conservativehome--2020-06-06--David Gauke: The Prime Minister will regret not requiring Cummings’ resignation

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
It would be hard to argue that it has been a good couple of weeks for the Government .
The Prime Minister promised a ‘ world-beating ’ track and trace system by 1 June , but we are some weeks from it being fully operational .
The Chair of the Statistics Authority has brought into question the accuracy and integrity of the Government ’ s test numbers .
The Home Secretary has announced a quarantining policy that looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus but disastrous to attempts to restore the economy .
And the Leader of the House of Commons has replaced a well-functioning online voting system with something that requires MPs to queue for half an hour and , until amended , disenfranchised large numbers of MPs .
These are points I would rather not make .
Throughout this crisis , I have been of the view that the Government has a tremendously difficult job to do , that all options are unpalatable , that the public understands all of this and that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get behind the Government in as constructive a manner as possible .
For my own part , on these pages and elsewhere I have argued that the Government has broadly got many of the decisions right – or , at least , where they have been in error these were mistakes that could easily be made by any government .
With the benefit of hindsight , we should have locked down earlier .
At the time , Rory Stewart made the case for an earlier lockdown but I didn ’ t .
Rishi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for businesses and employees .
As for the moves to ease the lockdown , I think the Government has been right to resist calls to abandon it rapidly , but that maintaining the toughest restrictions was unsustainable .
When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take a cautious step-by-step approach to returning to some kind of normality , I was supportive .
Above all , I looked at the responsibility placed on the shoulders of former colleagues and recognised that it is much easier to comment from the side lines than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life-or-death decisions .
My view was that Ministers should be scrutinised , but that the public understood how difficult this was .
Much of that still holds true .
But something significant has happened in the past fortnight in how the Government is viewed and it is going to make it much harder in future .
The benefit of the doubt has been lost and it has been lost because of Dominic Cummings .
I am conscious that , when it comes to Cummings , I can be easily dismissed as a bitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an end by his single-minded pursuit of Brexit .
But it is also true that , on these pages , I have frequently praised his strategic ruthlessness , defended his attendance at SAGE meetings and , if the decision to go to Durham was made by stressed and anxious parents concerned about the well-being of their four year old son , I would not want to be too condemnatory of a well-meaning error made under pressure .
Nonetheless , the Cummings Northern Tour , and the reaction to the story , revealed ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us ) of five attributes of the Government that even those of us sympathetic to the Government ’ s plight find unattractive .
First , the arrogance .
The immediate response from Cummings was to dismiss the story as an irrelevance – “ it ’ s not about what you guys think ” – when it was clear that the guidelines had been broken and an apology was in order .
Second , the lack of honesty and transparency .
The Cummings story changed almost by the hour and the explanation for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By the way , the emergence that Cummings ’ 2019 blog was amended in April to include a specific reference to the threat of a coronavirus pandemic ( which gave the impression that he was extraordinarily prescient ) deserves much more attention .
Third , the emasculation of the Cabinet .
At a time when the Government badly needs a large number of big beasts to go out and make its case for it , forcing Cabinet ministers to tweet in support of an indefensible position undermines them .
Given the nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have neither been asked nor should she have consented to do this .
Fourth , the dependence of the Prime Minister on a single adviser .
It was always likely to be the case that Boris Johnson would take a slightly non-executive approach to being Prime Minister , and ill-health and family responsibilities have probably exacerbated that tendency .
But , as the revealing Danny Kruger view to his fellow members of the 2019 Conservative intake argues “ BJ and DC … together is the only way to GBD , level up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only things which will win us the next General Election ” .
The ‘ only way ’ ?
And , as with the Vote Leave organisation , the Government is full of people whose loyalty is primarily to Mr Cummings – making him apparently unsackable .
Fifth , everything is seen through the prism of Brexit .
Again , the Kruger stance makes it clear that the big prize is ‘ GBD ’ – Getting Brexit Done .
That is what really matters above all .
I should acknowledge that every single one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of the last general election when the British people gave Boris Johnson an 80-seat majority .
It was a Government that had attempted to shut down Parliament , failed to justify its reasons and never apologised .
It promised an ‘ oven-ready deal ’ in order to ‘ get Brexit done ’ , which doesn ’ t entirely convey the situation in which we currently find ourselves .
The Cabinet was selected primarily on the basis of loyalty to the Prime Minister .
And Cummings was very obviously the leading strategic mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to leave the European Union at all costs .
And it won .
The difficulty is that it is not a Government well-suited to the unexpected challenge it faces .
A Government that shows humility and honesty will retain the benefit of the doubt , but that runs counter to a ‘ never apologise , never explain ’ ethos .
The country expects the Prime Minister to be in charge and for Cabinet ministers to be competent and substantial figures .
A system that depends upon immense power in the hands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) is unsustainable when faced with a challenge of this scale .
And for most people , Brexit ( one way or another ) is not the priority at the moment – tackling the disease is .
The national mood in recent months has been one of a coming together .
The scars of the Brexit debate were beginning to heal as most of the country wanted the Government to succeed .
Honest mistakes were forgiven ; genuine successes celebrated .
But the decision to keep Cummings in place has meant that normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise be the case .
Given the difficult months ahead , the Prime Minister may regret that .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
It would be hard to argue that it has been a good couple of weeks for the Government. The Prime Minister promised a ‘world-beating’ track and trace system by 1 June, but we are some weeks from it being fully operational. The Chair of the Statistics Authority has brought into question the accuracy and integrity of the Government’s test numbers. The Home Secretary has announced a quarantining policy that looks irrelevant to reducing the spread of the virus but disastrous to attempts to restore the economy. And the Leader of the House of Commons has replaced a well-functioning online voting system with something that requires MPs to queue for half an hour and, until amended, disenfranchised large numbers of MPs.
These are points I would rather not make. Throughout this crisis, I have been of the view that the Government has a tremendously difficult job to do, that all options are unpalatable, that the public understands all of this and that it is in the national interest that we get behind the Government in as constructive a manner as possible.
For my own part, on these pages and elsewhere I have argued that the Government has broadly got many of the decisions right – or, at least, where they have been in error these were mistakes that could easily be made by any government.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should have locked down earlier. At the time, Rory Stewart made the case for an earlier lockdown but I didn’t. Rishi Sunak moved quickly and impressively to establish support for businesses and employees.
As for the moves to ease the lockdown, I think the Government has been right to resist calls to abandon it rapidly, but that maintaining the toughest restrictions was unsustainable. When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take a cautious step-by-step approach to returning to some kind of normality, I was supportive.
Above all, I looked at the responsibility placed on the shoulders of former colleagues and recognised that it is much easier to comment from the side lines than it is to be the person making life-or-death decisions. My view was that Ministers should be scrutinised, but that the public understood how difficult this was.
Much of that still holds true. But something significant has happened in the past fortnight in how the Government is viewed and it is going to make it much harder in future. The benefit of the doubt has been lost and it has been lost because of Dominic Cummings.
I am conscious that, when it comes to Cummings, I can be easily dismissed as a bitter Remainer whose political career was brought to an end by his single-minded pursuit of Brexit. But it is also true that, on these pages, I have frequently praised his strategic ruthlessness, defended his attendance at SAGE meetings and, if the decision to go to Durham was made by stressed and anxious parents concerned about the well-being of their four year old son, I would not want to be too condemnatory of a well-meaning error made under pressure.
Nonetheless, the Cummings Northern Tour, and the reaction to the story, revealed (or perhaps I should say, reminded us) of five attributes of the Government that even those of us sympathetic to the Government’s plight find unattractive.
First, the arrogance. The immediate response from Cummings was to dismiss the story as an irrelevance – “it’s not about what you guys think” – when it was clear that the guidelines had been broken and an apology was in order.
Second, the lack of honesty and transparency. The Cummings story changed almost by the hour and the explanation for the trip to Barnard Castle stretches credulity. By the way, the emergence that Cummings’ 2019 blog was amended in April to include a specific reference to the threat of a coronavirus pandemic (which gave the impression that he was extraordinarily prescient) deserves much more attention.
Third, the emasculation of the Cabinet. At a time when the Government badly needs a large number of big beasts to go out and make its case for it, forcing Cabinet ministers to tweet in support of an indefensible position undermines them. Given the nature of this controversy, the Attorney-General should certainly have neither been asked nor should she have consented to do this.
Fourth, the dependence of the Prime Minister on a single adviser. It was always likely to be the case that Boris Johnson would take a slightly non-executive approach to being Prime Minister, and ill-health and family responsibilities have probably exacerbated that tendency.
But, as the revealing Danny Kruger view to his fellow members of the 2019 Conservative intake argues “BJ and DC … together is the only way to GBD, level up the regions, and fix Whitehall – the only things which will win us the next General Election”. The ‘only way’? And, as with the Vote Leave organisation, the Government is full of people whose loyalty is primarily to Mr Cummings – making him apparently unsackable.
Fifth, everything is seen through the prism of Brexit. Again, the Kruger stance makes it clear that the big prize is ‘GBD’ – Getting Brexit Done. That is what really matters above all.
I should acknowledge that every single one of those attributes was apparent at the time of the last general election when the British people gave Boris Johnson an 80-seat majority. It was a Government that had attempted to shut down Parliament, failed to justify its reasons and never apologised. It promised an ‘oven-ready deal’ in order to ‘get Brexit done’, which doesn’t entirely convey the situation in which we currently find ourselves. The Cabinet was selected primarily on the basis of loyalty to the Prime Minister. And Cummings was very obviously the leading strategic mind within the Government and his overriding objective was to leave the European Union at all costs. And it won.
The difficulty is that it is not a Government well-suited to the unexpected challenge it faces. A Government that shows humility and honesty will retain the benefit of the doubt, but that runs counter to a ‘never apologise, never explain’ ethos. The country expects the Prime Minister to be in charge and for Cabinet ministers to be competent and substantial figures. A system that depends upon immense power in the hands of one person (especially an unaccountable figure) is unsustainable when faced with a challenge of this scale. And for most people, Brexit (one way or another) is not the priority at the moment – tackling the disease is.
The national mood in recent months has been one of a coming together. The scars of the Brexit debate were beginning to heal as most of the country wanted the Government to succeed. Honest mistakes were forgiven; genuine successes celebrated. But the decision to keep Cummings in place has meant that normal politics has resumed much earlier than would otherwise be the case. Given the difficult months ahead, the Prime Minister may regret that.


conservativehome--2020-06-07--WATCH: “It’s just a nonsense”. Hodge attacks decision to end ‘virtual Commons’.

Dame Margaret Hodge says she is excluded from a debate about virtual access because she is having to work virtually @ @ @ @ @ .
# Ridge

“It’s just a nonsense”
Dame Margaret Hodge says she is excluded from a debate about virtual access because she is having to work virtually instead of returning to parliament. #Ridge
Follow live analysis: https://t.co/acafWfVYun pic.twitter.com/EsdnZHkLQb
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) June 7, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-07--WATCH: Hancock – ‘I’m sure… that we made the right decisions at the right time’

“ I ’ m sure… that we made the right decisions at the right time ” Health Secretary Matt Hancock @ @ @ @ @ with SAGE member Professor John Edmunds that not going into lockdown earlier had cost lives @ @ @ @ @ pic.twitter.com/TSyOeajdsy

“I’m sure… that we made the right decisions at the right time”
Health Secretary Matt Hancock tells #Marr he disagrees with SAGE member Professor John Edmunds that not going into lockdown earlier had cost lives#Covid_19 https://t.co/Uug1h8EmWX pic.twitter.com/TSyOeajdsy
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) June 7, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-07--WATCH: Republican senator wants “people to be comfortable to peacefully protest”

# Marr : Has President Trump ’ s language inflamed tensions in the US ?
Republican Senator Rick Scott : @ @ @ @ @ be comfortable to peacefully protest ” https : //t.co/WU2moPDloJ pic.twitter.com/yQR7n2UuUt

#Marr: Has President Trump’s language inflamed tensions in the US?
Republican Senator Rick Scott: We want “people to be comfortable to peacefully protest”https://t.co/WU2moPDloJ pic.twitter.com/yQR7n2UuUt
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) June 7, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-07--WATCH: Health Secretary says demonstrations are ‘undoubtedly a risk’ for spreading Covid-19

Matt Hancock says protests are “ undoubtedly a risk ” for increasing the spread of coronavirus .
# Ridge

Matt Hancock says protests are “undoubtedly a risk” for increasing the spread of coronavirus. #Ridge
Follow live analysis: https://t.co/acafWfVYun pic.twitter.com/rVIEiR4kXF
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) June 7, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-07--Conservative MPs must be ready to keep Sunday special

What was the only Government Bill defeated at Second Reading under Margaret Thatcher ?
The answer is nothing to do with the poll tax or Europe or even Keynesian economics .
It was her Bill to abolish the Sunday trading laws – introduced when her powers were at their zenith in 1986 .
No fewer than 72 Conservative backbenchers rebelled – enough to annul her three figure majority and defeat the Bill by 14 votes .
Thirty years later , it was Tory MPs once again who saw off an attempt by George Osborne to liberalise the laws by leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So Boris Johnson will be chancing his Parliamentary arm if he seeks temporarily to suspend the laws , cautiously relaxed in 1994 , in order to boost English and Welsh economic growth as the Coronavirus recedes .
( Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own arrangements , the former having no Sunday trading restrictions at all . )
There is reason for those Conservative backbenchers taking the view that they did , and the heart of it lies in the tensions between two fundamentals of the centre-right : the free market and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analogy , here are two illustrations .
First , the two minute silence each year on November 11 .
We do not each choose when we observe it , picking whatever moment during the year that suits us .
Instead , we honour it together as a collective obligation , in memory of those who died during two world wars .
Second , and more happily , Christmas Day .
Again , we do not each pick our own day of the year to enjoy this Bank Holiday .
Instead , we celebrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it marks the birth of Jesus Christ , its fundamental purpose is less religious than recreational : to pause normal life near the winter solstice .
It is a more exact parallel because shop closures on December 25 are enforced by law .
The Sunday trading restrictions are driven by the same logic : that we are a country as well as individuals , and that we gain from protecting the natural flow of life between work and leisure .
Again , the original justification for keeping Sunday special was religious .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : rather , institutional religion , in the form originally of Judaism , wrapped the Sabbatarian impulse in the clothing of a divine commandment .
It will be said that plenty of people work on Sunday as it is .
Certainly , some will toil today in factories and offices .
As others are doing at home , including the writer of this editorial .
The shops are open anyway for a large slice of the day , in most of the country , and Scotland survives happily enough without closing its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but misses the essential point .
Which is that the law helps to preserve the unique character of Sunday , and the pause for rest , family life and recreation which goes with it ; the recognition that we work to live , not live to work ( or should do ) .
The impulse to protect it is felt strongly in this Conservative home – ConservativeHome .
Home , not work , is where the heart it is , and it ’ s no coincidence that the founder of this site , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our site ConservativeWork .
None the less , the issue shows up the differences among conservatives , both with a small and a capital C. The Conservative Party ’ s full title is the Conservative and Unionist Party , and those unionists were originally liberal ones : the Party is , if you like , a coalition of conservatives and liberals – in the old-fashioned sense of that last word .
Its electoral potency is derived from that fact .
The liberal strain prioritises the freedom of the individual and the strictly Tory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions in shaping those individuals in the first place , our common interest as citizens .
So in this case .
Tories would add : what about freedom of shopworkers to choose their hours ?
Would a change in the law truly honour it ?
The possibility of temporarily relaxing the Sunday trading laws has clearly been floated to test reaction among Conservative MPs .
( It was raised with the big supermarkets earlier during this crisis .
They didn ’ t favour easing restrictions at that stage because of doubts about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores . )
There is a precedent .
The laws were suspended during the Olympics , and their lifting defied the usual rule , which we suspect applies to the recent waiving of the law that bars home abortions : namely , that nothing is so permanent as the temporary .
So Tory MPs should keep their eyes and ears open .
If their judgement is that a suspension really would be no more than just that , there ’ s a good case for voting for the law to be paused .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growth it can get .
But backbenchers are shrewd at sniffing out Ministerial intent , and it is vital to safeguard the Sunday status quo , with its pluses for families , mental health and wellbeing .
After all , Britain isn ’ t just a market with a flag on top , for all our talk of people and nations .
Between work and home lies the third part of what makes us human : civil society .

What was the only Government Bill defeated at Second Reading under Margaret Thatcher? The answer is nothing to do with the poll tax or Europe or even Keynesian economics. It was her Bill to abolish the Sunday trading laws – introduced when her powers were at their zenith in 1986.
No fewer than 72 Conservative backbenchers rebelled – enough to annul her three figure majority and defeat the Bill by 14 votes. Thirty years later, it was Tory MPs once again who saw off an attempt by George Osborne to liberalise the laws by leaving decisions in the hands of local authorities.
So Boris Johnson will be chancing his Parliamentary arm if he seeks temporarily to suspend the laws, cautiously relaxed in 1994, in order to boost English and Welsh economic growth as the Coronavirus recedes. (Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own arrangements, the former having no Sunday trading restrictions at all.)
There is reason for those Conservative backbenchers taking the view that they did, and the heart of it lies in the tensions between two fundamentals of the centre-right: the free market and the nation state. By way of analogy, here are two illustrations.
First, the two minute silence each year on November 11. We do not each choose when we observe it, picking whatever moment during the year that suits us. Instead, we honour it together as a collective obligation, in memory of those who died during two world wars.
Second, and more happily, Christmas Day. Again, we do not each pick our own day of the year to enjoy this Bank Holiday. Instead, we celebrate it at the same time. Although it marks the birth of Jesus Christ, its fundamental purpose is less religious than recreational: to pause normal life near the winter solstice. It is a more exact parallel because shop closures on December 25 are enforced by law.
The Sunday trading restrictions are driven by the same logic: that we are a country as well as individuals, and that we gain from protecting the natural flow of life between work and leisure. Again, the original justification for keeping Sunday special was religious. But there is nothing inherently faith-based about it: rather, institutional religion, in the form originally of Judaism, wrapped the Sabbatarian impulse in the clothing of a divine commandment.
It will be said that plenty of people work on Sunday as it is. Certainly, some will toil today in factories and offices. As others are doing at home, including the writer of this editorial. The shops are open anyway for a large slice of the day, in most of the country, and Scotland survives happily enough without closing its own. All of this is true, but misses the essential point.
Which is that the law helps to preserve the unique character of Sunday, and the pause for rest, family life and recreation which goes with it; the recognition that we work to live, not live to work (or should do). The impulse to protect it is felt strongly in this Conservative home – ConservativeHome.
Home, not work, is where the heart it is, and it’s no coincidence that the founder of this site, Tim Montgomerie, didn’t call our site ConservativeWork. None the less, the issue shows up the differences among conservatives, both with a small and a capital C.
The Conservative Party’s full title is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and those unionists were originally liberal ones: the Party is, if you like, a coalition of conservatives and liberals – in the old-fashioned sense of that last word. Its electoral potency is derived from that fact.
The liberal strain prioritises the freedom of the individual and the strictly Tory strain, which stresses the role of institutions in shaping those individuals in the first place, our common interest as citizens. So in this case. Tories would add: what about freedom of shopworkers to choose their hours? Would a change in the law truly honour it?
The possibility of temporarily relaxing the Sunday trading laws has clearly been floated to test reaction among Conservative MPs. (It was raised with the big supermarkets earlier during this crisis. They didn’t favour easing restrictions at that stage because of doubts about the availability of enough workers to staff the stores.)
There is a precedent. The laws were suspended during the Olympics, and their lifting defied the usual rule, which we suspect applies to the recent waiving of the law that bars home abortions: namely, that nothing is so permanent as the temporary.
So Tory MPs should keep their eyes and ears open. If their judgement is that a suspension really would be no more than just that, there’s a good case for voting for the law to be paused. The economy is going to need all the growth it can get.
But backbenchers are shrewd at sniffing out Ministerial intent, and it is vital to safeguard the Sunday status quo, with its pluses for families, mental health and wellbeing. After all, Britain isn’t just a market with a flag on top, for all our talk of people and nations. Between work and home lies the third part of what makes us human: civil society.


Coronavirus Count

Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 284,868 ( Up from 283,311 ) .
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 40,465 ( Up from 40,261 ) .
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 1,557 ( Down from 1,650 ) .
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 204 ( Down from 357 ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD : THE UK GOVERNMENT ’ S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY See here .
New as of Monday May 11 .
See here .
New as of Tuesday June 2 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19 See here .
New as of Tuesday June 2 .
See here .
New as of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LANDLORDS , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus .
• In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 6am on Sunday June 7 . )

HEADLINE FACTS
Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 292,950 (Up from 291,409).
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 41,481 (Up from 41,279).
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 1,541 (Up from 1,266).
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 202 (Up from 151).
England total cases: 156,410 (Up from 156,018 ).
England total deaths: 37,069 (Up from 36,883).
England death rate: 279.4 (Was 278.7).
Scotland total cases: 15,709 (Up from 15,682).
Scotland total deaths: 2,439 (Up from 2,434).
Scotland death rate: 288.9 (Was 288.4).
Wales total cases: 14,658 (Up from 14,581).
Wales total deaths: 1,435 (Up from 1,425).
Wales death rate: 467.0 (Was 464.6)
Northern Ireland total cases: 4,838 (Up from 4,822)
Northern Ireland total deaths: 538 (Up from 537).
Northern Ireland death rate: 257.1 (Was 256.3).
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED
DAILY NUMBER OF LAB-CONFIRMED ENGLAND CASES
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
RISK
“The risk to the UK has been raised to high” –
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
NHS VOLUNTEER RESPONDER FORM
See here
(The Government’s scheme to recruit 250,000 volunteers.)
– – –
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD: THE UK GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY
See here. New as of Monday May 11.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON THE LOCKDOWN.
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL DISTANCING
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: GENERAL ADVICE
See here.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CAN’T DO
See here.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW
See here. Published on Saturday March 28.
– – –
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS
Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when you cough or sneeze .
Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell.
SYMPTOMS
The symptoms of coronavirus are:
A cough.
A high temperature.
Shortness of breath.
However, these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness.
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common, such as cold and flu.
USING 111
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do.
Use this service if:
You think you might have coronavirus.
In the last 14 days you’ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers.
You’ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus.
In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours.
In Wales call 111 (if available in your area) or 0845 46 47.
In Northern Ireland call 111.
Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital.
FURTHER LINKS TO GOVERNMENT ADVICE
– – –
(All information taken from Government sources.
Updated as of 19.00 on Friday June 12.)


conservativehome--2020-06-08--Who governs the streets?

Who governs the streets?

Andrew Roberts ’ Eminent Churchillians was designed to make the author ’ s reputation in the way that Eminent Victorians made Lytton Strachey ’ s .
In the chapter called “ Churchill , race and the ‘ Magpie Society ’ , the former proved that he was more than capable of mimicking the latter ’ s iconoclasm .
Churchill , Roberts wrote , was “ a convinced white – not to say Anglo-Saxon – supremacist and thought in terms of race to a degree that was remarkable even by the standards of his own time ” .
Which takes us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real vandalism of statues , and that yesterday of Churchill ’ s himself .
History is the study of the past .
One shouldn ’ t undertake it , as an academic discipline , without having a twin capacity : first , critical distance and , second , imaginative sympathy .
The distance keeps one away from the subject , and stops one from becoming a partisan .
The sympathy takes one to it , and opens up a quality that helps to civilise us – the understanding of others .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islamic Studies , for example , who either hated Islam itself or was a propagandist for it .
So with Churchill , and everything else .
He must be understood as a man of his time , formed as a child during the Victorian era – and thus , in a sense , an Eminent Victorian himself .
There is no reason to expect his attitudes to be those of a politician today , any more than those of today ’ s protesters will be those of tomorrow ’ s .
Nor does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a reminder that history is a lived experience as well as academic discipline : it is part of our common British story .
In hating Churchill or Edward Colson , whose statue was vandalised in Bristol , those who hate both are also hating themselves .
So what ’ s new ?
After all , the Churchill statue has been desecrated before .
Even the Cenotaph has not been spared : in 2000 , a man was jailed after hanging from it with a union flag , leaping on a car carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Cornwall , and kicking at a window of an Oxford Street branch of Topshop .
He turned out to be the son of David Gilmour , Pink Floyd ’ s guitarist – not exactly one of the wretched of the earth .
It is not an unusual story .
Has anything really changed since the original protests by young people in modern times – those of the 1960s ?
The site believes that it has done , in at least one important way .
The left ’ s grip on our universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on campus today others will say outside it tomorrow .
Our colleges help to set the tone , just as they did here and in America during the 1960s , when Maoism was briefly the rage , or in Germany during the 1930s , when students took up naziism en masse .
Cambridge was a Conservative seat until 1992 ; Oxford West and Abingdon stayed Tory until 1997 .
During the 1970s , Howard Kirk , the odious sociologist of Malcolm Bradbury ’ s The History Man , was unusual enough to merit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so unexceptional as doubtless to be serving as a Vice-Chancellor .
As the flow of self-loathing from the universities seeps steadily outwards , capitalism “ takes the knee ” .
Sometimes , firms see the opportunity to cash in : so Lego , for example , has told online affiliates to remove links to 31 mainly police-themed sets of bricks , as part of its own stand “ against racism and inequality ” .
More often , managers and executives just want a quiet life .
What will they say when the rioters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clamouring that they back demands to “ defund the police ” – adding that “ your silence will not protect you ” ?
Mind you , the police themselves are in a bad place .
If the good people of Bristol want to remove Colson ’ s statue , that ’ s for them to decide .
( It has been a focus of debate for many years . )
What on earth were the police doing when vandals smashed it up yesterday ?
Why have some policemen been taking the knee themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media .
Often , it won ’ t be easy for a young person to take a stand – questioning , for example , whether there ’ s more to the Black Lives Matter campaign than revulsion against the horrible killing of George Floyd .
It ’ s worth adding that the evidence about young people is mixed .
Obviously , they are more socially liberal than older ones .
But it isn ’ t altogether clear what that means in this context .
In broad terms , Onward says that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among younger voters .
Young Conservative “ considerers ” , it reports , are close to a new centre ground that is “ proud to be British ” .
That pride doesn ’ t suggest the renunciation of Britain ’ s past .
And while pride has its pitfalls , it is also essential for survival ; it is impossible to live happily , perhaps at all , without a sense of self-worth .
The thugs who attacked Churchill ’ s statue may not understand this , but most voters do so only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Red Wall seats that fell to the Conservatives last year .
They have an intuitive , visceral sense for who holds power – not elected office , which is one thing ; but real , raw power , which can be another .
That most of the weekend ’ s protestors weren ’ t violent ; or that the killing of George Floyd was wrong , or that black lives , like all lives , matter very much is not the point – at least for them , when push , sometimes literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elemental question that many people will ask is : just who exactly is in charge ?
Two people will be looked to for an answer .
The first is Keir Starmer .
The Labour leader knows very well what being seen to be anti-British has cost his party .
Big business may be willing to prostrate itself before rioters .
Starmer should know that he doesn ’ t have that luxury .
But the Labour leader isn ’ t Prime Minister .
Boris Johnson says that the protests have been “ subverted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of a start .
However , voters will ask what ’ s actually going to change .
They don ’ t want water cannon or French-style riot police or crashing batons .
But they do want to hear the smack of firm government .
Churchill ’ s statue has been defaced before , was yesterday and may be again .
If Parliament Square is to become the focal point for thuggery , the Prime Minister may want to mull banning protests from it altogether .
Elsewhere , there is unfinished business with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : yes , there are some ) .
None of this will happen if the Party has no coherent response to the Left .
On the one hand , there is Matt Hancock saying that “ black lives matter ” at a press conference .
On the other , there is Kemi Badenoch ’ s avoidance of the slogan , and her push-back against SNP grandstanding , in the Commons last week .
Which is it ?
Meanwhile , Priti Patel needs to have a good long hard look at policing and priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snared up London and other cities before they were closed down .
Who governs the streets ?
The answer should be : the Government .
The police shouldn ’ t be taking the knee .
They should be taking a stand .

Andrew Roberts’ Eminent Churchillians was designed to make the author’s reputation in the way that Eminent Victorians made Lytton Strachey’s. In the chapter called “Churchill, race and the ‘Magpie Society’, the former proved that he was more than capable of mimicking the latter’s iconoclasm.
Churchill, Roberts wrote, was “a convinced white – not to say Anglo-Saxon – supremacist and thought in terms of race to a degree that was remarkable even by the standards of his own time”. Which takes us from the literary smashing of idols to the real vandalism of statues, and that yesterday of Churchill’s himself.
History is the study of the past. One shouldn’t undertake it, as an academic discipline, without having a twin capacity: first, critical distance and, second, imaginative sympathy.
The distance keeps one away from the subject, and stops one from becoming a partisan. The sympathy takes one to it, and opens up a quality that helps to civilise us – the understanding of others. It would be a very odd Professor of Islamic Studies, for example, who either hated Islam itself or was a propagandist for it.
So with Churchill, and everything else. He must be understood as a man of his time, formed as a child during the Victorian era – and thus, in a sense, an Eminent Victorian himself. There is no reason to expect his attitudes to be those of a politician today, any more than those of today’s protesters will be those of tomorrow’s.
Nor does his racism nullify his greatness. Which is a reminder that history is a lived experience as well as academic discipline: it is part of our common British story. In hating Churchill or Edward Colston, whose statue was vandalised in Bristol, those who hate both are also hating themselves.
So what’s new? After all, the Churchill statue has been desecrated before. Even the Cenotaph has not been spared: in 2000, a man was jailed after hanging from it with a union flag, leaping on a car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, and kicking at a window of an Oxford Street branch of Topshop.
He turned out to be the son of David Gilmour, Pink Floyd’s guitarist – not exactly one of the wretched of the earth. It is not an unusual story. Has anything really changed since the original protests by young people in modern times – those of the 1960s? The site believes that it has done, in at least one important way.
The left’s grip on our universities has strengthened. And what people say on campus today others will say outside it tomorrow. Our colleges help to set the tone, just as they did here and in America during the 1960s, when Maoism was briefly the rage, or in Germany during the 1930s, when students took up naziism en masse.
Cambridge was a Conservative seat until 1992; Oxford West and Abingdon stayed Tory until 1997. During the 1970s, Howard Kirk, the odious sociologist of Malcolm Bradbury’s The History Man, was unusual enough to merit a novel. Today, Kirk is so unexceptional as doubtless to be serving as a Vice-Chancellor.
As the flow of self-loathing from the universities seeps steadily outwards, capitalism “takes the knee”. Sometimes, firms see the opportunity to cash in: so Lego, for example, has told online affiliates to remove links to 31 mainly police-themed sets of bricks, as part of its own stand “against racism and inequality”.
More often, managers and executives just want a quiet life. What will they say when the rioters come knocking at their door next, clamouring that they back demands to “defund the police” – adding that “your silence will not protect you”?
Mind you, the police themselves are in a bad place. If the good people of Bristol want to remove Colston’s statue, that’s for them to decide. (It has been a focus of debate for many years.) What on earth were the police doing when vandals smashed it up yesterday? Why have some policemen been taking the knee themselves?
The self-hatred is rampaging all over social media. Often, it won’t be easy for a young person to take a stand – questioning, for example, whether there’s more to the Black Lives Matter campaign than revulsion against the horrible killing of George Floyd.
It’s worth adding that the evidence about young people is mixed. Obviously, they are more socially liberal than older ones. But it isn’t altogether clear what that means in this context. In broad terms, Onward says that there is a “large untapped opportunity” among younger voters.
Young Conservative “considerers”, it reports, are close to a new centre ground that is “proud to be British”. That pride doesn’t suggest the renunciation of Britain’s past. And while pride has its pitfalls, it is also essential for survival; it is impossible to live happily, perhaps at all, without a sense of self-worth.
The thugs who attacked Churchill’s statue may not understand this, but most voters do so only too well – not least in the Red Wall seats that fell to the Conservatives last year. They have an intuitive, visceral sense for who holds power – not elected office, which is one thing; but real, raw power, which can be another.
That most of the weekend’s protestors weren’t violent; or that the killing of George Floyd was wrong, or that black lives, like all lives, matter very much is not the point – at least for them, when push, sometimes literally, comes to shove. The more elemental question that many people will ask is: just who exactly is in charge?
Two people will be looked to for an answer. The first is Keir Starmer. The Labour leader knows very well what being seen to be anti-British has cost his party. Big business may be willing to prostrate itself before rioters. Starmer should know that he doesn’t have that luxury.
But the Labour leader isn’t Prime Minister. Boris Johnson says that the protests have been “subverted by thuggery”. That’s a bit of a start. However, voters will ask what’s actually going to change. They don’t want water cannon or French-style riot police or crashing batons. But they do want to hear the smack of firm government.
Churchill’s statue has been defaced before, was yesterday and may be again. If Parliament Square is to become the focal point for thuggery, the Prime Minister may want to mull banning protests from it altogether. Elsewhere, there is unfinished business with University reform (and organising Tory academics: yes, there are some).
None of this will happen if the Party has no coherent response to the Left. On the one hand, there is Matt Hancock saying that “black lives matter” at a press conference. On the other, there is Kemi Badenoch’s avoidance of the slogan, and her push-back against SNP grandstanding, in the Commons last week. Which is it?
Meanwhile, Priti Patel needs to have a good long hard look at policing and priorities. The Extinction Rebellion protests last year snared up London and other cities before they were closed down. Who governs the streets? The answer should be: the Government. The police shouldn’t be taking the knee. They should be taking a stand.


conservativehome--2020-06-08--Richard Holden: Why we need Parliament back to deliver immigration control, trade deals, levelling u

Richard Holden: Why we need Parliament back to deliver immigration control, trade deals, levelling up – and much more.

Across North West Durham , the shops are slowly starting to open-up again , and signs reminding people of social distancing measures decorate the doors and walls .
The open-air markets on Middle Street in Consett and down in Crook both re-started last week , too .
Queues at the drive through KFC and McDonalds were the talk of the ‘ All New Consett Chartterbox ’ – a local facebook group with about 20,000 members .
Even my own office in Consett has finally been able to take shape – its opening much delayed due to Covid-19 .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as I headed back to Wolsingham , I was able to grab a battered sausage , chips , scraps and a can of D & B from Cravens Fish Shop for the first time in ten weeks .
There was much discussion about how and when Parliament should re-open , and the necessary measures that need to be put in place .
I ’ m glad that last week the Leader of the House ensured that MPs who need to shield at home will now be able to vote by proxy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model .
As local facilities re-open , it ’ s vital that Parliament does so too , and that we crack on with the work that we were elected to do .
In pursuing the return to Westminster for those able to come , the public might not immediately notice much difference .
The ‘ spectacle ’ element of Parliament – PMQs and the like will remain largely unchanged – save some of the questions coming via video link .
Social distancing rules will leave the Commons chamber sparsely populated – in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – until it ’ s safe to reduce the spacing , and finally to remove the restrictions all together .
So what changes with sending Parliament back ?
Legislating .
That ’ s why I ’ ve backed its return .
With the Commons back , our manifesto can now be implemented , because laws can be debated and passed .
Without it , we ’ d have been stuck .
For the consideration of legislation couldn ’ t take place before our return , because it wasn ’ t possible to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a virtual setting .
Interventions and interaction are a key part of debate in the chamber .
There was no way one would get the cut and thrust of debate with MPs sat at home , doing their set-piece speeches into their little screens .
Virtual is fine for point scoring by the opposition , or for raising a constituency concern during the question sessions , but it doesn ’ t work for the real law-making part of parliament .
How debates take place in the Commons really does matter .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than by votes , where the Government will need to move to , as the will of the House takes a slightly different tack .
This can now take place and , because it is , I can hold my head high as I socially distance on the high street in Tow Law , Willington and Stanhope , knowing that we ’ re getting things done .
Bill committees of 16 MPs can now convene , and vote too .
Sounds dull – but it ’ s where line-by-line scrutiny of laws in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot to me personally because I ’ ve just been allocated my first Bill Committee – on the Immigration Bill .
Moving from our open-door immigration policy with Europe to one that means we can choose who comes to the UK , based on the need of Britain and what the individual can contribute , was in our manifesto and is a cornerstone of taking back control of our borders .
This legislation would have been severely delayed if Parliament hadn ’ t come back .
The Trade Bill , in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreements with other countries as we leave the EU , wouldn ’ t be possible without the return of Parliament .
Without its measures in place , we ’ d be massively hampering our ability to trade internationally after we exit the transition period .
Our manifesto also committed to a review of the 2005 Gambling Act , which it described as “ increasingly becoming an analogue law in a digital age.
” Loot boxes , 16-18 gambling , the explosion of online gambling ( turbo-charged by Coronavirus ) : I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about all this in later pieces but , without the return of Parliament , new legislation couldn ’ t happen , reviews would be further delayed and our failure would come back to haunt us .
And small but significant things , such as the law to exempt parish town and local government from business rates on public toilets – which matters to local councils in my area and will be even more needed if there is a domestic tourism boost during the summer – would also have been stuck in the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be aware that our political opponents have many reasons to opposing the return of Parliament , far beyond their vocal concern for the welfare of MPs .
More delay now would frustrate our ability to get Brexit sorted , because the trade and immigration legislation wouldn ’ t be in place .
This would smash our ability to deliver on our broader manifesto commitments on levelling-up throughout the country – playing into the hands of the SNP and other opposition parties who cry ‘ Westminster isn ’ t delivering.
’ Don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would like nothing more than the first substantial majority Conservative Government in a quarter of a century to have its hands tied .
I don ’ t want to be turning to my constituents at the local elections next year or the next general election , after they voted with the promise of something different , were we to fail to deliver on important promises we ’ d made to them .
And finally , as we – hopefully – slowly and safely emerge from Coronavirus , it ’ s vital that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lessons learned .
That can happen in two ways : by proper debate in Parliament , with Select Committees digging into the detail , or by a never-ending stream of headline-grabbing chatter in the media .
After recent weeks , it ’ s pretty clear that we need the proper scrutiny to take place in this area , too Parliament ’ s back .
Now , we ’ ve got to deliver .

Medomsley Road, Consett
Across North West Durham, the shops are slowly starting to open-up again, and signs reminding people of social distancing measures decorate the doors and walls. The open-air markets on Middle Street in Consett and down in Crook both re-started last week, too. Queues at the drive through KFC and McDonalds were the talk of the ‘All New Consett Chartterbox’ – a local facebook group with about 20,000 members.
Even my own office in Consett has finally been able to take shape – its opening much delayed due to Covid-19. And, most importantly of all, on Saturday, as I headed back to Wolsingham, I was able to grab a battered sausage, chips, scraps and a can of D&B from Cravens Fish Shop for the first time in ten weeks.
There was much discussion about how and when Parliament should re-open, and the necessary measures that need to be put in place. I’m glad that last week the Leader of the House ensured that MPs who need to shield at home will now be able to vote by proxy, and contribute to questions in a hybrid model. As local facilities re-open, it’s vital that Parliament does so too, and that we crack on with the work that we were elected to do.
In pursuing the return to Westminster for those able to come, the public might not immediately notice much difference. The ‘spectacle’ element of Parliament – PMQs and the like will remain largely unchanged – save some of the questions coming via video link. Social distancing rules will leave the Commons chamber sparsely populated – in the way it has been in recent weeks – until it’s safe to reduce the spacing, and finally to remove the restrictions all together.
So what changes with sending Parliament back? Legislating. That’s why I’ve backed its return. With the Commons back, our manifesto can now be implemented, because laws can be debated and passed.
Without it, we’d have been stuck. For the consideration of legislation couldn’t take place before our return, because it wasn’t possible to have second reading and report stage debates in a virtual setting. Interventions and interaction are a key part of debate in the chamber. There was no way one would get the cut and thrust of debate with MPs sat at home, doing their set-piece speeches into their little screens. Virtual is fine for point scoring by the opposition, or for raising a constituency concern during the question sessions, but it doesn’t work for the real law-making part of parliament.
How debates take place in the Commons really does matter. You can see by the speeches, more often than by votes, where the Government will need to move to, as the will of the House takes a slightly different tack. This can now take place and, because it is, I can hold my head high as I socially distance on the high street in Tow Law, Willington and Stanhope, knowing that we’re getting things done.
Bill committees of 16 MPs can now convene, and vote too. Sounds dull – but it’s where line-by-line scrutiny of laws in the Commons takes place. This means a lot to me personally because I’ve just been allocated my first Bill Committee – on the Immigration Bill.
Moving from our open-door immigration policy with Europe to one that means we can choose who comes to the UK, based on the need of Britain and what the individual can contribute, was in our manifesto and is a cornerstone of taking back control of our borders. This legislation would have been severely delayed if Parliament hadn’t come back.
The Trade Bill, in place to ensure that we can carry over agreements with other countries as we leave the EU, wouldn’t be possible without the return of Parliament. Without its measures in place, we’d be massively hampering our ability to trade internationally after we exit the transition period.
Our manifesto also committed to a review of the 2005 Gambling Act, which it described as “increasingly becoming an analogue law in a digital age.” Loot boxes, 16-18 gambling, the explosion of online gambling (turbo-charged by Coronavirus): I’m sure that I’ll write more about all this in later pieces but, without the return of Parliament, new legislation couldn’t happen, reviews would be further delayed and our failure would come back to haunt us.
And small but significant things, such as the law to exempt parish town and local government from business rates on public toilets – which matters to local councils in my area and will be even more needed if there is a domestic tourism boost during the summer – would also have been stuck in the system without the return of Parliament.
People need to be aware that our political opponents have many reasons to opposing the return of Parliament, far beyond their vocal concern for the welfare of MPs.
More delay now would frustrate our ability to get Brexit sorted, because the trade and immigration legislation wouldn’t be in place. This would smash our ability to deliver on our broader manifesto commitments on levelling-up throughout the country – playing into the hands of the SNP and other opposition parties who cry ‘Westminster isn’t delivering.’
Don’t be duped: the opposition would like nothing more than the first substantial majority Conservative Government in a quarter of a century to have its hands tied. I don’t want to be turning to my constituents at the local elections next year or the next general election, after they voted with the promise of something different, were we to fail to deliver on important promises we’d made to them.
And finally, as we – hopefully – slowly and safely emerge from Coronavirus, it’s vital that the Government and its response is properly scrutinised and lessons learned. That can happen in two ways: by proper debate in Parliament, with Select Committees digging into the detail, or by a never-ending stream of headline-grabbing chatter in the media. After recent weeks, it’s pretty clear that we need the proper scrutiny to take place in this area, too
Parliament’s back. Now, we’ve got to deliver.


Coronavirus Count


conservativehome--2020-06-08--Barry Lewis: Our cultural heritage can be uncomfortable – but destruction is the wrong response

Cllr Barry Lewis is the Leader of Derbyshire County Council .
Over the weekend , two competing petitions have , disturbingly , come slamming to my attention , and Conservative signatories of both petitions have messaged me to either remove or save an early 19th century , Grade II* listed , Blacks Head figure on a rare type of pub sign in Ashbourne , one of Derbyshire ’ s most picturesque rural towns .
Following on from the , now global , Black Lives Matter campaigns following the death of a black man , George Floyd , during an arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deface a seemingly innocuous 200-year-old pub sign in Derbyshire has quickly gained over 14,000 signatures ( at the time of writing ) .
Comments on the petition even suggest this should have been burned down before now .
As the Leader of Derbyshire County Council , I ’ ve been asked by one side to take action ( the side that wishes to remove it ) , and by the other , to sign a poorly worded petition to save it .
That I ’ m in this position at all is perplexing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the world has taken leave of its senses .
I ’ m assuming we ’ ve been drawn into a vortex of hysteria that has been spun out of Covid-19 , the global lockdowns , and anxieties about the future , as much as it is to do with the global Black Lives Matters protests .
I ’ ve spent most of my working life as an archaeologist trying to save cultural heritage , not just ours , but Aboriginal cultural heritage in Australia .
I have the rare pleasure of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( though now much lapsed ) in Sydney region Aboriginal rock-art .
A people , and a corpus of art , that was impacted by British colonialism and the subsequent development of the city and the sometimes wanton vandalism and destruction of Aboriginal culture and art .
So , I think I ’ m well-placed to give some thoughts on this issue .
The turbaned , smiling , black-painted head sits atop a rare type of “ gallows ” pub sign , emblazoned with the words “ Green Man and Blacks Head Royal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inns dating to the 1750s .
The Blacks Head was formerly named the Blackamoors Head , which as an inn with a ballroom played a pivotal role in Georgian life in Ashbourne ; a town that is steeped in Georgian splendour .
A young Queen Victoria popped in to use the loo in the Blacks Head and so the “ Royal Hotel ” part was added .
The Blacks Head or Blackamoors head is a challenging symbol today , clearly culturally insensitive and racist – of that , no one is in doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge us sometimes , to make us uncomfortable .
Any right thinking person when they see the Blacks Head sign should feel uncomfortable and be challenged .
It is an artefact of a time and of attitudes we never want to go back to , but that does not mean we should tear this head down .
And besides , it has a significant level of protection afforded by its Grade II* listed status .
If we do , then where do we stop ?
Do we erase all depictions of a white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iconography ?
Do we deface or burn books that do the same ?
There was global outcry and condemnation when ISIS destroyed the ancient ruins of Palmyra and other sites across the ancient Mesopotamian world because it upset their religious and extremist ideological sensibilities .
When the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan the world lamented .
Shouldn ’ t we be equally outraged at this suggestion and petition ?
Because I am , and I think all right-thinking people , and people with a genuine intellectual interest in cultural heritage and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceptions , should be .
After all , there is perhaps a more uncomfortable truth about Blackamoor art that needs challenging and that is that it is still being made in Europe , mainly in Italy , and being exported globally to adorn shelves in well-to-do houses around the world .
Where is the campaign to end this art form and trade ?
The terrible death of George Floyd is one issue that has rightly led to the arrest and charges being brought against those involved .
I support the right for those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peacefully protest at the perceived injustice against black people , anywhere , for this is an issue that should matter to us all .
Like so many other issues of injustice and unfair treatment of minority and other groups anywhere in the world .
What I object to is the violence , the lack of care for potentially hundreds of thousands of people , possibly millions , who thanks to these close , mass gatherings are now at risk of a serious second wave of Covid-19 .
None of this means though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pub sign should be defaced to satisfy the hysteria of a woke but vocal minority .
This is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge where it becomes okay to erase aspects of our heritage because it challenges us on some level .
It should challenge us , and it should make us better informed to challenge racism into the future .
I for one will not be supporting any call to remove the Blacks Head – to do so is , in my view , simply cultural vandalism .

Cllr Barry Lewis is the Leader of Derbyshire County Council.
Over the weekend, two competing petitions have, disturbingly, come slamming to my attention, and Conservative signatories of both petitions have messaged me to either remove or save an early 19th century, Grade II* listed, Blacks Head figure on a rare type of pub sign in Ashbourne, one of Derbyshire’s most picturesque rural towns. Following on from the, now global, Black Lives Matter campaigns following the death of a black man, George Floyd, during an arrest in the US, a campaign to deface a seemingly innocuous 200-year-old pub sign in Derbyshire has quickly gained over 14,000 signatures (at the time of writing). Comments on the petition even suggest this should have been burned down before now. As the Leader of Derbyshire County Council, I’ve been asked by one side to take action (the side that wishes to remove it), and by the other, to sign a poorly worded petition to save it.
That I’m in this position at all is perplexing to me. It’s as if the world has taken leave of its senses. I’m assuming we’ve been drawn into a vortex of hysteria that has been spun out of Covid-19, the global lockdowns, and anxieties about the future, as much as it is to do with the global Black Lives Matters protests. I’ve spent most of my working life as an archaeologist trying to save cultural heritage, not just ours, but Aboriginal cultural heritage in Australia. I have the rare pleasure of being one of Britain’s few experts (though now much lapsed) in Sydney region Aboriginal rock-art. A people, and a corpus of art, that was impacted by British colonialism and the subsequent development of the city and the sometimes wanton vandalism and destruction of Aboriginal culture and art. So, I think I’m well-placed to give some thoughts on this issue.
The turbaned, smiling, black-painted head sits atop a rare type of “gallows” pub sign, emblazoned with the words “Green Man and Blacks Head Royal Hotel” that linked two Georgian coaching inns dating to the 1750s. The Blacks Head was formerly named the Blackamoors Head, which as an inn with a ballroom played a pivotal role in Georgian life in Ashbourne; a town that is steeped in Georgian splendour. A young Queen Victoria popped in to use the loo in the Blacks Head and so the “Royal Hotel” part was added.
The Blacks Head or Blackamoors head is a challenging symbol today, clearly culturally insensitive and racist – of that, no one is in doubt, but cultural heritage is there to challenge us sometimes, to make us uncomfortable. Any right thinking person when they see the Blacks Head sign should feel uncomfortable and be challenged. It is an artefact of a time and of attitudes we never want to go back to, but that does not mean we should tear this head down. And besides, it has a significant level of protection afforded by its Grade II* listed status. If we do, then where do we stop?
Do we erase all depictions of a white Christ from all our churches and Christian iconography? Do we deface or burn books that do the same? There was global outcry and condemnation when ISIS destroyed the ancient ruins of Palmyra and other sites across the ancient Mesopotamian world because it upset their religious and extremist ideological sensibilities. When the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan the world lamented. Shouldn’t we be equally outraged at this suggestion and petition? Because I am, and I think all right-thinking people, and people with a genuine intellectual interest in cultural heritage and its role in informing the future and altering perceptions, should be. After all, there is perhaps a more uncomfortable truth about Blackamoor art that needs challenging and that is that it is still being made in Europe, mainly in Italy, and being exported globally to adorn shelves in well-to-do houses around the world. Where is the campaign to end this art form and trade?
The terrible death of George Floyd is one issue that has rightly led to the arrest and charges being brought against those involved. I support the right for those feeling aggrieved by this appalling death to peacefully protest at the perceived injustice against black people, anywhere, for this is an issue that should matter to us all. Like so many other issues of injustice and unfair treatment of minority and other groups anywhere in the world. What I object to is the violence, the lack of care for potentially hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions, who thanks to these close, mass gatherings are now at risk of a serious second wave of Covid-19.
None of this means though, that a simple but locally historically important pub sign should be defaced to satisfy the hysteria of a woke but vocal minority. This is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge where it becomes okay to erase aspects of our heritage because it challenges us on some level. It should challenge us, and it should make us better informed to challenge racism into the future.
I for one will not be supporting any call to remove the Blacks Head – to do so is, in my view, simply cultural vandalism.


conservativehome--2020-06-08--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioner

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioners – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Imperial War Museum ( IWM ) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War .
Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today , IWM is the world ’ s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain , its former Empire and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War to the present .
The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose , fulfilled in different ways at its different branches , both physical and virtual .
In addition to its headquarters building , IWM London , in Southwark , the Museum ’ s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London , IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire , and IWM North in Trafford , Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind .
The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the armed forces , and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.
” Time : Up to one day per month .
“ Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice , supporting as well as challenging the executive , and covering such issues as : support , guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy ( the single departmental plan ) ; performance ( including agreeing key performance indicators ) , operational issues ( including the operational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adherence to relevant standards ( e.g .
commercial , digital ) , and on the effective management of the department ; [ and ] the recruitment , appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives , as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.
” Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of Prisons “ Reporting directly to Ministers , the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government , and deliver the services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Inspectorate ’ s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate , and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required .
In addition to its annual inspection programme , the Inspectorate has , since 2019 , introduced Independent Reviews of Progress , which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons a year .
The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pensions Ombudsman ( TPO ) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run .
The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) Board under the PPF ’ s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) Financial Assistance Scheme .
Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation , they are held by one post holder .
Throughout this document the term ‘ PO ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints .
Determinations are final and binding on all parties , subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law .
Services are provided free of charge.
” “ DFID leads the UK ’ s work to end extreme poverty , deliver the Global Goals , and tackle global challenges in line with the government ’ s UK Aid Strategy .
We are delivering against the Government ’ s manifesto to stand up for the right of every girl in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education , to end the preventable deaths of mothers , new born babies and children by 2030 and to fight climate change , protect the environment and preserve biodiversity .
We are helping to lead the international response to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the Coronavirus and we work to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit .
We do this whilst also investing in the systems that help support Global Health Security and improve peoples ’ resilience to shocks and supporting countries receiving aid to become self-sufficient.
” “ The Commission operates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Northern Ireland Office and is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland… Candidates for these roles must be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the Commission and will need to demonstrate : the ability to build productive and respectful relationships with fellow Commissioners , senior stakeholders and diverse communities ; knowledge of human rights law , and of the scope and limits of the NIHRCs work in Northern Ireland , and the considerations that influence the environment in which it operates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise judgement across a broad spectrum of policy and high level human rights issues ; and a reputation for personal integrity , professional conduct and credibility , with an exceptional sense of propriety.
” “ IE : UK is a joint industry and government partnership , strategically targeting major infrastructure export opportunities around the world .
It is supported by DIT ’ s network of local staff in 116 markets , with the objective of identifying , pursuing , and delivering major strategic infrastructure projects through a consortium-led approach .
The objective of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure exports and identify gaps in the UK supply chain for FDI to fill .
The IE : UK Board is co-chaired by DIT ‘ s Minister for Exports and a senior industry leader .
The Industry sector co-Chair will benefit from working closely with the Minister for Exports and leading UK based infrastructure companies to help shape the direction of UK export policy and support within the infrastructure sector .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Imperial War Museum – RAF Trustee and Navy Trustee
“The Imperial War Museum (IWM) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War. Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today, IWM is the world’s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain, its former Empire and the Commonwealth, from the First World War to the present. The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose, fulfilled in different ways at its different branches, both physical and virtual. In addition to its headquarters building, IWM London, in Southwark, the Museum’s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London, IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire, and IWM North in Trafford, Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind. The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces, and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.”
Time: Up to one day per month.
Remuneration: Expenses reasonably incurred.
Closes: 12 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for International Trade – Lead Non-Executive Board Member/Non-Executive Board Member
“Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice, supporting as well as challenging the executive, and covering such issues as: support, guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy (the single departmental plan); performance (including agreeing key performance indicators), operational issues (including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals), adherence to relevant standards (e.g. commercial, digital), and on the effective management of the department; [and] the recruitment, appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives, as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000/£15,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
“Reporting directly to Ministers, the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government, and deliver the services under the Inspectorate’s scrutiny. The Inspectorate’s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate, and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required. In addition to its annual inspection programme, the Inspectorate has, since 2019, introduced Independent Reviews of Progress, which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons a year. The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £135,000 per annum.
Closes: 15 June
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pensions Ombudsman – Chair
“The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run. The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Board under the PPF’s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Financial Assistance Scheme. Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation, they are held by one post holder. Throughout this document the term ‘PO’ will therefore cover both roles. TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints. Determinations are final and binding on all parties, subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law. Services are provided free of charge.”
Time: Min. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 June
– – – – – – – – – –
DFID Board – Non-Executive Director
“DFID leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty, deliver the Global Goals, and tackle global challenges in line with the government’s UK Aid Strategy. We are delivering against the Government’s manifesto to stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education, to end the preventable deaths of mothers, new born babies and children by 2030 and to fight climate change, protect the environment and preserve biodiversity. We are helping to lead the international response to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the Coronavirus and we work to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit. We do this whilst also investing in the systems that help support Global Health Security and improve peoples’ resilience to shocks and supporting countries receiving aid to become self-sufficient.”
Time: Approx. 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 26 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission – Commissioners
“The Commission operates as an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office and is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland… Candidates for these roles must be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the Commission and will need to demonstrate: the ability to build productive and respectful relationships with fellow Commissioners, senior stakeholders and diverse communities; knowledge of human rights law, and of the scope and limits of the NIHRCs work in Northern Ireland, and the considerations that influence the environment in which it operates; the ability to analyse information and exercise judgement across a broad spectrum of policy and high level human rights issues; and a reputation for personal integrity, professional conduct and credibility, with an exceptional sense of propriety.”
Time: Approx. 3 days per month.
Remuneration: £7,500 per annum.
Closes: 26 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Infrastructure Exports:UK – Board co-Chair
“IE:UK is a joint industry and government partnership, strategically targeting major infrastructure export opportunities around the world. It is supported by DIT’s network of local staff in 116 markets, with the objective of identifying, pursuing, and delivering major strategic infrastructure projects through a consortium-led approach. The objective of IE:UK is to increase UK infrastructure exports and identify gaps in the UK supply chain for FDI to fill. The IE:UK Board is co-chaired by DIT‘s Minister for Exports and a senior industry leader. The Industry sector co-Chair will benefit from working closely with the Minister for Exports and leading UK based infrastructure companies to help shape the direction of UK export policy and support within the infrastructure sector.”
Time: 3-4 meetings a year.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 29 June


conservativehome--2020-06-08--WATCH: “Yes, you’re right, we’re all right, to say that black lives matter” – Johnson.

Let us work peacefully and lawfully to defeat racism and discrimination wherever we find it , and let us continue @ @ @ @ @ put Britain back on its feet .
pic.twitter.com/onUqXbcCGB

Let us work peacefully and lawfully to defeat racism and discrimination wherever we find it, and let us continue to work together as we put Britain back on its feet. pic.twitter.com/onUqXbcCGB
— Boris Johnson #StayAlert (@BorisJohnson) June 8, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-09--Eamonn Butler: More state provision won’t fix social care. It needs partnerships with independent pr

Eamonn Butler: More state provision won’t fix social care. It needs partnerships with independent providers.

Dr Eamonn Butler is Director of the Adam Smith Institute .
We carry on spending hundreds of millions on prestige projects such as HS2 at a time when we ’ ve just blown £300 billion on lockdown policies .
But if there is one sector of the economy that really needs some capital investment , it is the social care sector .
Roughly three-quarters of our residential care homes are old and no longer fit for purpose .
Many are converted houses and hotels that just aren ’ t suited to providing for elderly and frail people .
And most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well below modern standards in terms of bedroom and dayroom sizes , bathroom provision and much else .
They need upgrading—or knocking down and replacing .
So that ’ s a lot of cash , though we could probably bring it in for less than we ’ re spending on HS2 .
It ’ s pretty obviously not going to come from our depleted Treasury , though , and why should it ?
The older generation have already voted themselves generous benefits—triple-lock pensions , free TV licences , reduced rates of national insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it—at the expense of those who are actually still in work and paying the tax to fund it all .
And only a third of them are likely to need any social care at all .
So they won ’ t be thrilled by paying for other people ’ s .
Yes , there ’ s been a national debate about how we need to spend more and shove an extra penny on income tax to raise the means-test level and give more people free social care .
But again , raising taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to grow the new businesses that will get you out of water this deep .
That ’ s why we say , in our new report Fixing Social Care , that the solution is not more state provision but more partnerships between state and independent sectors .
For example , we need new care homes and pension funds and insurers need new long term investments—particularly now that shops and offices might be empty for a while .
Sounds like the basis of a deal .
We suggest that investors should create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twos as at present , but an economies-of-scale dozen at a time , and lease a whole care package to local authorities .
That gives councils future security on their caseload and avoids them stumping up huge capital sums .
And why can ’ t people provide for their own social care , instead of demanding the government pays for everyone ?
The answer is that insurance is not viable when you have the long-tail risk that a few people might have to spend many , many years in an expensive residential care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we make insurance both viable and affordable , by the state stepping in , not to pay for everyone , but just to pay the cost of anyone who needs more than , say , six years ’ of care ?
That would instantly create a market , bring money into the care sector , involve insurers who would make sure that care providers delivered good value for money , and make sure that the mass of people would get dignified care when they needed it .
We need new partnerships in care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not very visible , but actually a huge part of public and private spending .
Local authority care at home is pretty dire , selected on price rather than quality , and carers are so strung out travelling from person to person that they have little time when they arrive .
And council budgets are so stretched that many carers , and the private companies that manage home carers , are simply giving up .
The virus just made everything worse .
Starved of PPE ( all destined for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were simply turned away by their vulnerable but frightened clients .
This can ’ t go on .
Let ’ s welcome in the new generation of care providers who are harnessing artificial intelligence , blockchain and other technology , driven through user-friendly apps like Siri and Alexa , and who employ world-class recruitment , training and management techniques , to deliver services where human beings are in short supply .
And there are plenty of other parts of the care system—where half the council spending goes on the under-65s , remember , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health or learning problems—that need just this kind of shaking up .
We won ’ t fix the crisis in social care just by arbitrary boosts to public budget .
We need to fix a broken system : to bring in investors , insurers , new providers and new technologies .
And throw out all the red tape and ‘ always done it this way ’ attitude that prevents innovation .

Dr Eamonn Butler is Director of the Adam Smith Institute.
We carry on spending hundreds of millions on prestige projects such as HS2 at a time when we’ve just blown £300 billion on lockdown policies. But if there is one sector of the economy that really needs some capital investment, it is the social care sector.
Roughly three-quarters of our residential care homes are old and no longer fit for purpose. Many are converted houses and hotels that just aren’t suited to providing for elderly and frail people. And most of those that were purpose built are well below modern standards in terms of bedroom and dayroom sizes, bathroom provision and much else. They need upgrading—or knocking down and replacing.
So that’s a lot of cash, though we could probably bring it in for less than we’re spending on HS2. It’s pretty obviously not going to come from our depleted Treasury, though, and why should it? The older generation have already voted themselves generous benefits—triple-lock pensions, free TV licences, reduced rates of national insurance, winter fuel payments, you name it—at the expense of those who are actually still in work and paying the tax to fund it all. And only a third of them are likely to need any social care at all. So they won’t be thrilled by paying for other people’s.
Yes, there’s been a national debate about how we need to spend more and shove an extra penny on income tax to raise the means-test level and give more people free social care. But again, raising taxes is not exactly a smart policy if you want to grow the new businesses that will get you out of water this deep.
That’s why we say, in our new report Fixing Social Care, that the solution is not more state provision but more partnerships between state and independent sectors. For example, we need new care homes and pension funds and insurers need new long term investments—particularly now that shops and offices might be empty for a while.
Sounds like the basis of a deal. We suggest that investors should create new care homes—not just in ones and twos as at present, but an economies-of-scale dozen at a time, and lease a whole care package to local authorities. That gives councils future security on their caseload and avoids them stumping up huge capital sums.
And why can’t people provide for their own social care, instead of demanding the government pays for everyone? The answer is that insurance is not viable when you have the long-tail risk that a few people might have to spend many, many years in an expensive residential care setting.
So why don’t we make insurance both viable and affordable, by the state stepping in, not to pay for everyone, but just to pay the cost of anyone who needs more than, say, six years’ of care? That would instantly create a market, bring money into the care sector, involve insurers who would make sure that care providers delivered good value for money, and make sure that the mass of people would get dignified care when they needed it.
We need new partnerships in care delivered at home too—something often ignored because it’s not very visible, but actually a huge part of public and private spending. Local authority care at home is pretty dire, selected on price rather than quality, and carers are so strung out travelling from person to person that they have little time when they arrive.
And council budgets are so stretched that many carers, and the private companies that manage home carers, are simply giving up. The virus just made everything worse. Starved of PPE (all destined for the NHS front line), many carers were simply turned away by their vulnerable but frightened clients.
This can’t go on. Let’s welcome in the new generation of care providers who are harnessing artificial intelligence, blockchain and other technology, driven through user-friendly apps like Siri and Alexa, and who employ world-class recruitment, training and management techniques, to deliver services where human beings are in short supply. And there are plenty of other parts of the care system—where half the council spending goes on the under-65s, remember, such as people with physical, mental health or learning problems—that need just this kind of shaking up.
We won’t fix the crisis in social care just by arbitrary boosts to public budget. We need to fix a broken system: to bring in investors, insurers, new providers and new technologies. And throw out all the red tape and ‘always done it this way’ attitude that prevents innovation.