conservativehome--2020-10-21--King of the North?

King of the North?

Is Andy Burnham a lockdown sceptic ?
He pointed in that direction last weekend , when he said that “ protecting health is about more than controlling the virus…people ’ s mental health now is pretty low ” .
A few days before , he was more specific , along with his deputy mayors and other Greater Manchester leaders : “ we are not convinced that closing hospitality venues is the only way to protect hospitals ” , they wrote .
He also complains that the Government is “ asking us to gamble our residents ’ jobs , homes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy on a strategy that their own experts tell them might not work ” .
But if Keir Starmer had his way , Greater Manchester ’ s schools would close for a fortnight or more ; even pubs that serve “ substantial means ” would shut ; the damage to homes , mental health and businesses would rise further .
Burnham is vulnerable on this point , and knows it – which is why in a letter last weekend he said gnomically that “ we have doubts about whether level three will bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That can be read to mean that a total shutdown is indeed needed ; it can also be read to mean that severe lockdown measures don ’ t work .
Either way , it is striking that the Greater Manchester Mayor has not settled with the Government where other local Labour leaders have .
We would love to be a fly on the wall in the office of Joe Anderson , Mayor of Liverpool , who did reach agreement with Ministers , and listen to what he and some of his Labour colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have bet when shutdowns kicked off last March that it would be Manchester rather than Liverpool that would be holding out against the effing Tories ?
But that is less surprising when one looks more closely at the politics of the city .
And it helps to explain why the political pressure this morning is on Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak – not Burnham .
For whereas Liverpool , and indeed Merseyside , is uniformally red ( with the exception of Southport ) , substantial bits of Greater Manchester turned blue last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middleton , to the north of the urban area , and Leigh in the west – the seat formerly held by Burnham himself .
They also took Bolton North-East , and both the Bury seats .
Furthermore , have a look at how close the Party came in other bits of the aea .
As we pointed out last year , it came within three thousand votes , in each constituency , of snatching Oldham East & Saddleworth and Stalybridge & Hyde .
In Worsley & Eccles South , Labour ’ s majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 4,263 .
The Conservatives weren ’ t that far off actually gaining a majority of Greater Manchester seats .
At a local level , most of the city itself is solidly Labour ( though this isn ’ t true throughout Greater Manchester : Bolton council has been Tory-controlled since last year ) .
But at a national one , much of the Manchester urban area is now in play for Growing The Majority , at least if last December ’ s election is any guide to the present and future ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burnham ’ s struggle with the Government should therefore be seen in a wider context than the Coronavirus only : Manchester is a proxy for the whole former Red Wall .
And today , the Mayor is on the front foot .
For he can blur the tensions and contradictions in his own position by deploying that most dog-eared of political cards : the demand for more money .
By shouting for it , he can at once seek to portray Johnson – or rather Sunak , who is Labour ’ s real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Game of Thrones Rob Stark-style , as “ King of the north !
…King of the north !
” Even more to the point , he and local Labour can work to split Greater Manchester ’ s Conservative MPs from the Government and each other .
There are signs that this strategy is working .
On the first point , have a look at Hansard .
Even such loyal backbenchers as Mary Robinson , Cheadle ’ s MP , are pressing for borough-by-borough tiering .
Meanwhile , six Greater Manchester Tory MPs – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , James Grundy , Mark Logan and Christian Wakeford – have rallied round and signed a joint letter attacking Burnham .
But , on that second point , it is worth clocking whose signatures are not on the missive .
These include Graham Brady .
“ I think Michael Gove needs to pick up the phone to Sir Graham , ” Burnham tweeted gleefully on Sunday .
He and the Chancellor of the Duchy had just clashed on The Andrew Marr Show .
The Greater Manchester Mayor ’ s tweet linked to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders are united against the Government .
What he had actually said was that Greater Manchester ’ s political leaders are united against the Government attempts to impose Tier Three restrictions without scientific evidence and financial support .
Nonetheless , there are differences among local Tory MPs – but not so much over Burham as over the virus .
Some , like Brady , William Wragg and Chris Green , are lockdown sceptics .
Green went so far last week as to resign from the Government as a PPS , and set out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article on this site .
Others are not .
Today , Labour will seek to rub salt into these wounds during Opposition Day debates .
What should the Government do now ?
Once again , the politics of the business have been poorly handled .
There was confusion yesterday about whether the £60 million that the Government is offering Greater Manchester is still on the table .
Ministers and the Government machine were slow to pin that detail down , so leaving Burnham to make the running .
Should they simply close the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Mayor is asking for ?
The obvious moral of the story is that Johnson needs a strategic escape from the competing pressures he finds himself under – from Starmer calling for lockdowns and Brady ( and other Tories ) calling for loosenings .
As long as these continue , the Prime Minister widens the toughest tiers and deepens their provisions , and local authorities consequently call for more money to deal with the consequeneces , he is trapped .
His hope is that new tests rescue his test and trace plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and effectively get Covid-19 under control .
We also hope this works , fear that it won ’ t , and think it would be prudent in either event for the Government to publish assessments of the economic and healthcare consequences of lockdowns , restrictions and the virus itself .
Johnson needs to broaden and widen the political conversation to the wider consequences of all these these , in terms of damage to both lives and livelihoods , if he is to stand a chance of winning through .
As far as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest paying up now and getting out fast – that ’ s to say , beginning to prepare voters for a change of course .
In Game of Thrones , Rob Stark eventually meets a bloody end .
But he wins every battle he fights .
Burham is also outwitting the Government this morning .
The grisly spectacle ahead is of he and the Chancellor , together with the latter ’ s future prospects , being buried this winter beneath an avalanche of public money – of doubtful practical utility , to no @ @ @ @

Is Andy Burnham a lockdown sceptic? He pointed in that direction last weekend, when he said that “protecting health is about more than controlling the virus…people’s mental health now is pretty low”.
A few days before, he was more specific, along with his deputy mayors and other Greater Manchester leaders: “we are not convinced that closing hospitality venues is the only way to protect hospitals”, they wrote.
He also complains that the Government is “asking us to gamble our residents’ jobs, homes and businesses and a large chunk of our economy on a strategy that their own experts tell them might not work”.
But if Keir Starmer had his way, Greater Manchester’s schools would close for a fortnight or more; even pubs that serve “substantial means” would shut; the damage to homes, mental health and businesses would rise further.
Burnham is vulnerable on this point, and knows it – which is why in a letter last weekend he said gnomically that “we have doubts about whether level three will bring down the number of cases”.
That can be read to mean that a total shutdown is indeed needed; it can also be read to mean that severe lockdown measures don’t work.
Either way, it is striking that the Greater Manchester Mayor has not settled with the Government where other local Labour leaders have.
We would love to be a fly on the wall in the office of Joe Anderson, Mayor of Liverpool, who did reach agreement with Ministers, and listen to what he and some of his Labour colleagues elsewhere are saying about Burnham.
Who would have bet when shutdowns kicked off last March that it would be Manchester rather than Liverpool that would be holding out against the effing Tories?
But that is less surprising when one looks more closely at the politics of the city. And it helps to explain why the political pressure this morning is on Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak – not Burnham.
For whereas Liverpool, and indeed Merseyside, is uniformally red (with the exception of Southport), substantial bits of Greater Manchester turned blue last year.
The Conservatives won Heywood and Middleton, to the north of the urban area, and Leigh in the west – the seat formerly held by Burnham himself.
They also took Bolton North-East, and both the Bury seats. Furthermore, have a look at how close the Party came in other bits of the aea.
As we pointed out last year, it came within three thousand votes, in each constituency, of snatching Oldham East & Saddleworth and Stalybridge & Hyde.
In Worsley & Eccles South, Labour’s majority was 3,219; in Ashton under Lyne, 4,263. The Conservatives weren’t that far off actually gaining a majority of Greater Manchester seats.
At a local level, most of the city itself is solidly Labour (though this isn’t true throughout Greater Manchester: Bolton council has been Tory-controlled since last year).
But at a national one, much of the Manchester urban area is now in play for Growing The Majority, at least if last December’s election is any guide to the present and future (and if the possibility remains open).
Burnham’s struggle with the Government should therefore be seen in a wider context than the Coronavirus only: Manchester is a proxy for the whole former Red Wall. And today, the Mayor is on the front foot.
For he can blur the tensions and contradictions in his own position by deploying that most dog-eared of political cards: the demand for more money.
By shouting for it, he can at once seek to portray Johnson – or rather Sunak, who is Labour’s real target – as anti-Manchester and himself, Game of Thrones Rob Stark-style, as “King of the north!…King of the north!”
Even more to the point, he and local Labour can work to split Greater Manchester’s Conservative MPs from the Government and each other.
There are signs that this strategy is working. On the first point, have a look at Hansard. Even such loyal backbenchers as Mary Robinson, Cheadle’s MP, are pressing for borough-by-borough tiering.
Meanwhile, six Greater Manchester Tory MPs – Robinson, Chris Clarkson, James Daly, James Grundy, Mark Logan and Christian Wakeford – have rallied round and signed a joint letter attacking Burnham.
But, on that second point, it is worth clocking whose signatures are not on the missive. These include Graham Brady. “I think Michael Gove needs to pick up the phone to Sir Graham,” Burnham tweeted gleefully on Sunday.
He and the Chancellor of the Duchy had just clashed on The Andrew Marr Show. The Greater Manchester Mayor’s tweet linked to a report of Brady suggesting that local political leaders are united against the Government.
What he had actually said was that Greater Manchester’s political leaders are united against the Government attempts to impose Tier Three restrictions without scientific evidence and financial support.
Nonetheless, there are differences among local Tory MPs – but not so much over Burham as over the virus. Some, like Brady, William Wragg and Chris Green, are lockdown sceptics.
Green went so far last week as to resign from the Government as a PPS, and set out his reasons for doing so in an article on this site.
Others are not. Today, Labour will seek to rub salt into these wounds during Opposition Day debates. What should the Government do now?
Once again, the politics of the business have been poorly handled. There was confusion yesterday about whether the £60 million that the Government is offering Greater Manchester is still on the table.
Ministers and the Government machine were slow to pin that detail down, so leaving Burnham to make the running. Should they simply close the gap between that and the £65 million that the Mayor is asking for?
The obvious moral of the story is that Johnson needs a strategic escape from the competing pressures he finds himself under – from Starmer calling for lockdowns and Brady (and other Tories) calling for loosenings.
As long as these continue, the Prime Minister widens the toughest tiers and deepens their provisions, and local authorities consequently call for more money to deal with the consequeneces, he is trapped.
His hope is that new tests rescue his test and trace plan, persuade Conservative MPs to rally round, and effectively get Covid-19 under control.
We also hope this works, fear that it won’t, and think it would be prudent in either event for the Government to publish assessments of the economic and healthcare consequences of lockdowns, restrictions and the virus itself.
Johnson needs to broaden and widen the political conversation to the wider consequences of all these these, in terms of damage to both lives and livelihoods, if he is to stand a chance of winning through.
As far as Manchester is concerned, common sense would suggest paying up now and getting out fast – that’s to say, beginning to prepare voters for a change of course.
In Game of Thrones, Rob Stark eventually meets a bloody end. But he wins every battle he fights. Burham is also outwitting the Government this morning.
The grisly spectacle ahead is of he and the Chancellor, together with the latter’s future prospects, being buried this winter beneath an avalanche of public money – of doubtful practical utility, to no durable political gain.


conservativehome--2020-10-21--Interview: Goodhart says Johnson understands better than Starmer that a graduate meritocracy alienat

Interview: Goodhart says Johnson understands better than Starmer that a graduate meritocracy alienates manual workers

Sitting on a bench on a sunny afternoon in Hampstead , on a grassy bank with a view of Erno Goldfinger ’ s modern house at 2 Willow Road , David Goodhart warns of “ the dark side of creating a cognitive meritocracy ” .
In his new book , Head , Hand , Heart : The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century , Goodhart contends that this meritocracy now shapes society largely in its own interests , and has devalued work done by hand or from the heart .
He believes Theresa May , Nick Timothy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater signs than the Labour Party of comprehending what has gone wrong , and the need to uphold a national social contract .
Goodhart adds that we are sending far too many people to university , creating “ a bloated cognitive bureaucratic class ” and “ a crisis of expectations for the kids ” , many of whom find their degrees are of no real worth , and turn instead to protest movements such as Momentum and Black Lives Matter .
He laments “ the lack of emotional intelligence of highly educated people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own outbreak of rebellion after failing to be picked for the First Eleven cricket team at Eton .
ConHome : “ Let ’ s start with the distinction you made in your previous book , The Road to Somewhere , between the Somewheres and the Anywheres.
” Goodhart : “ The new book is The Road to Somewhere part two .
It ’ s motivated by the same interest in understanding the political alienation of so many of our fellow citizens and what lies behind it .
“ One of the complaints about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divide is too binary .
Obviously it is somewhat binary .
But in the real world it is somewhat binary .
“ People who read the book will know there ’ s lots of sub-divisions in the Anywheres , lots of sub-divisions in the Somewheres .
“ A lot of the Guardian-reading classes felt I think very defensive about the last book – possibly rather less so about this one .
The last book made more enemies because I was pointing out to a lot of people who think of themselves as progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people who I call the Somewheres , that they are part of the problem .
“ They like to think it ’ s the rich and the corporations that are the problem .
But actually it is the lack of emotional intelligence of highly educated people whose priorities have dominated our society for the last generation or two.
” ConHome : “ So this is new ?
Or it ’ s got worse , anyhow.
” Goodhart : “ Exactly .
It ’ s only really in the last 25 , 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become so dominant , more numerous , and less inhibited about pursuing their own interests – generally thinking , for most of the time , that these are in the general , common interest , and indeed some of the time they are .
“ Quite a large part of this is about educational stratification .
It ’ s about the dark side of creating a cognitive meritocracy .
“ We ’ re in the middle of a great deluge of books having a go at the meritocracy .
There ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Merit , there ’ s a guy a few months ago called Daniel Markovits who wrote a book called The Meritocracy Trap , he teaches at Yale Law School and is partly talking about his own very , very high-flying American students , and how even they suffer from it in some ways .
“ These bigger reflections on the limits of meritocracy have mainly come from America .
It ’ s quite interesting to reflect on why that is .
One obvious reason is that meritocracy only really became – contrary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870-2033 , published in 1958 ] – a feature of Centre-Left politics back in the Eighties , Nineties .
“ After all , the Left had been at least formally more egalitarian than meritocratic .
Meritocracy after all is the opportunity to be unequal .
“ As that bold religion of socialism died , meritocracy became the soft soap version for modern social democrats , as the Left was forced to accept much of the political economy of the Centre Right , the Reagan/Thatcher reforms .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meritocracy story than for the traditional Right , who at some level were still defending privilege .
But even the Right was quite happy to take up the meritocratic mantle – the joke was that Tory party had been the party of people with large estates and was now the party of estate agents – they practised meritocracy while the Left talked about it .
“ In America in particular this coincided with a period of grotesque increases in inequality , and slowdowns in social mobility pretty much across the western world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways .
It ’ s both criticised for not being sufficiently meritocratic , and it ’ s criticised in itself , for its own ideal – the Michael Young critique , which is essentially an egalitarian one .
He was a very old-fashioned egalitarian socialist .
“ Most people would go along with the Michael Young critique if you express it in terms of why on earth would we want to turn society into a competition in which the most able win and most of the rest feel like losers ?
” ConHome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bleak , utilitarian idea , isn ’ t it .
It doesn ’ t even contemplate the idea of human beings being of equal worth , which is the Christian idea.
” Goodhart : “ The foundation of Christianity , and the foundation of democracy .
One person one vote.
” ConHome : “ We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men are created equal… ” Goodhart : “ In recent times , too much reward and prestige has gone to this one , cognitive form of merit .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at some fundamental level .
You do not want to be operated on by someone who ’ s failed their surgery exams .
The people who run your nuclear research programme should be your top nuclear physicists.
” ConHome : “ If you support Arsenal , you want Arsenal to have the best players.
” Goodhart : “ You do not choose the England cricket team by lottery.
” ConHome : “ In your new book , while remarking on the role played by chance in deciding a life course , you say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A levels and so forth , emerged as the result of your failure to get into the First Eleven cricket team at Eton.
” Goodhart : “ I compare myself to John Strachey , who became a leading Communist in the 1930s after failing to get into the Eton First Eleven .
“ My self-regarding explanation for that is that I was captain of the under-16 team , and I was a very selfless captain.
” Goodhart : “ I was an all-rounder , so I came in at number seven or eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , so I didn ’ t really develop either skill to a sufficient level to get into the First Eleven.
” ConHome : “ Too much of a team player .
And why did you not get those six votes when you stood on a Far Left ticket for a full-time student union job at York University , and just failed to win ?
” Goodhart [ laughing ] : “ That was bloody lucky .
I ’ d be a f***ing Labour MP now .
ConHome : “ Your father , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative MP .
Anyhow , you feel relieved not to be a Labour MP .
“ Which leads on to the question : who , politically , gets what you are talking about ?
Did Nick Timothy and Theresa May ?
” Goodhart : “ Well I think so .
People sometimes say I influenced the notorious ‘ If you believe you are a citizen of the world , you are a citizen of nowhere ’ [ May ’ s party conference speech of October 2016 ] , but I think Nick is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But I contributed to a climate of opinion that made those sorts of ideas more legitimate and mainstream .
“ It ’ s a shame that section of that speech… ” Goodhart : “ I think what she said is perfectly right and perfectly legitimate , and she was actually aiming not so much at the Guardian academic , what Thomas Piketty called the Brahmin Left , she was aiming more at the people who don ’ t pay their taxes and the corporations who don ’ t pay their taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first-class airport lounges .
“ All she had to do was preface it by something like ‘ Of course there ’ s nothing wrong with being an internationally minded person… ' ” ConHome : “ There are lots of people here in Hampstead who think of themselves as citizens of the world , but they love Hampstead as well , and would rise up in their wrath against any threat to Hampstead.
” Goodhart : “ They don ’ t have to love their country , but it ’ s also important they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow citizens , rather than feeling only attachment to international bodies or people suffering in faraway lands .
“ Of course one should as a human being feel that .
But national social contracts remain incredibly important , central to politics in many ways , and if the best educated and most affluent people are detaching themselves from those social contracts then I think there is a problem .
“ And it ’ s reasonable for politicians to talk about it.
” ConHome : “ To some extent both Trump and Johnson – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to be identical – their success is partly explained by the work you ’ ve been doing.
” Goodhart : “ Populism is a bastard expression of a majority politics which has not received expression in recent decades .
The politics of what one might call the hard centre .
“ Daniel Bell , the American sociologist , was asked for his political credo , some time back in the 1990s , and he said ‘ a socialist in economics , a liberal in politics and a conservative in culture ’ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I suppose someone like David Owen in this country might have come closer to it than most people , is very attractive , and I think it ’ s almost a majority one , but for various contingent historical reasons neither of the main political parties of the Centre Left or Centre Right have at least until recently adopted it .
“ A lot of populism is a bastard form of that kind of lost centre actually .
“ But I think both the Theresa May and to some extent the Boris Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was going to be the party of Brexit , and particularly given how they ’ ve shifted to the Left on economic management , they probably come closer to that combination at the moment than any other political formation .
“ And in some ways that ’ s a good thing .
Boris rather oddly represents that combination , perhaps more than Starmer .
And I do think , although I ’ ve been a member of the Labour Party most of my adult life , I resigned only a couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear the direction , because of Corbyn , yes , but even for Starmer I think there ’ s a real problem , me and Matt Goodwin argue which of us used this analysis first : that it ’ s easier for parties of the Right to move left on economics than it is for parties of the Left to move right on culture.
” Goodhart ended with some remarks about universities : “ It ’ s absurd that we subsidise , even with tuition fees , the grand motorway into higher education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very expensive form of higher education , which is residential higher education .
“ Breaking that is I think pretty important in some ways .
It ’ s a difficult thing to do .
You get accused of wanting to kick away the ladder .
“ We do need to readjust , and not allocate all of the prestige and reward to people that take the academic route , particularly as you just get diminishing returns .
“ The most useful people , the Einsteins , are always going to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intellectual insight , producing new knowledge .
“ What ’ s happened , though , is a whole great bloated cognitive bureaucratic class has emerged that piggybacks on the prestige of the higher intellectual cognitive class , and it ’ s now become dysfunctional .
“ The knowledge economy simply doesn ’ t need so many knowledge workers , and yet we ’ re on automatic pilot , we ’ re creating a crisis of expectations for the kids .
“ Even before AI comes along you can see this in the collapse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to be 100 per cent or 75 per cent , it ’ s now for most kids who don ’ t go to the most elite universities below ten per cent .
“ They have these expectations .
I think a lot of the political eruptions of recent times – Bernie Sanders in America , Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum movement , even perhaps the Black Lives Matter movement , although there are obviously other factors there – are partly an expression of the disappointment of the new middle class at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employment .
”

Sitting on a bench on a sunny afternoon in Hampstead, on a grassy bank with a view of Erno Goldfinger’s modern house at 2 Willow Road, David Goodhart warns of “the dark side of creating a cognitive meritocracy”.
In his new book, Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century, Goodhart contends that this meritocracy now shapes society largely in its own interests, and has devalued work done by hand or from the heart.
He believes Theresa May, Nick Timothy and Boris Johnson have so far shown greater signs than the Labour Party of comprehending what has gone wrong, and the need to uphold a national social contract.
Goodhart adds that we are sending far too many people to university, creating “a bloated cognitive bureaucratic class” and “a crisis of expectations for the kids”, many of whom find their degrees are of no real worth, and turn instead to protest movements such as Momentum and Black Lives Matter.
He laments “the lack of emotional intelligence of highly educated people”, and also touches on his own outbreak of rebellion after failing to be picked for the First Eleven cricket team at Eton.
ConHome: “Let’s start with the distinction you made in your previous book, The Road to Somewhere, between the Somewheres and the Anywheres.”
Goodhart: “The new book is The Road to Somewhere part two. It’s motivated by the same interest in understanding the political alienation of so many of our fellow citizens and what lies behind it.
“One of the complaints about the previous book was that the Anywhere/Somewhere divide is too binary. Obviously it is somewhat binary. But in the real world it is somewhat binary.
“People who read the book will know there’s lots of sub-divisions in the Anywheres, lots of sub-divisions in the Somewheres.
“A lot of the Guardian-reading classes felt I think very defensive about the last book – possibly rather less so about this one. The last book made more enemies because I was pointing out to a lot of people who think of themselves as progressive, and indeed on the side of the people who I call the Somewheres, that they are part of the problem.
“They like to think it’s the rich and the corporations that are the problem. But actually it is the lack of emotional intelligence of highly educated people whose priorities have dominated our society for the last generation or two.”
ConHome: “So this is new? Or it’s got worse, anyhow.”
Goodhart: “Exactly. It’s only really in the last 25, 30 years that the liberal graduate class has become so dominant, more numerous, and less inhibited about pursuing their own interests – generally thinking, for most of the time, that these are in the general, common interest, and indeed some of the time they are.
“Quite a large part of this is about educational stratification. It’s about the dark side of creating a cognitive meritocracy.
“We’re in the middle of a great deluge of books having a go at the meritocracy. There’s the Michael Sandel book, The Tyranny of Merit, there’s a guy a few months ago called Daniel Markovits who wrote a book called The Meritocracy Trap, he teaches at Yale Law School and is partly talking about his own very, very high-flying American students, and how even they suffer from it in some ways.
“These bigger reflections on the limits of meritocracy have mainly come from America. It’s quite interesting to reflect on why that is. One obvious reason is that meritocracy only really became – contrary to Michael Young’s intention [in The Rise of the Meritocracy 1870-2033, published in 1958] – a feature of Centre-Left politics back in the Eighties, Nineties.
“After all, the Left had been at least formally more egalitarian than meritocratic. Meritocracy after all is the opportunity to be unequal.
“As that bold religion of socialism died, meritocracy became the soft soap version for modern social democrats, as the Left was forced to accept much of the political economy of the Centre Right, the Reagan/Thatcher reforms.
“It was easier for them to tell the meritocracy story than for the traditional Right, who at some level were still defending privilege. But even the Right was quite happy to take up the meritocratic mantle – the joke was that Tory party had been the party of people with large estates and was now the party of estate agents – they practised meritocracy while the Left talked about it.
“In America in particular this coincided with a period of grotesque increases in inequality, and slowdowns in social mobility pretty much across the western world.
“Meritocracy tends to get it both ways. It’s both criticised for not being sufficiently meritocratic, and it’s criticised in itself, for its own ideal – the Michael Young critique, which is essentially an egalitarian one. He was a very old-fashioned egalitarian socialist.
“Most people would go along with the Michael Young critique if you express it in terms of why on earth would we want to turn society into a competition in which the most able win and most of the rest feel like losers?”
ConHome: “It’s a very bleak, utilitarian idea, isn’t it. It doesn’t even contemplate the idea of human beings being of equal worth, which is the Christian idea.”
Goodhart: “The foundation of Christianity, and the foundation of democracy. One person one vote.”
ConHome: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal…”
Goodhart: “In recent times, too much reward and prestige has gone to this one, cognitive form of merit.
“Of course we all believe in meritocracy at some fundamental level. You do not want to be operated on by someone who’s failed their surgery exams. The people who run your nuclear research programme should be your top nuclear physicists.”
ConHome: “If you support Arsenal, you want Arsenal to have the best players.”
Goodhart: “You do not choose the England cricket team by lottery.”
ConHome: “In your new book, while remarking on the role played by chance in deciding a life course, you say your rebellious streak, mucking up your A levels and so forth, emerged as the result of your failure to get into the First Eleven cricket team at Eton.”
Goodhart: “I compare myself to John Strachey, who became a leading Communist in the 1930s after failing to get into the Eton First Eleven.
“My self-regarding explanation for that is that I was captain of the under-16 team, and I was a very selfless captain.”
ConHome [laughing]: “You gave everyone else a bowl.”
Goodhart: “I was an all-rounder, so I came in at number seven or eight, and I bowled fifth or sixth change, so I didn’t really develop either skill to a sufficient level to get into the First Eleven.”
ConHome: “Too much of a team player. And why did you not get those six votes when you stood on a Far Left ticket for a full-time student union job at York University, and just failed to win?”
Goodhart [laughing]: “That was bloody lucky. I’d be a f***ing Labour MP now.
ConHome: “Your father, Sir Philip Goodhart, was a distinguished Conservative MP. Anyhow, you feel relieved not to be a Labour MP.
“Which leads on to the question: who, politically, gets what you are talking about? Did Nick Timothy and Theresa May?”
Goodhart: “Well I think so. People sometimes say I influenced the notorious ‘If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere’ [May’s party conference speech of October 2016], but I think Nick is perfectly capable of thinking of that himself.
“But I contributed to a climate of opinion that made those sorts of ideas more legitimate and mainstream.
“It’s a shame that section of that speech…”
ConHome: “Came out all wrong.”
Goodhart: “I think what she said is perfectly right and perfectly legitimate, and she was actually aiming not so much at the Guardian academic, what Thomas Piketty called the Brahmin Left, she was aiming more at the people who don’t pay their taxes and the corporations who don’t pay their taxes, the people who live in the first-class airport lounges.
“All she had to do was preface it by something like ‘Of course there’s nothing wrong with being an internationally minded person…'”
ConHome: “There are lots of people here in Hampstead who think of themselves as citizens of the world, but they love Hampstead as well, and would rise up in their wrath against any threat to Hampstead.”
Goodhart: “They don’t have to love their country, but it’s also important they feel some kind of attachment to their fellow citizens, rather than feeling only attachment to international bodies or people suffering in faraway lands.
“Of course one should as a human being feel that. But national social contracts remain incredibly important, central to politics in many ways, and if the best educated and most affluent people are detaching themselves from those social contracts then I think there is a problem.
“And it’s reasonable for politicians to talk about it.”
ConHome: “To some extent both Trump and Johnson – without falling into the trap of imagining them to be identical – their success is partly explained by the work you’ve been doing.”
Goodhart: “Populism is a bastard expression of a majority politics which has not received expression in recent decades. The politics of what one might call the hard centre.
“Daniel Bell, the American sociologist, was asked for his political credo, some time back in the 1990s, and he said ‘a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics and a conservative in culture’.
“And I think that combination, I suppose someone like David Owen in this country might have come closer to it than most people, is very attractive, and I think it’s almost a majority one, but for various contingent historical reasons neither of the main political parties of the Centre Left or Centre Right have at least until recently adopted it.
“A lot of populism is a bastard form of that kind of lost centre actually.
“But I think both the Theresa May and to some extent the Boris Johnson government, when the Conservative Party decided it was going to be the party of Brexit, and particularly given how they’ve shifted to the Left on economic management, they probably come closer to that combination at the moment than any other political formation.
“And in some ways that’s a good thing. Boris rather oddly represents that combination, perhaps more than Starmer. And I do think, although I’ve been a member of the Labour Party most of my adult life, I resigned only a couple of years ago, I couldn’t bear the direction, because of Corbyn, yes, but even for Starmer I think there’s a real problem, me and Matt Goodwin argue which of us used this analysis first: that it’s easier for parties of the Right to move left on economics than it is for parties of the Left to move right on culture.”
Goodhart ended with some remarks about universities: “It’s absurd that we subsidise, even with tuition fees, the grand motorway into higher education. We’re international outliers in the very expensive form of higher education, which is residential higher education.
“Breaking that is I think pretty important in some ways. It’s a difficult thing to do. You get accused of wanting to kick away the ladder.
“We do need to readjust, and not allocate all of the prestige and reward to people that take the academic route, particularly as you just get diminishing returns.
“The most useful people, the Einsteins, are always going to be the people with the very highest academic, intellectual insight, producing new knowledge.
“What’s happened, though, is a whole great bloated cognitive bureaucratic class has emerged that piggybacks on the prestige of the higher intellectual cognitive class, and it’s now become dysfunctional.
“The knowledge economy simply doesn’t need so many knowledge workers, and yet we’re on automatic pilot, we’re creating a crisis of expectations for the kids.
“Even before AI comes along you can see this in the collapse of the graduate income premium. It used to be 100 per cent or 75 per cent, it’s now for most kids who don’t go to the most elite universities below ten per cent.
“They have these expectations. I think a lot of the political eruptions of recent times – Bernie Sanders in America, Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum movement, even perhaps the Black Lives Matter movement, although there are obviously other factors there – are partly an expression of the disappointment of the new middle class at the lack of higher status and higher paid employment.”


conservativehome--2020-10-21--Robert Halfon: We should be pro-private enterprise, anti-mega corporates – which plunder the taxpaye

Robert Halfon: We should be pro-private enterprise, anti-mega corporates – which plunder the taxpayer again and again

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow , a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman , Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists .
The re-election of Jacinda Ardern , winning an overall majority and so overcoming New Zealand ’ s complex proportional representation system , shows that , even in the age of centre-right populism , there is a route back for social democracy .
It could be that alongside her emotional intelligence , which she displays in abundance , in this new Covid era , what voters yearn for is competence and security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With both her handling of the terrorist atrocity in 2019 , and her extraordinary success in dealing with the virus , is it any surprise that voters have given this remarkable politician the thumbs up ?
No doubt our own Labour Party will be trying to pull off the same trick here , as will many other centre-left parties around the world .
Conservatives should be doing everything possible to learn from her victory and thus forestalling the same thing happening over here .
If Joe Biden wins the US Election in two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the pendulum is swinging leftwards once more .
If Trump gets an unexpected victory , then perhaps Ardern ’ s result will be seen as a swim against the tide .
I am as pro-genuine private enterprise as most Conservatives .
But I don ’ t understand why our governments never get to grips with the mega-corporatist state .
How it is that we have allowed , time and time again , big corporations to plunder the taxpayer – whether it be through failed procurements , or permitting ginormous consultancies to charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of track and trace .
Why is it that a noble £85 million laptop computer procurement programme for disadvantaged pupils , announced by the Department for Education in the height of lockdown , took months to deliver – by the time many children were already back to school ?
A school in my Harlow constituency told me they had only received the laptops recently , whilst others had arrived without the relevant logins et al .
Would a better option not be to just give schools vouchers , after negotiating a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and allow the teachers to purchase the computers themselves ?
Of course , I appreciate this is a national emergency , which perhaps makes these vast sums going to consultancies more understandable .
But , somehow , it seems pretty grim that the businesses profiting most from Covid-19 are these mega-corps consultancies .
Moreover , it is not as if these issues started in the pandemic .
It has gone on for some time , and books have been written about the monies these consultants make and the failed procurement schemes that lay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naturally , describe all this as ‘ vulture capitalism ’ – but this is as far removed from genuine capitalism as it is possible to be .
Capitalism is about the free exchange of goods and services and fair competition .
The corporatist state is neither .
Some of these companies are so big and intertwined with government departments that they become indistinguishable from the government departments themselves .
In the reform of Whitehall that Number 10 is currently planning , perhaps the wisest maxim might be “ small is beautiful ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal by the end of the year , one of the key arguments for Brexit was that we took back control over our taxes .
Indeed in May 2016 , during the EU Referendum campaign , both Boris Johnson and Michael Gove said that energy bills would be lower because EU rules meant that Britain could not take VAT off those bills .
In The Sun , they wrote : Both were absolutely right .
Now we need to live up to that pledge by reducing the five per cent VAT rate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of living for millions .
The Brexit dividend must mean cuts to the cost of living .
In a question to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on this last October , I asked :

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow, a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists.
Lessons from New Zealand
The re-election of Jacinda Ardern, winning an overall majority and so overcoming New Zealand’s complex proportional representation system, shows that, even in the age of centre-right populism, there is a route back for social democracy.
It could be that alongside her emotional intelligence, which she displays in abundance, in this new Covid era, what voters yearn for is competence and security. A feeling of safety first. With both her handling of the terrorist atrocity in 2019, and her extraordinary success in dealing with the virus, is it any surprise that voters have given this remarkable politician the thumbs up?
No doubt our own Labour Party will be trying to pull off the same trick here, as will many other centre-left parties around the world. Conservatives should be doing everything possible to learn from her victory and thus forestalling the same thing happening over here.
If Joe Biden wins the US Election in two weeks time, it could just signal that the pendulum is swinging leftwards once more. If Trump gets an unexpected victory, then perhaps Ardern’s result will be seen as a swim against the tide.
The Corporatist State
I am as pro-genuine private enterprise as most Conservatives. But I don’t understand why our governments never get to grips with the mega-corporatist state.
How it is that we have allowed, time and time again, big corporations to plunder the taxpayer – whether it be through failed procurements, or permitting ginormous consultancies to charge £7,000 a day for their services in terms of track and trace.
Why is it that a noble £85 million laptop computer procurement programme for disadvantaged pupils, announced by the Department for Education in the height of lockdown, took months to deliver – by the time many children were already back to school? A school in my Harlow constituency told me they had only received the laptops recently, whilst others had arrived without the relevant logins et al. Would a better option not be to just give schools vouchers, after negotiating a good deal with Currys and Asda etc, and allow the teachers to purchase the computers themselves?
Of course, I appreciate this is a national emergency, which perhaps makes these vast sums going to consultancies more understandable. But, somehow, it seems pretty grim that the businesses profiting most from Covid-19 are these mega-corps consultancies.
Moreover, it is not as if these issues started in the pandemic. It has gone on for some time, and books have been written about the monies these consultants make and the failed procurement schemes that lay in their wake,
The left, naturally, describe all this as ‘vulture capitalism’ – but this is as far removed from genuine capitalism as it is possible to be. Capitalism is about the free exchange of goods and services and fair competition. The corporatist state is neither. Some of these companies are so big and intertwined with government departments that they become indistinguishable from the government departments themselves.
In the reform of Whitehall that Number 10 is currently planning, perhaps the wisest maxim might be “small is beautiful”.
Taking back control of VAT
Whether we leave with or without a deal by the end of the year, one of the key arguments for Brexit was that we took back control over our taxes.
Indeed in May 2016, during the EU Referendum campaign, both Boris Johnson and Michael Gove said that energy bills would be lower because EU rules meant that Britain could not take VAT off those bills. In The Sun, they wrote:
“The least wealthy are hit particularly hard. The poorest households spend three times more of their income on household energy bills than the richest households spend. As long as we are in the EU, we are not allowed to cut this tax.”
Both were absolutely right. Now we need to live up to that pledge by reducing the five per cent VAT rate for energy bills, and cutting the cost of living for millions. The Brexit dividend must mean cuts to the cost of living.
In a question to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on this last October, I asked:
“In Harlow, we have already seen the NHS Brexit dividend, with a brand new hospital. The people of Harlow will feel that those who vote against this excellent deal really just want to stop Brexit completely. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, once we do the deal and leave the EU, we will gain control of our tax rates and be able to reduce VAT and energy bills for our hard-working constituents?”
The Prime Minister replied:


conservativehome--2020-10-21--Peter Golds: The skewed enforcement priorities of Tower Hamlets Council

Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets .
He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association .
Here are two matters of concern taking place on the same road .
They give an indication as to why my local authority has problems with the public .
My first example concerns a single mother living in a house with her daughter .
She is qualified in both banking and architecture and holds a responsible job with a major corporation .
In order to work , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all tax and national insurance with regard to the child-minder is paid and correctly recorded .
She is , by any standard , a model citizen and is both active and popular within her local community .
A while ago , and to her surprise , she suddenly received correspondence from the borough ’ s council tax that she was living with a person aged over 18 .
She was quickly able to prove that she lived with her daughter and a dog .
Next , and very disturbingly , she received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the council ’ s social services .
They were checking allegations of “ neglect of her child ” and “ illegal employment.
” This was easily proven to be false , but the resident lost a day ’ s work .
I was approached , as the local councillor , to see where the council stood in this .
I got no further than the council has to investigate all allegations .
This was followed by a formal visit from Ofsted investigating a complaint that this resident was operating an “ unlicensed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child was being neglected .
This was again quickly proven to be untrue , confirming the presence at the address of a registered carer looking after a single child , at home , whilst the parent was at work .
Then she began to receive , on a daily basis , addressed envelopes with nothing inside .
The police were contacted but undertook no investigation despite being made aware that this appeared to be part of an ongoing campaign of harassment of a single woman living alone with a child .
The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rear doors and windows .
To ensure this was in order she obtained a “ certificate of lawfulness ” from the council ’ s planning department and went ahead .
One morning recently , a man appeared at her front door , saying that he was from Tower Hamlets council ’ s building control department investigating a complaint and demanding entrance to view the work .
He flashed an official council pass , but would not permit the resident to photograph the pass or take details .
After a stand off , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite producing the council ’ s certificate of lawfulness , an inspection took place .
It is obvious that somebody , somewhere , aware that planning was completely lawful , complained to building control , who appeared not to work with planning within the same local authority .
This completely law-abiding and popular local citizen , facing continuous harassment and vexatious complaints , then sought information as to the source of these incidents via the Freedom of Information process .
This has been refused by Tower Hamlets Council .
The question I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue and how many other council departments will be involved ?
Equally , the police should be taking this seriously .
We have a single , law-abiding woman , living with a child , facing an ongoing and organised campaign of harassment and threats .
She deserves more than a CAD number .
Further up the same road is a small housing development called Thames Circle .
It includes some flats and a row of town houses around a circle .
Within the area is an uncompleted piece of land for which planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given eighteen years ago – but the consent lapsed .
For a period , portacabins were placed in this area and used by a local school on a temporary planning consent .
The council declined to extend the temporary planning consent for the school and it moved elsewhere .
A few months ago portacabins arrived on the site and a takeaway kitchen commenced operation .
This involved preparing food for adjoining residencies and a local Church , and the distribution of the food by car , scooter , and bicycle .
The scooters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thames Circle is off a busy major A road , with bus routes , one of which operates 24/7 and on a curve .
Scooters and cycles moving in and out of the development , dodging traffic and ignoring the local speed limit , on top of the emissions and smell from the kitchens do not add to the quality of life .
I met residents and made enquiries of the council who wrote to me to confirm that the site does not have planning consent for the operation of the kitchens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspection concerning smoke complaints ” and no licence has been issued to the operator regarding licensable activities .
In addition , I discovered that there is no traffic management scheme .
The operator ultimately applied for a retrospective planning application in June but there was “ missing information that would be required to be able to make it valid and add to the planning register.
” In short , this is a business operating without planning or licensing , while the council took no enforcement action whatsoever .
We have two important council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a short distance apart .
There is a completely innocent woman facing a campaign of harassment by a person or persons who are manipulating the council to harass a resident , whilst the same council departments are unable to deal with an illegal operation .
Across the borough , Tower Hamlets Council spent , between January 2019 and August 2020 , the sum of £2,660,000 on “ liveable streets ” projects .
Of that sum , £978,000 was spent on preliminary design to “ inform consultation workshops.
” The result has been chaos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roads suddenly closed and concerns about access to emergency vehicles .
Yet on the Isle of Dogs , there is a road where residents lives are a misery due to anti-social behaviour which can be traced to parking bays , and avoided by residents because of drug dealers .
Residents , supported by the police , have been asking the council to remove the parking bays and extend the pavement .
Despite spending over £2.5 million on “ liveable streets ” the council response to these residents with genuine problems is – organise @ @

Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets. He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association.
Here are two matters of concern taking place on the same road. They give an indication as to why my local authority has problems with the public.
My first example concerns a single mother living in a house with her daughter. She is qualified in both banking and architecture and holds a responsible job with a major corporation. In order to work, she employs a properly registered child-minder and ensures that all tax and national insurance with regard to the child-minder is paid and correctly recorded. She is, by any standard, a model citizen and is both active and popular within her local community.
A while ago, and to her surprise, she suddenly received correspondence from the borough’s council tax that she was living with a person aged over 18. She was quickly able to prove that she lived with her daughter and a dog.
Next, and very disturbingly, she received an early morning visit from two officers from the council’s social services. They were checking allegations of “neglect of her child” and “illegal employment.” This was easily proven to be false, but the resident lost a day’s work. I was approached, as the local councillor, to see where the council stood in this. I got no further than the council has to investigate all allegations.
This was followed by a formal visit from Ofsted investigating a complaint that this resident was operating an “unlicensed child care facility,” where a child was being neglected. This was again quickly proven to be untrue, confirming the presence at the address of a registered carer looking after a single child, at home, whilst the parent was at work.
Then she began to receive, on a daily basis, addressed envelopes with nothing inside. The police were contacted but undertook no investigation despite being made aware that this appeared to be part of an ongoing campaign of harassment of a single woman living alone with a child.
The most recent problem she had was while replacing rear doors and windows. To ensure this was in order she obtained a “certificate of lawfulness” from the council’s planning department and went ahead. One morning recently, a man appeared at her front door, saying that he was from Tower Hamlets council’s building control department investigating a complaint and demanding entrance to view the work. He flashed an official council pass, but would not permit the resident to photograph the pass or take details. After a stand off, she secured the name of the officer. Despite producing the council’s certificate of lawfulness, an inspection took place. It is obvious that somebody, somewhere, aware that planning was completely lawful, complained to building control, who appeared not to work with planning within the same local authority.
This completely law-abiding and popular local citizen, facing continuous harassment and vexatious complaints, then sought information as to the source of these incidents via the Freedom of Information process. This has been refused by Tower Hamlets Council. The question I have asked is how much longer will this continue and how many other council departments will be involved? Equally, the police should be taking this seriously. We have a single, law-abiding woman, living with a child, facing an ongoing and organised campaign of harassment and threats. She deserves more than a CAD number.
Further up the same road is a small housing development called Thames Circle. It includes some flats and a row of town houses around a circle. Within the area is an uncompleted piece of land for which planning permission for a block of flats was given eighteen years ago – but the consent lapsed. For a period, portacabins were placed in this area and used by a local school on a temporary planning consent. The council declined to extend the temporary planning consent for the school and it moved elsewhere.
A few months ago portacabins arrived on the site and a takeaway kitchen commenced operation. This involved preparing food for adjoining residencies and a local Church, and the distribution of the food by car, scooter, and bicycle. The scooters are all badged with an L plate. Thames Circle is off a busy major A road, with bus routes, one of which operates 24/7 and on a curve. Scooters and cycles moving in and out of the development, dodging traffic and ignoring the local speed limit, on top of the emissions and smell from the kitchens do not add to the quality of life.
I met residents and made enquiries of the council who wrote to me to confirm that the site does not have planning consent for the operation of the kitchens. The council has “an ongoing inspection concerning smoke complaints” and no licence has been issued to the operator regarding licensable activities. In addition, I discovered that there is no traffic management scheme. The operator ultimately applied for a retrospective planning application in June but there was “missing information that would be required to be able to make it valid and add to the planning register.”
In short, this is a business operating without planning or licensing, while the council took no enforcement action whatsoever.
We have two important council concerns on the same road, just a short distance apart. There is a completely innocent woman facing a campaign of harassment by a person or persons who are manipulating the council to harass a resident, whilst the same council departments are unable to deal with an illegal operation.
Across the borough, Tower Hamlets Council spent, between January 2019 and August 2020, the sum of £2,660,000 on “liveable streets” projects. Of that sum, £978,000 was spent on preliminary design to “inform consultation workshops.” The result has been chaos in parts of the borough, with roads suddenly closed and concerns about access to emergency vehicles.
Yet on the Isle of Dogs, there is a road where residents lives are a misery due to anti-social behaviour which can be traced to parking bays, and avoided by residents because of drug dealers. Residents, supported by the police, have been asking the council to remove the parking bays and extend the pavement. Despite spending over £2.5 million on “liveable streets” the council response to these residents with genuine problems is – organise a petition…


conservativehome--2020-10-21--Ben Roback: The polls only point to one election outcome – a Biden win. But what if they’re wrong?

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
There are 13 days until the election and 54 days until the Electoral College meets .
All available polling and data currently points to only one clear outcome – a victory for Joe Biden and his running mate , Kamala Harris .
There is no doubting that Biden is in a formidable position .
He has a lead of 8.6 percentage points nationally , according to Real Clear Politics .
His campaign ’ s finances are in far better health , having collected a record $ 383 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its $ 365 million tally in August and Hillary Clinton ’ s $ 154 million in September 2016 .
So the Democrat challenger now has $ 432 million to play with in the remaining days of the campaign – a figure so large that experts said they were unsure how it could all be spent .
But while the national picture is interesting , the polling in key swing states is what matters most .
In eight of the most competitive battlegrounds – Arizona , Florida , Georgia , Michigan , Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – Biden has a lead in all but one of them .
In some of those states , the polling has begun to tighten , but with only one presidential debate remaining , Donald Trump is running out of opportunities to reverse the current trend .
Why is the Trump 2016 playbook not working in 2020 ?
Trump was such a spectacularly maverick candidate in 2016 that literally no one knew how to cover him , let alone run against him .
Cable news didn ’ t want to give him hours of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were so unpredictable and entertaining that they had no choice but to cover them in full .
In the primaries , Republicans couldn ’ t work out whether to take the brash businessman seriously or laugh off his latest hot take .
When the election campaign proper finally arrived , the Democratic Party machine didn ’ t want to break the rules of engagement , but the Trump campaign had such little interest in convention or courtesy that traditional campaign tactics became null and void .
But his year , the 2016 playbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three good reasons why .
First , the president has tried to recreate the notion that he is campaigning against a criminal opponent who is part of a wider anti-Trump , anti-American enterprise .
Leaked emails claiming that Joe Biden ’ s son , Hunter , used his influence to broker business meetings with his father , are being used by Trump as the new smoking gun – in the same way that Trump deployed Clinton of using a personal email to conduct government business against her .
But to date , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a comparably transformative effect .
The President has demanded that the Attorney General investigate Joe Biden ’ s son before the election .
Bill Barr is loyal to the president , but appears unlikely to take such an aggressive step .
Trump campaigns well when his loyal and at times obsequious base have a common enemy .
But this year , he has failed to make accusations or insults against Joe Biden , Hunter Biden and Kamala Harris stick .
Second , Trump rallies in 2016 became a hallmark of his campaign and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times they had to be seen to be believed .
Having allowed a Covid-19 diagnosis to only momentarily sideline his roadshow , the President ’ s rallies have resumed , but mass gatherings of thousands of chant-shouters and sign-wavers looks deeply irresponsible at a time when the percentage of coronavirus tests coming back positive is rising across the country .
Record numbers of Americans will vote by post rather than by physically going to a polling station this year .
That suggests the Trump campaign ’ s insistence on mass rallies is deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Covid-weary voters .
Third , the President ’ s attempts to bully and beat the press and digital media into submission are not working as well , although that is not to say they have failed entirely .
Twitter has begun censoring the President ’ s tweets when they violate its rules , performing a delicate dance between the roles of platform and publisher .
The presidential debates in 2016 gave Trump free rein to follow Clinton around the stage , interrupt her and impose his will on the room entirely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a basket case of shouting and disruption , and the second was scrapped in favour of side-by-side town halls .
The third , taking place tomorrow , will curtail the president ’ s instincts by muting the microphone of one candidate to allow the other to make an uninterrupted two-minute introduction at the start of each 15-minute discussion point .
After all these years , it turns out the only way to keep Trump quiet is to literally silence him .
A major question looms large – what if the polling is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national polls , swing state polls and his campaign has more cash in hand .
Even accounting for the same polling error in 2016 in battleground states in 2020 , he is still be on-track to secure the required swing states to win the election .
It would take a specular mass failure of the polling industry to get this one wrong .
But we are human beings and not computers .
We find it inherently hard to shake off the errors made in previous electoral upsets .
The EU referendum and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling industry took a reputational thumping .
With that in mind , heads are beginning to turn now that Trump is chipping away at Biden ’ s lead around the country .
Take Pennsylvania – a crucial swing state on both candidate ’ s potential paths to election , which Trump won by less than 1 point in 2016 .
A new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll put Biden ahead by just four points .
A Washington Post-ABC poll found Biden and Trump in a dead heat in the battleground state of North Carolina .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence in the overall polling picture we see nationwide .
If the polling is proven wrong and the President wins re-election , the polling industry will be plunged once again into crisis .
And yet , analysts will turn again to polling data at the next election because it remains the best tool of analysis at our disposal .
It is imperfect and sometimes inaccurate , but not sufficiently challenged by a viable alternative .
What seems certain is that , irrespective of the current polling outlook , both sides are planning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are announced .
Trump has urged militias like the Proud Boys to “ stand down and stand by ” .
Clinton has pleaded with Biden to “ not concede under any circumstances ” .
The worst-case scenario for election day and the weeks that follow is illegal and armed militias imposing themselves on polling stations and state capitols .
The US Conference of Mayors warned in a statement : “ There is significant concern that we may see voter intimidation efforts and protests , some possibly violent , in the days leading up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and on the days following ” .
Local government and law enforcement could become the unexpected heroes of the election .
Do not be entirely discouraged by the dire warning signals flashing in the land of the free .
Spencer Cox and Chris Peterson may be well known in Utah , but they are far from household names across America .
But in a rare shared campaign advert , the two competing candidates for Governor of the Beehive State reminded Americans that they can debate the issues without hating each other .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in bucking the trend of aggressive negative campaigning .
Just don ’ t expect it any time soon in the 2020 presidential election .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
There are 13 days until the election and 54 days until the Electoral College meets. All available polling and data currently points to only one clear outcome – a victory for Joe Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris.
There is no doubting that Biden is in a formidable position. He has a lead of 8.6 percentage points nationally, according to Real Clear Politics.
His campaign’s finances are in far better health, having collected a record $383 million in donations in September; up on its $365 million tally in August and Hillary Clinton’s $154 million in September 2016. So the Democrat challenger now has $432 million to play with in the remaining days of the campaign – a figure so large that experts said they were unsure how it could all be spent.
But while the national picture is interesting, the polling in key swing states is what matters most. In eight of the most competitive battlegrounds – Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – Biden has a lead in all but one of them.
In some of those states, the polling has begun to tighten, but with only one presidential debate remaining, Donald Trump is running out of opportunities to reverse the current trend.
Why is the Trump 2016 playbook not working in 2020?
Trump was such a spectacularly maverick candidate in 2016 that literally no one knew how to cover him, let alone run against him. Cable news didn’t want to give him hours of endless free coverage, but his rallies were so unpredictable and entertaining that they had no choice but to cover them in full.
In the primaries, Republicans couldn’t work out whether to take the brash businessman seriously or laugh off his latest hot take.
When the election campaign proper finally arrived, the Democratic Party machine didn’t want to break the rules of engagement, but the Trump campaign had such little interest in convention or courtesy that traditional campaign tactics became null and void.
But his year, the 2016 playbook has been less effective. There are three good reasons why.
First, the president has tried to recreate the notion that he is campaigning against a criminal opponent who is part of a wider anti-Trump, anti-American enterprise.
Leaked emails claiming that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, used his influence to broker business meetings with his father, are being used by Trump as the new smoking gun – in the same way that Trump deployed Clinton of using a personal email to conduct government business against her.
But to date, “lock him up” has not had a comparably transformative effect. The President has demanded that the Attorney General investigate Joe Biden’s son before the election. Bill Barr is loyal to the president, but appears unlikely to take such an aggressive step.
Trump campaigns well when his loyal and at times obsequious base have a common enemy. But this year, he has failed to make accusations or insults against Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Kamala Harris stick.
Second, Trump rallies in 2016 became a hallmark of his campaign and visual displays of voter enthusiasm. At times they had to be seen to be believed. Having allowed a Covid-19 diagnosis to only momentarily sideline his roadshow, the President’s rallies have resumed, but mass gatherings of thousands of chant-shouters and sign-wavers looks deeply irresponsible at a time when the percentage of coronavirus tests coming back positive is rising across the country.
Record numbers of Americans will vote by post rather than by physically going to a polling station this year. That suggests the Trump campaign’s insistence on mass rallies is deeply out of step with the concern harboured by Covid-weary voters.
Third, the President’s attempts to bully and beat the press and digital media into submission are not working as well, although that is not to say they have failed entirely. Twitter has begun censoring the President’s tweets when they violate its rules, performing a delicate dance between the roles of platform and publisher.
The presidential debates in 2016 gave Trump free rein to follow Clinton around the stage, interrupt her and impose his will on the room entirely. The first head-to-head debate this time around was a basket case of shouting and disruption ,and the second was scrapped in favour of side-by-side town halls.
The third, taking place tomorrow, will curtail the president’s instincts by muting the microphone of one candidate to allow the other to make an uninterrupted two-minute introduction at the start of each 15-minute discussion point. After all these years, it turns out the only way to keep Trump quiet is to literally silence him.
A major question looms large – what if the polling is wrong?
So Biden is ahead in the national polls, swing state polls and his campaign has more cash in hand. Even accounting for the same polling error in 2016 in battleground states in 2020, he is still be on-track to secure the required swing states to win the election. It would take a specular mass failure of the polling industry to get this one wrong.
But we are human beings and not computers. We find it inherently hard to shake off the errors made in previous electoral upsets. The EU referendum and 2016 presidential election surprised many. The polling industry took a reputational thumping.
With that in mind, heads are beginning to turn now that Trump is chipping away at Biden’s lead around the country.
Take Pennsylvania – a crucial swing state on both candidate’s potential paths to election, which Trump won by less than 1 point in 2016. A new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll put Biden ahead by just four points. A Washington Post-ABC poll found Biden and Trump in a dead heat in the battleground state of North Carolina. Those headline figures have begun to dent confidence in the overall polling picture we see nationwide.
If the polling is proven wrong and the President wins re-election, the polling industry will be plunged once again into crisis. And yet, analysts will turn again to polling data at the next election because it remains the best tool of analysis at our disposal. It is imperfect and sometimes inaccurate, but not sufficiently challenged by a viable alternative.
What seems certain is that, irrespective of the current polling outlook, both sides are planning to act once the result of the election are announced.
Trump has urged militias like the Proud Boys to “stand down and stand by”. Clinton has pleaded with Biden to “not concede under any circumstances”.
The worst-case scenario for election day and the weeks that follow is illegal and armed militias imposing themselves on polling stations and state capitols. The US Conference of Mayors warned in a statement: “There is significant concern that we may see voter intimidation efforts and protests, some possibly violent, in the days leading up to November 3, on that day, and on the days following”. Local government and law enforcement could become the unexpected heroes of the election.
Do not be entirely discouraged by the dire warning signals flashing in the land of the free. Spencer Cox and Chris Peterson may be well known in Utah, but they are far from household names across America.
But in a rare shared campaign advert, the two competing candidates for Governor of the Beehive State reminded Americans that they can debate the issues without hating each other. There are political points to be scored in bucking the trend of aggressive negative campaigning. Just don’t expect it any time soon in the 2020 presidential election.


conservativehome--2020-10-21--WATCH: The Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader clash over Manchester

`` The mayor of Greater Manchester was offered a further £60m which he turned down , '' says PM Boris @ @ @ @ @ cash will be distributed '' to the region Labour 's Keir Starmer says `` it @ @ @ @ @ to pit region against region '' # PMQs https : //t.co/16IknOU857 pic.twitter.com/FXdbK7zt9q

"The mayor of Greater Manchester was offered a further £60m which he turned down," says PM Boris Johnson who adds "that cash will be distributed" to the region
Labour's Keir Starmer says "it's corrosive to public trust to pit region against region"#PMQs https://t.co/16IknOU857 pic.twitter.com/FXdbK7zt9q
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 21, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-21--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson may have no right to feel confident, but for some reason he doe

Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson may have no right to feel confident, but for some reason he does

On one side of the Chamber , Candide , also known as Boris Johnson , conveying his unshakeable belief that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds , and in the United Kingdom we are additionally fortunate to have the best of all possible Prime Ministers .
On the other side of the Chamber , the anti-Candide , also known as Sir Keir Starmer , conveying his sorrowful conviction that Tier Three is , as he put it today , “ the worst of all worlds ” .
Optimism versus pessimism , hope versus fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more trenchant than we have heard him at any point since his near-death experience in April .
The difficulties in his relationship with Manchester had not left him downcast .
He loves going out in rough weather , feels himself braced by the rocking motion of the ship of state , had at his disposal the information he required and assured his passengers that together they will win through to happier and healthier days .
Sir Keir spoke for all those passengers who find that a frankly unbelievable promise .
But somehow Sir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land .
He could not find some way to embarrass the curiously optimistic man at the helm .
Johnson said it was “ a bit incoherent ” of the Leader of the Opposition “ to attack local lockdowns when he wants to plunge the whole country into lockdown ” .
But the Prime Minister said this in a more magnanimous tone than he has employed in recent exchanges with Sir Keir .
Johnson today presented himself as a unifying figure , respectful even towards those members of the Opposition who suggested , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to grind the faces of the poor .
“ I really think the Prime Minister ’ s crossed a Rubicon here , ” Sir Keir protested , “ not just with the miserly way he ’ s treated Greater Manchester , but the grubby take it or leave it way these local deals are being done .
It ’ s corrosive to public trust to pit region against region , mayor against mayor , council against council.
” The Prime Minister refrained from pointing out , in the manner of a classical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rubicon , and he has not crossed it .
Nor did he insist he is not Julius Caesar .
Johnson instead ensured there was nothing miserly in his own demeanour .
He came before the House as a unifying figure , “ proud of the One Nation support we ’ ve given ” , appreciative of the tremendous efforts being made in every part of the country , confident we shall together win through .
It was hard to see anything more Sir Keir could have done today .
For he faced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feel confident , but for some reason does .

On one side of the Chamber, Candide, also known as Boris Johnson, conveying his unshakeable belief that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and in the United Kingdom we are additionally fortunate to have the best of all possible Prime Ministers.
On the other side of the Chamber, the anti-Candide, also known as Sir Keir Starmer, conveying his sorrowful conviction that Tier Three is, as he put it today, “the worst of all worlds”.
Optimism versus pessimism, hope versus fear, faith versus scepticism. Johnson sounded more trenchant than we have heard him at any point since his near-death experience in April.
The difficulties in his relationship with Manchester had not left him downcast. He loves going out in rough weather, feels himself braced by the rocking motion of the ship of state, had at his disposal the information he required and assured his passengers that together they will win through to happier and healthier days.
Sir Keir spoke for all those passengers who find that a frankly unbelievable promise. But somehow Sir Keir’s blows today did not land. He could not find some way to embarrass the curiously optimistic man at the helm.
Johnson said it was “a bit incoherent” of the Leader of the Opposition “to attack local lockdowns when he wants to plunge the whole country into lockdown”.
But the Prime Minister said this in a more magnanimous tone than he has employed in recent exchanges with Sir Keir. Johnson today presented himself as a unifying figure, respectful even towards those members of the Opposition who suggested, as several of them did, that he wants to grind the faces of the poor.
“I really think the Prime Minister’s crossed a Rubicon here,” Sir Keir protested, “not just with the miserly way he’s treated Greater Manchester, but the grubby take it or leave it way these local deals are being done. It’s corrosive to public trust to pit region against region, mayor against mayor, council against council.”
The Prime Minister refrained from pointing out, in the manner of a classical scholar, that there is only one Rubicon, and he has not crossed it. Nor did he insist he is not Julius Caesar.
Johnson instead ensured there was nothing miserly in his own demeanour. He came before the House as a unifying figure, “proud of the One Nation support we’ve given”, appreciative of the tremendous efforts being made in every part of the country, confident we shall together win through.
It was hard to see anything more Sir Keir could have done today. For he faced a Prime Minister who may have no right to feel confident, but for some reason does.


conservativehome--2020-10-22--“The Prime Minister was right to take a balanced approach to tackling Coronavirus.” Sunak’s statemen

“The Prime Minister was right to take a balanced approach to tackling Coronavirus.” Sunak’s statement: full text

And let me speak first to the people of Liverpool , Lancashire , South Yorkshire , and Greater Manchester , and indeed other areas moving into , or already living under , heightened health restrictions .
I understand your frustration .
People need to know this is not forever .
These are temporary restrictions to help control the spread of virus .
There are difficult days and weeks ahead , but we will get through this , together .
People are not on their own .
We have an economic plan that will protect the jobs and livelihoods of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their situation .
And just as we have throughout this crisis , we will listen and respond to people ’ s concerns as the situation demands .
And I make no apology for responding to changing circumstances .
And so today we go further .
The Prime Minister was right to outline a balanced approach to tackling coronavirus : 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 .
The evidence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the right way to control the spread of the virus .
My Right Honourable Friend the Chief Secretary yesterday set out for the House our economic support for businesses who are legally required to close under those new restrictions .
We ’ re providing billions of pounds of support for local authorities ; a grant scheme for affected businesses worth up to half a billion pounds every month ; And , of course , we expanded the Job Support Scheme – with the government covering the cost of paying two thirds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been legally required to close .
And for areas in local alert level 3 we have made available over a billion pounds of generous up-front grants so that local authorities can support businesses , protect jobs and aid economic recovery , in a fair and transparent way .
That is our plan to support closed businesses .
But it is clear that even businesses who can stay open are facing profound economic uncertainty .
This morning , I met with business and union representatives , including those from the hospitality industry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message was clear : the impact of the health restrictions on their businesses is worse than they hoped .
They recognise the importance of the tiered restrictions in controlling the spread of the virus .
But a significant fall in consumer demand is causing profound economic harm to their industry .
It is clear that they , and other open-but-struggling businesses , require further support .
So , Mr Speaker , I am taking three further steps today .
First , I ’ m introducing a new grants scheme for businesses impacted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t legally closed .
We will fund local authorities to provide businesses in their area with direct cash grants .
It will be up to local authorities to decide how best to distribute the grants giving them the necessary flexibility to respond to local economic circumstances .
But I ’ m providing enough funding to give every business premise in the hospitality , leisure and accommodation sectors a direct grant worth up to £2,100 – for every month Tier 2 restrictions apply .
And that ’ s equivalent to 70 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for closed businesses in Tier 3 .
And crucially , I am pleased to confirm these grants will be retrospective .
Businesses in any area which has been under enhanced restrictions can backdate their grants to August .
I have been listening and engaging with colleagues around the House including but not only my Honourable Friends for Heywood and Middleton , Hyndburn , Penistone and Stockbridge , South Ribble , Burnley , Keighley , Cheadle , Leigh and Southport .
I ’ m pleased to confirm the backdating of the new grants means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and places which have been under higher restrictions for longer .
Let no one say Mr Speaker this Government is not committed to supporting the people and businesses in every region and nation of the United Kingdom .
Second , to protect jobs , we are making the Job Support Scheme more generous for employers .
If businesses are legally required to close , as we ’ ve already outlined , the Government will cover the full cost of employers paying people two thirds of their salary , where they can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For businesses who can open , it is now clear that the impact of restrictions on them , particularly in the hospitality sector , is more significant than they had hoped .
So I am making two changes to the short time work scheme to make it easier for those businesses to keep staff on , rather than make them redundant .
First , under the original scheme , employees had to work for 33 % of their normal hours .
Now , we will ask them to work only 20 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution for the hours not worked will not be 33 % , as originally planned , or even 20 % as it is in the October furlough scheme – it will reduce to 5 % .
And the scheme will apply to eligible businesses in all alert levels , so businesses that are not closed but face higher restrictions in places like Liverpool , Lancashire , South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester , as well as the devolved nations , will be able to access greater support .
These changes mean more employers can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be protected .
We have made this one of the most generous versions of a short time work scheme anywhere in the world .
It is better for businesses , better for jobs , and better for the economy .
Third , as we increase the contribution we ’ re making towards employees ’ wages , I ’ m increasing our contribution to the incomes of the self-employed as well .
Today , we are doubling the next round of the self-employed income support from 20 % to 40 % of people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to £3,750 .
So far , through this crisis , we have now provided over £13 billion of support to self-employed people .
Sole traders , small businesses and self-employed people are the dynamic entrepreneurial heart of our economy – and this government is on their side .
Cash grants of over £2,000 a month for Tier 2 businesses and up to £3,000 for closed businesses .
All on top of over £200 billion of support since March .
This is our plan : a plan for jobs , for businesses , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the country ; a plan to support the British people .
And I commend this statement to the House .
”

“Thank you, Mr Speaker,
And let me speak first to the people of Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, and Greater Manchester, and indeed other areas moving into, or already living under, heightened health restrictions.
I understand your frustration. People need to know this is not forever.
These are temporary restrictions to help control the spread of virus.
There are difficult days and weeks ahead, but we will get through this, together.
People are not on their own.
We have an economic plan that will protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people wherever they live and whatever their situation.
And just as we have throughout this crisis, we will listen and respond to people’s concerns as the situation demands.
And I make no apology for responding to changing circumstances.
And so today we go further.
Mr Speaker,
The Prime Minister was right to outline a balanced approach to tackling coronavirus:
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.
The evidence is clear: a regional, tiered approach is the right way to control the spread of the virus.
My Right Honourable Friend the Chief Secretary yesterday set out for the House our economic support for businesses who are legally required to close under those new restrictions.
We’re providing billions of pounds of support for local authorities; a grant scheme for affected businesses worth up to half a billion pounds every month;
And, of course, we expanded the Job Support Scheme – with the government covering the cost of paying two thirds of peoples’ normal wages if their employer had been legally required to close.
And for areas in local alert level 3 we have made available over a billion pounds of generous up-front grants so that local authorities can support businesses, protect jobs and aid economic recovery, in a fair and transparent way.
That is our plan to support closed businesses.
But it is clear that even businesses who can stay open are facing profound economic uncertainty.
This morning, I met with business and union representatives, including those from the hospitality industry, to discuss the new restrictions.
Their message was clear: the impact of the health restrictions on their businesses is worse than they hoped.
They recognise the importance of the tiered restrictions in controlling the spread of the virus.
But a significant fall in consumer demand is causing profound economic harm to their industry.
It is clear that they, and other open-but-struggling businesses, require further support.
So, Mr Speaker, I am taking three further steps today.
First, I’m introducing a new grants scheme for businesses impacted by Tier 2 restrictions, even if they aren’t legally closed.
We will fund local authorities to provide businesses in their area with direct cash grants.
It will be up to local authorities to decide how best to distribute the grants giving them the necessary flexibility to respond to local economic circumstances.
But I’m providing enough funding to give every business premise in the hospitality, leisure and accommodation sectors a direct grant worth up to £2,100 – for every month Tier 2 restrictions apply.
And that’s equivalent to 70% of the value of the grants available for closed businesses in Tier 3. And crucially, I am pleased to confirm these grants will be retrospective.
Businesses in any area which has been under enhanced restrictions can backdate their grants to August.
I have been listening and engaging with colleagues around the House including but not only my Honourable Friends for Heywood and Middleton, Hyndburn, Penistone and Stockbridge, South Ribble, Burnley, Keighley, Cheadle, Leigh and Southport.
I’m pleased to confirm the backdating of the new grants means we are being more generous to businesses and places which have been under higher restrictions for longer.
Let no one say Mr Speaker this Government is not committed to supporting the people and businesses in every region and nation of the United Kingdom.
Second, to protect jobs, we are making the Job Support Scheme more generous for employers.
If businesses are legally required to close, as we’ve already outlined, the Government will cover the full cost of employers paying people two thirds of their salary, where they can’t work for a week or more.
For businesses who can open, it is now clear that the impact of restrictions on them, particularly in the hospitality sector, is more significant than they had hoped.
So I am making two changes to the short time work scheme to make it easier for those businesses to keep staff on, rather than make them redundant.
First, under the original scheme, employees had to work for 33% of their normal hours.
Now, we will ask them to work only 20% of their hours.
Second, the employer contribution for the hours not worked will not be 33%, as originally planned, or even 20% as it is in the October furlough scheme – it will reduce to 5%.
And the scheme will apply to eligible businesses in all alert levels, so businesses that are not closed but face higher restrictions in places like Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, as well as the devolved nations, will be able to access greater support.
These changes mean more employers can access the scheme and more jobs will be protected.
We have made this one of the most generous versions of a short time work scheme anywhere in the world.
It is better for businesses, better for jobs, and better for the economy.
Third, as we increase the contribution we’re making towards employees’ wages, I’m increasing our contribution to the incomes of the self-employed as well.
Today, we are doubling the next round of the self-employed income support from 20% to 40% of people’s incomes, increasing the maximum grant to £3,750.
So far, through this crisis, we have now provided over £13 billion of support to self-employed people.
Sole traders, small businesses and self-employed people are the dynamic entrepreneurial heart of our economy – and this government is on their side.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker,
A wage subsidy for closed businesses.
A wage subsidy for open businesses.
Cash grants of over £2,000 a month for Tier 2 businesses and up to £3,000 for closed businesses.
Support for local authorities.
Support for the self-employed.
Support for people’s jobs and incomes.
All on top of over £200 billion of support since March.
This is our plan: a plan for jobs, for businesses, for the regions, for the economy, for the country; a plan to support the British people.
And I commend this statement to the House.”