conservativehome--2020-06-03--Stephanos Ioannou: Ending weekly bin collections in Enfield ignores the wishes of residents

Cllr Stephanos Ioannou represents Southgate Ward on Enfield Council .
He is Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Greece Group It always starts with a public consultation .
The consultation that promises to listen to residents concerns , the consultation that promises to hear and act on views laid out by residents , and of course a consultation that promises that the decision isn ’ t already predetermined or decided upon by those actually running the council .
What happened in Enfield was none of the above .
The 6,000 residents who signed a petition against the proposed plans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Conservative opposition , proved this wasn ’ t a sensible decision , and that this decision was predetermined and undemocratic given the circumstances and response from the wider public .
The free weekly food recycling , optional paid green waste service , and fortnightly collection service for rubbish and recycling , does not serve the interests of families across our borough .
For residents and their families , this will put excessive strain on the already limited space they have in their bins .
I have received hundreds , if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that choose to go through their local councillor , rather than the council ’ s own portal , to report a missed collection .
This is in no way a sensible state of affairs , and indeed residents feel the council aren ’ t competent in dealing with the issues partly generated by them .
Residents do not deserve to pay for what is a mandatory and fully-entitled service for green waste .
As Enfield lies at the edge of the north London boundary , it ’ s obvious to suggest that green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to other inner city boroughs .
Enfield council have let down residents who rely on this service for the maintenance of their gardens , and this is a blind miscalculated decision that will affect the activity of all residents in their gardens- as residents will for sure think twice before going out multiple times to their garden during the week to maintain and clear excess-green .
Really , the green-bin issue boils down to the administration seeking to leach on those having some garden space , and paying money for essentially what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road in Enfield have resorted to an extreme length to make sure their rubbish gets thrown away- somewhere .
Collectively crowdfunding more money towards the rental of a skip so that they can throw away both recycling and refuse is not just desperate , but an embarrassment for a London council that has clearly got the decision wrong .
Not only does this display anger , but on a more serious note , a ticking time bomb health and safety concern for the Council that they are yet to see .
Rubbish left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean spreading potential diseases and ruining the surrounding eco-system .
Enfield Council has clearly overlooked the fact that this option was the least popular of the eight options presented to members of the public- backed by just nine per cent of the consultation respondents .
And whilst two-thirds ( 66 per cent ) wanted to keep the currently weekly collections , the council insisted that there was no clear majority for the decision to be clear cut .
This ludicrous misinterpretation of the data by the Labour led administration is now laid bare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are furious with the changes .
Focusing now on the council itself , I would like to express my concern that the administration has piled on unnecessary work for council employees at the expense of employees focussing on other more fruitful and important casework .
Employees are spending too much time forwarding , following up , and chasing queries by councillors for all those missed collections .
Furthermore , I hear the council are having to deal with an increased level of fly-tipping across the borough , and this is putting unprecedented pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collections .
More money , time , effort , and attention having to be spent by the council on this issue as a direct result of the changes in collection is a clear indication that something needs to change , and it ’ s time for the administration to admit their wrongdoing and take the appropriate steps to reverse the decision back to the old scheme .
The Conservative Group made its stance known , with an opposition budget that was secure enough to restore the weekly bin collections that residents and council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restore the trust in Enfield ’ s democracy that was undermined in the consultation and petition .
We feel that more savings could be found and more done to reduce Council operating costs including security costs for vacant buildings , ensuring the traded services break even , and gaining more income from halls for hire , as well as getting rid of the associate cabinet members .
The Conservatives were proposing a five per cent reduction in the £140m operating costs which could deliver an extra £7.5m .
I would like to vent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the council .
Residents were horrified to receive a letter just two weeks before the deadline that the changes were taking place , and the scrambling by residents to get their views on the sheet , was not , in any way , thoughtful and democratic .
Then there is the lacking education for residents after the decision was announced .
Just a simple leaflet through the letterbox and a short press release in the newspapers won ’ t help in publicising the changes .
Hardly an announcement on social media , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to residential households to inform of the change .
This rushed and politically motivated thought-turned-decision by the Labour council has proved this is no example for other councils to take when even considering changing their waste collections .
Enfield has displayed , both prior and post changes , the incapability to reassure residents the service transition will be peaceful and in working-order .
The nightmare we are facing hopefully will be turned into a Conservative victory in the next local election polls in our borough , as residents realise the catastrophic decision will @ @ @ @ @ @

Cllr Stephanos Ioannou represents Southgate Ward on Enfield Council. He is Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Greece Group
It always starts with a public consultation. The consultation that promises to listen to residents concerns, the consultation that promises to hear and act on views laid out by residents, and of course a consultation that promises that the decision isn’t already predetermined or decided upon by those actually running the council.
What happened in Enfield was none of the above. The 6,000 residents who signed a petition against the proposed plans, along with the logical alternative budget proposed by the Conservative opposition, proved this wasn’t a sensible decision, and that this decision was predetermined and undemocratic given the circumstances and response from the wider public.
The free weekly food recycling, optional paid green waste service, and fortnightly collection service for rubbish and recycling, does not serve the interests of families across our borough.
For residents and their families, this will put excessive strain on the already limited space they have in their bins. I have received hundreds, if not near a thousand, emails from residents that choose to go through their local councillor, rather than the council’s own portal, to report a missed collection. This is in no way a sensible state of affairs, and indeed residents feel the council aren’t competent in dealing with the issues partly generated by them.
Residents do not deserve to pay for what is a mandatory and fully-entitled service for green waste. As Enfield lies at the edge of the north London boundary, it’s obvious to suggest that green waste will be more necessary here compared to other inner city boroughs. Enfield council have let down residents who rely on this service for the maintenance of their gardens, and this is a blind miscalculated decision that will affect the activity of all residents in their gardens- as residents will for sure think twice before going out multiple times to their garden during the week to maintain and clear excess-green. Really, the green-bin issue boils down to the administration seeking to leach on those having some garden space, and paying money for essentially what is an essential service.
Residents on one road in Enfield have resorted to an extreme length to make sure their rubbish gets thrown away- somewhere. Collectively crowdfunding more money towards the rental of a skip so that they can throw away both recycling and refuse is not just desperate, but an embarrassment for a London council that has clearly got the decision wrong. Not only does this display anger, but on a more serious note, a ticking time bomb health and safety concern for the Council that they are yet to see. Rubbish left to rot in our streets can only mean spreading potential diseases and ruining the surrounding eco-system.
Enfield Council has clearly overlooked the fact that this option was the least popular of the eight options presented to members of the public- backed by just nine per cent of the consultation respondents. And whilst two-thirds (66 per cent) wanted to keep the currently weekly collections, the council insisted that there was no clear majority for the decision to be clear cut. This ludicrous misinterpretation of the data by the Labour led administration is now laid bare for all to see, as residents are furious with the changes.
Focusing now on the council itself, I would like to express my concern that the administration has piled on unnecessary work for council employees at the expense of employees focussing on other more fruitful and important casework. Employees are spending too much time forwarding, following up, and chasing queries by councillors for all those missed collections. Furthermore, I hear the council are having to deal with an increased level of fly-tipping across the borough, and this is putting unprecedented pressure on the crews having to deal with collections. More money, time, effort, and attention having to be spent by the council on this issue as a direct result of the changes in collection is a clear indication that something needs to change, and it’s time for the administration to admit their wrongdoing and take the appropriate steps to reverse the decision back to the old scheme.
The Conservative Group made its stance known, with an opposition budget that was secure enough to restore the weekly bin collections that residents and council employees deserved. Restoring this service will restore the trust in Enfield’s democracy that was undermined in the consultation and petition. We feel that more savings could be found and more done to reduce Council operating costs including security costs for vacant buildings, ensuring the traded services break even, and gaining more income from halls for hire, as well as getting rid of the associate cabinet members. The Conservatives were proposing a five per cent reduction in the £140m operating costs which could deliver an extra £7.5m.
I would like to vent my frustration at the lacking consultation publicity by the council. Residents were horrified to receive a letter just two weeks before the deadline that the changes were taking place, and the scrambling by residents to get their views on the sheet, was not, in any way, thoughtful and democratic. Then there is the lacking education for residents after the decision was announced. Just a simple leaflet through the letterbox and a short press release in the newspapers won’t help in publicising the changes. Hardly an announcement on social media, no door knocking, and no calling to residential households to inform of the change.
This rushed and politically motivated thought-turned-decision by the Labour council has proved this is no example for other councils to take when even considering changing their waste collections. Enfield has displayed, both prior and post changes, the incapability to reassure residents the service transition will be peaceful and in working-order.
The nightmare we are facing hopefully will be turned into a Conservative victory in the next local election polls in our borough, as residents realise the catastrophic decision will only make residents lives worse.


conservativehome--2020-06-03--The alert level: proof at last that the Coronavirus crisis is governed by politics not science

One of the most repeated phrases during the Coronavirus crisis has been that the Government is being “ led by the science ” in everything it does .
While this all sounds very sensible , such claims have their limits .
As Paul Goodman wrote for ConservativeHome in early March , “ scientists advise but Ministers decide ” and the “ Chief Medical Officer is not the Prime Minister.
” These words are particularly pertinent this week as it appears that Boris Johnson has , indeed , bypassed Professor Chris Whitty in relaxing lockdown .
Anyone who ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easing restrictions has always been a highly conditional exercise , contingent upon a five-level system .
Level 5 is the worst , during which lockdown is recommended , followed by Level 4 , whereby transmission is “ high or rising exponentially ” , when social distancing should be continued , and Level 3 describes the virus being “ in general circulation ” , meaning the Government can opt for the “ [ G ] radual relaxation of restrictions ” .
All four chief medical officers of the UK , including Whitty , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 , and reportedly “ vetoed ” the wish for it to be lowered .
But the Government has pressed on with school reopenings and allowing groups of up to six people to meet – by all indications , acting as though the UK is in Level 3 .
This is all the more surprising as Johnson has previously appeared committed to the alert system .
On May 10 , he said of reopening outdoor markets and primary schools that if “ the alert level won ’ t allow it , we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have got it right.
” The next day , the Government also released guidance on what it would take to ease restrictions , saying that these “ must be warranted by the current alert level.
” To a certain extent , there seems to be some wishful thinking on the Government ’ s part .
On May 27 , the Prime Minister told Parliament ’ s Liaison Committee , “ we ’ re coming down the Covid alert system from Level 4 to Level 3 tomorrow , we hope ” , and Dominic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that we are “ transitioning from level 4 to level 3 ” .
“ Transitioning ” seems to be the line being used to justify the easing of lockdown .
It certainly does not seem to be “ led by the science ” , though .
Not only have chief medical officers rejected the idea that we ’ re out of Level 4 , but SAGE has been equally critical .
One member Professor John Edmunds , has said that the easing carries “ some risk ” , and another , Professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 is “ spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England.
” Furthermore , there has been confusion over the Government ’ s new Joint Biosecurity Centre ( JBC ) , which apparently informed Whitty ’ s decision to keep us at Level 4 .
Johnson said in May that the centre should decide the alert level , yet there have been doubts as to whether it ’ s even operational .
On Monday evening , Matt Hancock said “ it ’ s being formulated at the moment , it ’ s being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to more questions as to how the system works .
While the Government has placed scientists at the forefront of its approach since day one of the crisis , the fact we have sped through Level 4 seems to signal a shift into new territory .
For one , it could simply be that the Government feels confident that the pandemic is on its way out – even if it is not directly saying so , lest MPs be quoted back .
Maybe some MPs are doubtful of an “ inevitable ” second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a natural end .
But more than that , it may indicate that the Government is being increasingly “ led by the Treasury ” .
And who ’ s to say that ’ s bad ?
After all , at some point the balance tips over in the Coronavirus war , as to when economic damage – and the health outcomes it entails – override the danger of the disease .
Whatever the reality behind the decision , the idea we are being “ led by the science ” can no longer be @ @ @

One of the most repeated phrases during the Coronavirus crisis has been that the Government is being “led by the science” in everything it does.
While this all sounds very sensible, such claims have their limits. As Paul Goodman wrote for ConservativeHome in early March, “scientists advise but Ministers decide” and the “Chief Medical Officer is not the Prime Minister.”
These words are particularly pertinent this week as it appears that Boris Johnson has, indeed, bypassed Professor Chris Whitty in relaxing lockdown.
Anyone who’s been watching the proceedings closely will know that easing restrictions has always been a highly conditional exercise, contingent upon a five-level system.
Level 5 is the worst, during which lockdown is recommended, followed by Level 4, whereby transmission is “high or rising exponentially”, when social distancing should be continued, and Level 3 describes the virus being “in general circulation”, meaning the Government can opt for the “[G]radual relaxation of restrictions”.
All four chief medical officers of the UK, including Whitty, have said that the alert level stands at 4, and reportedly “vetoed” the wish for it to be lowered. But the Government has pressed on with school reopenings and allowing groups of up to six people to meet – by all indications, acting as though the UK is in Level 3.
This is all the more surprising as Johnson has previously appeared committed to the alert system. On May 10, he said of reopening outdoor markets and primary schools that if “the alert level won’t allow it, we will simply wait and go on until we have got it right.”
The next day, the Government also released guidance on what it would take to ease restrictions, saying that these “must be warranted by the current alert level.”
To a certain extent, there seems to be some wishful thinking on the Government’s part. On May 27, the Prime Minister told Parliament’s Liaison Committee, “we’re coming down the Covid alert system from Level 4 to Level 3 tomorrow, we hope”, and Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, has said that we are “transitioning from level 4 to level 3”. “Transitioning” seems to be the line being used to justify the easing of lockdown.
It certainly does not seem to be “led by the science”, though. Not only have chief medical officers rejected the idea that we’re out of Level 4, but SAGE has been equally critical. One member Professor John Edmunds, has said that the easing carries “some risk”, and another, Professor Sir Jeremy Farrar, has claimed that Covid-19 is “spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England.”
Furthermore, there has been confusion over the Government’s new Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC), which apparently informed Whitty’s decision to keep us at Level 4. Johnson said in May that the centre should decide the alert level, yet there have been doubts as to whether it’s even operational. On Monday evening, Matt Hancock said “it’s being formulated at the moment, it’s being pulled together”, which will lead to more questions as to how the system works.
While the Government has placed scientists at the forefront of its approach since day one of the crisis, the fact we have sped through Level 4 seems to signal a shift into new territory. For one, it could simply be that the Government feels confident that the pandemic is on its way out – even if it is not directly saying so, lest MPs be quoted back. Maybe some MPs are doubtful of an “inevitable” second wave, believing that the virus has a natural end.
But more than that, it may indicate that the Government is being increasingly “led by the Treasury”. And who’s to say that’s bad? After all, at some point the balance tips over in the Coronavirus war, as to when economic damage – and the health outcomes it entails – override the danger of the disease.
Whatever the reality behind the decision, the idea we are being “led by the science” can no longer be counted upon.


conservativehome--2020-06-03--Ben Roback: Black Lives Matter proves that black lives matter – all over the world

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
I doubt a ConservativeHome column has ever featured lyrics by Tupac .
In fact , it is a bet I ’ d be willing to make .
But so much of ‘ Changes ’ by Tupac speaks truth to the tragic scenes being played out across the United States since the death of George Floyd , placed in handcuffs and slowly deprived of oxygen with a knee to neck when the only crime he had committed was being in the wrong place at the wrong time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ black .
“ I can ’ t breathe ” , he could be heard saying .
The knee remained .
A man died .
And so , to Tupac .
“ I got love for my brother but we can never go nowhere Unless we share with each other Learn to see me as a brother instead of two distant strangers.
” America has a long and troubled past when it comes to race – a journey that has been uncomfortable to acknowledge on numerous occasions throughout history .
So much has changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was released in 1998 , and yet evidently so much has remained the same .
The very existence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the presence of protesters taking to the streets in frustration , anger , and fear proves that the journey is far from complete .
We should aspire to live in a world in which no one citizen in any one country feels the need to protest in defence of their right to live in peace and prosperity , because it goes without saying .
My life matters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your skin should not be a qualifying factor .
In that respect , the spread of protests in the name of George Floyd around the world proves that conversations about race and inequality are incomplete elsewhere .
This is by no means a uniquely American problem .
Activists and protesters have gathered in support of the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK .
Social media has been overtaken with messages in support of the black community .
Instagram has had a day starved of influencers , athletes , and sourdough bread , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of # BlackoutTuesday .
An examination must begin at home before we are to cast assertion over what is happening in the United States .
We are far from perfect , and it is our responsibility as individuals to create a society in which we are blind to differences in race , choosing to create families and communities built on the cornerstones of tolerance and understanding .
You don ’ t have to be American to care about this and you don ’ t have to be black to take a stand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be Jewish to care about anti-Semitism or Muslim to be disturbed by Islamophobia .
If those criteria are holding you back , then are you not part of the problem by choosing to accept an unjust status quo instead of pushing for progressive change ?
Photos of police armed for an urban riot separating protesters have become mixed with video footage of looting in cities across America ; pockets of the country look more like a war zone than the America many of us know , love and have lived in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Political gain is being made by combining them .
It is a tragic repetition of history , replicating scenes from 2014 in Ferguson , Missouri after the shooting of an unarmed black man , Michael Brown .
Or should that read ‘ the shooting of another unarmed black man , Michael Brown ’ ?
Violence and looting tarnishes peaceful and justifiable protest .
Smashing shop fronts and stealing only serves to slander the cause of those who protest rightly , lawfully , and peacefully .
Such behaviour can not be excused but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frustration that has been simmering in the United States for decades and has boiled over once again .
“ There can be no excuse for criminal acts ” , Barack Obama said after shots were fired at police officers .
It dispelled the notion that Democrats support the destruction and looting of American cities .
At that time , America was led by its first African American president .
Obama urged restraint and called for peaceful protest .
He acknowledged that “ the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used healing words to calm tensions .
Still , Ferguson burned for days on end .
It was further proof that a black man in the White House was not going to single-handedly solve America ’ s racial divides .
Six years later , Donald Trump is a very different kind of president .
Neither calm nor caution are in his current repertoire .
The White House podium will not be the site of a great soothing address to the nation .
The Rose Garden will not be the ground on which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , the evidence so far suggests he will seek to establish political gain .
There is an election to win .
Law and order could win him four more years in the White House .
Governors must therefore “ dominate ” the protesters , so the President urged on a conference call .
Trump has painted those protesting thus far as members of a radical left-wing movement hell bent on bringing America to its knees .
Now , he wants to draw a link between the protest movement and Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof , as is so often the case , is on Twitter : “ Sleepy Joe Biden ’ s people are so Radical Left that they are working to get the Anarchists out of jail , and probably more .
Joe doesn ’ t know anything about it , he is clueless , but they will be the real power , not Joe.
” The differences in approaches taken by Presidents Trump and Obama could hardly be clearer .
With an empathetic African American president in office , Ferguson was still blighted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three distinct waves .
Trump is not African American by birth .
He is not empathetic by choice .
And so there is no suggestion that American cities and communities will begin the healing process required to calm the tensions that have captured the country yet again .
Congress is unlikely to be the bastion for change given the hyper-partisan culture that divides it .
Justin Amash , a conservative independent from Michigan , plans to introduce legislation this week that would allow victims to sue officers for illegal and unconstitutional acts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , took to Philadelphia to make his first significant speech after three months in lockdown in an attempt to position himself as a leader in waiting with a radically different , and crucially softer , approach to that of Trump .
Despite a markedly quieter start to the year than his campaign team would have expected , with the campaign trail becoming entirely virtual owing to COVID-19 , Biden is 10 points ahead of Trump in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll .
‘ Could Biden win by staying quiet and just not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked yesterday .
Not if this election replicates that of 1968 , in which Richard Nixon ran as “ your president of law and order ” .
But Nixon was the challenger whilst Mr Trump is the incumbent , on which basis Americans might question why law and order has seemingly regressed during his four years in office , not progressed .
A light unto other nations in so many respects , the ongoing question of race in America poses an existential threat to the very principle of American exceptionalism on which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The relationship between the police and the African American community .
The militarisation of the police .
These are all topics which any student of and writer on American politics will unfortunately have to encounter at some point .
There is nothing to suggest these questions will go away any time soon : 57 per cent of Americans think the police treat white people better than they treat black people , according to new CBS polling .
The tide must start to turn sometime .
Good policing matters .
Community tolerance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We must all work harder to create communities in which placards and protests are not needed to reinforce that .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
I doubt a ConservativeHome column has ever featured lyrics by Tupac. In fact, it is a bet I’d be willing to make.
But so much of ‘Changes’ by Tupac speaks truth to the tragic scenes being played out across the United States since the death of George Floyd, placed in handcuffs and slowly deprived of oxygen with a knee to neck when the only crime he had committed was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And, inescapably, because he was black. “I can’t breathe”, he could be heard saying. The knee remained. A man died. And so, to Tupac.
“I got love for my brother but we can never go nowhere
Unless we share with each other
We gotta start makin’ changes
Learn to see me as a brother instead of two distant strangers.”
America has a long and troubled past when it comes to race – a journey that has been uncomfortable to acknowledge on numerous occasions throughout history. So much has changed in the country since ‘Changes’ was released in 1998, and yet evidently so much has remained the same. The very existence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the presence of protesters taking to the streets in frustration, anger, and fear proves that the journey is far from complete.
We should aspire to live in a world in which no one citizen in any one country feels the need to protest in defence of their right to live in peace and prosperity, because it goes without saying. My life matters. So does yours. The colour of your skin should not be a qualifying factor.
In that respect, the spread of protests in the name of George Floyd around the world proves that conversations about race and inequality are incomplete elsewhere. This is by no means a uniquely American problem.
Activists and protesters have gathered in support of the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK. Social media has been overtaken with messages in support of the black community. Instagram has had a day starved of influencers, athletes, and sourdough bread, and replaced by black screens in support of #BlackoutTuesday. An examination must begin at home before we are to cast assertion over what is happening in the United States. We are far from perfect, and it is our responsibility as individuals to create a society in which we are blind to differences in race, choosing to create families and communities built on the cornerstones of tolerance and understanding.
You don’t have to be American to care about this and you don’t have to be black to take a stand. Just like you don’t need to be Jewish to care about anti-Semitism or Muslim to be disturbed by Islamophobia. If those criteria are holding you back, then are you not part of the problem by choosing to accept an unjust status quo instead of pushing for progressive change?
American cities have become war zones
Photos of police armed for an urban riot separating protesters have become mixed with video footage of looting in cities across America; pockets of the country look more like a war zone than the America many of us know, love and have lived in. It is important to separate the two. Political gain is being made by combining them.
It is a tragic repetition of history, replicating scenes from 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting of an unarmed black man, Michael Brown. Or should that read ‘the shooting of another unarmed black man, Michael Brown’?
Violence and looting tarnishes peaceful and justifiable protest. Smashing shop fronts and stealing only serves to slander the cause of those who protest rightly, lawfully, and peacefully. Such behaviour cannot be excused but it speaks to an underlying anger and frustration that has been simmering in the United States for decades and has boiled over once again. “There can be no excuse for criminal acts”, Barack Obama said after shots were fired at police officers. It dispelled the notion that Democrats support the destruction and looting of American cities.
At that time, America was led by its first African American president. Obama urged restraint and called for peaceful protest. He acknowledged that “the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation”. He used healing words to calm tensions. Still, Ferguson burned for days on end. It was further proof that a black man in the White House was not going to single-handedly solve America’s racial divides.
Six years later, Donald Trump is a very different kind of president. Neither calm nor caution are in his current repertoire. The White House podium will not be the site of a great soothing address to the nation. The Rose Garden will not be the ground on which the President stands and calls for national healing.
Instead, the evidence so far suggests he will seek to establish political gain. There is an election to win. Law and order could win him four more years in the White House. Governors must therefore “dominate” the protesters, so the President urged on a conference call.
Trump has painted those protesting thus far as members of a radical left-wing movement hell bent on bringing America to its knees. Now, he wants to draw a link between the protest movement and Joe Biden, his likely presidential rival. The proof, as is so often the case, is on Twitter:
“Sleepy Joe Biden’s people are so Radical Left that they are working to get the Anarchists out of jail, and probably more. Joe doesn’t know anything about it, he is clueless, but they will be the real power, not Joe.”
The differences in approaches taken by Presidents Trump and Obama could hardly be clearer. With an empathetic African American president in office, Ferguson was still blighted by civil unrest for days on end in three distinct waves. Trump is not African American by birth. He is not empathetic by choice. And so there is no suggestion that American cities and communities will begin the healing process required to calm the tensions that have captured the country yet again.
Congress is unlikely to be the bastion for change given the hyper-partisan culture that divides it. Justin Amash, a conservative independent from Michigan, plans to introduce legislation this week that would allow victims to sue officers for illegal and unconstitutional acts.
Biden, the Democratic nominee in waiting, took to Philadelphia to make his first significant speech after three months in lockdown in an attempt to position himself as a leader in waiting with a radically different, and crucially softer, approach to that of Trump.
Despite a markedly quieter start to the year than his campaign team would have expected, with the campaign trail becoming entirely virtual owing to COVID-19, Biden is 10 points ahead of Trump in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. ‘Could Biden win by staying quiet and just not being Trump?’, I was asked yesterday.
Not if this election replicates that of 1968, in which Richard Nixon ran as “your president of law and order”. But Nixon was the challenger whilst Mr Trump is the incumbent, on which basis Americans might question why law and order has seemingly regressed during his four years in office, not progressed.
A light unto other nations in so many respects, the ongoing question of race in America poses an existential threat to the very principle of American exceptionalism on which the country was built.
Race in America. The relationship between the police and the African American community. The militarisation of the police. These are all topics which any student of and writer on American politics will unfortunately have to encounter at some point. There is nothing to suggest these questions will go away any time soon: 57 per cent of Americans think the police treat white people better than they treat black people, according to new CBS polling. The tide must start to turn sometime.
Good policing matters. Community tolerance and understanding matters. Black lives matter. We must all work harder to create communities in which placards and protests are not needed to reinforce that.


conservativehome--2020-06-03--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson is starting to feel fed up with Starmer, and accused him of bei

Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson is starting to feel fed up with Starmer, and accused him of being unpatriotic

Sounding like a jilted lover , Sir Keir Starmer said in a hurt tone that Boris Johnson had not replied to his letter , sent in confidence a fortnight ago .
Anyone who sets out to have a relationship with Johnson ought to know that replying to letters is not his thing .
He is the kind of man who reckons it is best not to put anything down on paper .
“ I took the trouble to ring him up , ” Johnson protested .
“ He didn ’ t offer any dissent at that stage.
” Johnson is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Leader of the Opposition promised to be constructive , but here he was , trying to make the Prime Minister feel guilty .
In Johnson ’ s view , this carping has gone on for long enough .
Loyal opposition is one thing , but Starmer had strayed into disloyal opposition .
The Prime Minister suggested to the Leader of the Opposition that “ he ’ s on better ground , firmer ground when he stands with the overwhelming majority of the British people ” .
Already he had accused Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was accusing him of being unpatriotic .
If Starmer ’ s style had been formed at the Oxford Union , he might have retorted that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and the populist .
But Starmer ’ s style was formed in a court of law , where as prosecutor he assembled the evidence required for a guilty verdict , and went on doing so for as long as it took .
Johnson could find himself on trial until December 2024 , the last moment when a general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an intolerable prospect , to have to defend himself week after week against this pettifogging lawyer , who only sent him that confidential letter in order to catch him out .
The Prime Minister felt so cross he began jabbing his finger against the Dispatch Box .
Starmer observed in a plonking tone that “ the Statistics Authority has had concerns on more than one occasion ” .
“ I really do not see , ” Johnson retorted , “ the purpose of these endless attacks on public trust and confidence.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if successful they would undermine public confidence in the Government , so with characteristic ingenuity – his enemies would say with characteristic unscrupulousness – Johnson sought to conflate the two .
Starmer accused him of confusing scrutiny with attacks , called for leadership and consensus , and added that “ the scenes yesterday of members queuing to vote were frankly shameful.
” Johnson retorted that “ ordinary people are getting used to queuing for long periods of time ” .
A wounding blow , for it implied that Starmer is not an ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to antagonise other MPs , especially on his side of the House , for on them his continuance in office depends , so he added , apropos the queuing , “ I apologise to colleagues for the inconvenience , ” and said that those who need to be shielded “ should be able to vote by proxy ” .
Even with only 50 MPs in the Chamber , separated by many yards of black and yellow tape , the House works far better like this than when operating in virtual form .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dozen or so journalists who were able to watch the contest from the press gallery .
Johnson and Starmer are two magnificently incompatible figures , each of whom is brilliant in his own way , and is bound to find the other infuriating .
Today there was no victor in their duel , but already this odd couple have rescued PMQs from the torpor into which it had fallen .

Sounding like a jilted lover, Sir Keir Starmer said in a hurt tone that Boris Johnson had not replied to his letter, sent in confidence a fortnight ago.
Anyone who sets out to have a relationship with Johnson ought to know that replying to letters is not his thing. He is the kind of man who reckons it is best not to put anything down on paper.
“I took the trouble to ring him up,” Johnson protested. “He didn’t offer any dissent at that stage.”
Johnson is starting to feel fed up with Starmer. The Leader of the Opposition promised to be constructive, but here he was, trying to make the Prime Minister feel guilty.
In Johnson’s view, this carping has gone on for long enough. Loyal opposition is one thing, but Starmer had strayed into disloyal opposition.
The Prime Minister suggested to the Leader of the Opposition that “he’s on better ground, firmer ground when he stands with the overwhelming majority of the British people”.
Already he had accused Starmer of being “polemical”. Now he was accusing him of being unpatriotic.
If Starmer’s style had been formed at the Oxford Union, he might have retorted that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel and the populist.
But Starmer’s style was formed in a court of law, where as prosecutor he assembled the evidence required for a guilty verdict, and went on doing so for as long as it took.
Johnson could find himself on trial until December 2024, the last moment when a general election will have to be held.
What an intolerable prospect, to have to defend himself week after week against this pettifogging lawyer, who only sent him that confidential letter in order to catch him out. The Prime Minister felt so cross he began jabbing his finger against the Dispatch Box.
Starmer observed in a plonking tone that “the Statistics Authority has had concerns on more than one occasion”.
“I really do not see,” Johnson retorted, “the purpose of these endless attacks on public trust and confidence.”
The attacks were actually on him, but if successful they would undermine public confidence in the Government, so with characteristic ingenuity – his enemies would say with characteristic unscrupulousness – Johnson sought to conflate the two.
Starmer accused him of confusing scrutiny with attacks, called for leadership and consensus, and added that “the scenes yesterday of members queuing to vote were frankly shameful.”
Johnson retorted that “ordinary people are getting used to queuing for long periods of time”. A wounding blow, for it implied that Starmer is not an ordinary person.
But Johnson has no desire to antagonise other MPs, especially on his side of the House, for on them his continuance in office depends, so he added, apropos the queuing, “I apologise to colleagues for the inconvenience,” and said that those who need to be shielded “should be able to vote by proxy”.
Even with only 50 MPs in the Chamber, separated by many yards of black and yellow tape, the House works far better like this than when operating in virtual form.
I count myself lucky to have been among the dozen or so journalists who were able to watch the contest from the press gallery.
Johnson and Starmer are two magnificently incompatible figures, each of whom is brilliant in his own way, and is bound to find the other infuriating.
Today there was no victor in their duel, but already this odd couple have rescued PMQs from the torpor into which it had fallen.


conservativehome--2020-06-04--Henry Hill: Do Johnson’s two Scottish Office appointments show he’s taking the SNP more seriously?

Following Douglas Ross ’ s resignation from the Government over Dominic Cummings , which I looked at in last week ’ s column , the Prime Minister has had a hole to fill at the Scottish Office .
And for all that Downing Street sources reportedly dismissed Ross as ‘ Mr Nobody ’ , it is a hole that he has apparently decided needs to be filled by two people .
The first of these is David Duguid , one of the 2017 intake .
He represents the north-easterly Scottish seat of Banff and Buchan ( once Alex Salmond ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his focus will be on agriculture , fisheries , and energy , “ as well as helping with the continuing programme of growth deals around Scotland.
” He ’ s joined by Iain Stewart , who sits for the somewhat less Scottish constituency of Milton Keynes South , and his appointment has raised some eyebrows amongst the commentariat .
Others few it has a “ shrewd choice ” , pointing out that he has “ much deeper roots in the Scottish party than some Scottish Tory MPs ” .
Indeed , Scottish-born @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election but actually held several very senior roles in the Scottish party before moving to England .
But why not choose another Scottish MP ?
Well , excepting Duguid and Alister Jack , the Secretary of State , and Ross himself , Boris Johnson only had three to choose from .
These are David Mundell , whom Johnson dismissed from his Cabinet ; and Andrew Bowie , who returned to the back benches in 2019 having served as Theresa May ’ s PPS ; and John Lamont , who served as Ruth Davidson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliament .
Given the supreme value the Prime Minister seems to place on loyalty to himself when making appointments , perhaps it is less surprising that he looked elsewhere .
Despite his shaky relations with the Scottish party , Johnson ’ s decision to beef up the Scottish Office team is hopefully a sign that he recognises that the SNP , and the spectre of another independence referendum , remain one of the most serious challenges facing his premiership .
As I detailed last week , the Scottish Tories are deeply concerned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and especially its horribly botched messaging , is letting the Scottish Government off the hook despite putting in an at least equally shoddy performance .
In particular , they were furious that the row over Dominic Cummings eclipsed their efforts to pin Scottish ministers down over the unfolding scandal of Scottish care home deaths .
The First Minister is also being pressed to release the briefings she received during the early months of the crisis… only to admit that , extraordinarily , they were all delivered verbally .
Meanwhile Scottish councils are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding owed to them by the Scottish Government , which is also encouraging quangos to exploit a loophole in the Treasury ’ s scheme to furlough hundreds of public sector workers… even whilst claiming that Westminster hasn ’ t given Scotland enough cash to meet the crisis .
Such conduct highlights yet again the folly of having the UK Treasury underwriting emergency response strategies which the UK Government isn ’ t overseeing – and Rishi Sunak should move swiftly to close the loophole and force Holyrood ’ s quangos back onto Holyrood ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how shamelessly the SNP will exploit the strengths of the British state whilst trying to destroy it – and how extraordinary it is that , despite such a record , Sturgeon ’ s ratings remain sky-high .
There is less than a year until the next Scottish elections , which could produce a separatist majority and a strong ( although not irresistible ) demand for a re-run of the 2014 referendum .
If Johnson means what he says about the Union , he needs to get his Party and his Government ready for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop getting in the way of those already fighting .

Johnson raises eyebrows with Scottish Office appointment
Following Douglas Ross’s resignation from the Government over Dominic Cummings, which I looked at in last week’s column, the Prime Minister has had a hole to fill at the Scottish Office.
And for all that Downing Street sources reportedly dismissed Ross as ‘Mr Nobody’, it is a hole that he has apparently decided needs to be filled by two people.
The first of these is David Duguid, one of the 2017 intake. He represents the north-easterly Scottish seat of Banff and Buchan (once Alex Salmond’s stomping ground). He says that his focus will be on agriculture, fisheries, and energy, “as well as helping with the continuing programme of growth deals around Scotland.”
He’s joined by Iain Stewart, who sits for the somewhat less Scottish constituency of Milton Keynes South, and his appointment has raised some eyebrows amongst the commentariat.
Others few it has a “shrewd choice”, pointing out that he has “much deeper roots in the Scottish party than some Scottish Tory MPs”. Indeed, Scottish-born Stewart has not only fought a Holyrood election but actually held several very senior roles in the Scottish party before moving to England.
But why not choose another Scottish MP? Well, excepting Duguid and Alister Jack, the Secretary of State, and Ross himself, Boris Johnson only had three to choose from.
These are David Mundell, whom Johnson dismissed from his Cabinet; and Andrew Bowie, who returned to the back benches in 2019 having served as Theresa May’s PPS; and John Lamont, who served as Ruth Davidson’s Chief Whip in the Scottish Parliament.
Given the supreme value the Prime Minister seems to place on loyalty to himself when making appointments, perhaps it is less surprising that he looked elsewhere.
Despite his shaky relations with the Scottish party, Johnson’s decision to beef up the Scottish Office team is hopefully a sign that he recognises that the SNP, and the spectre of another independence referendum, remain one of the most serious challenges facing his premiership.
As I detailed last week, the Scottish Tories are deeply concerned that the Government’s handling of Covid-19, and especially its horribly botched messaging, is letting the Scottish Government off the hook despite putting in an at least equally shoddy performance.
In particular, they were furious that the row over Dominic Cummings eclipsed their efforts to pin Scottish ministers down over the unfolding scandal of Scottish care home deaths. The First Minister is also being pressed to release the briefings she received during the early months of the crisis… only to admit that, extraordinarily, they were all delivered verbally.
Meanwhile Scottish councils are still waiting for over £100 million in funding owed to them by the Scottish Government, which is also encouraging quangos to exploit a loophole in the Treasury’s scheme to furlough hundreds of public sector workers… even whilst claiming that Westminster hasn’t given Scotland enough cash to meet the crisis.
Such conduct highlights yet again the folly of having the UK Treasury underwriting emergency response strategies which the UK Government isn’t overseeing – and Rishi Sunak should move swiftly to close the loophole and force Holyrood’s quangos back onto Holyrood’s dime.
But it also shows how shamelessly the SNP will exploit the strengths of the British state whilst trying to destroy it – and how extraordinary it is that, despite such a record, Sturgeon’s ratings remain sky-high.
There is less than a year until the next Scottish elections, which could produce a separatist majority and a strong (although not irresistible) demand for a re-run of the 2014 referendum. If Johnson means what he says about the Union, he needs to get his Party and his Government ready for that fight. Or at least, stop getting in the way of those already fighting.


conservativehome--2020-06-04--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Pensions Ombudsman – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration provides independent scrutiny of the UK ’ s border and immigration functions , providing security , confidence and assurance as to their effectiveness and efficiency .
They report annually to the Home Secretary and their reports are placed before Parliament .
Leading a team of approximately 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK ’ s approach to the Border , Immigration and Citizenship System .
Candidates will have experience of working successfully at a senior level , ideally within a regulation or enforcement arena .
Whatever your background , you will appreciate the importance and opportunity that this role presents .
Excellent communication skills , decisiveness , independence and unquestionable integrity will be essential.
” “ The Imperial War Museum ( IWM ) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War .
Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the world ’ s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain , its former Empire and the Commonwealth , from the First World War to the present .
The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose , fulfilled in different ways at its different branches , both physical and virtual .
In addition to its headquarters building , IWM London , in Southwark , the Museum ’ s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London , IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire , and IWM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind .
The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces , and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.
” Time : Up to one day per month .
“ Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice , supporting as well as challenging the executive , and covering such issues as : support , guidance and challenge on the progress and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single departmental plan ) ; performance ( including agreeing key performance indicators ) , operational issues ( including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals ) , adherence to relevant standards ( e.g .
commercial , digital ) , and on the effective management of the department ; [ and ] the recruitment , appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives , as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.
” Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of Prisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government , and deliver the services under the Inspectorate ’ s scrutiny .
The Inspectorate ’ s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate , and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required .
In addition to its annual inspection programme , the Inspectorate has , since 2019 , introduced Independent Reviews of Progress , which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.
” “ The Pensions Ombudsman ( TPO ) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run .
The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) Board under the PPF ’ s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) Financial Assistance Scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separately in legislation , they are held by one post holder .
Throughout this document the term ‘ PO ’ will therefore cover both roles .
TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints .
Determinations are final and binding on all parties , subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law .
Services are provided free of charge .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration provides independent scrutiny of the UK’s border and immigration functions, providing security, confidence and assurance as to their effectiveness and efficiency. They report annually to the Home Secretary and their reports are placed before Parliament. Leading a team of approximately 30 staff you will strive to continually improve the UK’s approach to the Border, Immigration and Citizenship System. Candidates will have experience of working successfully at a senior level, ideally within a regulation or enforcement arena. Whatever your background, you will appreciate the importance and opportunity that this role presents. Excellent communication skills, decisiveness, independence and unquestionable integrity will be essential.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £130,000
Closes: 06 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Imperial War Museum – RAF Trustee and Navy Trustee
“The Imperial War Museum (IWM) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War. Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today, IWM is the world’s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain, its former Empire and the Commonwealth, from the First World War to the present. The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose, fulfilled in different ways at its different branches, both physical and virtual. In addition to its headquarters building, IWM London, in Southwark, the Museum’s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London, IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire, and IWM North in Trafford, Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind. The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces, and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.”
Time: Up to one day per month.
Remuneration: Expenses reasonably incurred.
Closes: 12 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for International Trade – Lead Non-Executive Board Member/Non-Executive Board Member
“Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice, supporting as well as challenging the executive, and covering such issues as: support, guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy (the single departmental plan); performance (including agreeing key performance indicators), operational issues (including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals), adherence to relevant standards (e.g. commercial, digital), and on the effective management of the department; [and] the recruitment, appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives, as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000/£15,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
“Reporting directly to Ministers, the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government, and deliver the services under the Inspectorate’s scrutiny. The Inspectorate’s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate, and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required. In addition to its annual inspection programme, the Inspectorate has, since 2019, introduced Independent Reviews of Progress, which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons a year. The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £135,000 per annum.
Closes: 15 June
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pensions Ombudsman – Chair
“The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run. The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Board under the PPF’s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Financial Assistance Scheme. Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation, they are held by one post holder. Throughout this document the term ‘PO’ will therefore cover both roles. TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints. Determinations are final and binding on all parties, subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law. Services are provided free of charge.”
Time: Min. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 June


conservativehome--2020-06-04--More haste, less speed. Ministers should take more care in bringing back the Commons.

Last month , we looked at some of the reasons why – beyond cynical claims about Boris Johnson needing backup at Prime Minister ’ s Questions – the Government is so keen to resume physical sittings of the House of Commons .
Whilst Jacob Rees-Mogg is undoubtedly a parliamentary traditionalist ( and that is no bad thing ) , that was far from the whole of the case .
The so-called ‘ Virtual Commons ’ simply can ’ t fulfil all the functions of the proper one .
Debates are harder to conduct and less interactive ; mechanisms such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and the need to schedule MPs into a Zoom called robbed them of the ability to respond to developments spontaneously .
Even Jess Philips , one of those who has been lambasting the new , socially-distanced voting queue on Twitter , wrote in the Independent about how much she disliked the virtual setup .
Business managers also reportedly had concerns about the setup delaying legislation at a time when the Government needs to both try and carry forward its regular programme whilst also legislating for the fight against Covid-19 , whilst others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to get schools to re-open if Parliament were so visibly unwilling to do the same .
All of these are good reasons to try to return to the status quo ante as soon as possible .
But it increasingly looks as if the Government might have misjudged the moment .
Alok Sharma falling ill and having to self-isolate was a visible reminder of why Parliament had been working remotely in the first place .
But even worse , under ministers ’ own plans for ‘ track-and-trace ’ many MPs would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And prior to Johnson ’ s u-turn on proxy voting , this would have disenfranchised them .
Whatever the democratic deficiencies of virtual sittings , they would surely not have outweighed those created by preventing a substantial number of vulnerable MPs for doing their jobs for so long as pandemic conditions endure .
In fact , Rees-Mogg may come under more pressure on this front , because without virtual participation it ’ s hard to see how they are to participate in debates .
Even with that resolved , the new system may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a sceptic of reform the Leader of the House really ought to expect it to .
For example , Stephen Bush has set out how it potentially increases the power of Tory backbenchers , because ministers simply can not spare the time needed to vote under the current arrangements and will need to be paired more often .
This may outweigh the improved party-management which might be expected to accrue from having MPs back within reach of the whips , rather than out in their WhatsApp silos .
Other kinks will doubtles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They may all be surmountable .
But there is a danger that , by allowing himself and his system to be caricatured as impractical and reactionary , Rees-Mogg ends up undermining the return of the proper system at the proper time .
He can afford to take his time .
The Government has a comfortable majority , there are years until the next election , the shortcomings of virtual sittings were apparent even to non-traditionalists , and the conditions created by the pandemic are obviously exigent .
There will be space to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With a little less haste , obvious pitfalls such as the disenfranchising of shielding MPs might have been avoided .
The Leader of the House owes it to himself , and the traditions he so rightly defends , not to trip over any more .

Last month, we looked at some of the reasons why – beyond cynical claims about Boris Johnson needing backup at Prime Minister’s Questions – the Government is so keen to resume physical sittings of the House of Commons.
Whilst Jacob Rees-Mogg is undoubtedly a parliamentary traditionalist (and that is no bad thing), that was far from the whole of the case.
The so-called ‘Virtual Commons’ simply can’t fulfil all the functions of the proper one. Debates are harder to conduct and less interactive; mechanisms such as points of order and supplementary questions impossible; and the need to schedule MPs into a Zoom called robbed them of the ability to respond to developments spontaneously.
Even Jess Philips, one of those who has been lambasting the new, socially-distanced voting queue on Twitter, wrote in the Independent about how much she disliked the virtual setup.
Business managers also reportedly had concerns about the setup delaying legislation at a time when the Government needs to both try and carry forward its regular programme whilst also legislating for the fight against Covid-19, whilst others felt that it would undermine ministers’ efforts to get schools to re-open if Parliament were so visibly unwilling to do the same.
All of these are good reasons to try to return to the status quo ante as soon as possible. But it increasingly looks as if the Government might have misjudged the moment.
Alok Sharma falling ill and having to self-isolate was a visible reminder of why Parliament had been working remotely in the first place. But even worse, under ministers’ own plans for ‘track-and-trace’ many MPs would have been forced to self-isolate as a result. And prior to Johnson’s u-turn on proxy voting, this would have disenfranchised them.
Whatever the democratic deficiencies of virtual sittings, they would surely not have outweighed those created by preventing a substantial number of vulnerable MPs for doing their jobs for so long as pandemic conditions endure. In fact, Rees-Mogg may come under more pressure on this front, because without virtual participation it’s hard to see how they are to participate in debates.
Even with that resolved, the new system may throw up new problems. Indeed, as a sceptic of reform the Leader of the House really ought to expect it to.
For example, Stephen Bush has set out how it potentially increases the power of Tory backbenchers, because ministers simply cannot spare the time needed to vote under the current arrangements and will need to be paired more often. This may outweigh the improved party-management which might be expected to accrue from having MPs back within reach of the whips, rather than out in their WhatsApp silos.
Other kinks will doubtles reveal themselves over the next few weeks. They may all be surmountable. But there is a danger that, by allowing himself and his system to be caricatured as impractical and reactionary, Rees-Mogg ends up undermining the return of the proper system at the proper time.
He can afford to take his time. The Government has a comfortable majority, there are years until the next election, the shortcomings of virtual sittings were apparent even to non-traditionalists, and the conditions created by the pandemic are obviously exigent. There will be space to restore the proper order of things.
With a little less haste, obvious pitfalls such as the disenfranchising of shielding MPs might have been avoided. The Leader of the House owes it to himself, and the traditions he so rightly defends, not to trip over any more.


conservativehome--2020-06-04--Join us for our first ever ConservativeHome Live online event with Matt Ridley

I ’ m very pleased to announce a new venture for our site : ConservativeHome Live , a series of online events in which our readers will get the chance to hear from and put their questions to a range of the leading thinkers , politicians , campaigners and writers in the Conservative movement .
In our first event we will be joined by Matt Ridley – best-selling science writer , prominent Leave campaigner , Conservative peer , newspaper columnist and author of the forthcoming new book How Innovation Works .
I ’ ll be interviewing Matt , and putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 8pm on Wednesday 10th June , via Zoom , the online video chat service .
We ’ ll be discussing a variety of essential topics , including : Do politicians really understand science ?
What has the pandemic revealed about how our national and international institutions work ( or don ’ t work ) ?
What place is there for freedom in a time of lockdown ?
How can Boris Johnson ensure the UK , outside the EU , is best-placed to encourage the innovation and entrepreneurial creativity that will be necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to growth ?
I ’ m sure that our audience will have many questions of their own , too .
We ’ re excited to be exploring new ways to provide new insights and experiences for ConservativeHome readers , and I hope you ’ ll join us for our very first live broadcast .
As well as being a new medium for our readers , these events are also a way to help to support us as a company .
We provide Britain ’ s leading independent centre right source of news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over two million readers a year .
Frankly , like every other media business our traditional revenues have been hurt by the pandemic and the lockdown , and new events help to support the valuable service that our writers provide .
I want these events to be as widely and easily accessible as possible , which is why we ’ ve set a ticket price of just £2.50 for the chance to tune in to hear Matt Ridley ’ s thoughts and put your questions to him .
To book your ticket today @ @ @ @ @

I’m very pleased to announce a new venture for our site: ConservativeHome Live, a series of online events in which our readers will get the chance to hear from and put their questions to a range of the leading thinkers, politicians, campaigners and writers in the Conservative movement.
In our first event we will be joined by Matt Ridley – best-selling science writer, prominent Leave campaigner, Conservative peer, newspaper columnist and author of the forthcoming new book How Innovation Works.
I’ll be interviewing Matt, and putting your questions to him, from 7pm to 8pm on Wednesday 10th June, via Zoom, the online video chat service.
We’ll be discussing a variety of essential topics, including: Do politicians really understand science? What has the pandemic revealed about how our national and international institutions work (or don’t work)? What place is there for freedom in a time of lockdown? How can Boris Johnson ensure the UK, outside the EU, is best-placed to encourage the innovation and entrepreneurial creativity that will be necessary to get us out of quarantine and back to growth? I’m sure that our audience will have many questions of their own, too.
We’re excited to be exploring new ways to provide new insights and experiences for ConservativeHome readers, and I hope you’ll join us for our very first live broadcast.
As well as being a new medium for our readers, these events are also a way to help to support us as a company. We provide Britain’s leading independent centre right source of news and analysis, for free, to over two million readers a year. Frankly, like every other media business our traditional revenues have been hurt by the pandemic and the lockdown, and new events help to support the valuable service that our writers provide. I want these events to be as widely and easily accessible as possible, which is why we’ve set a ticket price of just £2.50 for the chance to tune in to hear Matt Ridley’s thoughts and put your questions to him.
To book your ticket today, please click here.
Our first ConservativeHome Live event is kindly supported by Thorncliffe.


conservativehome--2020-06-04--Garvan Walshe: America’s military leaders are ready to resist illegal orders from the country’s rogu

Garvan Walshe: America’s military leaders are ready to resist illegal orders from the country’s rogue President. How has it come to this?

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party .
A well-connected Republican took me aside a few months ago .
“ Trump will win , he ’ s got a whole operation targeting black men.
” Using people like Kanye West ( the US rapper ) , he said , and appealing to their conservative values ( sotto voce : homophobia and sexism ) and the fact that to a guy with little education , Trump represents success .
This , if it ever was the plan , could be termed the Berlusconi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : if you had the power and wealth I had , you ’ d behave just like me .
It ’ s fair to say it has now outlived its usefulness .
His new tactic , aides told The New York Times , is modelled on Nixon , but is really that usual authoritarian two-step where a strongman leader creates chaos , in order to present himself as the only man capable of bringing order back .
Provoke enough black violence , and scared whites will turn to him as their protector .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strategy than a leftist caricature of it .
Nixon could call for law and order , because he wasn ’ t in power , but as Eisenhower ’ s vice-president was associated with a calmer time .
Trump , however , is supposed to be charge .
Everyone can see his Tweets inciting violence , and as much as they dislike looting , they don ’ t much care for police officers running over peaceful protesters or taking pot shots at journalists .
They imagine all that high-tech military equipment sold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorists or school shooters .
Seeing heavily armed riot cops run amok on city streets makes their country look like a Latin American dictatorship .
Ranks of soldiers guarding the Lincoln Memorial belong in sci-fi dystopia , not live news feeds from their own capital .
As if that wasn ’ t enough , Trump had crowds teargassed so that he could walk to a nearby church for a photo op .
The Vietnam-era figure this looks like is not Nixon , but the hapless South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator Tom Cotton , are trying to assert there ’ s an insurgency going on , organised by the extreme-left ANTIFA ( while white supremacist militia , marching armed into the Wisconsin state legislature , somehow were not ) .
This is a conspiracy theory , but even if it weren ’ t , the heavy-handed military intervention Cotton demanded is the opposite of good counterinsurgency practice .
Trump ’ s attempts to project strength achieve the opposite , as ramshackle riot control lines , made up of parks police , military police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and cops brought in from Arlington Country , Virginia are deployed to allow the president to walk to a church , while the Attorney General inspects a large armoured car on the White House grounds .
The contrast with Nixon , who went to talk to anti-war protesters fifty years ago , couldn ’ t be clearer .
In 1968 , the veteran Nixon ran his campaign from the centre – against segregationist George Wallace , from whom Trump stole the phrase “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ left-wing nominee , Hubert Humphrey .
In this year ’ s election that role belongs to Biden .
Like the pre-watergate Nixon , he ’ s a face from a happier , more stable time , and he ’ s defeated the more extreme wing of his party .
He ’ s well-placed to reassure ordinary Americans that he can lead a return to normalcy , after the pyrotechnics and pandemic of the Trump years , and has been extending his lead in the polls .
Now go back to those tellingly haphazard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president has very limited public order policing power at his disposal .
District of Columbia police are not under his command ( and the mayor has refused to hand them over to him ) .
The Arlington County police have since been withdrawn .
The governors of Virginia and New York have pulled back National Guard units that had been on the way to the capital once they realised what they might be used for .
No states have asked for federal assistance and retain control of their own national guard units @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to escalate the appearance of conflict .
This explains his Defence Secretary talking about “ dominating the battlespace ” without realising how bad that sounded when the space in question was his own country ’ s capital .
The idea of using the Insurrection Act ( which dates from 1807 ) to allow the army to be deployed on the streets has been broached , but would run into stiff legal challenge .
Admiral Mike Mullen , Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs .
wrote on Tuesday night : “ [ C ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act .
This is crucial , because though soldiers are required to obey orders , they are equally obliged to disobey illegal ones .
It is a thinly coded signal to serving military officers to prepare for an illegal instruction from Trump .
As well as Mullen ’ s piece , I hope they read Anne Applebaum ’ s essay on history judging collaborators .
Trump would destroy the American republic to save his own skin .
We have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try .

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party.
A well-connected Republican took me aside a few months ago. “Trump will win, he’s got a whole operation targeting black men.”
It wasn’t what you’re thinking.
Using people like Kanye West (the US rapper), he said, and appealing to their conservative values (sotto voce: homophobia and sexism) and the fact that to a guy with little education, Trump represents success.
This, if it ever was the plan, could be termed the Berlusconi strategy. To say, face it: if you had the power and wealth I had, you’d behave just like me. It’s fair to say it has now outlived its usefulness.
His new tactic, aides told The New York Times, is modelled on Nixon, but is really that usual authoritarian two-step where a strongman leader creates chaos, in order to present himself as the only man capable of bringing order back. Provoke enough black violence, and scared whites will turn to him as their protector.
This, though, was less Nixon’s strategy than a leftist caricature of it. Nixon could call for law and order, because he wasn’t in power, but as Eisenhower’s vice-president was associated with a calmer time.
Trump, however, is supposed to be charge. Everyone can see his Tweets inciting violence, and as much as they dislike looting, they don’t much care for police officers running over peaceful protesters or taking pot shots at journalists.
They imagine all that high-tech military equipment sold to the cops would be used against terrorists or school shooters. Seeing heavily armed riot cops run amok on city streets makes their country look like a Latin American dictatorship. Ranks of soldiers guarding the Lincoln Memorial belong in sci-fi dystopia, not live news feeds from their own capital.
As if that wasn’t enough, Trump had crowds teargassed so that he could walk to a nearby church for a photo op. The Vietnam-era figure this looks like is not Nixon, but the hapless South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem.
Trump’s lieutenants, like hardline Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, are trying to assert there’s an insurgency going on, organised by the extreme-left ANTIFA (while white supremacist militia, marching armed into the Wisconsin state legislature, somehow were not). This is a conspiracy theory, but even if it weren’t, the heavy-handed military intervention Cotton demanded is the opposite of good counterinsurgency practice.
Trump’s attempts to project strength achieve the opposite, as ramshackle riot control lines, made up of parks police, military police, the oxymoronic uniformed “Secret Service” and cops brought in from Arlington Country, Virginia are deployed to allow the president to walk to a church, while the Attorney General inspects a large armoured car on the White House grounds. The contrast with Nixon, who went to talk to anti-war protesters fifty years ago, couldn’t be clearer.
In 1968, the veteran Nixon ran his campaign from the centre – against segregationist George Wallace, from whom Trump stole the phrase “when the looting starts, the shooting starts!” – and the Democrats’ particularly left-wing nominee, Hubert Humphrey. In this year’s election that role belongs to Biden.
Like the pre-watergate Nixon, he’s a face from a happier, more stable time, and he’s defeated the more extreme wing of his party. He’s well-placed to reassure ordinary Americans that he can lead a return to normalcy, after the pyrotechnics and pandemic of the Trump years, and has been extending his lead in the polls.
Now go back to those tellingly haphazard police lines. They were haphazard because the president has very limited public order policing power at his disposal. District of Columbia police are not under his command (and the mayor has refused to hand them over to him).
The Arlington County police have since been withdrawn. The governors of Virginia and New York have pulled back National Guard units that had been on the way to the capital once they realised what they might be used for. No states have asked for federal assistance and retain control of their own national guard units.
Trump’s instinct is usually to escalate the appearance of conflict. This explains his Defence Secretary talking about “dominating the battlespace” without realising how bad that sounded when the space in question was his own country’s capital.
The idea of using the Insurrection Act (which dates from 1807) to allow the army to be deployed on the streets has been broached, but would run into stiff legal challenge. Admiral Mike Mullen, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. wrote on Tuesday night: “[C]ertainly, we have not crossed the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act.
This is crucial, because though soldiers are required to obey orders, they are equally obliged to disobey illegal ones. It is a thinly coded signal to serving military officers to prepare for an illegal instruction from Trump. As well as Mullen’s piece, I hope they read Anne Applebaum’s essay on history judging collaborators. Trump would destroy the American republic to save his own skin. We have to hope he doesn’t get to try.


conservativehome--2020-06-04--Ryan Stephenson: Have teaching unions finally lost the trust of schools and academies?

Cllr Ryan Stephenson is Shadow Cabinet Member for Children & Families on Leeds City Council .
Leeds is one of those Labour Councils that tried its best throughout the Corbyn-era to stem the tide of Momentum infiltration .
Cllr Judith Blake , the council leader , has survived by saying little and leaving the difficult bits for others to sort out .
It therefore came as no surprise last week when , faced with a choice between trade union pressure to resist admitting more pupils into schools from 1st June and the pressing need to get children – particularly those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council sat firmly on the fence .
The National Education Union had pulled out all the stops to get the Council to take a militant approach .
One union officer told a meeting of Leeds Parents for Safe Return this week : “ We as a union have negotiated hard to persuade [ the council ] to take the same stance as councils such as Sheffield , Liverpool and the Wirral.
” Despite the union ’ s best endeavours , early reports suggest that school leaders and staff have worked hard to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school settings , with most schools and academies in the city defying union demands to boycott schools re-opening .
This demand has angered some in the teaching profession .
Many view the unions as being guilty of talking about schools re-opening in a way that has peddled the misnomer that schools have been closed throughout the lockdown .
The daily reality for teachers has been that they ’ ve done everything possible to keep schools open for vulnerable pupils and children of key workers .
In most cases , teachers have been juggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attending , whilst also conducting online lessons and setting work to support parents with home schooling .
Similarly , there is consternation that union rhetoric has focused around anti-government sentiment and less about children and their needs .
For teaching staff , this has been a deep frustration .
Indeed , the National Education Union ’ s own five tests for the Government before schools re-open only mention children once , in respect of Covid-19 testing .
There is no mention of the impact reduced access to education is having on disadvantaged children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the longer-term consequence on social mobility .
A recent report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that children from better-off households are spending an additional 75 minutes a day on educational activities than their peers from the poorest households during the lockdown .
Based on union demands for schools to stay closed until September , the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their classmates will double to three weeks .
That ’ s why anybody concerned about educational outcomes and social mobility , including three former Labour education secretaries , acknowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils attending school as a priority .
If we ignore this , we will see the tide turn on gains made in recent years .
When Labour ’ s David Blunkett accused the teaching unions of working against children ’ s interests by telling teachers not to engage with the Government over plans to increase pupil numbers in school , I ’ m sure he had calculated , as many teachers had done , that holding back until September would not only hit disadvantaged children the hardest but would put all pupils at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that children pose less risk of passing on coronavirus , the European Union has reported that 22 member states had already reopened schools and no increase of the incidence of the virus had been reported among children , families or staff .
In Denmark , schools returned on 15th April and officials reported the first day without a Covid-related death two weeks ago .
Similarly , in Austria , Germany , France , Switzerland , and Greece , schools have adopted a phased return of students throughout May .
In Sweden , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of population than the UK and where lockdown restrictions were the most liberal in Europe , primary schools have remained open throughout the pandemic .
Looking to the future , the longer children in England remain outside educational settings , the wider the gap between the most affluent and the poorest pupils will grow .
Likewise , we already have lower comparable educational attainment levels than many of those countries that have already re-opened schools and this gap will grow further if we continue to plough a different furrow .
The World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Nabarro , has said that , on balance , it is safe for children to start going back to school with a phased approach and strict safeguarding and hygiene rules .
In Leeds , local leaders in education are continuing to do their utmost to support an increase in the number of pupils in schools , perhaps not quite as the Government had intended from 1st June ; nevertheless headteachers are doing what they feel is manageable .
They know , as we do , that keeping children out of school much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation .
In the months ahead , the teaching unions might come to realise that in failing to talk about the pressing needs of children during the pandemic , they ’ ve used up a significant amount of political capital and it ’ ll take some time to regain the trust of schools and academies .

Cllr Ryan Stephenson is Shadow Cabinet Member for Children & Families on Leeds City Council.
Leeds is one of those Labour Councils that tried its best throughout the Corbyn-era to stem the tide of Momentum infiltration. Cllr Judith Blake, the council leader, has survived by saying little and leaving the difficult bits for others to sort out. It therefore came as no surprise last week when, faced with a choice between trade union pressure to resist admitting more pupils into schools from 1st June and the pressing need to get children – particularly those disadvantaged, back into education, Leeds Council sat firmly on the fence.
The National Education Union had pulled out all the stops to get the Council to take a militant approach. One union officer told a meeting of Leeds Parents for Safe Return this week:
“We as a union have negotiated hard to persuade [the council] to take the same stance as councils such as Sheffield, Liverpool and the Wirral.”
Despite the union’s best endeavours, early reports suggest that school leaders and staff have worked hard to get pupils in key transition years back into school settings, with most schools and academies in the city defying union demands to boycott schools re-opening.
This demand has angered some in the teaching profession. Many view the unions as being guilty of talking about schools re-opening in a way that has peddled the misnomer that schools have been closed throughout the lockdown. The daily reality for teachers has been that they’ve done everything possible to keep schools open for vulnerable pupils and children of key workers. In most cases, teachers have been juggling arrangements for activities in school for those attending, whilst also conducting online lessons and setting work to support parents with home schooling.
Similarly, there is consternation that union rhetoric has focused around anti-government sentiment and less about children and their needs. For teaching staff, this has been a deep frustration. Indeed, the National Education Union’s own five tests for the Government before schools re-open only mention children once, in respect of Covid-19 testing. There is no mention of the impact reduced access to education is having on disadvantaged children, social, emotional and mental health, or the longer-term consequence on social mobility.
A recent report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that children from better-off households are spending an additional 75 minutes a day on educational activities than their peers from the poorest households during the lockdown. Based on union demands for schools to stay closed until September, the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their classmates will double to three weeks.
That’s why anybody concerned about educational outcomes and social mobility, including three former Labour education secretaries, acknowledge that we must increase the number of pupils attending school as a priority. If we ignore this, we will see the tide turn on gains made in recent years.
When Labour’s David Blunkett accused the teaching unions of working against children’s interests by telling teachers not to engage with the Government over plans to increase pupil numbers in school, I’m sure he had calculated, as many teachers had done, that holding back until September would not only hit disadvantaged children the hardest but would put all pupils at an international disadvantage.
Considering scientific evidence that children pose less risk of passing on coronavirus, the European Union has reported that 22 member states had already reopened schools and no increase of the incidence of the virus had been reported among children, families or staff. In Denmark, schools returned on 15th April and officials reported the first day without a Covid-related death two weeks ago. Similarly, in Austria, Germany, France, Switzerland, and Greece, schools have adopted a phased return of students throughout May. In Sweden, which has reported 160 fewer deaths per million of population than the UK and where lockdown restrictions were the most liberal in Europe, primary schools have remained open throughout the pandemic.
Looking to the future, the longer children in England remain outside educational settings, the wider the gap between the most affluent and the poorest pupils will grow. Likewise, we already have lower comparable educational attainment levels than many of those countries that have already re-opened schools and this gap will grow further if we continue to plough a different furrow.
The World Health Organisation’s coronavirus envoy, Dr David Nabarro, has said that, on balance, it is safe for children to start going back to school with a phased approach and strict safeguarding and hygiene rules.
In Leeds, local leaders in education are continuing to do their utmost to support an increase in the number of pupils in schools, perhaps not quite as the Government had intended from 1st June; nevertheless headteachers are doing what they feel is manageable. They know, as we do, that keeping children out of school much longer will setback social mobility for a generation.
In the months ahead, the teaching unions might come to realise that in failing to talk about the pressing needs of children during the pandemic, they’ve used up a significant amount of political capital and it’ll take some time to regain the trust of schools and academies.