conservativehome--2020-02-11--We still do not understand Spanish flu – so no wonder the danger posed by the coronavirus is unquant

We still do not understand Spanish flu – so no wonder the danger posed by the coronavirus is unquantifiable

Spanish flu was treated at first as a bit of a joke .
Nobody in May 1918 had the faintest idea it would end up killing more people than any other pandemic in human history .
As a recent survey of the literature says , The authors of the survey end by urging the world to “ never forget the warning ” posed by Spanish flu .
But one lesson of this earlier pandemic is that it can be strangely difficult , either while the disease is taking hold or even with the benefit of hindsight , to establish what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people were killed by Spanish flu .
The estimates range from 50 million to 100 million .
In Britain about 250,000 people died , in France 400,000 , in the United States over 500,000 , in Iran between 900,000 and 2,400,000 , in China between one and nine million , in India perhaps 17 million .
One ’ s senses are soon numbed by such statistics .
From August 1918 , the disease took on a new , more lethal form , but none of the powers fighting the First World War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wished to admit being weakened by it .
The British Prime Minister , David Lloyd George , went down with Spanish flu on 12th September 1918 , the day he received the freedom of the city of Manchester , where he had been born .
He was too ill to be moved , so for ten days was treated in a committee room in Manchester Town Hall , breathing with the help of a respirator , which he also required on the journey back to London .
The severity of his condition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to his valet , was concealed from the public , and in due course he made a full recovery .
We are inclined to expect medical science to be exact .
The doctor will tell us what the matter is .
But very often , no clear answer is forthcoming .
And this is true on a colossal scale with Spanish flu .
To this day , it is not clear where the disease started , but it was certainly not in Spain .
As a neutral power , Spain had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially as it seemed at first , though highly contagious , not very dangerous .
The case of the Spanish King , Alfonso XIII , was widely reported in the foreign press .
He recovered , but the illness became known as Spanish flu .
According to The National Geographic , Spanish flu may have originated in China : American scientists are inclined to trace the outbreak to Camp Funston , at Fort Riley in Kansas , where large drafts of troops assembled prior to departure for Europe , and where there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disease that was at least similar to Spanish flu , But as Mark Honigsbaum , author of Living With Enza : The Forgotten Story of Britain and the Great Flu Pandemic of 1918 , wrote in a hundredth anniversary piece for The Guardian : “ A rival theory , favoured by the British virologist John Oxford , is that the pandemic began at Etaples , a huge British military camp an hour south-west of Boulogne .
With accommodation for up to 100,000 soldiers , Etaples lay on a migratory bird flyway close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the necessary conditions for a spillover event : wild waterfowl , plus chickens and pigs , living in close proximity to men packed into airless barracks .
Etaples also had several hospitals where soldiers whose lungs had been compromised by mutagenic gases deployed on the battlefield were evacuated for treatment .
“ In the winter of 1917 , several hundred British soldiers collapsed with influenza-like symptoms and medics at Etaples recorded 156 deaths .
At the time , the epidemic was labelled ‘ purulent bronchitis ’ because of the yellow pus that oozed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at autopsy ( some medics thought it resembled the lung damage from phosgene gas ) .
“ Another prominent feature was cyanosis , a distinctive purple-blue discolouration of the lips , ears and cheeks , caused by the loss of oxygen to the heart .
Cyanosis was also a hallmark of the pneumonias associated with the Spanish flu – an observation that persuaded doctors writing in the Lancet in 1919 that it and purulent bronchitis had been ‘ fundamentally the same condition ’ .
” My great-grandfather , Alexander Ogilvie , was gassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the First World War , and evacuated , most likely via Etaples , blinded and unconscious to England , where he died of pneumonia on 30th October 1918 .
A curious feature of Spanish flu was that unlike other versions of the disease , which are most deadly for the old and for small children , it posed the greatest threat to healthy adults aged between 20 and 40 .
It is possible that older people had acquired a degree of immunity thanks to having caught earlier versions of flu .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ provoked an over-reaction of the immune system , known as a cytokine storm , so the stronger your immune system was , the worse the effects .
Yet another curiosity of Spanish flu is that it was at its most deadly in late summer and autumn , whereas winter is usually the worst time for flu .
The head reels at so much uncertainty .
Spanish flu defies understanding , and came to be seen as a sad but indistinct event about which not much needed to be said , compared to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No wonder the experts can not tell us what will happen with the coronavirus , but are profoundly worried about what could happen .
The NHS issues studiously calm advice about avoiding contact with other people if you have returned from Wuhan or Hubai Province in China in the last 14 days , and we wait to see how well the condition can be contained .

Spanish flu was treated at first as a bit of a joke. Nobody in May 1918 had the faintest idea it would end up killing more people than any other pandemic in human history.
As a recent survey of the literature says,
“Because of the initial perceived lack of severity of the illness and because of the Spanish sense of humour, the influenza was known popularly in Madrid as the ‘Soldado de Napoles’ (‘Naples Soldier’), which was the name of a popular song from a highly successful musical, La canción del olvido, which was playing at the same time at Madrid’s Teatro de la Zarzuela. The song was so popular that it was deemed to be ‘highly contagious’, like influenza.”
The authors of the survey end by urging the world to “never forget the warning” posed by Spanish flu. But one lesson of this earlier pandemic is that it can be strangely difficult, either while the disease is taking hold or even with the benefit of hindsight, to establish what is going on.
Nobody knows how many people were killed by Spanish flu. The estimates range from 50 million to 100 million. In Britain about 250,000 people died, in France 400,000, in the United States over 500,000, in Iran between 900,000 and 2,400,000, in China between one and nine million, in India perhaps 17 million.
One’s senses are soon numbed by such statistics. From August 1918, the disease took on a new, more lethal form, but none of the powers fighting the First World War, which continued until 11th November, wished to admit being weakened by it.
The British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, went down with Spanish flu on 12th September 1918, the day he received the freedom of the city of Manchester, where he had been born.
He was too ill to be moved, so for ten days was treated in a committee room in Manchester Town Hall, breathing with the help of a respirator, which he also required on the journey back to London. The severity of his condition, which was “touch and go” according to his valet, was concealed from the public, and in due course he made a full recovery.
We are inclined to expect medical science to be exact. The doctor will tell us what the matter is. But very often, no clear answer is forthcoming.
And this is true on a colossal scale with Spanish flu. To this day, it is not clear where the disease started, but it was certainly not in Spain.
As a neutral power, Spain had no need to hush up the epidemic, especially as it seemed at first, though highly contagious, not very dangerous. The case of the Spanish King, Alfonso XIII, was widely reported in the foreign press. He recovered, but the illness became known as Spanish flu.
According to The National Geographic, Spanish flu may have originated in China:
“Historian Mark Humphries of Canada’s Memorial University of Newfoundland says that newly unearthed records confirm that one of the side stories of the war—the mobilization of 96,000 Chinese labourers to work behind the British and French lines on World War I’s Western Front—may have been the source of the pandemic.”
American scientists are inclined to trace the outbreak to Camp Funston, at Fort Riley in Kansas, where large drafts of troops assembled prior to departure for Europe, and where there was certainly an outbreak in March 1918 of a disease that was at least similar to Spanish flu,
But as Mark Honigsbaum, author of Living With Enza: The Forgotten Story of Britain and the Great Flu Pandemic of 1918, wrote in a hundredth anniversary piece for The Guardian:
“A rival theory, favoured by the British virologist John Oxford, is that the pandemic began at Etaples, a huge British military camp an hour south-west of Boulogne. With accommodation for up to 100,000 soldiers, Etaples lay on a migratory bird flyway close to the Somme estuary and had all the necessary conditions for a spillover event: wild waterfowl, plus chickens and pigs, living in close proximity to men packed into airless barracks. Etaples also had several hospitals where soldiers whose lungs had been compromised by mutagenic gases deployed on the battlefield were evacuated for treatment. “In the winter of 1917, several hundred British soldiers collapsed with influenza-like symptoms and medics at Etaples recorded 156 deaths. At the time, the epidemic was labelled ‘purulent bronchitis’ because of the yellow pus that oozed from the larger airways of the lungs at autopsy (some medics thought it resembled the lung damage from phosgene gas). “Another prominent feature was cyanosis, a distinctive purple-blue discolouration of the lips, ears and cheeks, caused by the loss of oxygen to the heart. Cyanosis was also a hallmark of the pneumonias associated with the Spanish flu – an observation that persuaded doctors writing in the Lancet in 1919 that it and purulent bronchitis had been ‘fundamentally the same condition’.”
My great-grandfather, Alexander Ogilvie, was gassed on the Western Front shortly before the end of the First World War, and evacuated, most likely via Etaples, blinded and unconscious to England, where he died of pneumonia on 30th October 1918.
A curious feature of Spanish flu was that unlike other versions of the disease, which are most deadly for the old and for small children, it posed the greatest threat to healthy adults aged between 20 and 40.
It is possible that older people had acquired a degree of immunity thanks to having caught earlier versions of flu. It is also possible that Spanish flu provoked an over-reaction of the immune system, known as a cytokine storm, so the stronger your immune system was, the worse the effects.
Yet another curiosity of Spanish flu is that it was at its most deadly in late summer and autumn, whereas winter is usually the worst time for flu.
The head reels at so much uncertainty. Spanish flu defies understanding, and came to be seen as a sad but indistinct event about which not much needed to be said, compared to the endless studies of the actual fighting.
No wonder the experts cannot tell us what will happen with the coronavirus, but are profoundly worried about what could happen. The NHS issues studiously calm advice about avoiding contact with other people if you have returned from Wuhan or Hubai Province in China in the last 14 days, and we wait to see how well the condition can be contained.


conservativehome--2020-02-11--Stephen James: Why I have launched the Conservative Friends of Education

Stephen James is the Deputy Chairman Political & Campaigning for Folkestone and Hythe Conservative Association , a state school teacher , and the founder of Conservative Friends of Education .
Oh no !
Another ‘ Conservative Friends of… ’ I hear you cry .
But bear with me , this is important .
My profession is currently gripped by the left .
In fact , according to a poll by the Times Educational Supplement , only seven per cent of the teaching profession vote Conservative .
My personal experience reflects this figure as I am constantly being asked by colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education and be a Tory ?
” The fact that this question is being asked at all , shows the foothold that the left have amongst my profession .
That said , the answer I give is always the same : “ I believe in aspiration , opportunity and the transformative nature of education .
Conservative values offer those in bucket loads.
” A further catalyst for founding Conservative Friends of Education came when I was leading the General Election campaign for Damian Collins MP in Folkestone and Hythe .
During the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from known local Labour and Lib Dem Activists about me and my political beliefs .
The first one said that as a Tory , I am brainwashing children to all be Tories… The second complaint said that as a Tory , I am a fascist… therefore should not be teaching children .
Obviously , both are untrue , and I would never push my political beliefs on the children that I teach .
It also begs the question whether my more left-leaning colleagues received such complaints from them despite their obvious political beliefs… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t stoop so low .
Anyway , I figured that there must be other passionate Conservatives out there who have had similar experiences .
Thus , ‘ Conservative Friends of Education ’ was born .
I wanted to create a network to support each other and turn the tide of the left in education , as well as challenge the perception that you can not be a Tory and a teacher .
In the first 20 days of being operational we have received public support from a variety of political heavyweights such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bob Blackman , Robert Halfon , Penny Mordaunt , Jon Gullis ( former teacher ) , Aaron Bell , Rob Roberts , Andrew Lewer , Andy Carter , Lord Agnew , Marco Longhi , Henry Smith , Craig Williams , Ruth Edwards , Tom Tugendhat , Andrea Jenkyns , Damian Collins , and Ranil Jayawardena who have already publicly endorsed our core aim , which is to promote aspiration in our education system .
We have also been extremely lucky to receive the advice and support of two titans of the education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Selva Pankaj .
I am in awe of both of these men , who are also fantastic supporters of the Conservative Party .
I am looking forward to working with Ronel and Selva to bring aspiration to the front and centre of the political discourse on education .
Conservative Friends of Education is not a lobby group for policy .
It is a promotor / advocate / campaigner for our key Conservative values of aspiration , opportunity , and compassion .
As a party , being a broad church is one of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a weakness .
Education policy can be a battleground – selective vs. non-selective , faith vs. non faith , free schools vs academies vs state maintained… the list goes on .
So , I have made a conscious decision to avoid policy and promote our values and things that unite us .
We already have 50 members after only 20 days of being in operation .
This includes Nursery Group Leaders to Russell Group Professors .
All united in a belief in our core aims : • To offer support to members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting .
• To provide an environment for people employed in education , governors and supporters , who support the Conservative Party , to meet , discuss and campaign together .
• To promote , by way of conferences and other means , knowledge and understanding of education issues within the Conservative Party and in the country at large .
• To encourage close links between the Party and people employed in education , governors and supporters .
• To work closely with the Conservative Party organisation and Conservative Campaign Headquarters .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist with its campaigns .
• To encourage and support more individuals with a background in education to stand for election – both locally and nationally .
This year , Conservative Friends of Education will establish itself as a positive voice for Conservatives who work in education .
Bravely , we will be attending Teaching Union Conferences to stand proudly as Conservatives amongst the 93 % who didn ’ t vote for us .
If you know a silent Tory who works in education , let them know that they are not alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education .

Stephen James is the Deputy Chairman Political & Campaigning for Folkestone and Hythe Conservative Association, a state school teacher, and the founder of Conservative Friends of Education.
Oh no! Another ‘Conservative Friends of…’ I hear you cry. But bear with me, this is important.
My profession is currently gripped by the left. In fact, according to a poll by the Times Educational Supplement, only seven per cent of the teaching profession vote Conservative. My personal experience reflects this figure as I am constantly being asked by colleagues;
“How can you work in education and be a Tory?”
The fact that this question is being asked at all, shows the foothold that the left have amongst my profession. That said, the answer I give is always the same:
“I believe in aspiration, opportunity and the transformative nature of education. Conservative values offer those in bucket loads.”
A further catalyst for founding Conservative Friends of Education came when I was leading the General Election campaign for Damian Collins MP in Folkestone and Hythe. During the campaign, my headteacher received two unsubstantiated complaints from known local Labour and Lib Dem Activists about me and my political beliefs.
The first one said that as a Tory, I am brainwashing children to all be Tories…
The second complaint said that as a Tory, I am a fascist… therefore should not be teaching children.
Obviously, both are untrue, and I would never push my political beliefs on the children that I teach. It also begs the question whether my more left-leaning colleagues received such complaints from them despite their obvious political beliefs… I’m certain us Tories wouldn’t stoop so low.
Anyway, I figured that there must be other passionate Conservatives out there who have had similar experiences. Thus, ‘Conservative Friends of Education’ was born. I wanted to create a network to support each other and turn the tide of the left in education, as well as challenge the perception that you cannot be a Tory and a teacher.
In the first 20 days of being operational we have received public support from a variety of political heavyweights such as Michael Gove, Sir Graham Brady, Bob Blackman, Robert Halfon, Penny Mordaunt, Jon Gullis (former teacher), Aaron Bell, Rob Roberts, Andrew Lewer, Andy Carter, Lord Agnew, Marco Longhi, Henry Smith, Craig Williams, Ruth Edwards, Tom Tugendhat, Andrea Jenkyns, Damian Collins, and Ranil Jayawardena who have already publicly endorsed our core aim, which is to promote aspiration in our education system.
We have also been extremely lucky to receive the advice and support of two titans of the education sector, Ronel Lehmann, and Dr Selva Pankaj. I am in awe of both of these men, who are also fantastic supporters of the Conservative Party. I am looking forward to working with Ronel and Selva to bring aspiration to the front and centre of the political discourse on education.
Conservative Friends of Education is not a lobby group for policy. It is a promotor / advocate / campaigner for our key Conservative values of aspiration, opportunity, and compassion.
As a party, being a broad church is one of our greatest strengths, but it can also be a weakness. Education policy can be a battleground – selective vs. non-selective, faith vs. non faith, free schools vs academies vs state maintained… the list goes on. So, I have made a conscious decision to avoid policy and promote our values and things that unite us.
We already have 50 members after only 20 days of being in operation. This includes Nursery Group Leaders to Russell Group Professors. All united in a belief in our core aims:
To offer support to members who feel politically isolated in their educational setting.
To provide an environment for people employed in education, governors and supporters, who support the Conservative Party, to meet, discuss and campaign together.
To promote, by way of conferences and other means, knowledge and understanding of education issues within the Conservative Party and in the country at large.
To encourage close links between the Party and people employed in education, governors and supporters.
To work closely with the Conservative Party organisation and Conservative Campaign Headquarters.
To support the Conservative Party and to assist with its campaigns.
To encourage and support more individuals with a background in education to stand for election – both locally and nationally.
This year, Conservative Friends of Education will establish itself as a positive voice for Conservatives who work in education. Bravely, we will be attending Teaching Union Conferences to stand proudly as Conservatives amongst the 93% who didn’t vote for us.
If you know a silent Tory who works in education, let them know that they are not alone. Tell them about Conservative Friends of Education.


conservativehome--2020-02-12--A Mansion Tax. “What is really the problem with this?” asked the Conservative Chancellor

We ’ re only kidding .
In a sense .
No , Sajid Javid is not on the record as having asked what the problem is with a Mansion Tax .
Despite claims in the Daily Telegraph that one has “ been discussed on separate occasions in the past few weeks at the highest levels of the Treasury and No 10 ” .
But , yes , a Conservative Chancellor did say so .
The man in question being George Osborne – at least according to Matthew D ’ Ancona in In It Together , his account of the Coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this claim .
In his autobiography , For the Record , David Cameron writes gnomically that Osborne wanted “ a version of one ” .
What was going on ?
Cameron and Osborne and Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander – “ the Quad – were trying to agree a tax package that would balance the objectives of the two parties .
Osborne wanted to cut the top rate from 50p back to 40p : where Nigel Lawson had taken it , and where Labour had left it for most of its three terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2009 to create a political dividing line between his party and the Conservatives .
The Liberal Democrats had committed in their 2010 general election manifesto to a mansion tax of one per cent for properties worth £2 million or more .
So there were the makings of a deal here : a shift in taxation from income to property , with the top rate coming down to where Osborne wanted it to go and a Mansion Tax going to where Clegg ( or perhaps rather Vince Cable ) wanted it to go .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea ” , as D ’ Ancona puts it ; or , to use the former ’ s own words , “ it was something I found unpalatable ” .
The former Prime Minister was particularly worried by the political impact of a Mansion Tax in London and the South-East .
“ How are we going to get Boris re-elected ?
” he asked .
So it would be a pippin of irony were a Johnson premiership to introduce a Mansion Tax in his administration ’ s first budget .
We doubt very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story looks like a kite-flying exercise by the Treasury to see what Tory reaction would be .
( Harry Phibbs wrote on this site earlier this week about how the Telegraph is vigorously proving its independence by fighting back against the plan apparently being mulled its one-time columnist ) .
But maybe Cameron ’ s account gives a hint of where the Chancellor might decide to go .
“ After many lengthy discussions , ” he writes , “ the leading option became having two additional council tax bands with a percentage rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one for homes over £2.5 million and one for homes over £5 million ” .
The idea , he adds , “ has merit…there is a strong argument that in the UK they are under-taxed ” .
Current spending is tight .
The Government is distancing itself further from “ austerity ” – i.e : reductions in the rate of public spending .
Tax rises in “ the rate of income tax , VAT or National Insurance ” have been ruled out .
So Javid will be looking to find others – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first Budget of the political cycle if they can .
Cameron points out that council tax bands treat houses worth £500,000 and £5 million the same .
If the Government is to avoid tax hikes of this kind in future , it will need to be more ambitious with spending control than currently ; or revert to more printing or borrowing or both ; or else , as Ryan Bourne argued recently , act to raise the growth rate .
As it happens , it is reported this morning that Britain had “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of advanced nations last year ” – 1.4 per cent .
Not bad under current conditions .
But nothing like “ the historic 2.8 per cent growth rate that Sajid Javid aspires a return to , ” as Bourne put it .
So what happened to that earlier incarnation of the Mansion Tax ?
In a nutshell , Cameron saw it off .
The eventual bargain between the two parties was as follows : the top rate came down to 45p rather than 40p , and the Liberal Democrats got a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been another of their 2010 election signature policies .
And which Osborne and Cameron later presented as a solid Conservative achievement during the 2015 Tory election campaign .
Which ushered in the EU referendum .
And everything that has followed – including this .

We’re only kidding. In a sense. No, Sajid Javid is not on the record as having asked what the problem is with a Mansion Tax. Despite claims in the Daily Telegraph that one has “been discussed on separate occasions in the past few weeks at the highest levels of the Treasury and No 10”.
But, yes, a Conservative Chancellor did say so. The man in question being George Osborne – at least according to Matthew D’Ancona in In It Together, his account of the Coalition.
And there is further evidence for this claim. In his autobiography, For the Record, David Cameron writes gnomically that Osborne wanted “a version of one”. What was going on?
Cameron and Osborne and Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander – “the Quad – were trying to agree a tax package that would balance the objectives of the two parties.
Osborne wanted to cut the top rate from 50p back to 40p: where Nigel Lawson had taken it, and where Labour had left it for most of its three terms – until Gordon Brown hiked it in 2009 to create a political dividing line between his party and the Conservatives.
The Liberal Democrats had committed in their 2010 general election manifesto to a mansion tax of one per cent for properties worth £2 million or more.
So there were the makings of a deal here: a shift in taxation from income to property, with the top rate coming down to where Osborne wanted it to go and a Mansion Tax going to where Clegg (or perhaps rather Vince Cable) wanted it to go.
But Cameron was “appalled by the idea”, as D’Ancona puts it; or, to use the former’s own words, “it was something I found unpalatable”.
The former Prime Minister was particularly worried by the political impact of a Mansion Tax in London and the South-East. “How are we going to get Boris re-elected?” he asked.
So it would be a pippin of irony were a Johnson premiership to introduce a Mansion Tax in his administration’s first budget.
We doubt very much that this will happen. The story looks like a kite-flying exercise by the Treasury to see what Tory reaction would be. (Harry Phibbs wrote on this site earlier this week about how the Telegraph is vigorously proving its independence by fighting back against the plan apparently being mulled its one-time columnist).
But maybe Cameron’s account gives a hint of where the Chancellor might decide to go.
“After many lengthy discussions,” he writes, “the leading option became having two additional council tax bands with a percentage rate of the value of the house: one for homes over £2.5 million and one for homes over £5 million”. The idea, he adds, “has merit…there is a strong argument that in the UK they are under-taxed”.
Current spending is tight. The Government is distancing itself further from “austerity” – i.e: reductions in the rate of public spending. Tax rises in “the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance” have been ruled out. So Javid will be looking to find others – and Chancellors tend to hike taxes in the first Budget of the political cycle if they can.
Cameron points out that council tax bands treat houses worth £500,000 and £5 million the same. If the Government is to avoid tax hikes of this kind in future, it will need to be more ambitious with spending control than currently; or revert to more printing or borrowing or both; or else, as Ryan Bourne argued recently, act to raise the growth rate.
As it happens, it is reported this morning that Britain had “the third-fastest growing economy in the G7 group of advanced nations last year” – 1.4 per cent. Not bad under current conditions. But nothing like “the historic 2.8 per cent growth rate that Sajid Javid aspires a return to,” as Bourne put it.
So what happened to that earlier incarnation of the Mansion Tax? In a nutshell, Cameron saw it off. The eventual bargain between the two parties was as follows: the top rate came down to 45p rather than 40p, and the Liberal Democrats got a big increase in the personal allowance.
Which had been another of their 2010 election signature policies. And which Osborne and Cameron later presented as a solid Conservative achievement during the 2015 Tory election campaign. Which ushered in the EU referendum. And everything that has followed – including this.


conservativehome--2020-02-12--Robert Halfon: Beware, fellow MPs. Once we’ve left the Palace of Westminster, we may never return.

I write this article from the House of Commons Library , a beautiful place , with every kind of book and magazine to be found .
The library serves as a reminder of just how magnificent and extraordinary our Houses of Parliament really are .
In a few years , Parliamentarians will move out – Pexit – to an ‘ acting Parliament ’ based at Richmond House .
We are told that we will return once restorations of the Houses of Parliament are complete .
I am sure this is the honourable intention of all those involved – and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my biggest fear is that , once gone , MPs will never again set foot in the Palace of Westminster .
As with almost every public sector construction project ( witness HS2 ) the costs will be likely to substantially overrun .
If , for example , this happens during a recession , the public won ’ t be too pleased if MPs are spending money on new Pugin wallpaper , as opposed to hospitals or schools .
At this point , we will be told that for a fraction of the cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can be brought on a giant lorry from Scandinavia – shaped like a headlamp , walkie talkie , or a pickled cucumber and , how much better it will be to move in there , to a building that reflects the twenty-first-century and beyond .
I realise that I may sound slightly reactionary – which I am not by nature , may I add .
In fact , I live in a modern house that was literally brought to its spot on a lorry and plonked on the ground .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hard not to be .
I first came to the building when I was ten years old and decided to be an MP on that day .
It took thirty years to achieve my childhood dream .
I remember being amazed by Central Lobby and that the Houses of Parliament were made up of over one thousand rooms .
On Saturday , a good friend of mine , who has seen the ramshackle-state of the House of Commons basement and knows everything worth knowing about construction and building , said that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there was an unlimited budget and an unlimited timeline which , of course , is politically unpalatable .
When Pexit is done , we will find out after a few years if my friend is right .
Meanwhile , by the time we are asked to decamp , I will have had well over more than a decade here in this special place and for that I will always be very thankful .
A stronger Labour Leader is better for the Conservatives ?
– Discuss Is it such a terrible thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually be better for us Conservatives ?
Of course , a weak leader , subject to control by the far-left , might cement Labour in the eyes of the public as being the party for the metropolitan few , rather than the blue collar many .
It might even hasten a major split , with a new centre-left party emerging .
But would we be a better Conservative Party and a better Government as a result ?
An effective Labour leader would make the lives of Tories intolerable , but complacency impossible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or circumstance , Conservatives would have to up our game and be the very best we can be .
Tories would be a more effective movement because , if we fear the opposition , we would really come out fighting , presenting the case and argument to the public in a forceful and thoughtful way .
In my last ConservativeHome column , I wrote an article entitled , ‘ Only the paranoid survive ’ .
If you know or believe that every morning your opponent wants to politically slit your throat , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t get a chance .
If there is no one to worry about , you might as well have a lie in .
I am a regular customer of Amazon for many things including audible.com and my beloved Kindle , that rarely needs recharging and reads like a real book .
However , I have always felt a little uncomfortable hearing about alleged employment malpractice and the monopoly stranglehold the company now has on book shops and second-hand book collectors who have little choice but to use Amazon to sell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard James Bloodworth talk about working at Amazon ( interestingly , his book is actually sold on Amazon – to the company ’ s credit ) .
For this reason , it was good to see Amazon announce significant pay increases to employees at the end of 2018 .
The new advert by Amazon on television is possibly the most brilliant piece of advertisement I have seen for a long time .
It features employees talking about their work and offers anyone who wants one , a visit around the factory .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the viewer to the business .
It focuses on issues that people are concerned about – pay and conditions – rather than those of a more “ snowflakery ” kind .
Of course , if the visit is just some kind of Potemkin tour , then that is a different story .
But , if it is a genuine attempt to show a better side of Amazon , that is no bad thing .
All that remains is to ensure that the company does not have an unfair monopoly – something much harder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Amazon could be setting an example for many other big employers to follow .

Will Pexit mean Pexit?
I write this article from the House of Commons Library, a beautiful place, with every kind of book and magazine to be found. The library serves as a reminder of just how magnificent and extraordinary our Houses of Parliament really are.
In a few years, Parliamentarians will move out – Pexit – to an ‘acting Parliament’ based at Richmond House. We are told that we will return once restorations of the Houses of Parliament are complete.
I am sure this is the honourable intention of all those involved – and that they genuinely mean it; but, my biggest fear is that, once gone, MPs will never again set foot in the Palace of Westminster.
As with almost every public sector construction project (witness HS2) the costs will be likely to substantially overrun. If, for example, this happens during a recession, the public won’t be too pleased if MPs are spending money on new Pugin wallpaper, as opposed to hospitals or schools.
At this point, we will be told that for a fraction of the cost, there is a shiny new building that can be brought on a giant lorry from Scandinavia – shaped like a headlamp, walkie talkie, or a pickled cucumber and, how much better it will be to move in there, to a building that reflects the twenty-first-century and beyond.
I realise that I may sound slightly reactionary – which I am not by nature, may I add. In fact, I live in a modern house that was literally brought to its spot on a lorry and plonked on the ground.
However, when it comes to Parliament, it is hard not to be. I first came to the building when I was ten years old and decided to be an MP on that day. It took thirty years to achieve my childhood dream. I remember being amazed by Central Lobby and that the Houses of Parliament were made up of over one thousand rooms.
On Saturday, a good friend of mine, who has seen the ramshackle-state of the House of Commons basement and knows everything worth knowing about construction and building, said that the only way real restoration would work was if there was an unlimited budget and an unlimited timeline which, of course, is politically unpalatable.
When Pexit is done, we will find out after a few years if my friend is right. Meanwhile, by the time we are asked to decamp, I will have had well over more than a decade here in this special place and for that I will always be very thankful.
– – – – – – – – – –
A stronger Labour Leader is better for the Conservatives? – Discuss
Is it such a terrible thing to argue that a stronger Labour leader might actually be better for us Conservatives? Of course, a weak leader, subject to control by the far-left, might cement Labour in the eyes of the public as being the party for the metropolitan few, rather than the blue collar many. It might even hasten a major split, with a new centre-left party emerging.
But would we be a better Conservative Party and a better Government as a result?
An effective Labour leader would make the lives of Tories intolerable, but complacency impossible. It would mean that whatever the occasion or circumstance, Conservatives would have to up our game and be the very best we can be. Tories would be a more effective movement because, if we fear the opposition, we would really come out fighting, presenting the case and argument to the public in a forceful and thoughtful way.
In my last ConservativeHome column, I wrote an article entitled, ‘Only the paranoid survive’. If you know or believe that every morning your opponent wants to politically slit your throat, you will be up even earlier making sure he doesn’t get a chance. If there is no one to worry about, you might as well have a lie in.
Amazonian adverts
I am a regular customer of Amazon for many things including audible.com and my beloved Kindle, that rarely needs recharging and reads like a real book.
However, I have always felt a little uncomfortable hearing about alleged employment malpractice and the monopoly stranglehold the company now has on book shops and second-hand book collectors who have little choice but to use Amazon to sell their wares.
I have read and heard James Bloodworth talk about working at Amazon (interestingly, his book is actually sold on Amazon – to the company’s credit). For this reason, it was good to see Amazon announce significant pay increases to employees at the end of 2018.
The new advert by Amazon on television is possibly the most brilliant piece of advertisement I have seen for a long time. It features employees talking about their work and offers anyone who wants one, a visit around the factory.
This commercial is incredibly clever, immediately warming the viewer to the business. It focuses on issues that people are concerned about – pay and conditions – rather than those of a more “snowflakery” kind.
Of course, if the visit is just some kind of Potemkin tour, then that is a different story. But, if it is a genuine attempt to show a better side of Amazon, that is no bad thing.
All that remains is to ensure that the company does not have an unfair monopoly – something much harder to achieve. With this advert however, Amazon could be setting an example for many other big employers to follow.


conservativehome--2020-02-12--Tony Devenish: We need more weirdos and misfits in local government too

Tony Devenish is a member of the London Assembly for West Central .
As the Prime Minister has rightly recognised , the Conservative Party needs to change its priorities and approach in order to deliver for our new and unique voter base .
It is also clear that the way government is run will change , with Dominic Cummings ’ typically idiosyncratic call for “ assorted misfits and weirdos ” to work in the heart of government suggesting that the civil service could transform dramatically .
This is welcome , but Cummings need not stop at the civil service .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues in local government as misfits or indeed weirdos , but there is no doubt that the lower levels of government could be used more effectively to help the Prime Minister deliver his exciting domestic agenda .
Here are just three examples of how local government could make a real difference : I have been a local councillor for 14 years and a London Assembly Member for four , and throughout this time , law and order issues have dominated my postbag .
Home Secretary , Priti Patel , and Policing Minister , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognise that we need to step-up policing across the country and deliver this change quickly .
However , police numbers alone aren ’ t enough ; these officers need to be deployed in the right way .
Politicians and even senior police officers are often too slow to recognise what many of my residents see very clearly : that visible policing is immensely important and having bobbies on the beat really does deter crime .
Police technology certainly has a role in detecting crime hotspots , but local councillors know their patches better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work together , but we need to strengthen this link , ensure that local councillors play an elevated role in expanding neighbourhood policing , and , crucially , help to get police officers working in the right areas .
Local government can also help the police service to recruit and retain special constables .
It is no secret that specials have somewhat withered on the vine recently , which is deeply regrettable at a time when they could be used to step up policing in preparation for the arrival of new officers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recruiting a much higher number of specials and , crucially , ensure that they are used in a way which improves retention ( the days of specials just being used to control crowds at football matches should be left in the past ) .
Again , local councillors should be utilised to not only get specials working in the right areas , but also help to find local opportunities to up-skill them in order to incentivise them to stay .
Conservative governments over the past ten years have made huge strides forward when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building numbers doubling since Labour ’ s Great Recession .
But we need to go much further , and good , innovative local government will be absolutely key to getting more homes built .
Take the Greater London Authority ( GLA ) as an example .
There is enormous potential to get more homes built on public sector land – potential which Mayor Sadiq Khan has entirely failed to realise .
57 percent of disposable NHS land is in the capital , but there is just one NHS-GLA project underway with a tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Met Police land , no new homes were started in the 2018/19 financial year , and just 9 in 2017/18 .
Transport for London ( TfL ) has a property portfolio that is 16 times the size of Hyde Park , and the Mayor rightly had an ambitious target to build 10,000 on this land by 2021 , yet in the first three years of his mayoralty he started just 322 units .
In order to spread home ownership , the Government must give local government the support and freedom it needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain unafraid to use all of the tools at its disposal to spur lethargic local administrations like Sadiq Khan ’ s GLA into action .
My own mother turns 90 next month ( Happy Birthday Mum ! )
, so I really do personally feel how important sorting out our social care system is .
It would be impossible to put forward a comprehensive solution in an 850-word article , but I would just urge the Government to ensure that local councils are closely involved with the development of a new social care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are on the front line when it comes to social care , and really do understand the issues at hand better than anyone .
As Conservatives , we fundamentally believe in local government and have a great track record of pushing power downwards and outwards .
As our party leads the country into an exciting new era , local government needs to play a key role in meeting the challenges of the 2020s .

Tony Devenish is a member of the London Assembly for West Central.
As the Prime Minister has rightly recognised, the Conservative Party needs to change its priorities and approach in order to deliver for our new and unique voter base.
It is also clear that the way government is run will change, with Dominic Cummings’ typically idiosyncratic call for “assorted misfits and weirdos” to work in the heart of government suggesting that the civil service could transform dramatically. This is welcome, but Cummings need not stop at the civil service. I would never dream of labelling my colleagues in local government as misfits or indeed weirdos, but there is no doubt that the lower levels of government could be used more effectively to help the Prime Minister deliver his exciting domestic agenda.
Here are just three examples of how local government could make a real difference:
Recruiting 20,000 extra police officers
I have been a local councillor for 14 years and a London Assembly Member for four, and throughout this time, law and order issues have dominated my postbag. Home Secretary, Priti Patel, and Policing Minister, Kit Malthouse, are entirely right to recognise that we need to step-up policing across the country and deliver this change quickly.
However, police numbers alone aren’t enough; these officers need to be deployed in the right way. Politicians and even senior police officers are often too slow to recognise what many of my residents see very clearly: that visible policing is immensely important and having bobbies on the beat really does deter crime. Police technology certainly has a role in detecting crime hotspots, but local councillors know their patches better than anyone. Officers and councillors already work together, but we need to strengthen this link, ensure that local councillors play an elevated role in expanding neighbourhood policing, and, crucially, help to get police officers working in the right areas.
Local government can also help the police service to recruit and retain special constables. It is no secret that specials have somewhat withered on the vine recently, which is deeply regrettable at a time when they could be used to step up policing in preparation for the arrival of new officers. The Government really needs to look at recruiting a much higher number of specials and, crucially, ensure that they are used in a way which improves retention (the days of specials just being used to control crowds at football matches should be left in the past). Again, local councillors should be utilised to not only get specials working in the right areas, but also help to find local opportunities to up-skill them in order to incentivise them to stay.
Building more homes
Conservative governments over the past ten years have made huge strides forward when it comes to house building, with building numbers doubling since Labour’s Great Recession. But we need to go much further, and good, innovative local government will be absolutely key to getting more homes built.
Take the Greater London Authority (GLA) as an example. There is enormous potential to get more homes built on public sector land – potential which Mayor Sadiq Khan has entirely failed to realise. 57 percent of disposable NHS land is in the capital, but there is just one NHS-GLA project underway with a tiny number of starts on this land. On Met Police land, no new homes were started in the 2018/19 financial year, and just 9 in 2017/18. Transport for London (TfL) has a property portfolio that is 16 times the size of Hyde Park, and the Mayor rightly had an ambitious target to build 10,000 on this land by 2021, yet in the first three years of his mayoralty he started just 322 units.
In order to spread home ownership, the Government must give local government the support and freedom it needs to get spades in the ground and remain unafraid to use all of the tools at its disposal to spur lethargic local administrations like Sadiq Khan’s GLA into action.
Social care
My own mother turns 90 next month (Happy Birthday Mum!), so I really do personally feel how important sorting out our social care system is. It would be impossible to put forward a comprehensive solution in an 850-word article, but I would just urge the Government to ensure that local councils are closely involved with the development of a new social care model. After all, local councils are on the front line when it comes to social care, and really do understand the issues at hand better than anyone.
As Conservatives, we fundamentally believe in local government and have a great track record of pushing power downwards and outwards. As our party leads the country into an exciting new era, local government needs to play a key role in meeting the challenges of the 2020s.


conservativehome--2020-02-12--RESHUFFLE LIVE BLOG: SHARMA AND DOWDEN LEAD THE PROMOTIONS IN “MODEST” CHANGES. TREVELYAN “TO DFID”.

There is not expected to be a reduction in the number of female members of Cabinet ( whether that includes @ @ @ @ @ ” isn ’ t clear ) .
Anne-Marie Trevelyan , Suella Braverman and Gillian Keegan @ @ @ @ @ .
Trevelyan was appointed to Defence as a Minister of State last summer , and @ @ @ @ @ the Armed Forces .
Trevelyan is set to become International Development Secretary according to the @ @ @ @ @ Minister wants this reshuffle to set the foundations for Government now and in the future @ @ @ @ @ a generation of talent that will be promoted further in the coming years .
He @ @ @ @ @ have worked hard to deliver on this Government ’ s priorities to level up the @ @ @ @ @ change people voted for last year .
”

5.30pm
It looks as if the reshuffle has petered out, so we’re going to wrap up this live blog. To conclude, here is the full list of the membership of the new Johnson Cabinet (image by Political Intelligence):
Prime Minister – Boris Johnson
– Boris Johnson Chancellor – Rishi Sunak
– Rishi Sunak Home Secretary – Priti Patel
– Priti Patel Foreign Secretary – Dominic Raab
– Dominic Raab Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – Michael Gove
– Michael Gove Health Secretary – Matt Hancock
– Matt Hancock Defence Secretary – Ben Wallace
– Ben Wallace International Trade Secretary – Liz Truss
– Liz Truss Environment Secretary – George Eustice
– George Eustice Education Secretary – Gavin Williamson
– Gavin Williamson Culture Secretary – Oliver Dowden
– Oliver Dowden Business Secretary – Alok Sharma
– Alok Sharma MHCLG Secretary – Robert Jenrick
– Robert Jenrick Work & Pensions Secretary – Thérèse Coffey
– Thérèse Coffey Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor – Robert Buckland
– Robert Buckland International Development Secretary – Anne-Marie Trevelyan
– Anne-Marie Trevelyan Transport Secretary – Grant Shapps
– Grant Shapps Welsh Secretary – Simon Hart
– Simon Hart Scottish Secretary – Alister Jack
– Alister Jack Northern Irish Secretary – Brandon Lewis
– Brandon Lewis Attorney General – Suella Braverman
– Suella Braverman Chief Secretary to the Treasury – Stephen Barclay
– Stephen Barclay Party Chairman – Amanda Milling
– Amanda Milling Leader of the House of Commons – Jacob Rees-Mogg
– Jacob Rees-Mogg Chief Whip – Mark Spencer
– Mark Spencer Leader of the House of Lords – Baroness Evans
4.30pm
Lord Callanan is now Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Gillian Keegan has been appointed a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Education.
3.30pm
No more announcements – the Guardian suggests the reshuffle is “running out of steam” – but an interesting observation on the new Cabinet courtesy of the Institute for Government:
“…much of the cabinet already has experience of sitting around the table. Only three full members – Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Amanda Milling and George Eustice – and Suella Braverman, the new attorney general who attends cabinet, have not been around the table before.”
This is a useful counterpoint to the suggestion that the Prime Minister is rewarding loyalty at the expense of experience – and coming from the IfG, it is presented in a very handsome graphic! More on their blog.
2.30pm
After a few hours of radio silence there has been a bumper crop of announcements. These are all continuity posts, including Nick Gibb continuing his extraordinary stint as Schools Minister.
But whilst his staying put will be no surprise, some of the other names might be – Jesse Norman, for example, remains where is is despite having been elevated to the Privy Council on Wednesday.
Commons:
Rt Hon Jesse Norman remains as Financial Secretary to the Treasury
Lucy Frazer QC remains as a Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice
Rt Hon Nick Gibb remains as a Minister of State in the Department for Education
Justin Tomlinson remains as a Minister of State in the Department for Work and Pensions
John Glen remains as Economic Secretary to the Treasury
Nadhim Zahawi remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
David TC Davies remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Wales Office and as an Assistant Government Whip
Johnny Mercer remains as a joint Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office and in the Ministry of Defence.
James Heappey remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defence
Rebecca Pow remains a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Jo Churchill remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department of Health and Social Care
Nadine Dorries remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department of Health and Social Care
Kevin Foster remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Home Office
Luke Hall remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Graham Stuart remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for International Trade
Mims Davies remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions
Guy Opperman remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions
Will Quince remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions
Lords:
Rt Hon Earl Howe CBE remains as a Minister of State (Deputy Leader of the House of Lords)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon remains as a joint Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in the Department for International Development
Baroness Goldie DL remains as a Minister of State in the Ministry of Defence
Baroness Barran MBE remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Lord Gardiner of Kimble remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Baroness Vere of Norbiton remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Transport
Baroness Stedman-Scott OBE remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions
2.00pm
Another dimension to the reshuffle, specifically the dismissal of Sajid Javid over his refusal to allow Downing Street to annex his advisers, is to what extent the Prime Minister’s attitude reflects strength versus hinting at a brittle fragility which may become more significant once the Government inevitably leaves its current imperial honeymoon.
Making the former case, Stephen Bush of the New Statesman argues that Boris Johnson is quite possibly the most powerful Prime Minister in history, benefiting from a ‘unipolar moment’ which has seen Labour reduced to impotence whilst simultaneously forcing many of Johnson’s opponents out of the Conservative Party and handing him a huge Commons majority.
In this view, the abolition of the ‘Imperial Treasury’ is a consolidation of that strength, burying the Blair-Brown diarchy and Cameron-Osborne alliance in favour of an operation effectively run directly from Downing Street.
The alternative view, put out by Johnson’s critics, spins this quite differently. In this reading, Johnson is actually mimicking the pattern best set out by Hannah Arendt in her seminal book, The Origins of Totalitarianism:
“Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.”
Suffice to say there is more than a whiff of #FBPE hysteria about comparisons between the current Government and a dictatorship. But there is a grain of truth in the idea that prioritising loyalty to the extent that Johnson did yesterday is a sign of fragility. A Prime Minister at the height of his powers, the argument runs, ought to feel secure enough to bring “first-rate talents” to the table, even if they aren’t long-standing loyalists.
A third option is that Johnson is gathering his loyalists to him because he intends to try and drive through a programme which will deeply divide the Conservative Party. With the Government being coy about the future of its fiscal rules, and the recent kite-flying over swingeing tax increases, this probably can’t be ruled out.
1.00pm
There has been a slowdown in announcements, leaving commentators to pick through the aftermath of yesterday’s events. One thing the Prime Minister is being criticised for is the increased proportion of privately-educated ministers in his new Cabinet. According to the Independent, “nearly two-thirds of his top team having attended a fee-paying school.”
This follows criticisms that it also sports fewer female and ethnic minority members, also in each case the total has only fallen by one, despite Johnson’s promise to ‘set the foundations‘ for a gender-balanced Cabinet.
12pm
Amanda Solloway MP, who regained her seat at the general election, is now a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Victoria Prentis has been appointed a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Lord Agnew, who departs the DfE after having apparently developed a ‘divisive’ reputation, becomes a joint Minister of State in the Cabinet Office and in Her Majesty’s Treasury.
11am
Henry Hill reporting:
Rachel Maclean has been appointed as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Transport.
Nigel Huddleston is now a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and an Assistant Government Whip.
Lord True – who led the Government’s attempt to filibuster the anti-no deal legislation in the last Parliament – becomes a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office.
Baroness Berridge becomes Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Education and a Baroness in Waiting.
Friday February 14
7am
Paul Goodman reporting:
Jake Berry has turned down a move to the Foreign Office, which would apparently have involved the loss of his present right to attend Cabinet – see above, where he refers to the family commitments that arise from having three young children under three. He is one of the former backbench band of Johnson True Believers.
Paul Scully moves to become an Under-Secretary of State for Business; he keeps responsibility for London as this spring’s Mayoral election approaches.
James Duddridge is back in government, at the same level, at the Foreign Office and International Development. He was at the time of the EU referendum the sole pro-Leave Minister in the former department.
– – –
20.00
Appointments coming thick and fast now.
Stuart Andrew becomes Deputy Chief Whip.
Marcus Jones is back in government as a senior whip.
Brexiteering Simon Clarke promoted to be Minister of State at HCLG.
Michelle Donelan up a rank to Minister of State at Education.
Caroline Dinenage not up but sideways to DCMS (as a Minister of State).
The able and combative Greg Hands is back in government in his old department at Trade.
Chris Philp from Justice to the Home Office as an Under-Secretary.
Kemi Badenoch from Education to the Treasury at the same level.
Kelly Tolhurst from Business to Transport at the same level.
Wendy Morton from Justice to the Foreign Office & Dfid.
19.00
Amanda Milling, the new Party Chairman, is a long-time Johnson backer and a very senior Whip indeed, until today (Deputy). That’s an irresistable combination for promotion under this dispensation. Downing Street now has one Co-Party Chairman who will work seamlessly with the other: Ben Elliott. Her presence also helps it to meet its commitment, made yesterday, of keeping the number of women who sit around the Cabinet table at least constant.
Zac Goldsmith to be a Minister covering three departments in the Lords: Foreign Office, DfID and Defra.
Nigel Adams to cover the first two of those Departments from the Commons (with Cleverly).
18.30
ConHome is told that while Gove won’t be running an enlarged Prime Minister’s Office, he will, with Dowden’s departure from the Cabinet Office, be taking on the latter’s responsibilities. Within that office, Chloe Smith will continue to have responsibilities for the constitution – the Daily Telegraph recently reported that she is now seen within government as an expert on it – but Gove will also hold them at his higher level. We recommended that he do so in the wake of December’s election: “the obvious move is to make him Secretary of State for the Constitution, leading the media fightback against the SNP, forming policy for the UK as a whole and perhaps continuing working out of the Cabinet Office.”
Like Mordaunt, Brokenshire gets another bite at the Ministerial cherry, returning to the Home Office.
Quin is another Whips Office graduate and well suited in due course to a Trade or Treasury role. Whateley is poised to grapple with social care, and looks earmarked for Cabinet in the future. Walker is spoken of as an unflappable Minister with a solid grasp of his brief.
17.30
There is a mass of less senior appointments coming in.
James Cleverly is off to the Foreign Office as a Minister of State with a characteristically stylish tweet. It doesn’t looks as though he will continue to attend Cabinet. He will also be a DfID Minister – but that’s a continuation of present practice, not part of a radical restructuring.
Javid has emerged to make a statement about his departure. “I don’t believe any self-respecting Minister would accept such conditions”
Penny Mordaunt is back but not at full Cabinet level: she becomes Paymaster General.
Amanda Milling, former Deputy Chief Whip, is to be Minister without Portfolio and a Cabinet member.
Mark Spencer remains Chief Whip.
Chris Pincher, a former Deputy Chief Whip, to Housing (yet another change in the post).
Andrew Stephenson, another former senior Whip, to Transport. Never mind who the Prime Minister is: whips flourish like green bay trees.
And please note: Ben Wallace endures at Defence.
16.00
Tory backbenchers and Johnny Mercer have a view on legacy issues and veterans. Sinn Fein and Irish nationalists another. The DUP has its own take. And now we have Ireland’s election result, plus the rumpus over Julian Smith’s sacking.
So no pressure for the genial Lewis – who defies predictions that he would be sacked today, not promoted. His present use as a go-to man for media interviews was always likely be a better indicator of his future than his past clash with Johnson over anti-Muslim hatred.
Steve Barclay slots into the vacant Chief Secretary post. (At one stage, he was a pro-Leave Minister working at the Treasury Minister under Philip Hammond; and before that, the only pro-Brexit MP in the Whip’s Office. So he’s up for a challenge.
And Jacob-Rees Mogg survives that Grenfell quote to stay on as Leader of the House.
15.00
Watch out, Lady Hale – and your like. Braverman is coming for you. Here she is on ConHome less than a month ago : “Our Parliament must retrieve power ceded to another place – the courts. For too long, the Diceyan notion of parliamentary supremacy has come under threat.” Johnson/Cummings is limbering up for major constitutional change: a rebalancing of the relationship between Parliament and the Courts, presumably after the Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission has reported.
The clear-out of SpAds continues. Peter Cardwell, Robert Buckland’s media SpAd, who formerly did the same job for James Brokenshire, is going. (And unlike the Chancellor, the Justice Secretary is staying.)
And George Eustice goes to Defra. It’s yet another reshuffle story success for the Times but, more importantly, an important signal in the policy balance between environmentalists and farmers. A source tells ConHome: “Zac would have been a full-on green appointment. The Chief Whip a full-on NFU appointment. Eustice strikes a balance.” Our take is that the moderate Eustice, a farmer, a one-time pro-EEA Leaver and yet another Minister who quit over Brexit, signals a tilt towards protection in the overall protection-free trade policy balance.
14.00
Anne-Marie Trevelyan – Defence Minister, one-time resigner over Brexit and former Vote Leaver – becomes International Development Secretary (again as tweeted yesterday by the Times).
Suella Braverman is in Downing Street.
Liz Truss survives at Trade, as foreshadowed by the Prime Minister name-checking her frequently during a speech last week, and Matt Hancock stays at Health.
And in the least surprising promotion of the shuffle, Oliver Dowden joins the other two legs of a pro-Johnson stool (Sunak and Robert Jenrick) as a full member of the Cabinet, becoming Culture Secretary.
13.00
As The Times tweeted yesterday evening , Alok Sharma is appointed Business Secretary. This is a big promotion for the former International Development Secretary, who is rated in Downing Street as a purposeful, non self-promoting and bright loyalist. To him will now fall the responsibility of charting a course for Government business and science policy post-Brexit.
The Javid SpAd row seems to have been linked to plans for an expanded Number Ten operation – i.e: a bigger Prime Minister’s department (with Michael Gove at the wheel). Javid will have seen what this meant for his own team, and recalled the rate of his former SpAd Sonia Khan – fired by Cummings last year, in a precursor to today’s events. He was clearly unwilling to live with the nickname “Chino” – Chancellor in Name Only.
12.00
We warned on Monday morning as follows: “There is a question mark over Javid’s future. Relations between some of his Special Advisers and some in Number Ten are poisonous. The Chancellor has already seen one of his SpAds fired (Sonia Khan). The Prime Minister may push to dismiss at least two more – Mats Person and Sam Coates. Which Javid would resist. This one may not end well.” And it hasn’t.
To say that this development throws the shuffle off course is a statement of the obvious. Rishi Sunak to the Treasury and a new Chief Secretary to replace him?
This is a competence-and-loyalty clash in spades. The relationship in question isn’t so much that between Johnson and Javid as between Downing Street, for which read Cummings, and the Chancellor’s team, for which read his SpAds above (and others). The briefing and sniping were mutually poisonous. The Prime Minister has a comfortable majority and no real Opposition from Labour. And his most strident Tory critics left the Commons in December: Hammond, Gauke, Stewart, Rudd. But now there is a new potential leader of the internal opposition: Javid.
11.30 am
Some of the commentary on Smith’s sacking is over-stressing policy factors (the “legacy issues”) at the expense of personal ones.
The main lesson of his firing is: this is shaping up to be the Loyalty Shuffle. Smith was seen to be briefing against Johnson and his Brexit policy pre-election. Leadsom is a former leadership rival. Cox was felt to be not fully on board. Ghani was a Hunt supporter last year.
Competence is important to Number Ten – which is why Sharma, Dowden and Trevelyan are set to be promoted. But it must come with a personal commitment to the Prime Minister.
And loyalty is not enough on its own. Like Johnson, Villiers is one of the original senior Vote Leavers. But Downing Street sources claim that she “needed to have her hand held” and, while not wanting Ministers to grandstand in the media, say that she took the opposite to an extreme.
There’s no suggestion that Skidmore isn’t competent, but his move suggests that Downing Street wants a new broom to deal with Universities and science policy, which is of special interest to Dominic Cummings.
Javid, Raab, Patel and Gove – the most senior four Ministers – are in Downing Street. None will move.
10.30am
Cox writes a farewell letter that balances i) making it clear that he hasn’t gone willingly with ii) statements of future loyalty and iii) a tribute to Brexit and Johnson’s leadership of the project.
Here’s a surprise. Nus Ghani, tipped for promotion as HS2 Minister, has been sacked. She was a Jeremy Hunt supporter in last year’s leadership election.
Michael Ellis, the Solicitor-General, is taking Commons questions in the absence of an Attorney-General.
George Freeman, with his puppyish energy and passion for ideas, is out from the Transport Department. “On my bike,” he tweets.
A former Minister in that department, currently at the Treasury, was sworn into the Privy Council yesterday. Is a promotion coming today for Jesse Norman?
10am
Leadsom is out – she praises her team, “ looks forwards to focusing on my constituents and on my 20+ year campaign to see every baby get the best start in life” – and takes a parting shot at the Prime Minister over gender equality
So is McVey – who makes no pretence about going willingly: “ I’m very sorry to be relieved of my duties as Housing Minister.”
And so is Chris Skidmore, the Universities Minister, who departs with aplomb.
If the number of women in and attending Cabinet is to remain constant, as Number Ten was briefing yesterday, that means three more will later be promoted to it – if Villiers has indeed gone too.
Cox is out – and questions to the Attorney-General will take place in the Commons Chamber in less than half and hour. Who will be at the despatch box on the Government’s behalf?
The Prime Minister has left the building – the Palace of Westminster, that is. He’s gone by car to Downing Street. The sackings are over and the promotions are set to begin.
Wednesday February 12
9am
Paul Goodman reporting:
The stage is set. The Prime Minister has been meeting Ministers to sack them in his Commons office. He will move to Downing Street mid-morning. He will promote and appoint other Ministers from there: these will walk into Number Ten in front of the cameras. Repeat until close of play late this afternoon.
Julian Smith is sacked.
Geoffrey Cox, Andrea Leadsom and Theresa Villiers are also reported to have gone in to Johnson’s office – which would means that they will all be fired too.
There is a row about whether Smith kept Downing Street informed of his approach to the treatment of Northern Ireland veterans. Sources there claim he didn’t keep them in the loop; he says that he did. But this dismissal is ultimately about loyalty to Johnson: the Cummings group within Number Ten, and not least the Prime Minister himself, believe that Smith worked and briefed against the Brexit policy pre-election.
What does Smith’s sacking mean for the veterans policy itself? Some will see it as a signal that Johnson is prepared to row back from the settlement announced in January on the so-called “legacy” issues. This is always a flammable issue – especially given support for veterans in the Commons, the views of Northern Ireland Unionists and the stance of Sinn Fein, now the biggest party in the Dail following Ireland’s election.
– – –
Wednesday February 12
23.00
Paul Goodman reporting:


conservativehome--2020-02-12--Hunt is partly judging his own legacy. But the Government can still expect him to provide rigorous c

Hunt is partly judging his own legacy. But the Government can still expect him to provide rigorous challenge.

Some eyebrows have been raised at Jeremy Hunt ’ s election as Chairman of the Health and Social Care Select Committee .
Jess Phillips , the Labour MP who was briefly a leadership contender for her Party , complains : “ I have no idea how Jeremy Hunt , newly elected health and social care select committee chair , can properly scrutinise the Government on health policy and practice when much of it will have been his doing.
” She has a point .
What if Michael Gove was to produce a report on how free schools are going ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deliver his assessment on whether Universal Credit has proved a worthwhile reform ?
Perhaps it would help us , as Conservatives , to empathise with such objections if we imagine the howls of derision from our side if it were Labour politicians invited to mark their own homework .
Supposing Gorden Brown was asked to deliver the verdict on whether or not the PFI schemes he had introduced had been justified ?
Or Tony Blair had been chosen to give a balanced and rigorous judgment on Iraq War ?
All these individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but lack credibility when it comes to impartiality .
When commercial interests are involved , there is sometimes a requirement for “ gardening leave ” – for instance , in banking – before an employee can work elsewhere .
This is to allow a few months to pass and thus allow their secret inside knowledge of an organsation to be less sensitive .
The question of money doesn ’ t really arise in this case .
Select Committee chairmen do get paid an extra £16,000 , on top of their Parliamentary salaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this consideration will not be at the forefront of his mind .
On the other hand , any conflict of interest does tend to erode over time .
Hunt has already had a year of “ gardening leave ” as Foreign Secretary .
Then another six months as a backbencher .
He ceased being Health Secretary in July 2018 .
Given the glacial pace of change in the public sector , it is true that he can expect to examine the consequences of his own decisions .
For the Government to succeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Clearly , Labour and the Lib Dems are unable to provide this at present , with their leadership vacancies .
Even the Scottish Nationalists are a bit distracted at the moment .
So where will the real opposition come from ?
I wrote on Monday about the “ Tory press ” rising to the challenge .
Dominic Cummings is doing his best to ensure a certain rigour in proceedings .
But they can ’ t do it all .
Conservative MPs must also step up to the plate .
Select Committees are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this to be done in a serious way .
While the concern raised by Phillips and others has merit , so does the counter point that former Ministers have the advantage of experience .
A Minister would know where the bodies are buried – as he would be among those that buried them .
Naturally enough , Hunt argued that his experience is a plus .
In his candidate ’ s statement he said : “ Too often NHS delivery doesn ’ t match the high expectations we place on it .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lasting change for the service we all care so deeply about .
I was the longest serving Health Secretary , and this experience of doing the job for so long is what makes me best placed to ask the searching questions that will truly hold the Government to account .
Too often party politics prevents us from having the right debates about the NHS .
Throughout my career I have always tried to minimise this and focus on what matters.
” The electoral system for select committee chairmanships prevents it being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allocated to Labour – Work and Pensions , for example .
So only Labour MPs could stand .
For others , only Conservative MPs can stand .
But all MPs can vote , by secret ballot .
Hunt ’ s only rival was another Conservative MP – Anne Marie Morris .
Hunt was elected with 433 votes to 116 for Morris .
Hunt ’ s sponsors included the Labour MPs Chris Bryant and Rushanara Ali .
Morris ’ s included the Labour MPs Meg Hillier and David Lammy .
Then everyone went off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t perfect but I don ’ t see that banning former Ministers from standing would improve it .
Anyway , if the Government did hope that Hunt will be a patsy , his interview with the Health Service Journal will have helped to disoblige them of such notions .
Asked about his successor Matt Hancock , Hunt replies : ” Matt is doing exactly the right thing in focusing on technology .
However , he will discover , as I discovered , that having a bright idea about how to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; executing that idea is much tougher.
” “ I still have the scars on my back from failing to deliver the 5,000 extra GPs I promised , ” reflects Mr Hunt on the new government ’ s pledge to deliver 50,000 extra nurses to staff the 40 new hospitals that constitute its second big promise .
“ I also know from my own experience that getting capital projects going is really hard , so 40 hospitals is highly ambitious , ” he adds .
“ The government has raised expectations that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure on the NHS and let it turn a corner after 10 years of austerity .
But that ambition needs a lot more thinking and imagination before we and they will know if their ambitions can be achieved.
” In his candidate ’ s statement Hunt said he put a lot of focus onto mental health : “ The NHS has made strides towards parity of funding and treatment for mental health conditions but many – particularly young people – wait too long for a diagnosis and treatment and there is still too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we expand the capacity of the mental health system the Government will not meet its objectives and patients will continue to feel let down .
So I want the Committee to do an annual report on Government progress in this area.
” It is really likely that Hunt would wish the committee ’ s output on ths subject to be uncritical ?
Will it really just state that the Government is already doing everything possible to make progress ?
Whatever mistakes Hunt made as Health Secretary , it was not his approach to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatly increased transparency and was the whistle-blowers ’ friend .
It is hardly likely he will try to protect Hancock from difficult questions when he didn ’ t protect himself from them .
We can pick up some clues of Hunt ’ s approach from the Written Questions to Health Ministers that he has put down this month : To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care , how many hospitals were rated ( a ) outstanding , ( b ) good , ( c ) requires improvement and ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of CQC inspections completed in 2015… To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care , how many GP practices were rated ( a ) outstanding , ( b ) good , ( c ) requires improvement and ( d ) inadequate after the first cycle of Care Quality Commission inspections completed in 2015… .
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care , with reference to the Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation by Dr Bill Kirkup , published in March 2015 , what step has his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy on whistleblowing that ensures a systematic and proportionate response is made by Trusts to concerns identified… .
Another safeguard is that Hunt will have to persuade the rest of the Committee – including its opposition MPs – to agree to its statements .
While the NHS featured prominently in the General Election , important aspects to the debate were ignored .
Claudia Martinez wrote for us yesterday that over a third of patients who attend A & E do so for non-urgent , minor injuries .
They are unable to get GP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and cost taxpayer much less .
Sorting that out should take priority over new hospitals .
Hunt is a Conservative , but he is not a Government stooge .
Last year he missed out on becoming the Prime Minister .
Now he has the chance to be the real Leader of the Opposition .

Some eyebrows have been raised at Jeremy Hunt’s election as Chairman of the Health and Social Care Select Committee.
Jess Phillips, the Labour MP who was briefly a leadership contender for her Party, complains:
“I have no idea how Jeremy Hunt, newly elected health and social care select committee chair, can properly scrutinise the Government on health policy and practice when much of it will have been his doing.”
She has a point. What if Michael Gove was to produce a report on how free schools are going? Or if Iain Duncan Smith was asked to deliver his assessment on whether Universal Credit has proved a worthwhile reform? Perhaps it would help us, as Conservatives, to empathise with such objections if we imagine the howls of derision from our side if it were Labour politicians invited to mark their own homework. Supposing Gorden Brown was asked to deliver the verdict on whether or not the PFI schemes he had introduced had been justified? Or Tony Blair had been chosen to give a balanced and rigorous judgment on Iraq War?
All these individuals would have great knowledge of such subjects, but lack credibility when it comes to impartiality. When commercial interests are involved, there is sometimes a requirement for “gardening leave” – for instance, in banking – before an employee can work elsewhere. This is to allow a few months to pass and thus allow their secret inside knowledge of an organsation to be less sensitive. The question of money doesn’t really arise in this case. Select Committee chairmen do get paid an extra £16,000, on top of their Parliamentary salaries. But Hunt is a wealthy man and this consideration will not be at the forefront of his mind.
On the other hand, any conflict of interest does tend to erode over time. Hunt has already had a year of “gardening leave” as Foreign Secretary. Then another six months as a backbencher. He ceased being Health Secretary in July 2018. Given the glacial pace of change in the public sector, it is true that he can expect to examine the consequences of his own decisions.
For the Government to succeed it has to have an effective opposition. Clearly, Labour and the Lib Dems are unable to provide this at present, with their leadership vacancies. Even the Scottish Nationalists are a bit distracted at the moment. So where will the real opposition come from? I wrote on Monday about the “Tory press” rising to the challenge. Dominic Cummings is doing his best to ensure a certain rigour in proceedings. But they can’t do it all. Conservative MPs must also step up to the plate. Select Committees are intended to provide an arena to allow this to be done in a serious way.
While the concern raised by Phillips and others has merit, so does the counter point that former Ministers have the advantage of experience. A Minister would know where the bodies are buried – as he would be among those that buried them.
Naturally enough, Hunt argued that his experience is a plus. In his candidate’s statement he said:
“Too often NHS delivery doesn’t match the high expectations we place on it. So I want to help Parliament secure positive and lasting change for the service we all care so deeply about. I was the longest serving Health Secretary, and this experience of doing the job for so long is what makes me best placed to ask the searching questions that will truly hold the Government to account. Too often party politics prevents us from having the right debates about the NHS. Throughout my career I have always tried to minimise this and focus on what matters.”
The electoral system for select committee chairmanships prevents it being a partisan contest. Some committee chairmanships were allocated to Labour – Work and Pensions, for example. So only Labour MPs could stand. For others, only Conservative MPs can stand. But all MPs can vote, by secret ballot. Hunt’s only rival was another Conservative MP – Anne Marie Morris. Hunt was elected with 433 votes to 116 for Morris. Hunt’s sponsors included the Labour MPs Chris Bryant and Rushanara Ali. Morris’s included the Labour MPs Meg Hillier and David Lammy. Then everyone went off and voted. No doubt the system isn’t perfect but I don’t see that banning former Ministers from standing would improve it.
Anyway, if the Government did hope that Hunt will be a patsy, his interview with the Health Service Journal will have helped to disoblige them of such notions. Asked about his successor Matt Hancock, Hunt replies:
”Matt is doing exactly the right thing in focusing on technology. However, he will discover, as I discovered, that having a bright idea about how to make the NHS better is the easy bit; executing that idea is much tougher.”
“I still have the scars on my back from failing to deliver the 5,000 extra GPs I promised,” reflects Mr Hunt on the new government’s pledge to deliver 50,000 extra nurses to staff the 40 new hospitals that constitute its second big promise.
“I also know from my own experience that getting capital projects going is really hard, so 40 hospitals is highly ambitious,” he adds.
“The government has raised expectations that the extra money going in really will relieve pressure on the NHS and let it turn a corner after 10 years of austerity. But that ambition needs a lot more thinking and imagination before we and they will know if their ambitions can be achieved.”
In his candidate’s statement Hunt said he put a lot of focus onto mental health:
“The NHS has made strides towards parity of funding and treatment for mental health conditions but many – particularly young people – wait too long for a diagnosis and treatment and there is still too much stigma around mental health. Unless we expand the capacity of the mental health system the Government will not meet its objectives and patients will continue to feel let down. So I want the Committee to do an annual report on Government progress in this area.”
It is really likely that Hunt would wish the committee’s output on ths subject to be uncritical? Will it really just state that the Government is already doing everything possible to make progress?
Whatever mistakes Hunt made as Health Secretary, it was not his approach to try and cover up problems. He greatly increased transparency and was the whistle-blowers’ friend. It is hardly likely he will try to protect Hancock from difficult questions when he didn’t protect himself from them. We can pick up some clues of Hunt’s approach from the Written Questions to Health Ministers that he has put down this month:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many hospitals were rated (a) outstanding, (b) good, (c) requires improvement and (d) inadequate after the first cycle of CQC inspections completed in 2015…
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many GP practices were rated (a) outstanding, (b) good, (c) requires improvement and (d) inadequate after the first cycle of Care Quality Commission inspections completed in 2015….
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation by Dr Bill Kirkup, published in March 2015, what step has his department taken to introduce a clear national policy on whistleblowing that ensures a systematic and proportionate response is made by Trusts to concerns identified….
Another safeguard is that Hunt will have to persuade the rest of the Committee – including its opposition MPs – to agree to its statements. While the NHS featured prominently in the General Election, important aspects to the debate were ignored. Claudia Martinez wrote for us yesterday that over a third of patients who attend A&E do so for non-urgent, minor injuries. They are unable to get GP appointments, which would provide better care, and cost taxpayer much less. Sorting that out should take priority over new hospitals.
Hunt is a Conservative, but he is not a Government stooge. Last year he missed out on becoming the Prime Minister. Now he has the chance to be the real Leader of the Opposition.