conservativehome--2020-09-09--Profile: Erin O’Toole, the genial and reassuringly dull Conservative who could soon be Prime Ministe

Profile: Erin O’Toole, the genial and reassuringly dull Conservative who could soon be Prime Minister of Canada

When the editor of ConHome , swift to discern a new trend , commissioned me to write a profile of Erin O ’ Toole , I confess I had no idea who he was talking about .
Brexit has prompted a renewed interest in the politics of Australia , New Zealand and Canada , previously seen as countries from which the United Kingdom had diverged .
But of those three countries , Canada has so far attracted the least coverage , and O ’ Toole ’ s election on 23rd August as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps within a few months Prime Minister , was pretty much ignored in the British press .
Even in Canada , the result did not cause wild excitement .
For although the Prime Minister since 2015 , Justin Trudeau .
has led , since last October ’ s general election , a minority government , which means there is a strong possibility of new elections , perhaps next spring , which the Conservatives might win , O ’ Toole ’ s manner is unexciting .
He a calm , genial , avuncular figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is a year younger than Trudeau , he has the decency to look and sound a generation older .
If Canadians want someone who will stand up , in a stalwart but good-humoured way , for old-fashioned good manners against liberal iconoclasm , they will turn to O ’ Toole .
Here is a passage from his acceptance speech , delivered in the middle of the night after he won the leadership .
He refers to his wife , Rebecca , and speaks quite often in French , while apologising for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ à Montréal et j ’ ai grandi en Ontario .
J ’ ai appris mon français dans les Forces Armées Canadiennes .
Et oui , je parle comme un anglo… mais un anglo qui respecte les francophones et qui est fier du français dans notre pays .
Je suis en politique pour me battre pour tous les Canadiens et nos deux langues nationales .
“ Like millions of Canadians , Rebecca and I have been juggling a lot of jobs lately .
With our kids at home , COVID has made us appreciate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My mother , who passed away when I was nine , was a teacher .
And , throughout my life , I have wished she was here to give me advice .
Right now , I wish she were here to see her child succeed .
But , I know she is here tonight because I can see her in my daughter who shares her name.
” O ’ Toole ’ s father worked for General Motors for 30 years , and from 1995 to 2014 was a member of the provincial assembly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public service which the son decided to follow .
But first he joined the Canadian air force , in which he hoped to serve as a pilot , but instead found himself selected to be navigator on “ an old , antiquated helicopter ” , rising to the rank of captain .
“ You learn more from your setbacks than from your successes , ” he said afterwards .
He loves the armed forces , and that indispensable extension of the armed forces , the Merchant Navy .
While glancing down O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I came across a message from a few days ago adorned by the Canadian flag and the Union Jack , which said in English and French : I was brought up on such sentiments .
How wonderful to find them being expressed in 2020 , by the man who might be the next Prime Minister of Canada .
On leaving the air force , he read law , and was soon profitably employed as a lawyer .
In 2014 , Bev Oda , the first Japanese Canadian MP and Cabinet minister , resigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Toronto , after being found to have made unacceptable expenses claims .
O ’ Toole ’ s father still represented Durham at provincial level .
The son won the by-election to represent Durham in Ottawa .
He was soon made Minister of Veterans ’ Affairs , his predecessor having infuriated the veterans .
The new minister , who had taken a close interest in the welfare of veterans and had set up a mental health charity in that field , calmed things down .
In 2917 , when he was still ordinary enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politician , O ’ Toole ran for the Conservative leadership .
He came third , but gained respect for declining to hurl personal abuse at his rivals , and was rewarded with the foreign affairs portfolio .
Andrew Scheer , victor of that contest , failed in 2019 to overthrow Trudeau , and was forced to stand down .
O ’ Toole stood again , struck an angrier note than he had before , obtained the endorsement of Jason Kenney , the celebrated Premier of Alberta , and won by positioning himself as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noises without , generally speaking , committing himself to anything so inconvenient as right-wing policies .
He has , however , for several years been a firm supporter of CANZUK , the projected alliance between Canada , Australia , New Zealand and the United Kingdom .
And he is in favour of eliminating the budget deficit , increasing child benefit , cutting and simplifying taxes , building the pipelines which are such a divisive issue in Canadian politics , and taking a hard line on China .
Conrad Black , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ConHome will almost certainly have heard , said in a recent piece for The National Post that O ’ Toole To get a better idea of O ’ Toole , and what might be called his dull quick-wittedness , it is worth watching his accomplished performance on Maclean ’ s 60-second challenge .
And here for purposes of comparison is Trudeau .
Which will the Canadians prefer ?
One can ’ t help feeling that Boris Johnson , so keen to cultivate his Australian contacts , may have missed a trick by failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Toole .

When the editor of ConHome, swift to discern a new trend, commissioned me to write a profile of Erin O’Toole, I confess I had no idea who he was talking about.
Brexit has prompted a renewed interest in the politics of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, previously seen as countries from which the United Kingdom had diverged.
But of those three countries, Canada has so far attracted the least coverage, and O’Toole’s election on 23rd August as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, so as Leader of the Opposition and perhaps within a few months Prime Minister, was pretty much ignored in the British press.
Even in Canada, the result did not cause wild excitement. For although the Prime Minister since 2015, Justin Trudeau. has led, since last October’s general election, a minority government, which means there is a strong possibility of new elections, perhaps next spring, which the Conservatives might win, O’Toole’s manner is unexciting.
He a calm, genial, avuncular figure, and although, at 47, he is a year younger than Trudeau, he has the decency to look and sound a generation older.
If Canadians want someone who will stand up, in a stalwart but good-humoured way, for old-fashioned good manners against liberal iconoclasm, they will turn to O’Toole.
Here is a passage from his acceptance speech, delivered in the middle of the night after he won the leadership. He refers to his wife, Rebecca, and speaks quite often in French, while apologising for his English accent:
“Je suis né à Montréal et j’ai grandi en Ontario. J’ai appris mon français dans les Forces Armées Canadiennes. Et oui, je parle comme un anglo… mais un anglo qui respecte les francophones et qui est fier du français dans notre pays. Je suis en politique pour me battre pour tous les Canadiens et nos deux langues nationales. “Like millions of Canadians, Rebecca and I have been juggling a lot of jobs lately. With our kids at home, COVID has made us appreciate teachers more than ever before. “My mother, who passed away when I was nine, was a teacher. And, throughout my life, I have wished she was here to give me advice. Right now, I wish she were here to see her child succeed. But, I know she is here tonight because I can see her in my daughter who shares her name.”
O’Toole’s father worked for General Motors for 30 years, and from 1995 to 2014 was a member of the provincial assembly in Ontario.
This was an example of public service which the son decided to follow. But first he joined the Canadian air force, in which he hoped to serve as a pilot, but instead found himself selected to be navigator on “an old, antiquated helicopter”, rising to the rank of captain.
“You learn more from your setbacks than from your successes,” he said afterwards.
He loves the armed forces, and that indispensable extension of the armed forces, the Merchant Navy. While glancing down O’Toole’s Twitter feed, I came across a message from a few days ago adorned by the Canadian flag and the Union Jack, which said in English and French:
“Let us always remember the courage and determination of our Merchant Navy. We will never forget those we have lost and the service and sacrifice of our brave women and men in uniform.”
I was brought up on such sentiments. How wonderful to find them being expressed in 2020, by the man who might be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
On leaving the air force, he read law, and was soon profitably employed as a lawyer. In 2014, Bev Oda, the first Japanese Canadian MP and Cabinet minister, resigned her seat in Durham, north-west of Toronto, after being found to have made unacceptable expenses claims.
O’Toole’s father still represented Durham at provincial level. The son won the by-election to represent Durham in Ottawa.
He was soon made Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, his predecessor having infuriated the veterans. The new minister, who had taken a close interest in the welfare of veterans and had set up a mental health charity in that field, calmed things down.
In 2917, when he was still ordinary enough to pretend not to be a career politician, O’Toole ran for the Conservative leadership. He came third, but gained respect for declining to hurl personal abuse at his rivals, and was rewarded with the foreign affairs portfolio.
Andrew Scheer, victor of that contest, failed in 2019 to overthrow Trudeau, and was forced to stand down. O’Toole stood again, struck an angrier note than he had before, obtained the endorsement of Jason Kenney, the celebrated Premier of Alberta, and won by positioning himself as a True Blue Conservative who made right-wing noises without, generally speaking, committing himself to anything so inconvenient as right-wing policies.
He has, however, for several years been a firm supporter of CANZUK, the projected alliance between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
And he is in favour of eliminating the budget deficit, increasing child benefit, cutting and simplifying taxes, building the pipelines which are such a divisive issue in Canadian politics, and taking a hard line on China.
Conrad Black, one of the few Canadian pundits of whom readers of ConHome will almost certainly have heard, said in a recent piece for The National Post that O’Toole
“has the minor distinction of being the first holder of his position since John Bracken, who led the Progressive Conservatives in the 1945 general election, that I have never met. But I think his chances of success are quite promising, for several reasons. First, he is a confident man and has a largely self-made career… In addition to self-confidence and tactical skill, O’Toole appears to have an intuition about where the voters are… He is a bit ordinary, but so are most people (and most politicians).”
To get a better idea of O’Toole, and what might be called his dull quick-wittedness, it is worth watching his accomplished performance on Maclean’s 60-second challenge.
And here for purposes of comparison is Trudeau.
Which will the Canadians prefer? One can’t help feeling that Boris Johnson, so keen to cultivate his Australian contacts, may have missed a trick by failing to send his congratulations to O’Toole.


conservativehome--2020-09-09--Robert Halfon: Seven education heroes of the lockdown.  All credit to them for putting the interests

Robert Halfon: Seven education heroes of the lockdown.  All credit to them for putting the interests of children first.

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow , a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman , Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists .
It may be hard to believe , given what has gone on in the past six months , with millions of children having done barely any school work during the Coronavirus – alongside the exams controversy – but there have been a number of education heroes both inside and outside the Westminster Village .
Rather than taking the attitude that everything was impossible , they followed the guidance from Sir Nicholas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible , there must be a way to do it ” .
I thought it might be worth naming a few .
First , edu-heroes are all those schools and FE colleges , the teachers and support staff who , despite the many difficulties during the lockdown , did all they could to keep children learning , with daily online lessons or marked hard-copy homework packs .
Rather than waiting for Government procurement schemes to bear fruit , they bought their own computers and SIM cards for those pupils without IT equipment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an online school set up by Conservatives Anna Firth , Stephen James and others .
They delivered 36,000 lessons over the course of the summer to students as far and wide as from Essex to Lands End – all at a cost of just £1.48 per pupil lesson .
Stephen James , a teacher , has set up the campaigning group ‘ Conservative Friends of Education ’ , which is already having a big impact on social media .
Invicta Academy is a wonderful example of practicalsonservatism – determined and charismatic individuals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ little platoons ’ to build social capital and extend the ladder of opportunity to the many .
Third is the Children ’ s Commissioner , Anne Longfield .
Long before it was fashionable to do so , and when some of the school unions were at their most vehement – opposing even modest school returns in early June – the Commissioner was campaigning to get pupils learning again , warning of the risks to the education attainment of children , their mental health and well-being .
She also highlighted the digital divide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have proper access to computers or the internet at home , pushing the Government to offer the national procurement laptop scheme to some school years .
In contrast to Ofsted , which was in a state of badger-like hibernation during the lockdown ( exempting their work with local authorities ) , Anne Longfield performed a real leadership role – whatever the regulations said she could or could not do .
She will have a legacy to be proud of .
Fourth is Russell Viner , President of the Royal College of Pediatrics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out from the start the dangers of lockdown to children .
He has been a voice of commonsense throughout , especially when discussing issues like face masks .
In June , he organised the letter signed by over 2,000 pediatricians , urging the Government to make school opening a priority , at a time when the political left were in full opposition .
Fifth is the UCL Institute of Education .
It was their shocking academic study , published in June that showed how 2.3 million children had not been learning or had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school closures .
This confirmed what many had feared and gave a much-needed jolt to policy makers .
The survey provided grist to the mill to those who were campaigning to get pupils learning again and back into schools .
When the Coronavirus inquiry takes place – as announced by the Prime Minister in July – questions need to be asked as to why , despite the wonderful efforts of individual schools , millions of children were not learning in lockdown .
The Government should ensure that if there is a second wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens again .
Sixth , recognition for the Westminster ‘ behind the scenes ’ edu-hero must go to both Angela Richardson , a PPS at the Department for Education and Michelle Donelan , the Higher Education Minister .
I was a PPS to George Osborne in 2014 , so have some idea of the work involved .
I know how true the ‘ bag carrier ’ epithet really is ( although because I have problems with my legs , I was probably the first PPS in history in which the Minister helped me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all my time as MP , I don ’ t think I have known a PPS more courteous , hard-working and efficient than Angela Richardson .
Day and night , seven days a week , dealing with the many and complex questions from Tory MPs on Whatsapp groups and much more besides .
Elected in 2017 , clearly this is a PPS who is committed and dedicated in her role .
Similarly , Michelle Donelan , a former member of my Education Select Committee , has quietly but determinedly been trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the avalanche of exam confusion and the impacts of the pandemic .
To her credit , close to 70 per cent of students now have their first choice of university , despite the delays and grade changes .
She has worked hard to ensure that Higher Education bodies can offer blended learning approaches to students .
Further , Donelan has secured significant Treasury support to help universities through the financial challenges ahead , including pulling forward £2.6 billion worth of tuition fee payments to ease cash flow pressures this autumn and covering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from international students for the 2020/21 academic year .
Finally…the media .
The print media are always blamed for one thing or another .
And yet , in terms of mobilising public opinion for a return to school , The Telegraph stable , The Times/Sunday Times , The Mail/Mail on Sunday , The Sun and The Daily Express have consistently campaigned for pupils to be back in the classroom .
Acres of print have been published showing the damage to children ’ s life chances so long as they are not learning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific evidence demonstrating the low risk of the virus to children .
In the broadcast media , Julia Hartley-Brewer of Talk Radio was , rightly , most angry and vocal about the many children who were not learning during lockdown , from early April , long before the UCL study emerged .

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow, a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists.
It may be hard to believe, given what has gone on in the past six months, with millions of children having done barely any school work during the Coronavirus – alongside the exams controversy – but there have been a number of education heroes both inside and outside the Westminster Village.
Rather than taking the attitude that everything was impossible, they followed the guidance from Sir Nicholas Winton: “if it is not impossible, there must be a way to do it”.
I thought it might be worth naming a few.
First, edu-heroes are all those schools and FE colleges, the teachers and support staff who, despite the many difficulties during the lockdown, did all they could to keep children learning, with daily online lessons or marked hard-copy homework packs. Rather than waiting for Government procurement schemes to bear fruit, they bought their own computers and SIM cards for those pupils without IT equipment.
Second is the extraordinary Invicta Academy; an online school set up by Conservatives Anna Firth, Stephen James and others. They delivered 36,000 lessons over the course of the summer to students as far and wide as from Essex to Lands End – all at a cost of just £1.48 per pupil lesson.
Stephen James, a teacher, has set up the campaigning group ‘Conservative Friends of Education’, which is already having a big impact on social media. Invicta Academy is a wonderful example of practicals conservatism – determined and charismatic individuals, who act on the principles of the ‘little platoons’ to build social capital and extend the ladder of opportunity to the many.
Third is the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield. Long before it was fashionable to do so, and when some of the school unions were at their most vehement – opposing even modest school returns in early June – the Commissioner was campaigning to get pupils learning again, warning of the risks to the education attainment of children, their mental health and well-being.
She also highlighted the digital divide, noting that 700,000 children didn’t have proper access to computers or the internet at home, pushing the Government to offer the national procurement laptop scheme to some school years. In contrast to Ofsted, which was in a state of badger-like hibernation during the lockdown (exempting their work with local authorities), Anne Longfield performed a real leadership role – whatever the regulations said she could or could not do. She will have a legacy to be proud of.
Fourth is Russell Viner, President of the Royal College of Pediatrics, who, like Longfield, set out from the start the dangers of lockdown to children. He has been a voice of commonsense throughout, especially when discussing issues like face masks. In June, he organised the letter signed by over 2,000 pediatricians, urging the Government to make school opening a priority, at a time when the political left were in full opposition.
Fifth is the UCL Institute of Education. It was their shocking academic study, published in June that showed how 2.3 million children had not been learning or had received very little contact with teachers amid school closures. This confirmed what many had feared and gave a much-needed jolt to policy makers. The survey provided grist to the mill to those who were campaigning to get pupils learning again and back into schools.
When the Coronavirus inquiry takes place – as announced by the Prime Minister in July – questions need to be asked as to why, despite the wonderful efforts of individual schools, millions of children were not learning in lockdown. The Government should ensure that if there is a second wave or a new virus, this never happens again.
Sixth, recognition for the Westminster ‘behind the scenes’ edu-hero must go to both Angela Richardson, a PPS at the Department for Education and Michelle Donelan, the Higher Education Minister.
I was a PPS to George Osborne in 2014, so have some idea of the work involved. I know how true the ‘bag carrier’ epithet really is (although because I have problems with my legs, I was probably the first PPS in history in which the Minister helped me carry my bags).
However, in all my time as MP, I don’t think I have known a PPS more courteous, hard-working and efficient than Angela Richardson. Day and night, seven days a week, dealing with the many and complex questions from Tory MPs on Whatsapp groups and much more besides. Elected in 2017, clearly this is a PPS who is committed and dedicated in her role.
Similarly, Michelle Donelan, a former member of my Education Select Committee, has quietly but determinedly been trying to sort out the devastation caused to universities by the avalanche of exam confusion and the impacts of the pandemic.
To her credit, close to 70 per cent of students now have their first choice of university, despite the delays and grade changes. She has worked hard to ensure that Higher Education bodies can offer blended learning approaches to students.
Further, Donelan has secured significant Treasury support to help universities through the financial challenges ahead, including pulling forward £2.6 billion worth of tuition fee payments to ease cash flow pressures this autumn and covering up to 80 percent of income losses from international students for the 2020/21 academic year.
Finally…the media. The print media are always blamed for one thing or another. And yet, in terms of mobilising public opinion for a return to school, The Telegraph stable, The Times/Sunday Times, The Mail/Mail on Sunday, The Sun and The Daily Express have consistently campaigned for pupils to be back in the classroom.
Acres of print have been published showing the damage to children’s life chances so long as they are not learning, case studies around the world and the scientific evidence demonstrating the low risk of the virus to children. In the broadcast media, Julia Hartley-Brewer of Talk Radio was, rightly, most angry and vocal about the many children who were not learning during lockdown, from early April, long before the UCL study emerged.


conservativehome--2020-09-09--Gary Porter: To level up, we need alumni networks for state schools

Lord Porter is the Leader of South Holland District Council and a former Chairman of the Local Government Association .
We all know that the Conservative Party is the party of real opportunity for all .
For decades now we have worked to create a society where anyone who wants to succeed and is prepared to work for it can do so – no matter what their background .
If I can make it into the House of Lords after a career as a bricklayer there ’ s no limit to what children in our schools today can achieve .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity to succeed , no matter what their start in life , is also central to the charity , Future First ’ s , philosophy and at the heart of their new crowdfunding effort to help set up alumni networks in every state school in the country .
The support I needed to succeed didn ’ t come when I was at school but much later when I entered politics .
Politicians get support from their peer group all the time and that is especially true of the Local Government Association .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to do to inspire children from disadvantaged backgrounds in the belief that they can succeed .
Often , the alumni networks that can provide support and advice from those who have done it before don ’ t exist .
So , I ’ m delighted to be supporting Future First ’ s effort at such a crucial time , when the confidence and resilience of our young people is likely to have been knocked by the chaos of the coronavirus crisis .
There ’ s never been a more important time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have every chance of pursuing their dreams .
As many of us who went to a state school will know , it ’ s very easy to think the odds are stacked against you – that all the best careers out there are only open to young people lucky enough to go to independent schools .
In truth , the reason so many young people do well – whether in the independent sector or the state sector – is down to belief .
They know other people – just like them – have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve great things .
That sense of belief gives them the confidence and resilience to go out and succeed for themselves .
Unlike their counterparts from more privileged backgrounds , 35 per cent of disadvantaged young people don ’ t know anyone in a job they want to do .
It ’ s frankly a scandal that so many young people just don ’ t know that there is a world of opportunity out there .
That ’ s where Future First can step in and help .
South Holland District Council and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see if the community can help build these networks .
If successful , it will be rolled out nationally so every child in every school will be able to benefit from the experience of former pupils who have left before them .
Creating these networks in every school won ’ t just be good news for pupils – it will be good news for councils too , because these pupils will be the local workers of the future .
And with a successful workforce comes economic growth and prosperity .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country should get behind .
There are more details of Future First ’ s crowdfunder appeal here .

Lord Porter is the Leader of South Holland District Council and a former Chairman of the Local Government Association.
We all know that the Conservative Party is the party of real opportunity for all. For decades now we have worked to create a society where anyone who wants to succeed and is prepared to work for it can do so – no matter what their background.
If I can make it into the House of Lords after a career as a bricklayer there’s no limit to what children in our schools today can achieve.
The message that every child should have the opportunity to succeed, no matter what their start in life, is also central to the charity, Future First’s, philosophy and at the heart of their new crowdfunding effort to help set up alumni networks in every state school in the country.
The support I needed to succeed didn’t come when I was at school but much later when I entered politics. Politicians get support from their peer group all the time and that is especially true of the Local Government Association. Unfortunately, there is still much we need to do to inspire children from disadvantaged backgrounds in the belief that they can succeed. Often, the alumni networks that can provide support and advice from those who have done it before don’t exist.
So, I’m delighted to be supporting Future First’s effort at such a crucial time, when the confidence and resilience of our young people is likely to have been knocked by the chaos of the coronavirus crisis. There’s never been a more important time to give our young people the reassurance they have every chance of pursuing their dreams.
As many of us who went to a state school will know, it’s very easy to think the odds are stacked against you – that all the best careers out there are only open to young people lucky enough to go to independent schools.
In truth, the reason so many young people do well – whether in the independent sector or the state sector – is down to belief. They know other people – just like them – have left their school and gone on to achieve great things. That sense of belief gives them the confidence and resilience to go out and succeed for themselves.
Unlike their counterparts from more privileged backgrounds, 35 per cent of disadvantaged young people don’t know anyone in a job they want to do. It’s frankly a scandal that so many young people just don’t know that there is a world of opportunity out there. That’s where Future First can step in and help.
South Holland District Council and Future First are piloting the Crowdfunder to see if the community can help build these networks. If successful, it will be rolled out nationally so every child in every school will be able to benefit from the experience of former pupils who have left before them.
Creating these networks in every school won’t just be good news for pupils – it will be good news for councils too, because these pupils will be the local workers of the future. And with a successful workforce comes economic growth and prosperity.
It’s a cause that every Conservative councillor in the country should get behind.
There are more details of Future First’s crowdfunder appeal here.


conservativehome--2020-09-09--Surprise lockdown measures are unsustainable. At some point, Test and Trace must deliver.

Yesterday the Government announced that social gatherings – both indoors and outdoors – of more than six people will be illegal in England from Monday ( with fines of £100 upwards for anyone breaking the rules ) .
In a press conference today , Boris Johnson expanded on the rationale for the move ; there has been a steep rise in cases , with 8,396 reported since Sunday and 2,460 reported on Tuesday alone .
Cases are increasing particularly among those aged 17 to 29 .
For many , the new measure seems like a step backwards .
With the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the push to get employees back to work , it appeared that reopening the economy was the main direction the UK was heading in .
Dare I say there ’ d been some optimism the nation was winning the fight against Covid-19 , especially as hospitalisations and deaths have dramatically gone down .
Some will see the Government ’ s latest move as disproportionate , given that no vaccine is coming any time soon , and that the NHS ’ s capacity has never been overstretched .
There will also be questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as problematic as often made out , as they do not always correlate with more serious outcomes ( deaths and hospitalisations ) .
One thing is for certain , however , which is that the Government can not continue to yo-yo between opening and closing the economy .
Worryingly , it has been suggested that a 10pm curfew for bars could be introduced across Britain to reduce cases .
But we ’ re at the point where measures ( such as the six-person limit ) are creating widespread economic uncertainty .
As I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgently needs to get a move on with its test and trace programme ; its ultimate exit strategy .
At PMQs today , Keir Starmer called the system “ frankly ridiculous ” , and while his words might have been hyperbolic , there will be continuous questions about why Northern Ireland , Germany and others have been able to release a contact tracing app as England ’ s is still going through trials .
Of course , creating this technology is an enormous logistical task , and it ’ s clear that Dido @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the operation , would rather get it right ( regardless of whether it takes longer than others to implement ) .
The Government has also invested £500 million into improving testing around the UK , and has made important moves , such as enrolling local council teams to record contacts .
Johnson has even introduced £1,000 fines for pubs from Monday if they do not adequately monitor contacts ; though harsh , it takes the Government ’ s test and trace efforts further .
But with the public appetite for more measures waning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s imperative for the Government to speed its process up – lest it gives weight to Starmer ’ s words .

Yesterday the Government announced that social gatherings – both indoors and outdoors – of more than six people will be illegal in England from Monday (with fines of £100 upwards for anyone breaking the rules).
In a press conference today, Boris Johnson expanded on the rationale for the move; there has been a steep rise in cases, with 8,396 reported since Sunday and 2,460 reported on Tuesday alone. Cases are increasing particularly among those aged 17 to 29.
For many, the new measure seems like a step backwards. With the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, and the push to get employees back to work, it appeared that reopening the economy was the main direction the UK was heading in.
Dare I say there’d been some optimism the nation was winning the fight against Covid-19, especially as hospitalisations and deaths have dramatically gone down.
Some will see the Government’s latest move as disproportionate, given that no vaccine is coming any time soon, and that the NHS’s capacity has never been overstretched.
There will also be questions about whether the rises in cases are as problematic as often made out, as they do not always correlate with more serious outcomes (deaths and hospitalisations).
One thing is for certain, however, which is that the Government cannot continue to yo-yo between opening and closing the economy. Worryingly, it has been suggested that a 10pm curfew for bars could be introduced across Britain to reduce cases. But we’re at the point where measures (such as the six-person limit) are creating widespread economic uncertainty.
As I wrote for ConservativeHome yesterday, the Government urgently needs to get a move on with its test and trace programme; its ultimate exit strategy. At PMQs today, Keir Starmer called the system “frankly ridiculous”, and while his words might have been hyperbolic, there will be continuous questions about why Northern Ireland, Germany and others have been able to release a contact tracing app as England’s is still going through trials.
Of course, creating this technology is an enormous logistical task, and it’s clear that Dido Harding, who’s heading up the operation, would rather get it right (regardless of whether it takes longer than others to implement). The Government has also invested £500 million into improving testing around the UK, and has made important moves, such as enrolling local council teams to record contacts. Johnson has even introduced £1,000 fines for pubs from Monday if they do not adequately monitor contacts; though harsh, it takes the Government’s test and trace efforts further.
But with the public appetite for more measures waning, and winter approaching, it’s imperative for the Government to speed its process up – lest it gives weight to Starmer’s words.


conservativehome--2020-09-09--WATCH: Bowie, Capurro, and Hill debate how best to defend the Union

Great fun to join @ AndrewBowie_MP and @ CapurrodDaniel to discuss the future of the Union , courtesy of the @ @ @ @ @ missed it and wish you hadn ’ t , link below !
https : //t.co/puW68ULEkV

Great fun to join @AndrewBowie_MP and @CapurrodDaniel to discuss the future of the Union, courtesy of the @ASI. If you missed it and wish you hadn’t, link below! https://t.co/puW68ULEkV
— Henry Hill (@HCH_Hill) September 8, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-09--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson starts to sound like the boss of a tractor plant in Minsk

Unless Matt Hancock mends his ways he will be “ run ragged ” by the Speaker , Sir Lindsay Hoyle , who will summon him to the House every day to answer an Urgent Question .
The Health Secretary made a statement in the House on Tuesday , and failed to tell MPs he was about to introduce a six-person limit on gatherings .
Hoyle was incandescent with rage : “ It was all over Twitter .
Somebody had decided to tell the media and not this House.
” At the end of PMQs , Sir Desmond Swayne had asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order : “ What remedy is there for those of us who enthusiastically support the Prime Minister but nevertheless want to restrain the Government ’ s ability to govern by order without debate ?
” Boris Johnson was sitting on the Treasury bench , and smiled and nodded gently as the Speaker exploded with fury at the absent Hancock .
The Prime Minister ’ s demeanour was that of a schoolboy who finds it amusing that one of his chums is being given six of the best .
Johnson might have done better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problems from which he himself suffers just now is an inability to take the House into his confidence , and thereby carry MPs with him .
He naturally expected Sir Keir Starmer would challenge him on the shocking admission the day before by Brandon Lewis , the Northern Ireland Secretary , when asked about the Internal Market Bill : “ Yes this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.
” I suppose one might say Lewis was taking the House into his confidence , but not in such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
The Prime Minister seized the chance before facing Starmer to make a bald statement : “ We expect everybody in this country to obey the law.
” Starmer then ducked the argument about the rule of law .
This was an odd decision , for it is a necessary argument .
However preposterous the PM ’ s attempts to extricate himself from the appalling statement made by Lewis might have been , we wanted to know what they were .
This is something the Commons can do extremely well : expose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Leader of the Opposition instead opened with the story of a woman in London who yesterday needed a Covid test for her sick child , and was told she could get one in Telford or Inverness .
As Starmer observed , “ this is frankly ridiculous ” .
One might have expected Johnson , in his reply , to admit that something or other has gone wrong with the testing system .
He instead started to sound like the Communist Party boss of a tractor factory in Minsk : the NHS has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other country in Europe ” .
The Prime Minister proceeded to accuse Starmer of attempting “ to undermine confidence ” in the NHS ’ s testing system .
Starmer had not done that .
He had merely observed that the tests are not always reaching those who need them most .
“ This is a Government that puts its arms round the people of this country , ” Johnson said at a later stage of PMQs .
Again , this sounded like a strange , faintly totalitarian , even creepy remark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making .
We don ’ t want the Government to put its arms round us .
We just want it to do various things reasonably well .

Unless Matt Hancock mends his ways he will be “run ragged” by the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who will summon him to the House every day to answer an Urgent Question.
The Health Secretary made a statement in the House on Tuesday, and failed to tell MPs he was about to introduce a six-person limit on gatherings.
Hoyle was incandescent with rage: “It was all over Twitter. Somebody had decided to tell the media and not this House.”
At the end of PMQs, Sir Desmond Swayne had asked the Speaker, on a point of order: “What remedy is there for those of us who enthusiastically support the Prime Minister but nevertheless want to restrain the Government’s ability to govern by order without debate?”
Boris Johnson was sitting on the Treasury bench, and smiled and nodded gently as the Speaker exploded with fury at the absent Hancock. The Prime Minister’s demeanour was that of a schoolboy who finds it amusing that one of his chums is being given six of the best.
Johnson might have done better to look grave. For one of the problems from which he himself suffers just now is an inability to take the House into his confidence, and thereby carry MPs with him.
He naturally expected Sir Keir Starmer would challenge him on the shocking admission the day before by Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary, when asked about the Internal Market Bill: “Yes this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”
I suppose one might say Lewis was taking the House into his confidence, but not in such a way as to carry MPs with him.
The Prime Minister seized the chance before facing Starmer to make a bald statement: “We expect everybody in this country to obey the law.”
Starmer then ducked the argument about the rule of law. This was an odd decision, for it is a necessary argument. However preposterous the PM’s attempts to extricate himself from the appalling statement made by Lewis might have been, we wanted to know what they were.
This is something the Commons can do extremely well: expose ministers when they are talking nonsense.
The Leader of the Opposition instead opened with the story of a woman in London who yesterday needed a Covid test for her sick child, and was told she could get one in Telford or Inverness.
As Starmer observed, “this is frankly ridiculous”. One might have expected Johnson, in his reply, to admit that something or other has gone wrong with the testing system.
He instead started to sound like the Communist Party boss of a tractor factory in Minsk: the NHS has performed 17.6 million tests, “more than any other country in Europe”.
The Prime Minister proceeded to accuse Starmer of attempting “to undermine confidence” in the NHS’s testing system.
Starmer had not done that. He had merely observed that the tests are not always reaching those who need them most.
“This is a Government that puts its arms round the people of this country,” Johnson said at a later stage of PMQs.
Again, this sounded like a strange, faintly totalitarian, even creepy remark for a Tory Prime Minister to be making. We don’t want the Government to put its arms round us. We just want it to do various things reasonably well.


conservativehome--2020-09-10--Angus Groom: Sunak must act to unshackle business from the dead weight of Covid debt

Angus Groom is a Research Fellow at Onward and the author of ‘ Paying it Forward ‘ .
He is also an ESRC Doctoral Training Partnership scholar studying Economics at Nuffield College , University of Oxford .
The economic recovery may be gathering pace , but we are not out of the woods yet .
In our focus on how quickly demand will return to pre-crisis levels , it is easy to forget that many firms have spent the last six months piling on unprecedented levels of additional debt .
This is a double-edged sword : many have survived the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there is a risk if ministers do not act that companies will spend the next few years paying down their liabilities rather than driving a dynamic recovery .
The coronavirus pandemic has meant that , both as a result of mandatory closures and lockdowns and due to voluntary public health precautions , people have been spending less and so businesses in almost all industries have been making less money .
The unprecedented grant support from the Treasury , from the furlough scheme to tax payment holidays , has helped many businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My new report for the thinktank Onward estimates that 350,000 businesses , employing five million people , would have faced a cash flow crisis in the absence of this government support .
But in addition to grant support the Government has provided what they call “ liquidity support ” : new debt that weighs down corporate balance sheets and that is mostly or entirely underwritten by the taxpayer .
The CityUK ’ s Recapitalisation Group estimates that by March 2021 UK business will be holding £35 billion in coronavirus debt , accumulated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the demand-side of the economy quickly recovers , this debt pile means that economic problems are far from over .
In fact , my report today estimates that nearly one in twenty firms are now technically insolvent as a result of losses and debt built up since March , and over one in five ( 21 per cent ) could now be classified as so-called zombie firms , in that their operating profits at best only just cover their debt interest payments .
There is a real risk that these companies spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make their repayments rather than investing in jobs and growth to spur the recovery .
Research published by the Bank of International Settlements , the OECD , and the NBER shows that zombie firms can harm investment , employment and productivity growth .
Using this research , we estimate that the drag caused by the growth of zombie firms so far this year means that business investment will be lower by more than £40 billion annually and that productivity growth will be lower by by 0.39 percentage points – meaning missing GDP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent of current GDP , or over £500 per person in the UK .
Meanwhile the drag on employment suggests that unemployment will still be 6.4 per cent at the end of 2024 , rather than the 5.1 per cent predicted by the OBR .
This equates to an additional 400,000 unemployed in the year of the next general election .
To deal with this looming crisis , we propose a simple scheme , New Start , to allow firms to transfer their coronavirus debts into a long-term tax liability repaid out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make them in the same manner as student loan repayments .
The benefit of the CBILS and BBLS , and to an extent the CJRS , is that they were designed in Whitehall but implemented by banks and businesses in the real world .
The New Start Scheme keeps this flexibility as it can be run by the banks who have already issued the debts , and the scheme can run regardless of who owns , buys or sells the underlying asset .
The growth of corporate debt sounds like something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firms , but how it is dealt with will determine the strength of the recovery .
The Chancellor has so far been reluctant to intervene in this debate , but this position can not hold without the scarring effects of debt taking hold in the economy .

Angus Groom is a Research Fellow at Onward and the author of ‘Paying it Forward‘. He is also an ESRC Doctoral Training Partnership scholar studying Economics at Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
The economic recovery may be gathering pace, but we are not out of the woods yet. In our focus on how quickly demand will return to pre-crisis levels, it is easy to forget that many firms have spent the last six months piling on unprecedented levels of additional debt.
This is a double-edged sword: many have survived the worst of the crisis as a result, but there is a risk if ministers do not act that companies will spend the next few years paying down their liabilities rather than driving a dynamic recovery.
The coronavirus pandemic has meant that, both as a result of mandatory closures and lockdowns and due to voluntary public health precautions, people have been spending less and so businesses in almost all industries have been making less money. The unprecedented grant support from the Treasury, from the furlough scheme to tax payment holidays, has helped many businesses through the worst of the crisis. My new report for the thinktank Onward estimates that 350,000 businesses, employing five million people, would have faced a cash flow crisis in the absence of this government support.
But in addition to grant support the Government has provided what they call “liquidity support”: new debt that weighs down corporate balance sheets and that is mostly or entirely underwritten by the taxpayer. The CityUK’s Recapitalisation Group estimates that by March 2021 UK business will be holding £35 billion in coronavirus debt, accumulated in the space of a year. Even if the demand-side of the economy quickly recovers, this debt pile means that economic problems are far from over.
In fact, my report today estimates that nearly one in twenty firms are now technically insolvent as a result of losses and debt built up since March, and over one in five (21 per cent) could now be classified as so-called zombie firms, in that their operating profits at best only just cover their debt interest payments. There is a real risk that these companies spend the next few years worrying about how to make their repayments rather than investing in jobs and growth to spur the recovery.
Research published by the Bank of International Settlements, the OECD, and the NBER shows that zombie firms can harm investment, employment and productivity growth. Using this research, we estimate that the drag caused by the growth of zombie firms so far this year means that business investment will be lower by more than £40 billion annually and that productivity growth will be lower by by 0.39 percentage points – meaning missing GDP over five years equal to 1.9 per cent of current GDP, or over £500 per person in the UK.
Meanwhile the drag on employment suggests that unemployment will still be 6.4 per cent at the end of 2024, rather than the 5.1 per cent predicted by the OBR. This equates to an additional 400,000 unemployed in the year of the next general election.
To deal with this looming crisis, we propose a simple scheme, New Start, to allow firms to transfer their coronavirus debts into a long-term tax liability repaid out of profits—shifting payments to when firms are able to make them in the same manner as student loan repayments.
The benefit of the CBILS and BBLS, and to an extent the CJRS, is that they were designed in Whitehall but implemented by banks and businesses in the real world. The New Start Scheme keeps this flexibility as it can be run by the banks who have already issued the debts, and the scheme can run regardless of who owns, buys or sells the underlying asset.
The growth of corporate debt sounds like something that occurs in the balance sheets of City firms, but how it is dealt with will determine the strength of the recovery. The Chancellor has so far been reluctant to intervene in this debate, but this position cannot hold without the scarring effects of debt taking hold in the economy.


conservativehome--2020-09-10--Curfews, fines and marshalls. There’s a flavour about Johnson’s new virus plans not of Churchill, bu

Curfews, fines and marshalls. There’s a flavour about Johnson’s new virus plans not of Churchill, but of Attlee.

News can tell only one story at at time .
The Government ’ s plan to slow the resumption of normal life in Britain ( see Coronavirus ) is one such tale .
Its readiness to break international law if it considers this necessary ( see the Brexit trade negotiation ) is another .
But life isn ’ t news , and these two stories blend together in it , in a way that newpaper front pages or TV evening bulletins don ’ t really allow for .
Together , they ( plus a mass of other developments ) add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson .
On the virus , his main problem is the public .
In one way , this doesn ’ t seem to be so : polls show support for restrictions on everyday activity .
Nonetheless , these are not where they were last winter .
Then , they found overwhelming support for the Government ’ s handling of Covid .
Now , they don ’ t .
This decline was almost certainly inevitable – comparable to the frenzied enthusiasm that occasionally greets declarations of secession or war , and the bitter aftermath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base to fall back on when the going gets tough .
And the Prime Minister ’ s plans mark a change of gear .
The original lockdown was lightly policed , for all the awesome emergency powers now held by the authorities , because heavy intervention was unnecessary to make it work .
Most people were more than willing to observe simple rules ( “ stay at home ” ) to deliver an emotive aim ( “ save the NHS ” ) .
The new clampdown has more complex rules ( “ stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes that much of the public has lost track off .
Its objective tugs less at the nation ’ s heart-strings ( “ control the virus ” ) .
And while people voice support for clampdowns in principle , imposing them will be difficult in practice .
This is because , to follow the war analogy , war-weariness has settled in .
Younger people realise that they are unlikely to die of Covid .
Older people chafe at separation from their families , and will be all the more restive as Christmas approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their jobs as furlough is withdrawn .
So this time round , the Government will need more policing to deliver its policy – formally , through the police themselves , and informally , through marshalls .
There will be curfews and fines .
This will deepen the war-weariness .
Johnson ’ s talk of vaccines is like wartime talk of victory : people will believe it when they see it .
Meanwhile , debate will continue .
Are health gains from suppressing the virus worth health losses elsewhere – cancelled operations , cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic abuse ?
What about livelihoods as well as lives – and the workings of the economy that funds the NHS in the first place ?
Dissent will grow on the Conservative benches , a slice of which will be unhappy about the flavour of wartime control that the new restrictions have about them .
The UK Internal Market Bill will be introduced against this unsettled background .
Its proposal for a potential carve-out from international law will run into trouble in the Lords .
( We leave aside senior civil service reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense is that it may also do so in the Commons , and to understand why one must ponder the Tory benches .
Johnson is well-placed to see off an assault from his left – in other words , from the diminished group of former Remainers .
But he is vulnerable to a pincer movement from his left and right at once ; the left saying that the Withdrawal Agreement must be honoured ; the right arguing that it must be abandoned .
His plan proposes neither , and is thus vulnerable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That has implications which run wider than the Bill .
The European Research Group is no fan of Dominic Cummings , and some of its members reflexively treat much of what Downing Street does with suspicion .
The waves of this discontent will wash over other Government projects , such as its push for more housing .
His backbenchers are used to Johnson as Churchill – a comparison that the Prime Minister ’ s biography of his precedecessor evoked .
These curfews and marshalls suggest a new one : Johnson as Attlee .

News can tell only one story at at time. The Government’s plan to slow the resumption of normal life in Britain (see Coronavirus) is one such tale. Its readiness to break international law if it considers this necessary (see the Brexit trade negotiation) is another.
But life isn’t news, and these two stories blend together in it, in a way that newpaper front pages or TV evening bulletins don’t really allow for. Together, they (plus a mass of other developments) add up to a formidable challenge for Boris Johnson.
On the virus, his main problem is the public. In one way, this doesn’t seem to be so: polls show support for restrictions on everyday activity. Nonetheless, these are not where they were last winter. Then, they found overwhelming support for the Government’s handling of Covid. Now, they don’t.
This decline was almost certainly inevitable – comparable to the frenzied enthusiasm that occasionally greets declarations of secession or war, and the bitter aftermath. So Ministers no have a fragile base to fall back on when the going gets tough. And the Prime Minister’s plans mark a change of gear.
The original lockdown was lightly policed, for all the awesome emergency powers now held by the authorities, because heavy intervention was unnecessary to make it work. Most people were more than willing to observe simple rules (“stay at home”) to deliver an emotive aim (“save the NHS”).
The new clampdown has more complex rules (“stay alert”), which follow successive changes that much of the public has lost track off. Its objective tugs less at the nation’s heart-strings (“control the virus”). And while people voice support for clampdowns in principle, imposing them will be difficult in practice.
This is because, to follow the war analogy, war-weariness has settled in. Younger people realise that they are unlikely to die of Covid. Older people chafe at separation from their families, and will be all the more restive as Christmas approaches. Those of working age risk losing their jobs as furlough is withdrawn.
So this time round, the Government will need more policing to deliver its policy – formally, through the police themselves, and informally, through marshalls. There will be curfews and fines. This will deepen the war-weariness. Johnson’s talk of vaccines is like wartime talk of victory: people will believe it when they see it.
Meanwhile, debate will continue. Are health gains from suppressing the virus worth health losses elsewhere – cancelled operations, cancer deaths, worse mental health, more domestic abuse? What about livelihoods as well as lives – and the workings of the economy that funds the NHS in the first place?
Dissent will grow on the Conservative benches, a slice of which will be unhappy about the flavour of wartime control that the new restrictions have about them. The UK Internal Market Bill will be introduced against this unsettled background.
Its proposal for a potential carve-out from international law will run into trouble in the Lords. (We leave aside senior civil service reaction: watch for resignations.) Our sense is that it may also do so in the Commons, and to understand why one must ponder the Tory benches.
Johnson is well-placed to see off an assault from his left – in other words, from the diminished group of former Remainers. But he is vulnerable to a pincer movement from his left and right at once; the left saying that the Withdrawal Agreement must be honoured; the right arguing that it must be abandoned.
His plan proposes neither, and is thus vulnerable to an incoherent but potentially powerful coalition. That has implications which run wider than the Bill. The European Research Group is no fan of Dominic Cummings, and some of its members reflexively treat much of what Downing Street does with suspicion.
The waves of this discontent will wash over other Government projects, such as its push for more housing. His backbenchers are used to Johnson as Churchill – a comparison that the Prime Minister’s biography of his precedecessor evoked. These curfews and marshalls suggest a new one: Johnson as Attlee.


conservativehome--2020-09-10--Garvan Walshe: Breaking the Withdrawal Agreement risks the No Deal Brexit this Government was electe

Garvan Walshe: Breaking the Withdrawal Agreement risks the No Deal Brexit this Government was elected to avoid

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party .
The trouble with international agreements is that they are , well , international .
By this I mean that sovereignty can ’ t be used as a trump card in the way that parliamentary sovereignty can in most domestic law .
This strongly suggests that the Government ’ s course of action in seeking , in the disarmingly frank words of Brandon Lewis , “ to break international law in a specific and limited way ” has not been properly thought through .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known .
Any legislation to break international law will run into trouble in the Lords , which will feel entitled to block it , as it was not only absent from the election manifesto , but in fact directly contradicts its promise to implement the Brexit deal sealed in November 2019 .
There is also the matter of the ministerial and civil service codes , which forbid the breaking of the law ( the removal of the word “ international ” from the code makes no difference in practice ) , and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that aim .
It is therefore an open question of constitutional law whether legislation to this end , introduced improperly by ministers , and drafted by civil servants would be valid .
It is rather clearer that ministers or officials participating in the production of such legislation risk falling within the ambit of the common law offence of misconduct in public office .
But my concern here is international .
The foundation of international law has long been that states are sovereign .
As well as meaning that they begin with full powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also means they have the power to make agreements with each other .
An agreement means that the states accept obligations to each other , which is what makes a treaty different from a state making a unilateral declaration to itself .
While a state retains the practical power to break an international agreement , it can not change the meaning of the agreement on its own .
It is also a consequence of this sovereign power that states are able to revise treaties they make , by mutual agreement , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this revision is dictated by power politics , but even that is different from mere reneging on a treaty .
Nevertheless , the power of revision is usually held collectively by the states that signed the agreement , not by individual signatories .
Some treaties , like indeed the Treaty of European Union provide an exit mechanism ( Article 50 ) , but others , like the Withdrawal Agreement , do not .
The Government might have been better placed to argue that it was trying to use its residual sovereign power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which it had concluded under the duress of the two-year withdrawal period contained in Article 50 .
While that would probably not have gone down well in Brussels , openly seeking to break these particular parts of the withdrawal agreement is rather more challenging , because Michel Barnier ’ s team built in three levels of safeguards against what it would consider to be “ perfidious Albion.
” First , the relevant aspects of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol are governed by EU law , interpretable by British courts and , ultimately , European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way the UK incorporates treaties ( including treaties that give effect to legal systems like the EU ’ s ) into its domestic law , sufficiently explicit legislation could probably escape disapplication by UK courts .
But this in itself would be a direct violation of the agreement , which the European Court could be expected punish with a fine .
Though the UK could refuse to pay the fine , on the grounds that it was acting according to it own law , this would just trigger the second level of dispute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established to be established under the agreement .
If the Joint Committee can not resolve the dispute to both sides ’ satisfaction , and in this case it is hard to see how it could , the case would be submitted to an arbitration panel at the Permanent Court of Arbitration .
Lewis ’ s declaration that the UK intends to “ break international law ” is unlikely be helpful to the British case .
Now , the UK may as a sovereign state in practice refuse to abide by the arbitration panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Article 178 , paragraph 1 ) provides for the panel to “ impose a lump sum or penalty payment ” .
If the UK refuses to pay that , the subsequent paragraph allows the EU to suspend either parts of the Withdrawal Agreement with the UK , or of other agreements it has .
These include agreements on aviation freedoms , equivalence for financial services , “ data adequacy ” vital to the tech sector , and the right of truck drivers to travel to the EU .
This would amount to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Prime Minister ’ s withdrawal agreement , endorsed in the 2019 general election , was supposed to avoid .
Now that the Government does not need the votes of the DUP , it should think carefully about whether it would rather spend the rest of its term engaging in an optional legal fight with the EU , or , having got Brexit done at the end of the year , stick to running the country it was elected to govern .

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party.
The trouble with international agreements is that they are, well, international. By this I mean that sovereignty can’t be used as a trump card in the way that parliamentary sovereignty can in most domestic law.
This strongly suggests that the Government’s course of action in seeking, in the disarmingly frank words of Brandon Lewis, “to break international law in a specific and limited way” has not been properly thought through.
The domestic problems with this approach are well known. Any legislation to break international law will run into trouble in the Lords, which will feel entitled to block it, as it was not only absent from the election manifesto, but in fact directly contradicts its promise to implement the Brexit deal sealed in November 2019.
There is also the matter of the ministerial and civil service codes, which forbid the breaking of the law (the removal of the word “international” from the code makes no difference in practice), and are likely also forbid actions openly directed towards that aim.
It is therefore an open question of constitutional law whether legislation to this end, introduced improperly by ministers, and drafted by civil servants would be valid. It is rather clearer that ministers or officials participating in the production of such legislation risk falling within the ambit of the common law offence of misconduct in public office.
But my concern here is international. The foundation of international law has long been that states are sovereign. As well as meaning that they begin with full powers to arrange their internal affairs, it also means they have the power to make agreements with each other. An agreement means that the states accept obligations to each other, which is what makes a treaty different from a state making a unilateral declaration to itself. While a state retains the practical power to break an international agreement, it cannot change the meaning of the agreement on its own.
It is also a consequence of this sovereign power that states are able to revise treaties they make, by mutual agreement, and it is of course often the case that this revision is dictated by power politics, but even that is different from mere reneging on a treaty. Nevertheless, the power of revision is usually held collectively by the states that signed the agreement, not by individual signatories. Some treaties, like indeed the Treaty of European Union provide an exit mechanism (Article 50), but others, like the Withdrawal Agreement, do not.
The Government might have been better placed to argue that it was trying to use its residual sovereign power to seek to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, which it had concluded under the duress of the two-year withdrawal period contained in Article 50.
While that would probably not have gone down well in Brussels, openly seeking to break these particular parts of the withdrawal agreement is rather more challenging, because Michel Barnier’s team built in three levels of safeguards against what it would consider to be “perfidious Albion.”
First, the relevant aspects of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol are governed by EU law, interpretable by British courts and, ultimately, European Court of Justice. Because of the way the UK incorporates treaties (including treaties that give effect to legal systems like the EU’s) into its domestic law, sufficiently explicit legislation could probably escape disapplication by UK courts.
But this in itself would be a direct violation of the agreement, which the European Court could be expected punish with a fine. Though the UK could refuse to pay the fine, on the grounds that it was acting according to it own law, this would just trigger the second level of dispute resolution, which is the Joint Committee established to be established under the agreement.
If the Joint Committee cannot resolve the dispute to both sides’ satisfaction, and in this case it is hard to see how it could, the case would be submitted to an arbitration panel at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Lewis’s declaration that the UK intends to “break international law” is unlikely be helpful to the British case.
Now, the UK may as a sovereign state in practice refuse to abide by the arbitration panel, but in that case the agreement (Article 178, paragraph 1) provides for the panel to “impose a lump sum or penalty payment”.
If the UK refuses to pay that, the subsequent paragraph allows the EU to suspend either parts of the Withdrawal Agreement with the UK, or of other agreements it has. These include agreements on aviation freedoms, equivalence for financial services, “data adequacy” vital to the tech sector, and the right of truck drivers to travel to the EU. This would amount to the “no deal Brexit” that the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, endorsed in the 2019 general election, was supposed to avoid.
Now that the Government does not need the votes of the DUP, it should think carefully about whether it would rather spend the rest of its term engaging in an optional legal fight with the EU, or, having got Brexit done at the end of the year, stick to running the country it was elected to govern.


conservativehome--2020-09-10--Douglas Pullen: Zoom has boosted participation in local democracy

Cllr Douglas Pullen is the Leader of Lichfield District Council .
One of the many COVID-induced jolts that local government received related to our distinctly 20th century meeting schedule .
While the private sector has been hosting Webex/Zoom/Skype meetings for nigh on two decades , the “ compelling event ” never arrived for councils to make the shift .
Our officers all worked in one building , the councillors attended the Council Chamber for our meetings , and requests for conference calls involved someone putting their phone in the middle of the room on loudspeaker .
Well , the compelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments to maintain some of the provisions of the Coronavirus Act beyond 7th May 2021 are impossible to ignore .
Here in leafy , largely uncontentious Lichfield District ( with a population 130,000 ) we have had over 3,000 views of our 15 Zoom meetings , which have been streamed live via YouTube .
Intrigue and novelty no doubt have played a part in these numbers , but we are seeing the numbers hold steady , and far in excess of the two or three politicos that would usually turn up our meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by councillors has shot up too , with virtually no “ apologies ” sent in so far , compared to a usual turnout figure of 80 per cent .
So councillor attendance rates are up and there ’ s increased public engagement .
There ’ s also a reduction in our carbon foot-print , improvements in record-keeping , and greater transparency – all laudable , but that is just a mild improvement on what has gone before .
The real transformative powers of retaining broadcast remote-meetings lies in how this shift could affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ councillors .
As a young ( ish ) leader with a family and a full-time job , I am rather unusual in local government .
This isn ’ t because community activism isn ’ t appealing – it ’ s the almost daily dash across the country to return for a rigidly-fixed 6pm meeting which is distinctly unalluring .
So the role of a councillor typically attracts retirees , the self-employed , small business-owners , and MP staffers , and typically excludes those with young families , the 9-5 ’ ers , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need a better mix of all of these types to ensure we can live up to the mantra of being “ representatives of our community ” , which trips so easily off our tongues when asked about our work as a councillor .
Imagine the tectonic-shift in the demographic of our councillors if meetings could be attended by video-call from your toy-strewn living room , your office in another city , your work canteen , or the 17:43 Euston – Lichfield Trent Valley .
It gives an opportunity to strengthen local democracy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual group photos will change to include more females , younger members , more ethnic minority councillors – and how that will positively impact our decision-making processes .
Amongst the many painful jolts of COVID , this is one which I warmly embrace .

Cllr Douglas Pullen is the Leader of Lichfield District Council.
One of the many COVID-induced jolts that local government received related to our distinctly 20th century meeting schedule. While the private sector has been hosting Webex/Zoom/Skype meetings for nigh on two decades, the “compelling event” never arrived for councils to make the shift. Our officers all worked in one building, the councillors attended the Council Chamber for our meetings, and requests for conference calls involved someone putting their phone in the middle of the room on loudspeaker.
Well, the compelling event has arrived now – and the arguments to maintain some of the provisions of the Coronavirus Act beyond 7th May 2021 are impossible to ignore.
Here in leafy, largely uncontentious Lichfield District (with a population 130,000) we have had over 3,000 views of our 15 Zoom meetings, which have been streamed live via YouTube. Intrigue and novelty no doubt have played a part in these numbers, but we are seeing the numbers hold steady, and far in excess of the two or three politicos that would usually turn up our meetings in the chamber. Our attendance rates by councillors has shot up too, with virtually no “apologies” sent in so far, compared to a usual turnout figure of 80 per cent.
So councillor attendance rates are up and there’s increased public engagement. There’s also a reduction in our carbon foot-print, improvements in record-keeping, and greater transparency – all laudable, but that is just a mild improvement on what has gone before. The real transformative powers of retaining broadcast remote-meetings lies in how this shift could affect the demographic of our next cohort of councillors.
As a young(ish) leader with a family and a full-time job, I am rather unusual in local government. This isn’t because community activism isn’t appealing – it’s the almost daily dash across the country to return for a rigidly-fixed 6pm meeting which is distinctly unalluring. So the role of a councillor typically attracts retirees, the self-employed, small business-owners, and MP staffers, and typically excludes those with young families, the 9-5’ers, the commuters, and the night-workers.
We need a better mix of all of these types to ensure we can live up to the mantra of being “representatives of our community”, which trips so easily off our tongues when asked about our work as a councillor. Imagine the tectonic-shift in the demographic of our councillors if meetings could be attended by video-call from your toy-strewn living room, your office in another city, your work canteen, or the 17:43 Euston – Lichfield Trent Valley.
It gives an opportunity to strengthen local democracy and widen participation. Imagine how quickly our annual group photos will change to include more females, younger members, more ethnic minority councillors – and how that will positively impact our decision-making processes.
Amongst the many painful jolts of COVID, this is one which I warmly embrace.


conservativehome--2020-09-10--“Difficult and highly exceptional circumstances”. The Government’s statement on the legal position r

“Difficult and highly exceptional circumstances”. The Government’s statement on the legal position relating to the Internal Market Bill.

“ This is the Government ’ s legal position on the UK Internal Market Bill ( “ the Bill ” ) which was introduced on 9 September .
The purpose of the Bill is to promote the continued functioning of the internal market in the UK after the conclusion of the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and the European Union ( Withdrawal ) Act 2018 .
The Bill also provides for how aspects of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the Withdrawal Agreement apply in the UK ’ s domestic law .
In particular , it ensures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its commitments to protect peace in Northern Ireland and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement , and to strengthen and maintain the UK internal market .
Clauses 42 and 43 of the Bill give HMG the power to make regulations to ( i ) disapply or modify the application of any exit procedures that would otherwise be applicable to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain , and ( ii ) make regulations setting out how the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol on State aid are to be given effect for the purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these powers may be exercised in a way that is incompatible with provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement .
Clause 45 of the Bill expressly provides that these clauses , and any regulations made under them , have effect notwithstanding any international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent .
This ‘ notwithstanding provision ’ partially disapplies Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement because it removes the possibility of challenge before domestic courts to enforce the rights and remedies provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement .
The effect is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ direct effect ’ .This is the case regardless of whether any regulations made under clause 42 or 43 of the Bill are in fact incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement .
It is an established principle of international law that a state is obliged to discharge its treaty obligations in good faith .
This is , and will remain , the key principle in informing the UK ’ s approach to international relations .
However , in the difficult and highly exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves , it is important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK ’ s Treaty obligations .
Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation .
This ‘ dualist ’ approach is shared by other , similar legal systems such asCanada , Australia and New Zealand .
Under this approach , treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation .
Whether to enact or repeal legislation , and the content of that legislation , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principle was recently approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in R ( Miller ) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [ 2017 ] UKSC 5 .
The legislation which implements the Withdrawal Agreement including the Northern Ireland Protocol is expressly subject to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty .
Parliament ’ s ability to pass provisions that would take precedence over the Withdrawal Agreement was expressly confirmed in section 38 of the European Union ( Withdrawal Agreement ) Act 2020 , with specific reference to the EU law concept of ‘ @ @ @ @ @

“This is the Government’s legal position on the UK Internal Market Bill (“the Bill”) which was introduced on 9 September.
The purpose of the Bill is to promote the continued functioning of the internal market in the UK after the conclusion of the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and the European Union(Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Bill also provides for how aspects of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the Withdrawal Agreement apply in the UK’s domestic law. In particular, it ensures that the Government will be able to deliver its commitments to protect peace in Northern Ireland and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and to strengthen and maintain the UK internal market.
Clauses 42 and 43 of the Bill give HMG the power to make regulations to (i) disapply or modify the application of any exit procedures that would otherwise be applicable to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and (ii) make regulations setting out how the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol on State aid are to be given effect for the purposes of domestic law. The clauses provide that these powers may be exercised in a way that is incompatible with provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Clause 45 of the Bill expressly provides that these clauses, and any regulations made under them, have effect notwithstanding any international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent. This ‘notwithstanding provision’ partially disapplies Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement because it removes the possibility of challenge before domestic courts to enforce the rights and remedies provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. The effect is to disapply the EU law concept of ‘direct effect’.This is the case regardless of whether any regulations made under clause 42 or 43 of the Bill are in fact incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement.
It is an established principle of international law that a state is obliged to discharge its treaty obligations in good faith. This is, and will remain, the key principle in informing the UK’s approach to international relations. However, in the difficult and highly exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is important to remember the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK’s Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation. This ‘dualist’ approach is shared by other, similar legal systems such asCanada, Australia and New Zealand.
Under this approach, treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation. Whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament and Parliament alone. This principle was recently approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5.
The legislation which implements the Withdrawal Agreement including the Northern Ireland Protocol is expressly subject to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament’s ability to pass provisions that would take precedence over the Withdrawal Agreement was expressly confirmed in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, with specific reference to the EU law concept of ‘direct effect’.”


conservativehome--2020-09-10--Henry Hill: The Shetland Islands explore secession from Scotland

The phoney war is well and truly over , as this week saw the temperature of the constitutional debate turned up to boiling point on several fronts .
Perhaps most eye-catchingly , the Shetland News reports that the islands ’ council has voted to explore ways of gaining self-determination within – or indeed , from – Scotland , in response to more than a decade of ruthless centralisation by the Nationalist administration in Edinburgh .
The Northern Isles have always been devosceptic , wary of getting dominated by an over-mighty Scottish legislature versus a more distant Westminster .
This week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ councillors splitting in favour of exploring the options by a majority of 18 to 2 .
Even the SNP ’ s sole representative supported the motion , although he is wary of it becoming a vehicle for the islands seeking “ a relationship with what ’ s left of the UK after the Scottish independence referendum ” .
It should be just that , of course , although the question remains what form that should take .
Iain Martin writes at Reaction that crown dependency status would be one of the options explored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islands formally outside the UK and without representation at Westminster .
The Government should actively engage in finding a better , more integrated alternative .
Beyond that , this week also saw the publication of the Government ’ s UK Internal Market Bill , and with it the start of a long-overdue pushback against the May Government ’ s disastrous capitulation on the question of ( badly-mislabelled ) ‘ post-Brexit devolved powers ’ .
For its part , the Government claims that it felt moved to ‘ clarify ’ the Withdrawal Agreement after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the European Union to ban British food exports to Northern Ireland .
Such an outcome is of course entirely unacceptable to a sovereign state which places any value on its territorial integrity – although given that the entire point of an Irish Sea border is that it makes such things possible , ministers do need to explain why this didn ’ t occur to them previously .
For their part , the DUP have offered ‘ cautious support ’ .
This led has led David Melding , the arch-devolutionary member of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tory front bench .
In the same week Daran Hill , a high profile ‘ Yes ’ campaigner in both of the modern Welsh devolution referendums , has joined the Party – a move devosceptics believe is aimed at shoring up official Conservative support for Cardiff Bay in the face of mounting grassroots disaffection .
Whilst it was always very likely that a proper unionist constitutional fightback would alienate devocrats , the Government should be sure to invest time and energy in building the full case that justifies the new strategy if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public support .
This comes as Mark Drakeford , the nationalist ( Labour ) First Minister of Wales , launched a fierce attack on the proposals and stated that his Party should not stand in the way of a second independence referendum .
The Welsh Labour leader was voicing the anger of devocrats that spending and regulatory powers previously vested in Brussels are now , perfectly sensibly , being vested in London .
The SNP have also hit out at proposals which will see Westminster directly funding roads , cultural events , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in decades ” .
There has been a new twist in the ongoing saga of the Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish Government ’ s mishandling of complaints against Alex Salmond – one which really puts a spotlight on just how tight-knit the top of the Scottish National Party really is .
Centre stage this week is Peter Murrell , Nicola Sturgeon ’ s husband , who also holds the role of Chief Executive of the SNP , who this week claimed not to have been told about what several meetings between the First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the couple ’ s own home ) were about – despite her having claimed the meetings were in her capacity as SNP leader .
Murrell has reportedly angered MSPs conducting the investigation through ‘ disrespectful ’ conduct , according to the Times , whilst the Daily Telegraph reports that he denies knowledge of Nationalist ministers using party email addresses instead of official accounts , despite Sturgeon apparently doing so “ for years ” .
Beyond Murrell , Salmond himself has threatened to take the Scottish Government to court ( again ) in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its botched inquiry into allegations against him .
Meanwhile Leslie Evans , the embattled Permanent Secretary who is Scotland ’ s most senior civil servant , has been fending off claims that she is or was ‘ at war ’ with the former First Minister .
Last week , we covered the apparently abortive effort by senior figures in the Scottish Labour MSP group to force out Richard Leonard , their ineffectual and increasingly isolated leader , who is still refusing to step down .
At the time it appeared that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Daily Record reports that Leonard ’ s opponents believe they have the numbers for a formal leadership challenge .
However , allies of the leadership claim that there is in fact no mechanism by which the MSP group can oust their leader , and both sides are now embroiled in a very Labour-ish dispute over the technicalities .
Whilst not of the hard left himself , Leonard is widely viewed as having been close to the national leadership under Jeremy Corbyn , and John McDonnell will have done nothing to challenge this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s defence this week .
On the other side Rachel Reeves , a member of the current Shadow Cabinet , urged him to consider his position .
The Scottish Labour leader also received some unexpected support from both Tories and Nationalists are Dehenna Davison , the MP for Bishop Auckland , appeared to blame his failings on his English accent .
• The fightback to save the Union starts with the Internal Market Bill – Alun Cairns MP , Daily Telegraph • The rules of Britain ’ s internal market should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CapX • We ’ re not nostalgic flag wavers but Tories who see the UK as force for good – Robin Millar MP , Daily Express • Unionists must do much more than just deny the SNP their referendum – Henry Hill , CapX

The Shetlands’ council votes to explore self-determination
The phoney war is well and truly over, as this week saw the temperature of the constitutional debate turned up to boiling point on several fronts.
Perhaps most eye-catchingly, the Shetland News reports that the islands’ council has voted to explore ways of gaining self-determination within – or indeed, from – Scotland, in response to more than a decade of ruthless centralisation by the Nationalist administration in Edinburgh.
The Northern Isles have always been devosceptic, wary of getting dominated by an over-mighty Scottish legislature versus a more distant Westminster. This week’s vote was decisive, with councillors splitting in favour of exploring the options by a majority of 18 to 2. Even the SNP’s sole representative supported the motion, although he is wary of it becoming a vehicle for the islands seeking “a relationship with what’s left of the UK after the Scottish independence referendum”.
It should be just that, of course, although the question remains what form that should take. Iain Martin writes at Reaction that crown dependency status would be one of the options explored, but this would leave the Shetland Islands formally outside the UK and without representation at Westminster. The Government should actively engage in finding a better, more integrated alternative.
…as constitutional battle heats up
Beyond that, this week also saw the publication of the Government’s UK Internal Market Bill, and with it the start of a long-overdue pushback against the May Government’s disastrous capitulation on the question of (badly-mislabelled) ‘post-Brexit devolved powers’.
For its part, the Government claims that it felt moved to ‘clarify’ the Withdrawal Agreement after what it took to be veiled threats by the European Union to ban British food exports to Northern Ireland.
Such an outcome is of course entirely unacceptable to a sovereign state which places any value on its territorial integrity – although given that the entire point of an Irish Sea border is that it makes such things possible, ministers do need to explain why this didn’t occur to them previously. For their part, the DUP have offered ‘cautious support’.
This led has led David Melding, the arch-devolutionary member of the Welsh Parliament, to resign from the Tory front bench. In the same week Daran Hill, a high profile ‘Yes’ campaigner in both of the modern Welsh devolution referendums, has joined the Party – a move devosceptics believe is aimed at shoring up official Conservative support for Cardiff Bay in the face of mounting grassroots disaffection.
Whilst it was always very likely that a proper unionist constitutional fightback would alienate devocrats, the Government should be sure to invest time and energy in building the full case that justifies the new strategy if they want to have any hope of winning public support.
This comes as Mark Drakeford, the nationalist (Labour) First Minister of Wales, launched a fierce attack on the proposals and stated that his Party should not stand in the way of a second independence referendum. The Welsh Labour leader was voicing the anger of devocrats that spending and regulatory powers previously vested in Brussels are now, perfectly sensibly, being vested in London. The SNP have also hit out at proposals which will see Westminster directly funding roads, cultural events, and other schemes “for the first time in decades”.
Salmond inquiry puts Sturgeon’s husband in the spotlight
There has been a new twist in the ongoing saga of the Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish Government’s mishandling of complaints against Alex Salmond – one which really puts a spotlight on just how tight-knit the top of the Scottish National Party really is.
Centre stage this week is Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband, who also holds the role of Chief Executive of the SNP, who this week claimed not to have been told about what several meetings between the First Minister and her predecessor (held at the couple’s own home) were about – despite her having claimed the meetings were in her capacity as SNP leader.
Murrell has reportedly angered MSPs conducting the investigation through ‘disrespectful’ conduct, according to the Times, whilst the Daily Telegraph reports that he denies knowledge of Nationalist ministers using party email addresses instead of official accounts, despite Sturgeon apparently doing so “for years”.
Beyond Murrell, Salmond himself has threatened to take the Scottish Government to court (again) in order to force it to release documents relating to its botched inquiry into allegations against him. Meanwhile Leslie Evans, the embattled Permanent Secretary who is Scotland’s most senior civil servant, has been fending off claims that she is or was ‘at war’ with the former First Minister.
McDonnell defends Leonard as Scottish Labour battle intensifies
Last week, we covered the apparently abortive effort by senior figures in the Scottish Labour MSP group to force out Richard Leonard, their ineffectual and increasingly isolated leader, who is still refusing to step down.
At the time it appeared that the move had failed, but this week the Daily Record reports that Leonard’s opponents believe they have the numbers for a formal leadership challenge. However, allies of the leadership claim that there is in fact no mechanism by which the MSP group can oust their leader, and both sides are now embroiled in a very Labour-ish dispute over the technicalities.
Whilst not of the hard left himself, Leonard is widely viewed as having been close to the national leadership under Jeremy Corbyn, and John McDonnell will have done nothing to challenge this perception when he came to the former’s defence this week. On the other side Rachel Reeves, a member of the current Shadow Cabinet, urged him to consider his position.
The Scottish Labour leader also received some unexpected support from both Tories and Nationalists are Dehenna Davison, the MP for Bishop Auckland, appeared to blame his failings on his English accent.
Op-eds: