gotten to the point where it’s not even surprising anymore;” “We need a leader who is going to speak to us or at least directly at us, and not speak about us to other people, if that makes sense.” “I don’t understand why we are so beholden to the Democratic party. They haven’t done anything for the people we are talking about.”
Even so, there was not a great deal of enthusiasm in the group for Biden or Kamala Harris, or for the Democrats more generally.
“Is Biden the best candidate? No, I’m not going to sit here and say he’s the best choice. But the other option is just insanity;” “I don’t think the Democrats have learned their lesson simply because they’ve got a weak candidate. I like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, but they’re weak;” “We have to understand that both parties are the same. There’s no difference. Bernie Sanders was surging in the polls and had the popular vote among African Americans, then Biden sneaks in at the last minute and doesn’t really have much to offer. There’s no agenda for black people;” “Biden is like a lot of these presidents who kind of fake that they’re not racists, but I would rather vote for that than someone who’s out and proud that they’re racists;” “Kamala is more of the same. As attorney general of California she locked up more black people than any Republican attorney general. There’s no black agenda for the Democrats. I don’t understand why we are so beholden to the Democratic party. They haven’t done anything for the people we are talking about.”
“I completely agree that there should be parties out there that speak for us. But right now, I just feel like we’re in a hole and need to get out of it.”
How did they feel about Joe Biden “taking a knee” in support of Black Lives Matter?
“It’s a game at the end of the day. Sure, it does show some solidarity with us because obviously the Trump administration is completely against it. But do I believe that when Joe or even, heck, Nancy Pelosi got down on one knee that it was a heartfelt message? No.” “People are hard pressed to understand what Trump will do for the next four years. He just wants to be in office.”
For voters leaning either way, both campaigns’ messages focused on their opponents, with policy largely absent from the debate:
“One of Biden’s main pitches is that Trump is mean. ‘Nobody likes him, so come on over to our side. You don’t want another mean guy for four years, do you?’” “Trump is saying a vote for Biden is a vote for the extreme left, and Biden is saying a vote for me is just a return to normalcy and some sense of stability and calm.” “I think people are hard pressed to understand what Trump will do in the next four years. He just wants to be in office. I think a large part of his success is that he doesn’t really stand for anything other than himself.” “People say ‘I’m going to vote for peace’. And I think to myself, be careful, because if you’re willing to hand over the nation to very progressive, socialist ideas, you might get peace, but you’re going to lose the America that you know.”
While people on both sides yearned for an end to the division and rancour of recent years, many – again on both sides – had their doubts that a Biden presidency would produce such an outcome
“It’s like they’re going to wave a magic wand and fix everything that’s wrong now. If Jesus came back and was the president, I’m not sure he himself could do it.’
“We’ve had conflict well before this, with Trayvon Martin, and that was all with Obama. So just because we have a new president doesn’t mean the conflict is going to end.”
“Why are people saying Trump is the one dividing the country? The people that are in conflict are in conflict because of their belief systems and what they think is important. There are paid agitators like Antifa, and it’s in their best interests to keep everything in chaos to accomplish whatever the heck their agenda is.” “I know a lot of women especially who just say, ‘I want peace, I’m going to vote for peace’. And I think to myself, be careful, because if you’re willing to hand over the nation to very progressive, socialist ideas, you might get peace, but you’re going to lose America, the America that you know. And you won’t have peace for long, if at all.”
Many in all our groups felt the election was going to be close, often echoing Biden’s observation that the race was neck and neck. Whatever the outcome, there was a widespread expectation that things would get messy.
“If Trump wins it will embolden the extremists to go even further to the extreme. And if Biden wins, the pitchforks are going to come out and you’re going to have mass riots. It’s going to be one of the two.”
Naturally enough, each side thought the other would be the one to cause the trouble.
For Biden-leaners, Trump supporters are “more cult-like. Look at QAnon. That is a fanatical, whacked-out idea. And there are so many people who believe Trump is their saviour.” “Didn’t they just arrest people trying to kidnap the Michigan governor? We don’t see that happening on the other side.” But for Republicans, “Picketing the streets, protests, all the things going on right now, I don’t see us doing that.” “They’re burning down buildings in Seattle and Portland and places like that.” “I don’t remember rioting in the street when Obama was elected.”
Most were philosophical.


conservativehome--2020-10-24--Should the Treasury underwrite Drakeford’s assault on the Welsh economy?

One of the many unpleasant features of the latest breakdown in the ‘ four-nation ’ approach to combating Covid-19 is that the nation ’ s various governments have all taken the opportunity to flex their authoritarian streaks .
Setting aside the top-level debate about the efficacy of Tier Three , or a national ‘ circuit-breaker ’ , politicians in London , Edinburgh , and Cardiff have all invoked the crisis to justify some bizarre restrictions .
In England , the Government imposed a 10pm curfew ( without modelling the impact ) in order to ‘ send a message ’ , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all ended up piling out of the pubs – and into the supermarkets and onto public transport – at the same time .
North of the border , meanwhile , the Scottish Government ’ s own lockdown includes a ban on the indoor sale of alcohol .
Yet none of this reaches the absurd heights we are now witnessing in Wales , where Mark Drakeford has decided not only to force all ‘ non-essential ’ businesses to close , but to prohibit the sale of ‘ non-essential ’ items in essential shops .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelves to ensure the public can ’ t get their hands on such trivialities as new bedding ( as winter draws in ) , as retailers try their best to navigate the new rules .
This bizarre move isn ’ t even nominally about controlling the virus .
The First Minister has apparently claimed that it is necessary in order to create ‘ a level playing field ’ between big supermarkets and smaller shops .
It is an ideologically-motivated thumb on the economic scales – not a public health measure .
That Welsh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( some permanently ) seems not to have occurred to him .
As such , it will only sharpen the debate around who is going to pick up the tab for one of the strictest lockdowns in Europe .
Typically of the devolution ‘ settlement ’ , the Welsh Government has the authority to shut down its economy but can ’ t pay for it , and the Treasury is rightly resistant to getting bounced into spending commitments over which it has no control .
The perception that Scottish and Welsh devocrats are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into ‘ English ’ money is a potentially dangerous one both for the Government and the Union as it is .
If that grows into a broader perception of subsidy not just for more generous welfare spending but actively terrible economic policy , it could grow more toxic still .
Some devocrats want the power to borrow , although unless you think Westminster would ever not bail out devolved administration that ’ s simply more of the same by a different way .
Others have suggested that Scotland and Wales should be forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own taxation .
A third option would be to make Treasury economic support conditional , and revive the UK Government ’ s legitimate role in the governance of the whole country .
No British cash without British strings .

One of the many unpleasant features of the latest breakdown in the ‘four-nation’ approach to combating Covid-19 is that the nation’s various governments have all taken the opportunity to flex their authoritarian streaks.
Setting aside the top-level debate about the efficacy of Tier Three, or a national ‘circuit-breaker’, politicians in London, Edinburgh, and Cardiff have all invoked the crisis to justify some bizarre restrictions.
In England, the Government imposed a 10pm curfew (without modelling the impact) in order to ‘send a message’, with the result that thousands of people all ended up piling out of the pubs – and into the supermarkets and onto public transport – at the same time. North of the border, meanwhile, the Scottish Government’s own lockdown includes a ban on the indoor sale of alcohol.
Yet none of this reaches the absurd heights we are now witnessing in Wales, where Mark Drakeford has decided not only to force all ‘non-essential’ businesses to close, but to prohibit the sale of ‘non-essential’ items in essential shops.
Cue bizarre pictures of supermarket staff wrapping shelves to ensure the public can’t get their hands on such trivialities as new bedding (as winter draws in), as retailers try their best to navigate the new rules.
This bizarre move isn’t even nominally about controlling the virus. The First Minister has apparently claimed that it is necessary in order to create ‘a level playing field’ between big supermarkets and smaller shops. It is an ideologically-motivated thumb on the economic scales – not a public health measure. That Welsh shoppers will simply switch to online shopping (some permanently) seems not to have occurred to him.
As such, it will only sharpen the debate around who is going to pick up the tab for one of the strictest lockdowns in Europe. Typically of the devolution ‘settlement’, the Welsh Government has the authority to shut down its economy but can’t pay for it, and the Treasury is rightly resistant to getting bounced into spending commitments over which it has no control.
The perception that Scottish and Welsh devocrats are enthusiasts for lockdown because they can tap into ‘English’ money is a potentially dangerous one both for the Government and the Union as it is. If that grows into a broader perception of subsidy not just for more generous welfare spending but actively terrible economic policy, it could grow more toxic still.
Some devocrats want the power to borrow, although unless you think Westminster would ever not bail out devolved administration that’s simply more of the same by a different way. Others have suggested that Scotland and Wales should be forced to pay for additional lockdown measures from their own taxation. A third option would be to make Treasury economic support conditional, and revive the UK Government’s legitimate role in the governance of the whole country. No British cash without British strings.


conservativehome--2020-10-24--David Gauke: With a position so exposed, how did Burnham get away with it?

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
Who would have believed that we would see a mainstream , liberal MP turned city mayor taking a bold political risk , build an unlikely coalition of support and win a public relations battle by articulating the resentment of those who feel victims of an out of touch London establishment ?
Boris Johnson has had a difficult couple of weeks , but I hope he has enjoyed the irony of being on the wrong side of Andy Burnham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended row with the Mayor of Greater Manchester has put the Government on the back foot , looking mean-spirited and out of touch , whilst Burnham has come across as a heroic ‘ King of the North ’ – personable , passionate and articulate , he has successfully presented himself as a doughty defender of hard-pressed Mancunians .
He has had a political triumph – although the coherence of his position does not withstand a great deal of scrutiny .
As Paul Goodman has pointed out , Burnham ’ s language , attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ , was designed to appeal to those who thought that the new restrictions did not go far enough , as well as the likes of Sir Graham Brady , who want to adopt a very different strategy .
Even though he has made the valid point that lockdowns cause mental health problems , it does not seem likely that Burnham is a lockdown sceptic himself .
In May , he expressed the view that lockdown restrictions were being relaxed too quickly , appropriate for the position in London but not for Manchester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for Keir Starmer ’ s call for a tighter , national lockdown .
It is safe to assume that he believes the mainstream and , to my mind , rather commonsensical view that if you reduce the number of social interactions people have , there will be less chance for the virus to spread .
If that is the case , and given his criticism that the Tier Two restrictions which have been in place in Manchester since August have not stopped the spread of the virus , it is remarkable that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tougher and more effective restrictions in Greater Manchester , where infection rates were high and , in eight out of ten boroughs , rising .
No doubt his supporters will make the argument that he was not opposing tougher restrictions – just tougher restrictions on the cheap .
But again , one can question whether his position was coherent .
It is true to say that the level of support in Tier Three – the focus of his complaints – is not as generous as was available under the original lockdown .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not the support available under Tier Two for those businesses forced to close , but the absence of support for businesses in Tier Two , where restrictions meant that hospitality businesses could stay open , but with little prospect of many customers .
This was the real problem with Government support , until the Chancellor ’ s announcement on Thursday .
So a not unfair description of Burnham ’ s position was that Tier Two was ineffective in preventing the spread of the virus and involved inadequate support for businesses , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manchester within it .
There is also some confusion about his view on whether lockdown restrictions should be determined on a local or national basis .
He has argued that decisions should be made by those close to the ground but , back in the spring , he was opposed to London exiting lockdown before Manchester , because people there would object to seeing Londoners in pubs when they were still banned from going for a pint – suggesting that he favours national uniformity .
Given that he was also opposed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not reflect conditions in Manchester , he presumably favours a national policy based on conditions in Manchester – which is all very well but somewhat hard to justify to the rest of the country .
That he was able to turn such a position into a political triumph is a testament to clumsy handling on the part of the Government ( appearing to withdraw the £60 million that had been offered ) as well as Burnham ’ s political skills .
He has tapped into northern distrust of the south , articulating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated as a lower priority to those of London .
In doing this , he is taking a leaf from the SNP in Scotland .
The politics of national and regional resentment and grievance , the argument that ‘ the system ’ is designed to support the prosperous South East at the expense of the rest , is one that finds a ready audience in many parts of the UK .
‘ If it wasn ’ t for a distant government in Westminster , taking our resources , we would be doing alright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as regional mayors .
In purely fiscal terms this is , of course , nonsense .
Contrary to the received wisdom of many parts of the UK , resources are massively redistributed from London and the Greater South East to the rest of the United Kingdom .
In the last year for which numbers are available , 2019 , London , the South East and the East of England had fiscal surpluses of £39 billion , £22 billion and £4 billion respectively which only partially offset fiscal deficits in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficit of £20 billion in the North West and £15 billion in Scotland .
This is not an argument that the Government is likely to be making any time soon .
After all , the Conservative majority at the last election was heavily dependent upon the narrative that the Government was going to ‘ level up ’ the country , correcting the perceived London-centric nature of our economy and politics .
Tapping into anger at metropolitan elites proved very helpful to Boris Johnson in both the EU referendum and the 2019 general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned against him as he was made to look like a representative of the establishment , not the insurgency .
The idea of localised restrictions has not been discredited , however painful local negotiations have been .
This is the logical approach to a virus where the level of infection varies enormously .
But the Government has been slow to recognise that localised restrictions will result in resentment if the level of support is seen as parsimonious .
And arguments about fiscal discipline will not persuade those new , Red Wall Conservative voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The bitterness of the row between the Government and the Greater Manchester Mayor , as well as the continued surge in support for the SNP , has been dispiriting .
At best , it reveals that , as we enter a long winter with rising case numbers and deaths and restrictions on our everyday lives , we are becoming more fractious and distrustful of the Government .
At worst , it reveals that the whole cohesion of the United Kingdom is starting to disintegrate – not just amongst the nations of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If the approach that Burnham has taken is seen to be the exemplar of how regional politicians should operate , and if the Government can not nullify those regional grievances , our politics will become yet more bitter and divisive .
Ultimately , pitting one region against another would make us ungovernable .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
Who would have believed that we would see a mainstream, liberal MP turned city mayor taking a bold political risk, build an unlikely coalition of support and win a public relations battle by articulating the resentment of those who feel victims of an out of touch London establishment?
Boris Johnson has had a difficult couple of weeks, but I hope he has enjoyed the irony of being on the wrong side of Andy Burnham’s somewhat populist revolt.
The extended row with the Mayor of Greater Manchester has put the Government on the back foot, looking mean-spirited and out of touch, whilst Burnham has come across as a heroic ‘King of the North’ – personable, passionate and articulate, he has successfully presented himself as a doughty defender of hard-pressed Mancunians.
He has had a political triumph – although the coherence of his position does not withstand a great deal of scrutiny. As Paul Goodman has pointed out, Burnham’s language, attacking an approach that ‘might not work’, was designed to appeal to those who thought that the new restrictions did not go far enough, as well as the likes of Sir Graham Brady, who want to adopt a very different strategy.
Even though he has made the valid point that lockdowns cause mental health problems, it does not seem likely that Burnham is a lockdown sceptic himself.
In May, he expressed the view that lockdown restrictions were being relaxed too quickly, appropriate for the position in London but not for Manchester.
More recently, he has expressed support for Keir Starmer’s call for a tighter, national lockdown. It is safe to assume that he believes the mainstream and, to my mind, rather commonsensical view that if you reduce the number of social interactions people have, there will be less chance for the virus to spread.
If that is the case, and given his criticism that the Tier Two restrictions which have been in place in Manchester since August have not stopped the spread of the virus, it is remarkable that he spent ten days resisting the imposition of tougher and more effective restrictions in Greater Manchester, where infection rates were high and, in eight out of ten boroughs, rising.
No doubt his supporters will make the argument that he was not opposing tougher restrictions – just tougher restrictions on the cheap.
But again, one can question whether his position was coherent. It is true to say that the level of support in Tier Three – the focus of his complaints – is not as generous as was available under the original lockdown.
But the real issue for many businesses was not the support available under Tier Two for those businesses forced to close, but the absence of support for businesses in Tier Two, where restrictions meant that hospitality businesses could stay open, but with little prospect of many customers. This was the real problem with Government support, until the Chancellor’s announcement on Thursday.
So a not unfair description of Burnham’s position was that Tier Two was ineffective in preventing the spread of the virus and involved inadequate support for businesses, but that he was determined to keep Greater Manchester within it.
There is also some confusion about his view on whether lockdown restrictions should be determined on a local or national basis.
He has argued that decisions should be made by those close to the ground but, back in the spring, he was opposed to London exiting lockdown before Manchester, because people there would object to seeing Londoners in pubs when they were still banned from going for a pint – suggesting that he favours national uniformity.
Given that he was also opposed to the national exit from lockdown because it did not reflect conditions in Manchester, he presumably favours a national policy based on conditions in Manchester – which is all very well but somewhat hard to justify to the rest of the country.
That he was able to turn such a position into a political triumph is a testament to clumsy handling on the part of the Government (appearing to withdraw the £60 million that had been offered) as well as Burnham’s political skills. He has tapped into northern distrust of the south, articulating the view that the interests of Manchester are treated as a lower priority to those of London.
In doing this, he is taking a leaf from the SNP in Scotland. The politics of national and regional resentment and grievance, the argument that ‘the system’ is designed to support the prosperous South East at the expense of the rest, is one that finds a ready audience in many parts of the UK.
‘If it wasn’t for a distant government in Westminster, taking our resources, we would be doing alright’ is the message of Scottish Nationalists, as well as regional mayors.
In purely fiscal terms this is, of course, nonsense. Contrary to the received wisdom of many parts of the UK, resources are massively redistributed from London and the Greater South East to the rest of the United Kingdom. In the last year for which numbers are available, 2019, London, the South East and the East of England had fiscal surpluses of £39 billion, £22 billion and £4 billion respectively which only partially offset fiscal deficits in the rest of the UK, including a deficit of £20 billion in the North West and £15 billion in Scotland.
This is not an argument that the Government is likely to be making any time soon. After all, the Conservative majority at the last election was heavily dependent upon the narrative that the Government was going to ‘level up’ the country, correcting the perceived London-centric nature of our economy and politics.
Tapping into anger at metropolitan elites proved very helpful to Boris Johnson in both the EU referendum and the 2019 general election; this week, that anger was turned against him as he was made to look like a representative of the establishment, not the insurgency.
The idea of localised restrictions has not been discredited, however painful local negotiations have been. This is the logical approach to a virus where the level of infection varies enormously. But the Government has been slow to recognise that localised restrictions will result in resentment if the level of support is seen as parsimonious. And arguments about fiscal discipline will not persuade those new, Red Wall Conservative voters who delivered the Prime Minister his majority.
The bitterness of the row between the Government and the Greater Manchester Mayor, as well as the continued surge in support for the SNP, has been dispiriting.
At best, it reveals that, as we enter a long winter with rising case numbers and deaths and restrictions on our everyday lives, we are becoming more fractious and distrustful of the Government. At worst, it reveals that the whole cohesion of the United Kingdom is starting to disintegrate – not just amongst the nations of the UK but between the regions of England.
If the approach that Burnham has taken is seen to be the exemplar of how regional politicians should operate, and if the Government cannot nullify those regional grievances, our politics will become yet more bitter and divisive. Ultimately, pitting one region against another would make us ungovernable.


conservativehome--2020-10-24--Drakeford’s assault on the Welsh economy – underwritten by the Treasury


conservativehome--2020-10-25--WATCH: The Welsh Health Minister feels the heat on the supermarket goods ban

Welsh Health Minister Vaughan Gething tells # Marr that the ban on supermarkets selling non-essential items will not be scrapped @ @ @ @

Welsh Health Minister Vaughan Gething tells #Marr that the ban on supermarkets selling non-essential items will not be scrapped tomorrowhttps://t.co/DOIsY3Exyn pic.twitter.com/M2cqEgajcv
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 25, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-25--Our campaign for Government assessments of lockdown effects on lives and livelihoods begins to pay o

Our campaign for Government assessments of lockdown effects on lives and livelihoods begins to pay off

It ’ s Sunak the hero and Sunak the villain in today ’ s papers .
Our newslinks today give you Sunak the winner – fighting to save jobs , wages and living standards from the effects of lockdowns , restrictions and Covid-19 itself .
And standing up for spending control against populist campaigns .
Our newslinks today also give you Sunak the loser – compromising our security over defence spending , having a tin political ear over free school meals…and losing out over Goverment Coronavirus policy as shutdowns intensify .
There is also some political mischief-making over his supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or so it is claimed .
Which reading of the Chancellor ’ s record and prospects is nearer the truth ?
We will turn to that question this week , beginning tomorrow as we recommend a way forward on meals outside termtime for poorer children .
For today , we want to congratulate Sunak heartily – if today ’ s report in the Mail on Sunday is all it makes out to be .
In a nutshell , it claims that he has tasked Treasury officials with publishing economic lockdown impact calculations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek to rebalance the public conversation about lockdowns , restrictions and Covid-19 .
We all need a broader understanding of the damage wrought by these to other healthcare outcomes and to economic ones too – to cancer deaths , say ; and to wages .
The institutional Treasury has been hesitant about publishing , but it looks as though the Chancellor has ordered “ action this day ” .
And rightly : for without that more nuanced conversation , influenced by what government itself says and publishes , it will be harder to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those of people with illnesses other than Covid .
Well done , Sunak .
Now keep pushing .

It’s Sunak the hero and Sunak the villain in today’s papers.
Our newslinks today give you Sunak the winner – fighting to save jobs, wages and living standards from the effects of lockdowns, restrictions and Covid-19 itself. And standing up for spending control against populist campaigns.
Our newslinks today also give you Sunak the loser – compromising our security over defence spending, having a tin political ear over free school meals…and losing out over Goverment Coronavirus policy as shutdowns intensify.
There is also some political mischief-making over his supporters’ campaigning for a Sunak premiership – or so it is claimed.
Which reading of the Chancellor’s record and prospects is nearer the truth? We will turn to that question this week, beginning tomorrow as we recommend a way forward on meals outside termtime for poorer children.
For today, we want to congratulate Sunak heartily – if today’s report in the Mail on Sunday is all it makes out to be. In a nutshell, it claims that he has tasked Treasury officials with publishing economic lockdown impact calculations.
ConservativeHome is campaigning for the Government to seek to rebalance the public conversation about lockdowns, restrictions and Covid-19.
We all need a broader understanding of the damage wrought by these to other healthcare outcomes and to economic ones too – to cancer deaths, say; and to wages.
The institutional Treasury has been hesitant about publishing, but it looks as though the Chancellor has ordered “action this day”.
And rightly: for without that more nuanced conversation, influenced by what government itself says and publishes, it will be harder to protect livelihoods and save lives – including those of people with illnesses other than Covid.
Well done, Sunak. Now keep pushing.


conservativehome--2020-10-25--WATCH: Free school meals 3) Lewis holds the line

`` The position we have taken '' on not extending Free School Meals in holidays `` is the right one @ @ @ @ @ @ BrandonLewis He says the government has `` already put '' provisions for children in @ @ @ @ @ in a different place '' to earlier in summer.
# Ridge pic.twitter.com/WTiAnC2F9H

"The position we have taken" on not extending Free School Meals in holidays "is the right one" says Northern Ireland Secretary @BrandonLewis
He says the government has "already put" provisions for children in place and "we're in a different place" to earlier in summer.#Ridge pic.twitter.com/WTiAnC2F9H
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) October 25, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-25--WATCH: Free school meals 2) Labour will press for another vote before Christmas – Allin-Khan

Jeremy Hunt say he 's `` disappointed '' the government have not sorted this and suggests people are tested for @ @ @ @ @ into hospital with their significant other.
# Ridge

Jeremy Hunt say he's "disappointed" the government have not sorted this and suggests people are tested for #coronavirus to be allowed into hospital with their significant other.#Ridge
Read more: https://t.co/eANO0hI0vY pic.twitter.com/pKqGwobScW
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) October 25, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-25--WATCH: Free school meals 1) Jenkin says that the Government will have to “think again”


conservativehome--2020-10-25--WATCH: Hunt explains why Coronavirus-related birth guidelines in hospitals need to change


conservativehome--2020-10-25--WATCH: Lewis suggests that the Covid-19 self-isolation period may be reduced

Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis tells # Marr the government is `` looking at '' cutting the # Covid_19 self-isolation @ @ @ @ @ dayshttps : //t.co/fYpJ8itKXE pic.twitter.com/YgTxFgqUHy

Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis tells #Marr the government is "looking at" cutting the #Covid_19 self-isolation period form the current 14 dayshttps://t.co/fYpJ8itKXE pic.twitter.com/YgTxFgqUHy
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 25, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-26--How to ensure that disadvantaged children are fed when schools are closed

When Theresa May was Prime Minister , Conservative MPs stopped voting , for a time , against Opposition Day motions .
This had two upsides .
First , they were no longer assailed in their constituencies for trooping through the lobbies against motions that could be read to be innocuous .
Second – and even more to the point – one can ’ t lose a vote if one doesn ’ t vote at all .
The downside of not opposing those motions was that , once they passed and the Government then ignored them , Ministers were open to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliament in contempt .
In any event , Labour then unearthed a device that the Government couldn ’ t bypass – the Humble Address .
We mention this to-and-fro from the last Parliament in the wake of a vote in this one .
Tory MPs are raging about being whipped to vote against last week ’ s Opposition Day motion on free school meals – especially those newly-elected last year .
They feel that the Whips ’ instruction has made them targets in their seats .
Angela Rayner ’ s disgusting cry of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reason : over 100 Conservative MPs say that they and their staff have been the targets of abuse and threats .
Some Labour MPs have form in this way : remember John McDonnell ’ s notorious remark about lynching Esther McVey .
We believe that Tory MPs can ’ t simply run away from Opposition motions .
But we also feel that those unhappy backbenchers have a point .
For the simple truth is that Boris Johnson , Rishi Sunak and the departmental ministers concerned could scarcely be handling this issue worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scale of the problem by pondering the arguments that Conservative MPs have been deploying against making free school meals available during the Christmas holidays .
The problem is not that there are none .
It is that there are too many .
On the one hand , it was said last week that the taxpayer can ’ t afford it .
It ’ s true that we are losing a sense of what the Treasury can afford as the Coronavirus bills pile up .
But if the Government can afford Eat Out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t it afford Feed Kids to Help Out ?
On the other , it was also said that the Government is spending millions on feeding poorer children .
True again .
But the money is divided up between a mass of programmes – support to local authorities , the Universal Credit uplift , the holiday activities and food programme , Fareshare , Magic Breakfast , and more .
That ’ s a mouthful to communicate .
Conservative MPs point out that the last Labour Government didn ’ t make free school meals available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Gordon Brown ’ s failed administration is beginning to become a bit of a distant memory .
They say that parents should be responsible for feeding their children , not the state .
Quite so – up to a point .
But if the principle were extended to its logical conclusion , there would be no free school meals at all .
What about sudden unemployment after furlough , to strike a timely note ?
Or disability ?
And what about state policy that frustrates families – complex childcare schemes , high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Tory MPs can claim that vouchers for meals are being spent on crack dens and brothels , without being able to produce hard evidence , one can hear the bottom of the barrel being noisily scraped .
If vouchers are such a bad idea , why did the Government make them available over the summer holidays in the first place ?
There is a hint of the Thatcher era about what is happening now .
Some will say that she won three elections , and the moral of those victories is : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new dimension – even if you don ’ t believe that the loss of reputation for compassion came back to haunt the Party once it lost its reputation for competence .
It is that while Labour MPs and the hard left are one thing , local businesses , charities and football clubs are quite another .
All these , and more , are queuing up to offer help to disadvantaged children .
Do you warm to the idea of the Big Society ?
Well , here it is in action – with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
Reports today suggest that Downing Street knows that it has dug itself into a hole , and must now start to dig itself out .
That would be best attempted by finding a plan that ’ s better than Labour ’ s ( or Marcus Rashford ’ s ) communicating it , implementing it – and then campaigning for it .
Fortunately , there is one to hand .
If you think about it , schools are not the right venue for delivering help to poorer children during the holidays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by definition , they are then closed .
And the exceptional circumstances of the spring lockdown are now , we all hope , behind us .
Nor do vouchers guarantee “ healthy , tasty and nutritious food and drink ” , to quote from Government guidelines – which , in the case of food , is better delivered hot .
These are best provided in a formal setting .
Which is precisely the aim of the Holiday Activities and Food Programme which we mentioned earlier .
This is a £9 million programme in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer , it supported up to 50,000 disadvantaged children across 17 local authority areas at a cost of some £9 million – providing at least four weeks of free activities and healthy food during July and August 2020 .
The speech of last week ’ s debate came from Paul Maynard , MP for Blackpool North and Clevelys ( Blackpool itself , by the way , has eight of the ten most deprived areas in England ) .
“ My view is that we need a national and universal summer holiday activity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials that have occurred , ” he said .
Maynard is not alone in understanding the issues : see Alan Mak ’ s work , for example , on Magic Breakfast .
But he was right to suggest that the pilots have been too slow .
As he said , the issue “ is the ultimate example in politics of where something must be done .
That is very different from saying that anything should be done ” .
Exactly so , and two different groups of people ought to read his speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ministers , the Downing Street apparatus , the Treasury – and a handful of backbenchers .
There is no more matter more primal than food – and getting fed , especially if one is going hungry .
This debacle is a fearful warning to Boris Johnson , Downing Street , the Government and CCHQ : in all things , let alone any matter so emotive , one needs a policy , a message – and the capacity to campaign on it .
In each of these areas , they have been found wanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game on continuing the Universal Credit uplift , and responding to the second part of Henry Dimbleby ’ s report on food strategy .
Why didn ’ t they , in this case ?
Perhaps because , amidst all the focus on the Just About Managings , they are missing a point : social justice matters in the former Red Wall , too .
The second group of people concerned are the Rashford campaigners .
Some Tories complain about the footballer .
We aren ’ t joining them .
After all , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we might well not be writing this morning about the issues he has highlighted .
But he should surely see that vouchers , dispersed to parents in a mass of homes , are not a substitute for nutritious meals , delivered to children who are gathered together in a formal setting – just as in term-time .
If Ministers offer such a programme on a bigger scale , he should jump at the chance to embrace it .

When Theresa May was Prime Minister, Conservative MPs stopped voting, for a time, against Opposition Day motions. This had two upsides. First, they were no longer assailed in their constituencies for trooping through the lobbies against motions that could be read to be innocuous. Second – and even more to the point – one can’t lose a vote if one doesn’t vote at all.
The downside of not opposing those motions was that, once they passed and the Government then ignored them, Ministers were open to the charge of holding the will of Parliament in contempt. In any event, Labour then unearthed a device that the Government couldn’t bypass – the Humble Address.
We mention this to-and-fro from the last Parliament in the wake of a vote in this one. Tory MPs are raging about being whipped to vote against last week’s Opposition Day motion on free school meals – especially those newly-elected last year. They feel that the Whips’ instruction has made them targets in their seats.
Angela Rayner’s disgusting cry of “scum” may be part of the reason: over 100 Conservative MPs say that they and their staff have been the targets of abuse and threats. Some Labour MPs have form in this way: remember John McDonnell’s notorious remark about lynching Esther McVey.
We believe that Tory MPs can’t simply run away from Opposition motions. But we also feel that those unhappy backbenchers have a point. For the simple truth is that Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and the departmental ministers concerned could scarcely be handling this issue worse were they trying.
One can grasp the scale of the problem by pondering the arguments that Conservative MPs have been deploying against making free school meals available during the Christmas holidays. The problem is not that there are none. It is that there are too many.
On the one hand, it was said last week that the taxpayer can’t afford it. It’s true that we are losing a sense of what the Treasury can afford as the Coronavirus bills pile up. But if the Government can afford Eat Out to Help Out, why can’t it afford Feed Kids to Help Out?
On the other, it was also said that the Government is spending millions on feeding poorer children. True again. But the money is divided up between a mass of programmes – support to local authorities, the Universal Credit uplift, the holiday activities and food programme, Fareshare, Magic Breakfast, and more. That’s a mouthful to communicate.
Conservative MPs point out that the last Labour Government didn’t make free school meals available during the holiday period. Correct: but Gordon Brown’s failed administration is beginning to become a bit of a distant memory. They say that parents should be responsible for feeding their children, not the state.
Quite so – up to a point. But if the principle were extended to its logical conclusion, there would be no free school meals at all. What about sudden unemployment after furlough, to strike a timely note? Or disability? And what about state policy that frustrates families – complex childcare schemes, high energy bills, food taxes?
When a Tory MPs can claim that vouchers for meals are being spent on crack dens and brothels, without being able to produce hard evidence, one can hear the bottom of the barrel being noisily scraped. If vouchers are such a bad idea, why did the Government make them available over the summer holidays in the first place?
There is a hint of the Thatcher era about what is happening now. Some will say that she won three elections, and the moral of those victories is: ignore the protesters. But there is a new dimension – even if you don’t believe that the loss of reputation for compassion came back to haunt the Party once it lost its reputation for competence.
It is that while Labour MPs and the hard left are one thing, local businesses, charities and football clubs are quite another. All these, and more, are queuing up to offer help to disadvantaged children. Do you warm to the idea of the Big Society? Well, here it is in action – with the Conservative Party on the wrong side of it.
Reports today suggest that Downing Street knows that it has dug itself into a hole, and must now start to dig itself out. That would be best attempted by finding a plan that’s better than Labour’s (or Marcus Rashford’s) communicating it, implementing it – and then campaigning for it.
Fortunately, there is one to hand. If you think about it, schools are not the right venue for delivering help to poorer children during the holidays – for the obvious reason that, by definition, they are then closed. And the exceptional circumstances of the spring lockdown are now, we all hope, behind us.
Nor do vouchers guarantee “healthy, tasty and nutritious food and drink”, to quote from Government guidelines – which, in the case of food, is better delivered hot. These are best provided in a formal setting. Which is precisely the aim of the Holiday Activities and Food Programme which we mentioned earlier.
This is a £9 million programme in its second year of pilots. This summer, it supported up to 50,000 disadvantaged children across 17 local authority areas at a cost of some £9 million – providing at least four weeks of free activities and healthy food during July and August 2020.
The speech of last week’s debate came from Paul Maynard, MP for Blackpool North and Clevelys (Blackpool itself, by the way, has eight of the ten most deprived areas in England). “My view is that we need a national and universal summer holiday activity and food support stream to deal with the trials that have occurred,” he said.
Maynard is not alone in understanding the issues: see Alan Mak’s work, for example, on Magic Breakfast. But he was right to suggest that the pilots have been too slow. As he said, the issue “is the ultimate example in politics of where something must be done. That is very different from saying that anything should be done”.
Exactly so, and two different groups of people ought to read his speech with special care. The first are Ministers, the Downing Street apparatus, the Treasury – and a handful of backbenchers. There is no more matter more primal than food – and getting fed, especially if one is going hungry.
This debacle is a fearful warning to Boris Johnson, Downing Street, the Government and CCHQ: in all things, let alone any matter so emotive, one needs a policy, a message – and the capacity to campaign on it. In each of these areas, they have been found wanting.
They will have to raise their game on continuing the Universal Credit uplift, and responding to the second part of Henry Dimbleby’s report on food strategy. Why didn’t they, in this case? Perhaps because, amidst all the focus on the Just About Managings, they are missing a point: social justice matters in the former Red Wall, too.
The second group of people concerned are the Rashford campaigners. Some Tories complain about the footballer. We aren’t joining them. After all, if it wasn’t for him, we might well not be writing this morning about the issues he has highlighted.
But he should surely see that vouchers, dispersed to parents in a mass of homes, are not a substitute for nutritious meals, delivered to children who are gathered together in a formal setting – just as in term-time. If Ministers offer such a programme on a bigger scale, he should jump at the chance to embrace it.