conservativehome--2020-10-07--Robert Halfon: Delivering social justice means feeding children properly. We’re not doing so – and w

Robert Halfon: Delivering social justice means feeding children properly. We’re not doing so – and we must.

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow , a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman , Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists .
Combating child food hunger should be as much a priority for this Government as its work on improving education standards .
After all , we know the two are interlinked .
Unsurprisingly , the evidence shows that hungry children not only do not learn at school , but have damaged life chances later on .
In 2018 , the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimated that around 2.2 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to food , due to a lack of money or other resources .
Magic Breakfast , the charity implementing the Government ’ s National Breakfast Programme , has calculated that approximately 1.8 million children are living in food insecure households .
The economic impacts of Covid-19 have only exacerbated the problem of child hunger .
According to the Children ’ s Commissioner , 88,000 children were living in households where jobs had been lost in April this year .
Many parents , who have worked hard their entire lives , found themselves unemployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggling to provide the next meal for their children .
The Food Foundation ’ s September 2020 report showed that the Government ’ s furlough scheme undoubtedly protected many families from going hungry .
But their May polling data also suggested a 250 per cent increase of households experiencing food insecurity since lockdown measures came into force .
School closures have placed further additional financial pressures on parents .
Where childcare arrangements were too costly , or didn ’ t fit around work commitments , many parents reduced hours or even left jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Families also had to provide home learning resources , and cover increased electricity and food bills .
Marcus Rashford has been a powerful voice in the debate on child hunger , calling for a long-term , cross-party strategy from the Government .
His impassioned letters to MPs resulted in the Government ’ s extension of free school meals over the holidays and at the start of September he endorsed the National Food Strategy ’ s recommendations .
He emotively described his own mother ’ s struggle to put food on the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their family still “ relied on breakfast clubs , free school meals and the kind actions of neighbours and [ football ] coaches.
” Some Conservatives question the role of the state in addressing child hunger , or argue that the Government ’ s welfare system already acts as a safety net for those falling on hard times .
But , as Lord Krebs ’ report revealed , when the Government ’ s own calculations of welfare payments do not cost in the provision of a healthy diet , in line with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not even giving families on Universal Credit a fair chance .
Second , child food insecurity has a big impact on a child ’ s education .
Kelloggs ’ report , A Lost Education , found that if a child arrives at school hungry , teachers believe they lose one hour of learning time a day .
Add to that the impact of the lockdown on education inequalities – early analysis by the Education Endowment Foundation ( EEF ) in June estimated that the attainment gap could widen by as much as 75 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and these children are at great risk of being further left behind .
However , a control trial has shown showed that pupils in schools supported by breakfast clubs made an additional twp months ’ academic progress over the course of a year .
Third , the economy pays a high price , too .
In terms of education alone , Kelloggs have calculated that “ the grip of hunger could potentially cost the English economy at least £5.2 million a year through teachers losing teaching hours to cope with the needs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is enormous cost-benefit to improving education outcomes .
Around a quarter of working-aged adults ( approximately 9 million people ) have low basic numeracy and literacy skills .
Studies at Loughborough University indicated that £3.5 billion is lost in tax receipts from people earning less as a result of leaving school with low skills , and child hunger costs the economy £29 billion a yearyear .
At a total price-tag well exceeding £1 billion a year , the three National Food Strategy policies endorsed by Rashford and his Task Force of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sell to a Treasury spending unprecedented amounts to salvage our economy from the wreckage of the pandemic .
But there is already money that could be put to better use .
First , consolidation is key .
Over the years , the Government has applied sticking plasters to the crisis of food insecurity , resulting in a spaghetti junction of schemes spanning nearly every department .
Putting welfare benefits to the side , we have Free School Meals , Universal Infant Free School Meals , the School Milk Subsidy Scheme , the Nursery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vegetable Scheme , Breakfast Club funding , Healthy Start Vouchers and , during Covid-19 , the Hardship Fund and the Holiday Activities and Food Programme .
No wonder the Children ’ s Commissioner called for a “ clear , joined-up plan to reduce food poverty ” , during our Education Committee session on Tuesday .
It is hardly surprising , then , that many of these schemes are operating with cost-spiralling inefficiencies .
The Healthy Start scheme , for example , suffers from extremely poor uptake .
This is , in part , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pregnant women and parents of under-fours must complete and submit a paper application form ( which has been particularly hard in lockdown for those who can ’ t get to a library to print out the forms ) .
Low participation in the scheme has created a significant underspend ( 2018/19 saw £28.6 million unused ) .
Surely we can do much more to market the scheme , accelerate its promised digitisation and introduce automatic enrolment ( with an opt-out ) , to ensure that support reaches those in need .
As an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proper data collection .
The Health Department ’ s answer to my written question seeking the total expenditure on Healthy Start vouchers in England revealed that information is only held for 2018/19 , raising concerns about the Health Department ’ s grasp of the situation .
Second , the Sugar Tax is forecast to generate a healthy £340 million revenue in 2020/21 – £1 billion over four years .
Ringfencing this funding offers a perfect opportunity to extend Free School Meals over the school holidays , estimated at between £281 million and £670 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , acknowledge that certain children need food during term-time with the provision of Free School Meals , what changes over the summer holidays ?
In fact , we know that the financial pressures on parents only increase during this time .
As the Taxpayers ’ Alliance has shown , the levy on everyday sugary food and drinks disproportionately impacts those from disadvantaged families , as low-income households tend to drink more sugary drinks and the tax takes a greater share of their income .
Using this revenue for Free School Meals or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programme has appeal in redistributing money back to those families hit hardest by the levy .
Third , the sceptics amongst us will point out that the conglomerates on Rashford ’ s Task Force are getting a great deal of good PR , without putting their money where their mouth is .
The Evening Standard estimated that supermarkets throw away around £230 million worth of food each year .
There is a real opportunity here for the supermarkets , wholesalers and manufacturers , to take on a much bigger role in combating child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address this social injustice .
This is not about an expansion of the welfare state , but simply ensuring all our children are properly fed .
As the pandemic has shown , if we don ’ t have a safety net at the bottom of our ladder of opportunity , what is the point ?

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow, a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists.
Combating child food hunger should be as much a priority for this Government as its work on improving education standards. After all, we know the two are interlinked. Unsurprisingly, the evidence shows that hungry children not only do not learn at school, but have damaged life chances later on.
In 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimated that around 2.2 million people in the UK have limited access to food, due to a lack of money or other resources. Magic Breakfast, the charity implementing the Government’s National Breakfast Programme, has calculated that approximately 1.8 million children are living in food insecure households.
The economic impacts of Covid-19 have only exacerbated the problem of child hunger. According to the Children’s Commissioner, 88,000 children were living in households where jobs had been lost in April this year. Many parents, who have worked hard their entire lives, found themselves unemployed and, for the first time, struggling to provide the next meal for their children.
The Food Foundation’s September 2020 report showed that the Government’s furlough scheme undoubtedly protected many families from going hungry. But their May polling data also suggested a 250 per cent increase of households experiencing food insecurity since lockdown measures came into force.
School closures have placed further additional financial pressures on parents. Where childcare arrangements were too costly, or didn’t fit around work commitments, many parents reduced hours or even left jobs to care for their children at home. Families also had to provide home learning resources, and cover increased electricity and food bills.
Marcus Rashford has been a powerful voice in the debate on child hunger, calling for a long-term, cross-party strategy from the Government. His impassioned letters to MPs resulted in the Government’s extension of free school meals over the holidays and at the start of September he endorsed the National Food Strategy’s recommendations. He emotively described his own mother’s struggle to put food on the table. Working full-time, earning minimum wage, their family still “relied on breakfast clubs, free school meals and the kind actions of neighbours and [football] coaches.”
Some Conservatives question the role of the state in addressing child hunger, or argue that the Government’s welfare system already acts as a safety net for those falling on hard times. But, as Lord Krebs’ report revealed, when the Government’s own calculations of welfare payments do not cost in the provision of a healthy diet, in line with its recommended Eatwell Guide, we are not even giving families on Universal Credit a fair chance.
Second, child food insecurity has a big impact on a child’s education. Kelloggs’ report, A Lost Education, found that if a child arrives at school hungry, teachers believe they lose one hour of learning time a day. Add to that the impact of the lockdown on education inequalities – early analysis by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in June estimated that the attainment gap could widen by as much as 75 per cent due to school closures – and these children are at great risk of being further left behind.
However, a control trial has shown showed that pupils in schools supported by breakfast clubs made an additional twp months’ academic progress over the course of a year.
Third, the economy pays a high price, too. In terms of education alone, Kelloggs have calculated that “the grip of hunger could potentially cost the English economy at least £5.2 million a year through teachers losing teaching hours to cope with the needs of hungry children”.
In the long-term, there is enormous cost-benefit to improving education outcomes. Around a quarter of working-aged adults (approximately 9 million people) have low basic numeracy and literacy skills. Studies at Loughborough University indicated that £3.5 billion is lost in tax receipts from people earning less as a result of leaving school with low skills ,and child hunger costs the economy £29 billion a yearyear.
At a total price-tag well exceeding £1 billion a year, the three National Food Strategy policies endorsed by Rashford and his Task Force of prominent retailers and manufacturers are a tough sell to a Treasury spending unprecedented amounts to salvage our economy from the wreckage of the pandemic. But there is already money that could be put to better use.
First, consolidation is key. Over the years, the Government has applied sticking plasters to the crisis of food insecurity, resulting in a spaghetti junction of schemes spanning nearly every department. Putting welfare benefits to the side, we have Free School Meals, Universal Infant Free School Meals, the School Milk Subsidy Scheme, the Nursery Milk Scheme, the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme, Breakfast Club funding, Healthy Start Vouchers and, during Covid-19, the Hardship Fund and the Holiday Activities and Food Programme. No wonder the Children’s Commissioner called for a “clear, joined-up plan to reduce food poverty”, during our Education Committee session on Tuesday.
It is hardly surprising, then, that many of these schemes are operating with cost-spiralling inefficiencies. The Healthy Start scheme, for example, suffers from extremely poor uptake. This is, in part, because of its archaic bureaucracy. Eligible pregnant women and parents of under-fours must complete and submit a paper application form (which has been particularly hard in lockdown for those who can’t get to a library to print out the forms).
Low participation in the scheme has created a significant underspend (2018/19 saw £28.6 million unused). Surely we can do much more to market the scheme, accelerate its promised digitisation and introduce automatic enrolment (with an opt-out), to ensure that support reaches those in need.
As an initial, basic step, we need proper data collection. The Health Department’s answer to my written question seeking the total expenditure on Healthy Start vouchers in England revealed that information is only held for 2018/19, raising concerns about the Health Department’s grasp of the situation.
Second, the Sugar Tax is forecast to generate a healthy £340 million revenue in 2020/21 – £1 billion over four years. Ringfencing this funding offers a perfect opportunity to extend Free School Meals over the school holidays, estimated at between £281 million and £670 million/year.
If we, as a state, acknowledge that certain children need food during term-time with the provision of Free School Meals, what changes over the summer holidays? In fact, we know that the financial pressures on parents only increase during this time.
As the Taxpayers’ Alliance has shown, the levy on everyday sugary food and drinks disproportionately impacts those from disadvantaged families, as low-income households tend to drink more sugary drinks and the tax takes a greater share of their income. Using this revenue for Free School Meals or for a long-term Holiday Activities and Food programme has appeal in redistributing money back to those families hit hardest by the levy.
Third, the sceptics amongst us will point out that the conglomerates on Rashford’s Task Force are getting a great deal of good PR, without putting their money where their mouth is. The Evening Standard estimated that supermarkets throw away around £230 million worth of food each year. There is a real opportunity here for the supermarkets, wholesalers and manufacturers, to take on a much bigger role in combating child hunger.
As Conservatives, we need to address this social injustice. This is not about an expansion of the welfare state, but simply ensuring all our children are properly fed. As the pandemic has shown, if we don’t have a safety net at the bottom of our ladder of opportunity, what is the point?


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Gareth Lyon: Reforming social care must include an increase in the supply of accommodation. More cho

Gareth Lyon: Reforming social care must include an increase in the supply of accommodation. More choice is needed.

Gareth Lyon is the Head of Policy and Communications at the Associated Retirement Community Operators .
He is a former councillor in Rushmoor and the Chairman of the Aldershot and North Hants Conservative Association .
Whilst the recently announced delay to the Government ’ s proposals on reforming social care will come as a big disappointment to a sector which has been lacking in political and policy direction for a long time , there may be a silver lining if this is used as an opportunity to reframe the debate away from the demand side hole it is stuck in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to be funded .
Important though that is , we must also look at the opportunities presented by supply-side reform and how care is delivered .
Of course social care is not sufficiently well funded in this country and something needs to be done about it .
Part of the solution may well lie though , in structuring services so that people actually choose to fund their own care by buying in to a wider package including lifestyle and wellness offerings as well as convenience and the ability to avoid financial hassle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the lessons the UK can learn from Australia and New Zealand where the shape of the care system is very different to over here , and where far greater choice of options exists .
A major feature of the care landscape in those countries is retirement villages , known in the UK by a variety of terms including Extra Care and Retirement Communities .
They combine the benefits of older people being able to live in a home of their own ( with every resident owning or renting a flat or bungalow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staffing , the provision of high quality onsite care , and the availability of onsite facilities such as restaurants , gyms , allotments , bars , swimming pools etc .
Older people choose to move into a retirement community because of these advantages , the social benefits of having a community available onsite , and the well documented health and wellness advantages which make it much less likely that they will end up in a care home or residential home .
Retirement communities are fundamentally different to the sheltered housing or retirement flats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – not just because of the provision of care and facilities , but also because of how they operate – the developers not just building out and moving on , but staying onsite and providing these services funded by service charges and fees tied to the value of the property when people come to selling on .
The result of this is that the care which is provided onsite is subsidised out of the fees which people voluntarily choose to pay .
Care which reduces the strain on the wider social care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this funding .
There is a clear lesson to be learned here – that contrary to all public policy presumptions at the moment , people need not be forced to pay for care .
By providing the right package of services people are prepared to pay for it themselves .
A very high proportion of older people own their own homes and are at least theoretically in a position to take up this opportunity .
For those who do not , the UK already has a well respected affordable housing version of retirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand and form one of the centre pieces of a new system .
As things stand , in the UK our retirement communities sector provides about a tenth of the capacity per head of population that the New Zealand and Australian sectors do .
For this sector to play a role there will need to be significant growth – and fast .
It is interesting that investors appear to have detected the opportunity presented by new forms of provision before policymakers have .
Major long-term capital investors such as Legal & General , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all made and are making investments in the nascent UK retirement community sector .
It is however clear that , as with any new sector , new and adapted regulation , specifically in relation to planning , consumer protection , and leases is needed .
Early indications are that the Government understands that something needs to be done but has not yet found the administrative capacity to do it .
Yet compared to the much more intractable challenges of securing consensus on funding reform for the wider social care system , and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight even begins , there is certainly something to be said for the Government dedicating at least some of its energies to the supply side options already presenting themselves now .

Gareth Lyon is the Head of Policy and Communications at the Associated Retirement Community Operators. He is a former councillor in Rushmoor and the Chairman of the Aldershot and North Hants Conservative Association.
Whilst the recently announced delay to the Government’s proposals on reforming social care will come as a big disappointment to a sector which has been lacking in political and policy direction for a long time, there may be a silver lining if this is used as an opportunity to reframe the debate away from the demand side hole it is stuck in right now – ie, how care is to be funded. Important though that is, we must also look at the opportunities presented by supply-side reform and how care is delivered.
Of course social care is not sufficiently well funded in this country and something needs to be done about it. Part of the solution may well lie though, in structuring services so that people actually choose to fund their own care by buying in to a wider package including lifestyle and wellness offerings as well as convenience and the ability to avoid financial hassle and risk.
This is certainly one of the lessons the UK can learn from Australia and New Zealand where the shape of the care system is very different to over here, and where far greater choice of options exists.
A major feature of the care landscape in those countries is retirement villages, known in the UK by a variety of terms including Extra Care and Retirement Communities. They combine the benefits of older people being able to live in a home of their own (with every resident owning or renting a flat or bungalow) and the security of 24-hour onsite staffing, the provision of high quality onsite care, and the availability of onsite facilities such as restaurants, gyms, allotments, bars, swimming pools etc.
Older people choose to move into a retirement community because of these advantages, the social benefits of having a community available onsite, and the well documented health and wellness advantages which make it much less likely that they will end up in a care home or residential home.
Retirement communities are fundamentally different to the sheltered housing or retirement flats we are familiar with in this country – not just because of the provision of care and facilities, but also because of how they operate – the developers not just building out and moving on, but staying onsite and providing these services funded by service charges and fees tied to the value of the property when people come to selling on.
The result of this is that the care which is provided onsite is subsidised out of the fees which people voluntarily choose to pay. Care which reduces the strain on the wider social care system and which would not otherwise have received this funding.
There is a clear lesson to be learned here – that contrary to all public policy presumptions at the moment, people need not be forced to pay for care. By providing the right package of services people are prepared to pay for it themselves.
A very high proportion of older people own their own homes and are at least theoretically in a position to take up this opportunity. For those who do not, the UK already has a well respected affordable housing version of retirement communities, which is well placed to expand and form one of the centre pieces of a new system.
As things stand, in the UK our retirement communities sector provides about a tenth of the capacity per head of population that the New Zealand and Australian sectors do. For this sector to play a role there will need to be significant growth – and fast.
It is interesting that investors appear to have detected the opportunity presented by new forms of provision before policymakers have. Major long-term capital investors such as Legal & General, AXA, Schroders, and Bupa have all made and are making investments in the nascent UK retirement community sector.
It is however clear that, as with any new sector, new and adapted regulation, specifically in relation to planning, consumer protection, and leases is needed. Early indications are that the Government understands that something needs to be done but has not yet found the administrative capacity to do it.
Yet compared to the much more intractable challenges of securing consensus on funding reform for the wider social care system, and with several months set to elapse before that fight even begins, there is certainly something to be said for the Government dedicating at least some of its energies to the supply side options already presenting themselves now.


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Ben Roback: Vice-presidential debates usually don’t matter.  Tonight’s does – because either contend

Ben Roback: Vice-presidential debates usually don’t matter.  Tonight’s does – because either contender could be president soon.

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
From one week to the next , the dominant themes of this campaign swing violently like a dinghy caught in a storm .
At the turn of the year , as we entered the early days of the election cycle , the President had hoped to base his election campaign on three pillars – law and order , the economy , and judicial appointments .
The Democratic candidate might have predictably based his campaign on healthcare , social justice and immigration .
Instead , the rapid spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death of a Supreme Court Justice just weeks before election day put pay to the notion of a predictable campaign narrative .
Now , there question marks surround the health of the President and his inner circle .
Covid-19 has torn through the White House like a knife through butter – a tough look for an administration that appears to be above its own restrictions on mask wearing and social distancing .
The President clearly wants to put his positive Coronavirus diagnosis behind him .
He has utilised clever videography to portray the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a virus that has killed over 200,000 of his fellow citizens .
If you ’ re a Trump fanatic , he is a phoenix rising from the ashes .
If you ’ re not a fan at all , his decision to rush back to the White House , despite remaining deeply infectious , is as reckless as it is downright stupid .
You can literally choose your narrative based on two different versions of the same video : pro-Trump or anti-Trump .
It is clear that COVID-19 is now the inescapable focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s personal experience of the virus , it will almost certainly shape the outcome too .
IfTrump wins re-election , his ultra-committed supporters will celebrate four more years amidst a presidential resurrection .
If he loses , cries of “ China virus ” and “ foreign interference ” are all but guaranteed .
DeAnna Lorraine , who won 1.8 per cent of the vote to Nancy Pelosi ’ s 74 per cent in June ’ s primary for California ’ s 12th district in the House of Representatives , and then wrote a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as to saying that Trump catching Covid-19 could “ technically be viewed as an assassination attempt on our President by the Chinese ” .
Pages have been consumed by the question of what happens if Trump loses , but refuses to concede .
In the event of such a development , whether the cause is the consequences of a bout with Covid-19 or allegations of voter fraud caused by an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots , the President could simply refuse to accept the immediate outcome of the election .
His most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed – will follow his lead .
The left and right will almost certainly both take to the streets in protest .
According to a June 2018 briefing paper by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva , there are 120.5 guns per 100 people in the United States .
Disaster could ensue .
The most important VP debate since they began 40 years ago There is no doubt that the President is taking huge risks to project strength at such a crucial time in the election cycle .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bed-bound in hospital less than 30 days before Americans go to the polls , and with postal voting already underway , is clearly not an option .
That puts an even greater spotlight on the vice-presidential candidates .
Whilst the president is battling the virus , we can not forget that questions have been raised over the health of the Democratic candidate , Joe Biden .
Critics claim he is losing his sharpness and has a poor grip of the facts .
At 78 years old by the time he might enter the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a one-term president who will hand over to his running mate , Kamala Harris , in 2024 .
This combination means that the sole vice presidential debate of the campaign has taken on sudden significance .
That is an exception to the rule .
For the vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in 2016 was immediately forgettable .
It was obvious then that the two deputies would sink back into the campaign shadows the very next day .
Mike Pence is , in many ways , the ‘ acceptable ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House in that he is a traditional Republican carved out of core GOP traditions .
Softly spoken , proudly Christian and a family man , Pence plays a straight bat when defending his boss – but is not afraid to play offence , either .
A former prosecutor , Harris will be precise in her approach while pursuing the zingers that make for 30-second soundbites deployabe on social media and in fundraising emails in the days after .
Pence will look to land knockout punches without ever raising his voice above his customary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Gove .
Vice-presidential debates are usually very much the undercard to the main event .
37 million Americans watched Pence v Kaine in 2016 , 44 per cent fewer than the viewership of the lowest-rated Clinton-Trump presidential debate , which drew 66.5 million viewers .
Pence v Harris will lack the explosiveness of Trump v Biden – but , by the same token , the sheer chaos that made it entirely unwatchable .
The viewing figures will almost certainly be much higher than the average for VP debates .
Rightly so : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle it out , but with one candidate sick with Covid-19 and another rumoured to be only destined for one term , they could well be watching their future p .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
From one week to the next, the dominant themes of this campaign swing violently like a dinghy caught in a storm.
At the turn of the year, as we entered the early days of the election cycle, the President had hoped to base his election campaign on three pillars – law and order, the economy, and judicial appointments. The Democratic candidate might have predictably based his campaign on healthcare, social justice and immigration.
Instead, the rapid spread of a global health pandemic and the death of a Supreme Court Justice just weeks before election day put pay to the notion of a predictable campaign narrative.
Now, there question marks surround the health of the President and his inner circle. Covid-19 has torn through the White House like a knife through butter – a tough look for an administration that appears to be above its own restrictions on mask wearing and social distancing.
The President clearly wants to put his positive Coronavirus diagnosis behind him. He has utilised clever videography to portray the image of a strongman who has defeated a virus that has killed over 200,000 of his fellow citizens.
If you’re a Trump fanatic, he is a phoenix rising from the ashes. If you’re not a fan at all, his decision to rush back to the White House, despite remaining deeply infectious, is as reckless as it is downright stupid. You can literally choose your narrative based on two different versions of the same video: pro-Trump or anti-Trump.
It is clear that COVID-19 is now the inescapable focus of the election
Following the President’s personal experience of the virus, it will almost certainly shape the outcome too. IfTrump wins re-election, his ultra-committed supporters will celebrate four more years amidst a presidential resurrection.
If he loses, cries of “China virus” and “foreign interference” are all but guaranteed. DeAnna Lorraine, who won 1.8 per cent of the vote to Nancy Pelosi’s 74 per cent in June’s primary for California’s 12th district in the House of Representatives, and then wrote a book about it, even went so far as to saying that Trump catching Covid-19 could “technically be viewed as an assassination attempt on our President by the Chinese”.
Pages have been consumed by the question of what happens if Trump loses, but refuses to concede. In the event of such a development, whether the cause is the consequences of a bout with Covid-19 or allegations of voter fraud caused by an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots, the President could simply refuse to accept the immediate outcome of the election.
His most loyal followers – increasingly devoted and often armed – will follow his lead. The left and right will almost certainly both take to the streets in protest. According to a June 2018 briefing paper by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, there are 120.5 guns per 100 people in the United States. Disaster could ensue.
The most important VP debate since they began 40 years ago
There is no doubt that the President is taking huge risks to project strength at such a crucial time in the election cycle. For a man obsessed with optics, being bed-bound in hospital less than 30 days before Americans go to the polls, and with postal voting already underway, is clearly not an option.
That puts an even greater spotlight on the vice-presidential candidates. Whilst the president is battling the virus, we cannot forget that questions have been raised over the health of the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden.
Critics claim he is losing his sharpness and has a poor grip of the facts. At 78 years old by the time he might enter the White House, Biden is being described as a one-term president who will hand over to his running mate, Kamala Harris, in 2024.
This combination means that the sole vice presidential debate of the campaign has taken on sudden significance. That is an exception to the rule.
For the vice-presidential debate between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in 2016 was immediately forgettable. It was obvious then that the two deputies would sink back into the campaign shadows the very next day.
Not so tonight.
Mike Pence is, in many ways, the ‘acceptable’ face and voice of the Trump White House in that he is a traditional Republican carved out of core GOP traditions. Softly spoken, proudly Christian and a family man, Pence plays a straight bat when defending his boss – but is not afraid to play offence, either.
A former prosecutor, Harris will be precise in her approach while pursuing the zingers that make for 30-second soundbites deployabe on social media and in fundraising emails in the days after. Pence will look to land knockout punches without ever raising his voice above his customary gentle tone – very much a la Michael Gove.
Vice-presidential debates are usually very much the undercard to the main event. 37 million Americans watched Pence v Kaine in 2016, 44 per cent fewer than the viewership of the lowest-rated Clinton-Trump presidential debate, which drew 66.5 million viewers. Pence v Harris will lack the explosiveness of Trump v Biden – but, by the same token, the sheer chaos that made it entirely unwatchable.
The viewing figures will almost certainly be much higher than the average for VP debates. Rightly so: Americans might be watching the two deputies battle it out, but with one candidate sick with Covid-19 and another rumoured to be only destined for one term, they could well be watching their future p.


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Labour council leaders’ resistance to local lockdowns gives Starmer a dilemma

Sweden is governed by the Swedish Social Democratic Party ( in coalition with the Green Party ) .
The Swedish Social Democrats are a sister party to the British Labour Party .
They are both affiliated to the Party of European Socialists and the Progressive Alliance ( as the Socialist International is now called . )
Yet I am not aware of a single Labour MP who supports the policy of their Swedish comrades in opposing lockdown restrictions in response to the coronavirus .
Boris Johnson has to cope with growing scepticism from his Parliamentary colleagues about his approach .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sir Keir Starmer does not have the same difficulty maintaining support for restrictions .
However , when it comes to local government , the position is more complicated .
There might be some logic in varying the severity of the rules imposed in one area rather than another in proportion to the degree of risk .
While that principle is broadly acclaimed , when it comes to applying it in practice , there is great potential for unfair treatment .
With a lot of data to measure , it will often be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local authority has locked down even though another one remains free despite having more cases .
Or that a lockdown might be justified for one or two wards but not a whole city .
Then there will be the disputes about process .
The Government hasn ’ t been transparent about figures .
Or it hasn ’ t consulted in advance .
Another grievance is that there is a lack of compensation for businesses being hit by the extra impositions .
Furthermore , that the “ financial package ” should include extra funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nye Bevan , the Health Secretary , declared that he had won over the support of doctors for the establishment of the NHS “ by stuffing their mouths with gold.
” Councils can miraculously find they are convinced of the justification for a local lockdown if they discover lots more money from The Treasury goes with it .
The trouble is that the Chancellor is running out of the stuff .
Then there is the frustration that the centralised arrangements for test and trace have failed .
Local authorities can argue that giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mitigate the need for new restrictions .
Andy Burnham , the Mayor of Greater Manchester , says : “ Without urgent change , the North of England will be thrown into one of the most difficult winters we have ever experienced , with the risk of significant harm to health and our economy .
It ’ s that serious .
“ We are heading into the winter months with a Test and Trace system which is still not working and the risk of redundancies rising sharply as the furlough scheme comes to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , business and councils , it could be a winter of dangerous discontent .
“ I remain ready to work with the Government to build public support for its approach to local lockdowns , but that requires meaningful consultation and proper support for the areas affected .
That is not happening at the moment .
“ We have now reached a point where there is a real risk of the Government losing the public in the North because of the perceived unfairness of its local lockdown policies .
We can ’ t let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put in place better measures to protect communities across the North this winter but time is running out.
” Joe Anderson , the Labour Mayor of Liverpool , is even more critical , declaring that the restrictions are “ not working and the increasing infection rate going up ” and adding : “ It ’ s about common sense , it ’ s about getting the balance right and about what we can do , what we should do and how local lockdowns work , working with local leaders to get it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consistency , a lack of clarity , but most of all a lack of communication and collaboration.
” The leaders of Leeds , Manchester , and Newcastle city councils have joined Anderson in writing to the Health Secretary to oppose further restrictions .
That letter argues for “ local decision making to agree additional lockdowns before they happen ” .
But it gives a pretty big clue that winning such agreement would be unlikely : “ We want to be clear however that we do not support further economic lockdowns…This requires a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a full local lockdown under the ‘ tier three ’ arrangements .
Our response should consider broader local impacts than absolute numbers of infections : impacts on jobs and business ; effects on poverty and deprivation ; and relative infection rates in different sections of the population ( e.g .
between students and care homes ) .
” Back in July we had opposition expressed by Sir Peter Soulsby , the Labour Mayor of Leicester , to the “ political ” decision to lock down the whole City and to “ penalise its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ten per cent where the virus is “ .
It ’ s not just Labour politicians .
Andy Preston , the independent Mayor of Middlesbrough , says : “ To me , it is obvious that anyone should be allowed to visit a relative or a friend in their garden , and have a cup of coffee while remaining well distanced .
And , of course , we should be able to meet them for a chat in a well-run , socially distanced coffee shop .
Yet these new rules – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – will prohibit all those safe , human activities that are small but so essential for wellbeing.To add to the insanity , it isn ’ t even clear how the regulations will be enforced .
Like so many growing towns , Middlesbrough spills out of its boundaries – and the neighbouring borough of Redcar and Cleveland is not included in the restrictions .
It ’ ll be two rules for one town , and sometimes two rules within one street.
” So will Sir Keir back these local leaders or continue to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week he voted to support the full set of measures , but asked the Government to “ reflect ” on whether closing the pubs at 10pm was counterproductive .
Rather a weak compromise to vote in favour of something but to declare it to be a mistake .
At Prime Minister ’ s Questions this afternoon Sir Keir highlighted inconsistencies and asked about the ineffectiveness of local lockdowns .
We were left unclear whether Sir Keir felt the answer was to lift the lockdowns or make them more severe .
But the dilemma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk about “ following the science ” regarding coronavirus – as if the evidence was clear , the impact of measures easy to accurately predict , and that scientists are all agreed .
Of course , that is nonsense .
But following the polling is more straightforward .
There is strong support for restrictions – the objection being the Government hasn ’ t gone for enough .
Even if Sir Keir just asks for specific relaxations , the public may get the message that he wants the Government ’ s measures to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand for them to be harder .
I don ’ t expect Sir Keir will significantly shift on this issue – unless and until the polling does .

Sweden is governed by the Swedish Social Democratic Party (in coalition with the Green Party). The Swedish Social Democrats are a sister party to the British Labour Party. They are both affiliated to the Party of European Socialists and the Progressive Alliance (as the Socialist International is now called.) Yet I am not aware of a single Labour MP who supports the policy of their Swedish comrades in opposing lockdown restrictions in response to the coronavirus. Boris Johnson has to cope with growing scepticism from his Parliamentary colleagues about his approach. But when it comes to Labour MPs, Sir Keir Starmer does not have the same difficulty maintaining support for restrictions.
However, when it comes to local government, the position is more complicated. There might be some logic in varying the severity of the rules imposed in one area rather than another in proportion to the degree of risk. While that principle is broadly acclaimed, when it comes to applying it in practice, there is great potential for unfair treatment. With a lot of data to measure, it will often be possible to make a case that one local authority has locked down even though another one remains free despite having more cases. Or that a lockdown might be justified for one or two wards but not a whole city. Then there will be the disputes about process. The Government hasn’t been transparent about figures. Or it hasn’t consulted in advance.
Another grievance is that there is a lack of compensation for businesses being hit by the extra impositions. Furthermore, that the “financial package” should include extra funding for the local authority. In 1948 Nye Bevan, the Health Secretary, declared that he had won over the support of doctors for the establishment of the NHS “by stuffing their mouths with gold.” Councils can miraculously find they are convinced of the justification for a local lockdown if they discover lots more money from The Treasury goes with it. The trouble is that the Chancellor is running out of the stuff.
Then there is the frustration that the centralised arrangements for test and trace have failed. Local authorities can argue that giving them responsibility would be more effective and mitigate the need for new restrictions.
Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, says:
“Without urgent change, the North of England will be thrown into one of the most difficult winters we have ever experienced, with the risk of significant harm to health and our economy. It’s that serious.
“We are heading into the winter months with a Test and Trace system which is still not working and the risk of redundancies rising sharply as the furlough scheme comes to an end. Without extra support for individuals, business and councils, it could be a winter of dangerous discontent.
“I remain ready to work with the Government to build public support for its approach to local lockdowns, but that requires meaningful consultation and proper support for the areas affected. That is not happening at the moment.
“We have now reached a point where there is a real risk of the Government losing the public in the North because of the perceived unfairness of its local lockdown policies. We can’t let that happen. There is still time to put in place better measures to protect communities across the North this winter but time is running out.”
Joe Anderson, the Labour Mayor of Liverpool, is even more critical, declaring that the restrictions are “not working and the increasing infection rate going up” and adding:
“It’s about common sense, it’s about getting the balance right and about what we can do, what we should do and how local lockdowns work, working with local leaders to get it right. There’s a lack of consistency, a lack of clarity, but most of all a lack of communication and collaboration.”
The leaders of Leeds, Manchester, and Newcastle city councils have joined Anderson in writing to the Health Secretary to oppose further restrictions. That letter argues for “local decision making to agree additional lockdowns before they happen”. But it gives a pretty big clue that winning such agreement would be unlikely:
“We want to be clear however that we do not support further economic lockdowns…This requires a more nuanced approach than moving straight to a full local lockdown under the ‘tier three’ arrangements. Our response should consider broader local impacts than absolute numbers of infections: impacts on jobs and business; effects on poverty and deprivation; and relative infection rates in different sections of the population (e.g. between students and care homes).”
Back in July we had opposition expressed by Sir Peter Soulsby, the Labour Mayor of Leicester, to the “political” decision to lock down the whole City and to “penalise its economy” rather than to “focus on the ten per cent where the virus is “.
It’s not just Labour politicians. Andy Preston, the independent Mayor of Middlesbrough, says:
“To me, it is obvious that anyone should be allowed to visit a relative or a friend in their garden, and have a cup of coffee while remaining well distanced. And, of course, we should be able to meet them for a chat in a well-run, socially distanced coffee shop. Yet these new rules – which essentially ban different households from meeting – will prohibit all those safe, human activities that are small but so essential for wellbeing.To add to the insanity, it isn’t even clear how the regulations will be enforced. Like so many growing towns, Middlesbrough spills out of its boundaries – and the neighbouring borough of Redcar and Cleveland is not included in the restrictions. It’ll be two rules for one town, and sometimes two rules within one street.”
So will Sir Keir back these local leaders or continue to back all restrictions the Government imposes? Last week he voted to support the full set of measures, but asked the Government to “reflect” on whether closing the pubs at 10pm was counterproductive. Rather a weak compromise to vote in favour of something but to declare it to be a mistake. At Prime Minister’s Questions this afternoon Sir Keir highlighted inconsistencies and asked about the ineffectiveness of local lockdowns. We were left unclear whether Sir Keir felt the answer was to lift the lockdowns or make them more severe.
But the dilemma is clear to see. Politicians like to talk about “following the science” regarding coronavirus – as if the evidence was clear, the impact of measures easy to accurately predict, and that scientists are all agreed. Of course, that is nonsense. But following the polling is more straightforward. There is strong support for restrictions – the objection being the Government hasn’t gone for enough. Even if Sir Keir just asks for specific relaxations, the public may get the message that he wants the Government’s measures to be softened – when there is strong demand for them to be harder.
I don’t expect Sir Keir will significantly shift on this issue – unless and until the polling does.


conservativehome--2020-10-07--The Prime Minister and the Opposition leader clash on the competence of Ministers and the rule of si

The Prime Minister and the Opposition leader clash on the competence of Ministers and the rule of six

Keir Starmer accuses the government of making repeated mistakes on care homes , testing and exams… “ it is government @ @ @ @ @ says some members of the Labour party abstained on the rule of six vote # @ @ @ @ @

Keir Starmer accuses the government of making repeated mistakes on care homes, testing and exams… “it is government by hindsight”
Boris Johnson says some members of the Labour party abstained on the rule of six vote#PMQs https://t.co/N33tcd90SJ pic.twitter.com/1frCI6Mv2A
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 7, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Starmer’s precise questions work better and better against Johnson

Sir Keir Starmer ’ s approach at PMQs is working better and better against Boris Johnson .
For 11 minutes the Leader of the Opposition asked clear , detailed questions about various glaring weaknesses in the authorities ’ response to the pandemic , starting with the failure for eight days to follow up almost 16,000 positive tests .
Johnson loathes this kind of precision , and tried to deflect it by suggesting that the Labour Party has been inconstant in its support for the Government ’ s measures .
Starmer proceeded undaunted with his cross-examination : “ Twenty local areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for two months .
In 19 of those 20 areas the infection rates have gone up… It ’ s obvious that something ’ s gone wrong here , so what ’ s the Prime Minister going to do about it ?
” The Prime Minister : “ Well Mr Speaker as he knows we ’ re continuing to provide support , five billion pounds of support for the er the North West , the North East , er , for the lockdown , the extra restrictions they ’ re experiencing… ” Windy assurances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
Starmer began to patronise his victim : “ Let me take this slowly for him…these are not trick questions…will he level with the people of Bury , Burnley and Bolton and tell them what does he actually think the problem is here ?
” Johnson : “ Mr Speaker , the problem is alas that the disease continues to spread in the way that I described to the House earlier… ” A glimpse there of the truth , and for a moment it cleared the air .
Starmer ’ s last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will the Prime Minister commit to publishing the scientific basis for the ten p.m. rule before the House votes on it next Monday ?
” Johnson naturally declined to give any such assurance .
But he will know that quite a few of his own backbenchers are infuriated by the Government ’ s handling of the pandemic , and by his reluctance to take the House into his confidence .
The Prime Minister needs a new , more straightforward manner on occasions like this , in order to carry parliamentary and public opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time I heard these exchanges , I listened to them again , and found that second time round they sounded worse for Johnson .

Sir Keir Starmer’s approach at PMQs is working better and better against Boris Johnson. For 11 minutes the Leader of the Opposition asked clear, detailed questions about various glaring weaknesses in the authorities’ response to the pandemic, starting with the failure for eight days to follow up almost 16,000 positive tests.
Johnson loathes this kind of precision, and tried to deflect it by suggesting that the Labour Party has been inconstant in its support for the Government’s measures.
Starmer proceeded undaunted with his cross-examination: “Twenty local areas in England have been under local restrictions for two months. In 19 of those 20 areas the infection rates have gone up… It’s obvious that something’s gone wrong here, so what’s the Prime Minister going to do about it?”
The Prime Minister: “Well Mr Speaker as he knows we’re continuing to provide support, five billion pounds of support for the er the North West, the North East, er, for the lockdown, the extra restrictions they’re experiencing…”
Windy assurances in response to detailed inquiries did not work. Starmer began to patronise his victim: “Let me take this slowly for him…these are not trick questions…will he level with the people of Bury, Burnley and Bolton and tell them what does he actually think the problem is here?”
Johnson: “Mr Speaker, the problem is alas that the disease continues to spread in the way that I described to the House earlier…” A glimpse there of the truth, and for a moment it cleared the air.
Starmer’s last question looked to the future: “Will the Prime Minister commit to publishing the scientific basis for the ten p.m. rule before the House votes on it next Monday?”
Johnson naturally declined to give any such assurance. But he will know that quite a few of his own backbenchers are infuriated by the Government’s handling of the pandemic, and by his reluctance to take the House into his confidence.
The Prime Minister needs a new, more straightforward manner on occasions like this, in order to carry parliamentary and public opinion with him.
Having suffered an interruption the first time I heard these exchanges, I listened to them again, and found that second time round they sounded worse for Johnson.


conservativehome--2020-10-08--Henry Hill: Sturgeon imposes a sweeping new lockdown as the Salmond scandal deepens

One of the most striking features of the age of existential political divisions is that a party or government can now endure quantities of political pain which would , in the old normal , have been a death sentence .
We saw this during the last Parliament when Theresa May managed to see her personal authority in Cabinet and Parliament disintegrate without the Conservatives falling below 40 per cent in the polls .
We may now be seeing it again in Scotland .
Last week , I outlined the sheer volume of woes which currently beset Nicola Sturgeon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of poor outcomes in key areas such as education and health are now being compounded by the deepening scandal over the Alex Salmond inquiry .
Yet there is not much evidence , at least as yet , that any of this is making much of a dent in the SNP ’ s re-election prospects .
In an electoral system designed to prevent majorities , they remain odds-on to at least secure a pro-independence majority with some combination of their traditional Green allies and Action for Independence .
However a week remains a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment – and there are still quite a lot left between now and Scottish voters going to the polls in may .
Nationalists must be praying there aren ’ t too many more like this one .
On the Salmond front , Peter Murrell – the SNP ’ s chief executive and the First Minister ’ s husband – admitted to sending ‘ bombshell ’ texts which appeared to suggest an attempt to pressure the police into action .
At the same time , Sturgeon herself has maintained an increasingly implausible line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior Salmond aide in which the latter claims to have first informed her of the complaints against her predecessor .
Alex Massie has a good summary here .
Meanwhile on Covid-19 the Scottish Government has just unveiled a sweeping new set of lockdown restrictions .
Whilst not technically imposed on a national basis , the new measures span the heavily-populated ‘ Central Belt ’ and encompass some two thirds of the Scottish population .
Pubs , bars and licensed restaurants will be closed across Scotland ’ s Central Belt for 16 days from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Herald .
The Nationalists have also taken this opportunity to vent their puritanical streak : hospitality venues in other parts of the country will be forced to close indoor areas by 6pm and not serve alcohol indoors at all .
Representatives of the hospitality sector are describing the moves as a ‘ death sentence ’ .
Worse still , after spending the summer telling the world about what it could learn from Scotland about combating the pandemic , Scotland “ may now have the highest coronavirus R number and shortest doubling time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have never been shy about being authoritarian , and during the pandemic the First Minister has made an art of appearing to be ahead of the game when it comes to taking action and imposing restrictions .
But just as Boris Johnson is facing a growing mutiny from local government figures in Northern England , so too is Sturgeon .
As we noted last week , the leadership of Aberdeen Council are incensed that she locked down their city but then refused to do the same to Glasgow ( where her own constituency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared to have a much higher incidence of Covid-19 .
As this second lockdown starts to bite , such charges could take on more potency .
Uneven treatment might anger Aberdonians , but if the First Minister ’ s reluctance to act on Glasgow comes to be blamed for the need for the Central Belt lockdown the political damage could be much broader .
None of this is automatically good news for the SNP ’ s opponents .
The bedrock of its support remains a solid bloc of the electorate which is currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anywhere , and the Government ’ s own woeful handling of the pandemic limits the scope for attacking the SNP .
But it ought to be an antidote to the counsels of despair attacked by Douglas Ross in his conference speech .

One of the most striking features of the age of existential political divisions is that a party or government can now endure quantities of political pain which would, in the old normal, have been a death sentence.
We saw this during the last Parliament when Theresa May managed to see her personal authority in Cabinet and Parliament disintegrate without the Conservatives falling below 40 per cent in the polls. We may now be seeing it again in Scotland.
Last week, I outlined the sheer volume of woes which currently beset Nicola Sturgeon’s administration. It’s long-time track record of poor outcomes in key areas such as education and health are now being compounded by the deepening scandal over the Alex Salmond inquiry.
Yet there is not much evidence, at least as yet, that any of this is making much of a dent in the SNP’s re-election prospects. In an electoral system designed to prevent majorities, they remain odds-on to at least secure a pro-independence majority with some combination of their traditional Green allies and Action for Independence.
However a week remains a long time in politics – especially at the moment – and there are still quite a lot left between now and Scottish voters going to the polls in may. Nationalists must be praying there aren’t too many more like this one.
On the Salmond front, Peter Murrell – the SNP’s chief executive and the First Minister’s husband – admitted to sending ‘bombshell’ texts which appeared to suggest an attempt to pressure the police into action. At the same time, Sturgeon herself has maintained an increasingly implausible line about having forgotten a meeting with a senior Salmond aide in which the latter claims to have first informed her of the complaints against her predecessor. Alex Massie has a good summary here.
Meanwhile on Covid-19 the Scottish Government has just unveiled a sweeping new set of lockdown restrictions. Whilst not technically imposed on a national basis, the new measures span the heavily-populated ‘Central Belt’ and encompass some two thirds of the Scottish population. Pubs, bars and licensed restaurants will be closed across Scotland’s Central Belt for 16 days from 6pm on Friday, according to the Herald.
The Nationalists have also taken this opportunity to vent their puritanical streak: hospitality venues in other parts of the country will be forced to close indoor areas by 6pm and not serve alcohol indoors at all. Representatives of the hospitality sector are describing the moves as a ‘death sentence’.
Worse still, after spending the summer telling the world about what it could learn from Scotland about combating the pandemic, Scotland “may now have the highest coronavirus R number and shortest doubling time of any UK nation”.
The SNP have never been shy about being authoritarian, and during the pandemic the First Minister has made an art of appearing to be ahead of the game when it comes to taking action and imposing restrictions. But just as Boris Johnson is facing a growing mutiny from local government figures in Northern England, so too is Sturgeon.
As we noted last week, the leadership of Aberdeen Council are incensed that she locked down their city but then refused to do the same to Glasgow (where her own constituency is), even when the latter appeared to have a much higher incidence of Covid-19. As this second lockdown starts to bite, such charges could take on more potency. Uneven treatment might anger Aberdonians, but if the First Minister’s reluctance to act on Glasgow comes to be blamed for the need for the Central Belt lockdown the political damage could be much broader.
None of this is automatically good news for the SNP’s opponents. The bedrock of its support remains a solid bloc of the electorate which is currently committed to independence and thus not going anywhere, and the Government’s own woeful handling of the pandemic limits the scope for attacking the SNP. But it ought to be an antidote to the counsels of despair attacked by Douglas Ross in his conference speech.


conservativehome--2020-10-08--All of ConservativeHome’s 2020 fringe event videos in one place

Whether you ’ d like to rewatch an event , catch up on one that you missed , or share them with friends and family , here is the full collection of videos of our 2020 ConservativeHome fringe events .
Having brought you over 70 speakers , including no fewer than six members of Cabinet and a former Chancellor , in 18 events over three days – making for over 22 hours of top-flight political insight and debate – we hope you enjoy the show .
The role of responsible business in preventing offending and reoffending How to ensure low-income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Held in partnership with Save the Children .
Supporting UK economic recovery : how can the financial and related professional services industry accelerate the return to growth ?
Firing up the engines of the economy – the key to future trade resilience Held in partnership with Port of Dover .
Back in business : what can modern universities do to support Britain ’ s recovery ?
Held in partnership with MillionPlus and Hepi .
Held in partnership with Save the Children .
Medical Cannabis and the UK : Becoming a global leader Held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cannabis .
Held in partnership with UK in a Changing Europe .
Social care and beyond : delivering for older voters in the ‘ Red Wall ’ A new generation of good jobs to secure an economic recovery for all of us In conversation with Ben Wallace MP , Secretary of State for Defence The Business Conversation with Alok Sharma MP : How to make small business the centre of a post-Covid UK The ConservativeHome 2020 Conference Programme is kindly sponsored by TheCityUK .

Whether you’d like to rewatch an event, catch up on one that you missed, or share them with friends and family, here is the full collection of videos of our 2020 ConservativeHome fringe events.
Having brought you over 70 speakers, including no fewer than six members of Cabinet and a former Chancellor, in 18 events over three days – making for over 22 hours of top-flight political insight and debate – we hope you enjoy the show.
Saturday 3rd October
9am-10.30am
In Conversation with Steve Barclay MP
Held in partnership with Heathrow.
11am-12.30pm
The role of responsible business in preventing offending and reoffending
Held in partnership with FTSE 100 Landsec.
1pm-2.30pm
How to ensure low-income families with children get through the crisis
Held in partnership with Save the Children.
3pm-4.30pm
Supporting UK economic recovery: how can the financial and related professional services industry accelerate the return to growth?
Held in partnership with TheCityUK.
5pm-6.30pm
Firing up the engines of the economy – the key to future trade resilience
Held in partnership with Port of Dover.
Sunday 4th October
9am-10.30am
Setting the standard: exporting our values
Held in partnership with National Farmers Union (NFU).
11am-12.30pm
Back in business: what can modern universities do to support Britain’s recovery?
Held in partnership with MillionPlus and Hepi.
1.30pm-2.45pm
Unleashing Great British Enterprise: delivering on digital to drive a productivity revolution
Held in partnership with Atos.
3pm-4.30pm
Protecting a Generation: UK Leadership in the Global Education Emergency
Held in partnership with Save the Children.
5pm-6.30pm
Turbocharging the UK’s transition to electric vehicles
Held in partnership with Uber.
7pm-8.30pm
Medical Cannabis and the UK: Becoming a global leader
Held in partnership with The Centre for Medicinal Cannabis.
Monday 5th October
7.30am-8.45am
In Conversation with Sajid Javid MP
Held in partnership with UK in a Changing Europe.
11am-12.30pm
A digital strategy for a digital society
Held in partnership with Atos.
1pm-2.30pm
Social care and beyond: delivering for older voters in the ‘Red Wall’
Held in partnership with Age UK.
3.30pm-4.30pm
A new generation of good jobs to secure an economic recovery for all of us
Held in partnership with JRF.
5pm-6.30pm
In conversation with Ben Wallace MP, Secretary of State for Defence
Held in partnership with Raytheon.
7pm-8.30pm
The Business Conversation with Alok Sharma MP: How to make small business the centre of a post-Covid UK
Held in partnership with FSB.
Tuesday 6th October
7pm-8pm
The Moggcast – Live
Sponsored by Thorncliffe.
The ConservativeHome 2020 Conference Programme is kindly sponsored by TheCityUK.


conservativehome--2020-10-08--WATCH: Fox on his withdrawal from the contest to head the WTO

I am proud to have been nominated by @ BorisJohnson as the 🇬🇧 nominee for the position of Director-General of @ @ @ @ @ am of course naturally disappointed not be continuing further in this contest .
It has @ @ @ @ @ part in this selection .
Full statement👇 # WTODG pic.twitter.com/6krs2U0E00

I am proud to have been nominated by @BorisJohnson as the 🇬🇧 nominee for the position of Director-General of the @wto. I am of course naturally disappointed not be continuing further in this contest. It has been an honour to take part in this selection. Full statement👇#WTODG pic.twitter.com/6krs2U0E00
— Dr Liam Fox MP #LiamFoxForWTO (@LiamFox) October 8, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-08--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Coal Authority – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Independent Office for Police Conduct ( IOPC ) investigates the most serious and sensitive incidents and allegations involving the police in England and Wales .
It also oversees the police complaints system , and sets the standards by which the police handle complaints .
The IOPC carries out hundreds of investigations into incidents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These include investigations into : deaths or serious injuries during or following police custody ; police shootings ; allegations of use of excessive force .
The IOPC is seeking up to six non-executive board members , including one Senior Independent Director .
The responsibilities of the non-executive members will include ensuring robust governance and financial management of the organisation ; setting and promoting the strategic aims and values of the IOPC ; providing support , advice and constructive challenge to the Director General in the carrying out of his/her functions ; and monitoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the efficient and effective running of the IOPC.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Annual Report.
” “ As we approach life outside of the EU , Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity .
As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry .
The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ) , and the precious resources within it , is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of great change , the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish , working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.
” “ Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation ?
Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations ?
Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rail link with services connecting Oxford , Milton Keynes , Bedford and Cambridge and places in between .
The East West Railway Company ( EWR Co ) was set up as a company in 2017 , and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018 .
It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line , providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.
” “ The role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes ; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrate in their application all of the following : strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas .
The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enabling a high standard of discussion ; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government ; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles ; Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills , experience and outlook ; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.
” “ Formed in 2009 , and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body ( NDPB ) since 2012 , the RPC ’ s role is to provide Government with external , independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures .
It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals , and by doing so , helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organisations .
The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department ’ s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members , who provide robust and objective advice to government , parliament , and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.
” “ The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various sub-committees ) , the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass ’ affairs , and that Cafcass ’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State .
The Board is specifically responsible for : establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State ; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets , and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks ; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with ; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department , and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds… ”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigates the most serious and sensitive incidents and allegations involving the police in England and Wales. It also oversees the police complaints system, and sets the standards by which the police handle complaints. The IOPC carries out hundreds of investigations into incidents and allegations involving the police each year. These include investigations into: deaths or serious injuries during or following police custody; police shootings; allegations of use of excessive force. The IOPC is seeking up to six non-executive board members, including one Senior Independent Director. The responsibilities of the non-executive members will include ensuring robust governance and financial management of the organisation; setting and promoting the strategic aims and values of the IOPC; providing support, advice and constructive challenge to the Director General in the carrying out of his/her functions; and monitoring and reviewing organisational performance and contributing to the efficient and effective running of the IOPC.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Sea Fish Industry Authority – Chair
“As we approach life outside of the EU, Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity. As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry. The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the precious resources within it, is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers. Given this period of great change, the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish, working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 16 October
– – – – – – – – – –
East West Railway Company – Chair
“Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation? Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations? Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry, delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge and places in between. The East West Railway Company (EWR Co) was set up as a company in 2017, and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018. It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line, providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities, as well as reducing journey times, congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.”
Time: 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Policy Committee – Chair
“Formed in 2009, and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) since 2012, the RPC’s role is to provide Government with external, independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures. It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals, and by doing so, helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department’s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members, who provide robust and objective advice to government, parliament, and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – Chair
“The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board (including its various sub-committees), the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass’ affairs, and that Cafcass’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State. The Board is specifically responsible for: establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds…”
Time: 80 days per annum.
Remuneration: £400 per diem.
Closes: 03 November