conservativehome--2020-04-29--Daniel Hannan: To help grow us out of this crisis, we need free trade more than ever

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
There will be one overriding issue in politics when we eventually haul ourselves out of the pupa of lockdown : economic growth .
We should be ready to grab at anything that will help get people back to work , cut living costs or make it easier for firms to expand .
I ’ m not sure we have yet woken up to the urgency of our predicament .
The past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a dreamlike quality : skies empty of aircraft and full of birdsong , families gathered together for meals , the finest April weather anyone can remember .
It is tempting to slide into the delusion that this is just a glitch , a holiday from reality , a temporary interruption before things get back to normal .
But things won ’ t get back to normal .
Even if ( either because a cure is found , or because more of us turn out to be immune than is currently thought ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the financial debt will hang over us for a generation .
We are borrowing £300 billion this year , according to the Centre for Policy Studies – twice the annual cost of the NHS .
The carcases of previously solvent businesses litter the landscape .
Millions of us are out of work – meaning that the Government ’ s tax revenue has dried up just as spending goes through the roof .
All our efforts should be devoted to getting through the slump .
That might involve measures that , in normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as suspending the minimum wage .
But let ’ s leave the more difficult issues to one side for now and start with something that ought to be uncontentious : striking trade deals .
Several countries around the world want trade agreements with Britain as soon as possible , including the United States , Australia and Japan .
Negotiating these deals would , you might think , be an obvious priority .
They might help a little , or they might help a lot .
But they will plainly help – reducing prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet , talking to Conservative MPs , I find a bizarre lack of enthusiasm .
Some argue that doing anything that is not directly related to combating the virus is a distraction .
Others admit that , although trade talks might not actually be a distraction – it ’ s hardly as if our trade officials would otherwise be working on a vaccine – they would still look like a distraction , and thus play badly with the voters .
Still others fret that we shouldn ’ t do anything that might look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few say the current crisis shows that we need to be more self-sufficient , so we shouldn ’ t be liberalising trade at all .
It is worth dealing with these objections in order .
Boosting economic growth is not a distraction ; it is the most urgent task we face .
We should pull every lever .
The argument that we should refuse to trade with unpopular regimes – Saudi Arabia , Israel , Russia , China – was always a bad one .
Economic disengagement hurts the wrong people ( ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own ) while shoring up autocrats .
When the world is struggling through the coronavirus slough , inhibiting trade , even with genuinely nasty regimes , is a luxury we can ’ t afford .
But the idea that we should not seek the closest commercial relationship with the United States , our biggest investor , chief market and strongest ally , is unconscionable .
What of the notion that we need to be more self-sufficient ?
This idea is always popular , because free trade is counter-intuitive .
Our Stone Age genomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in normal times , the idea that we import 40 per cent of our food is somehow disquieting ; the heightened stress of an epidemic exacerbates that disquiet .
Think about it , though .
Food security is guaranteed , not by domestic production , but by diversity of supply .
A country that seeks to grow all its own food is vulnerable to local shocks – bad harvests , pests or other disruptions .
One that buys from the entire world , without needing to raise barriers to placate domestic lobbies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Korea is in the former category : it has elevated self-sufficiency ( “ juche ” ) as its ruling principle and , in consequence , still experiences man-made famines .
Singapore is in the latter category : it does not produce one edible ounce , and has the lowest food prices on the planet .
Far from making the argument for greater self-sufficiency , Covid-19 proves the need for diversification .
The epidemic hit during Britain ’ s “ hungry gap ” – the lean April weeks when we have run out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , potatoes , cabbages and turnips , but have not yet reached the early harvests .
Fortunately , we were able to carry on importing what we needed , otherwise , we ’ d have had to subsist on asparagus , rhubarb and nettles .
The truth is that we need secure supplies – not just of food , but of everything .
The people who complain that we are overly dependent on Chinese suppliers may or may not have a point .
But if they do , it makes no sense to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security means having alternatives to fall back on .
Britain should emerge from the crisis with as much optimism and confidence as it can muster .
Engaging with the entire world is an important way to signal those things .
And , yes , “ the whole world ” includes the EU .
Reaching comprehensive trade deals with the United States and the CPTPP ( the Pacific trading bloc ) can only strengthen our position vis-à-vis Brussels and make a mutually beneficial treaty likelier .
Deferring our discussions with the US risks the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal before we do , putting us in the weakest possible position .
Yes , we should concentrate on ensuring that our healthcare system works .
Yes , we should keep small businesses going .
Yes , should look for inoculations .
But , while all these things are happening , what is the clever and energetic Liz Truss supposed to be doing ?
Should she just be cooing in admiration at her Cabinet colleagues , or should she be overseeing trade discussions – by video at first – so that , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can maximise our prosperity ?
You only have to put the question .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
There will be one overriding issue in politics when we eventually haul ourselves out of the pupa of lockdown: economic growth. We should be ready to grab at anything that will help get people back to work, cut living costs or make it easier for firms to expand.
I’m not sure we have yet woken up to the urgency of our predicament. The past month has had, for some people, a dreamlike quality: skies empty of aircraft and full of birdsong, families gathered together for meals, the finest April weather anyone can remember. It is tempting to slide into the delusion that this is just a glitch, a holiday from reality, a temporary interruption before things get back to normal.
But things won’t get back to normal. Even if (either because a cure is found, or because more of us turn out to be immune than is currently thought) social distancing measures can be swiftly relaxed, the financial debt will hang over us for a generation.
We are borrowing £300 billion this year, according to the Centre for Policy Studies – twice the annual cost of the NHS. The carcases of previously solvent businesses litter the landscape. Millions of us are out of work – meaning that the Government’s tax revenue has dried up just as spending goes through the roof. All our efforts should be devoted to getting through the slump.
That might involve measures that, in normal times, would be unthinkable, such as suspending the minimum wage. But let’s leave the more difficult issues to one side for now and start with something that ought to be uncontentious: striking trade deals.
Several countries around the world want trade agreements with Britain as soon as possible, including the United States, Australia and Japan. Negotiating these deals would, you might think, be an obvious priority. They might help a little, or they might help a lot. But they will plainly help – reducing prices and increasing opportunities for our businesses.
Yet, talking to Conservative MPs, I find a bizarre lack of enthusiasm. Some argue that doing anything that is not directly related to combating the virus is a distraction.
Others admit that, although trade talks might not actually be a distraction – it’s hardly as if our trade officials would otherwise be working on a vaccine – they would still look like a distraction, and thus play badly with the voters.
Still others fret that we shouldn’t do anything that might look too friendly to Donald Trump. A few say the current crisis shows that we need to be more self-sufficient, so we shouldn’t be liberalising trade at all.
It is worth dealing with these objections in order. Boosting economic growth is not a distraction; it is the most urgent task we face. We should pull every lever.
The argument that we should refuse to trade with unpopular regimes – Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, China – was always a bad one. Economic disengagement hurts the wrong people (ordinary folk in other country and in your own) while shoring up autocrats.
When the world is struggling through the coronavirus slough, inhibiting trade, even with genuinely nasty regimes, is a luxury we can’t afford. But the idea that we should not seek the closest commercial relationship with the United States, our biggest investor, chief market and strongest ally, is unconscionable.
What of the notion that we need to be more self-sufficient? This idea is always popular, because free trade is counter-intuitive. Our Stone Age genomes tell us to hoard food. Even in normal times, the idea that we import 40 per cent of our food is somehow disquieting; the heightened stress of an epidemic exacerbates that disquiet.
Think about it, though. Food security is guaranteed, not by domestic production, but by diversity of supply. A country that seeks to grow all its own food is vulnerable to local shocks – bad harvests, pests or other disruptions. One that buys from the entire world, without needing to raise barriers to placate domestic lobbies, can always source food from somewhere.
North Korea is in the former category: it has elevated self-sufficiency (“juche”) as its ruling principle and, in consequence, still experiences man-made famines. Singapore is in the latter category: it does not produce one edible ounce, and has the lowest food prices on the planet.
Far from making the argument for greater self-sufficiency, Covid-19 proves the need for diversification. The epidemic hit during Britain’s “hungry gap” – the lean April weeks when we have run out of winter vegetables, such as carrots, potatoes, cabbages and turnips, but have not yet reached the early harvests. Fortunately, we were able to carry on importing what we needed, otherwise, we’d have had to subsist on asparagus, rhubarb and nettles.
The truth is that we need secure supplies – not just of food, but of everything. The people who complain that we are overly dependent on Chinese suppliers may or may not have a point. But if they do, it makes no sense to become equally dependent on British suppliers. Security means having alternatives to fall back on.
Britain should emerge from the crisis with as much optimism and confidence as it can muster. Engaging with the entire world is an important way to signal those things. And, yes, “the whole world” includes the EU.
Reaching comprehensive trade deals with the United States and the CPTPP (the Pacific trading bloc) can only strengthen our position vis-à-vis Brussels and make a mutually beneficial treaty likelier. Deferring our discussions with the US risks the possibility that the EU will sign a deal before we do, putting us in the weakest possible position.
Yes, we should concentrate on ensuring that our healthcare system works. Yes, we should keep small businesses going. Yes, should look for inoculations. But, while all these things are happening, what is the clever and energetic Liz Truss supposed to be doing? Should she just be cooing in admiration at her Cabinet colleagues, or should she be overseeing trade discussions – by video at first – so that, when the restrictions are finally loosened, we can maximise our prosperity? You only have to put the question.


conservativehome--2020-04-29--Ryan Bourne:  Don’t fret about this debt – at least not yet. Big tax rises would choke economic reco

Ryan Bourne:  Don’t fret about this debt – at least not yet. Big tax rises would choke economic recovery.

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
What are we going to do about all this new Government debt ?
It is testament to George Osborne ’ s legacy that commentators already ask this question – spoiling to re-run post-financial crisis debates .
As borrowing spirals with tax revenue collapses and emergency spending programs ( the Government plans to sell an additional £180 billion of gilts between May and July alone ) , focus is quickly turning to “ how to pay for it.
” The implied message is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public finances after the pandemic to reduce debt-to-GDP back to where it would have been without the crisis .
James Forsyth already reports Conservative ministers saying that “ austerity [ through spending cuts ] is just not politically possible.
” Plenty of Tories therefore seem to think big tax rises are inevitable or desirable .
I am fiscally conservative .
I supported the last deficit-reduction programme , although not all details of timing and incidence .
But such discussion seems misguided and premature .
For now , we should be relatively unconcerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary conditions driving it .
More importantly , it ’ s simply too soon to tell what consequences this pandemic will have on the structural government deficit .
If this proves a temporary blowout rather than permanent , accumulated debt levels being modestly higher looks manageable , with small fiscal adjustments over long periods .
Major tax rises today for a rapid debt payoff , on the other hand , would be a sure-fire way to kill-off a restarting economy .
Today ’ s situation is different conceptually from 2010 .
This pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a year or two .
With governments mandating business closures , and little market pandemic insurance , there was a strong case for taxpayers to step in to avoid good businesses going bust and to insulate people from complete income collapses , at least temporarily .
This , of course , raises Government debt through new borrowing – the Centre for Policy Studies estimating up to £300 billion more of it , or around 15 per cent of GDP , in this year alone .
But here ’ s the key point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic-related spending eventually stops .
Once our market economy adjusts to new demand and supply conditions , tax revenues pick up .
We have no real reason to just assume that the crisis will permanently expand the underlying budget deficit , other than the small uplift in debt interest payments .
So while the level of accumulated debt will no doubt rise owing to the crisis , the on-going gap between spending and revenues afterwards might not .
Debt may settle at a higher level , but without this crisis affecting much its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was markedly different .
Yes , near-term borrowing had spiked due to the downturn and stimulus programs .
But it soon became clear that permanent changes to the Government ’ s budget had also occurred .
Tax revenues associated with finance were permanently lower .
The UK had sailed into the crisis running large “ structural ” budget deficits , too .
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the structural deficit – the part that would not disappear as the economy recovered – was over eight percent of GDP in 2010 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an ever-rising and unsustainable path .
This is shown by the fact that only in 2017 did the debt-to-GDP ratio peak , after years of spending restraint and tax rises .
This time , after winding down explicit relief programs , we might not face a much larger “ structural ” deficit at all .
Our public finance question , in this case , would not be “ how quickly should we stop rapid new debt accumulation ?
” but “ should we reduce accumulated debts through rapid fiscal consolidation ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just like a major war , a pandemic is the type of emergency that government debt should really act as a shock absorber for .
The net debt-to-GDP level may well rise from 81 percent to 100 percent of GDP , reflecting the socialisation of pandemic risk .
But spreading that risk over current and future taxpayers is the very point of government intervening .
With current financing relatively cheap and little inflationary pressure , we do not face an impending funding crisis .
And provided the structural deficit hasn ’ t risen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in “ tax smoothing , ” spreading the costs of that debt with very minor budget adjustments over long periods of time .
That allows us to keep tax rates low and maintain better incentives to work , save , and invest – crucial conditions to a robust recovery .
Of course , this approach may require reassessment .
As we exit the crisis , we may find the economy ’ s growth potential permanently reduced or find that the Government is unwilling to end emergency support even as normality returns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffer lung damage , impairing productivity .
Maybe the Government will decide it needs to give NHS workers a huge pay rise , or provide more generous benefits from Universal Credit .
Maybe the Keynesian drumbeat for a “ fiscal stimulus ” will be heeded .
If these occur , sign me up to some nearer-term deficit reduction to stop debt ever-spiralling or to prevent unjustified transfers from future taxpayers .
But let ’ s not put socialising pandemic risks in the same bucket as borrowing for on-going spending or old-school demand management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a political economy argument for larger temporary tax rises .
Philip Booth worries that if today ’ s population experience the relief without costs , a “ something for nothing ” budget view will entrench itself .
But large , temporary income tax rises to pay back debt immediately , or even the more destructive capital levies Ed Conway writes about , would really just precipitate the economic hardship the relief sought to avoid .
I am not sure that gifting people large financial burdens after lockdowns will win hearts and minds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear : we do indeed face genuine longer-term public finance challenges that require action .
This pandemic inevitably leads us into them in worse shape .
Population aging will bring a fiscal tidal wave that punctures a huge permanent , ongoing hole in the budget .
The OBR calculates that , on unchanged policies , rising spending on health , social care , the state pension and debt interest will increase the deficit by 18 percentage points of GDP over five decades .
These are real ( inflation-proofed ) claims that can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rises or reforms to these programs – i.e .
deficit reduction – will certainly be inevitable .
But it ’ s difficult to think of a worse time to make headway on this issue than when an economy is spluttering back into life following forced closure .
No , for now , fiscal conservatives should sit tight and wait and see what the budget looks like once normality returns .
Plotting large tax rises today is heedlessly destructive .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
What are we going to do about all this new Government debt? It is testament to George Osborne’s legacy that commentators already ask this question – spoiling to re-run post-financial crisis debates.
As borrowing spirals with tax revenue collapses and emergency spending programs (the Government plans to sell an additional £180 billion of gilts between May and July alone), focus is quickly turning to “how to pay for it.”
The implied message is that it is necessary to run tighter public finances after the pandemic to reduce debt-to-GDP back to where it would have been without the crisis. James Forsyth already reports Conservative ministers saying that “austerity [through spending cuts] is just not politically possible.” Plenty of Tories therefore seem to think big tax rises are inevitable or desirable.
I am fiscally conservative. I supported the last deficit-reduction programme, although not all details of timing and incidence. But such discussion seems misguided and premature.
For now, we should be relatively unconcerned about the additional public debt, given the extraordinary conditions driving it. More importantly, it’s simply too soon to tell what consequences this pandemic will have on the structural government deficit. If this proves a temporary blowout rather than permanent, accumulated debt levels being modestly higher looks manageable, with small fiscal adjustments over long periods. Major tax rises today for a rapid debt payoff, on the other hand, would be a sure-fire way to kill-off a restarting economy.
Today’s situation is different conceptually from 2010. This pandemic was an unforeseen shock that will pass in a year or two. With governments mandating business closures, and little market pandemic insurance, there was a strong case for taxpayers to step in to avoid good businesses going bust and to insulate people from complete income collapses, at least temporarily.
This, of course, raises Government debt through new borrowing – the Centre for Policy Studies estimating up to £300 billion more of it, or around 15 per cent of GDP, in this year alone.
But here’s the key point: just as with wartime expenditure, pandemic-related spending eventually stops. Once our market economy adjusts to new demand and supply conditions, tax revenues pick up. We have no real reason to just assume that the crisis will permanently expand the underlying budget deficit, other than the small uplift in debt interest payments.
So while the level of accumulated debt will no doubt rise owing to the crisis, the on-going gap between spending and revenues afterwards might not. Debt may settle at a higher level, but without this crisis affecting much its future path.
The post-financial crisis situation was markedly different. Yes, near-term borrowing had spiked due to the downturn and stimulus programs. But it soon became clear that permanent changes to the Government’s budget had also occurred. Tax revenues associated with finance were permanently lower.
The UK had sailed into the crisis running large “structural” budget deficits, too. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the structural deficit – the part that would not disappear as the economy recovered – was over eight percent of GDP in 2010. Absent deficit reduction, debt was therefore on an ever-rising and unsustainable path.
This is shown by the fact that only in 2017 did the debt-to-GDP ratio peak, after years of spending restraint and tax rises. This time, after winding down explicit relief programs, we might not face a much larger “structural” deficit at all. Our public finance question, in this case, would not be “how quickly should we stop rapid new debt accumulation?” but “should we reduce accumulated debts through rapid fiscal consolidation?”
I’d argue “no.” Just like a major war, a pandemic is the type of emergency that government debt should really act as a shock absorber for. The net debt-to-GDP level may well rise from 81 percent to 100 percent of GDP, reflecting the socialisation of pandemic risk.
But spreading that risk over current and future taxpayers is the very point of government intervening. With current financing relatively cheap and little inflationary pressure, we do not face an impending funding crisis. And provided the structural deficit hasn’t risen significantly, good economics would suggest we engage in “tax smoothing,” spreading the costs of that debt with very minor budget adjustments over long periods of time. That allows us to keep tax rates low and maintain better incentives to work, save, and invest – crucial conditions to a robust recovery.
Of course, this approach may require reassessment. As we exit the crisis, we may find the economy’s growth potential permanently reduced or find that the Government is unwilling to end emergency support even as normality returns.
Perhaps a large number of people will suffer lung damage, impairing productivity. Maybe the Government will decide it needs to give NHS workers a huge pay rise, or provide more generous benefits from Universal Credit. Maybe the Keynesian drumbeat for a “fiscal stimulus” will be heeded.
If these occur, sign me up to some nearer-term deficit reduction to stop debt ever-spiralling or to prevent unjustified transfers from future taxpayers. But let’s not put socialising pandemic risks in the same bucket as borrowing for on-going spending or old-school demand management.
Now some people I respect highly make a political economy argument for larger temporary tax rises. Philip Booth worries that if today’s population experience the relief without costs, a “something for nothing” budget view will entrench itself.
But large, temporary income tax rises to pay back debt immediately, or even the more destructive capital levies Ed Conway writes about, would really just precipitate the economic hardship the relief sought to avoid. I am not sure that gifting people large financial burdens after lockdowns will win hearts and minds for balancing future budgets.
To be clear: we do indeed face genuine longer-term public finance challenges that require action. This pandemic inevitably leads us into them in worse shape. Population aging will bring a fiscal tidal wave that punctures a huge permanent, ongoing hole in the budget.
The OBR calculates that, on unchanged policies, rising spending on health, social care, the state pension and debt interest will increase the deficit by 18 percentage points of GDP over five decades. These are real (inflation-proofed) claims that cannot be inflated away. Future large tax rises or reforms to these programs – i.e. deficit reduction – will certainly be inevitable.
But it’s difficult to think of a worse time to make headway on this issue than when an economy is spluttering back into life following forced closure. No, for now, fiscal conservatives should sit tight and wait and see what the budget looks like once normality returns. Plotting large tax rises today is heedlessly destructive.


conservativehome--2020-04-29--Luke Evans: What is “the new normal” – in Parliament, my constituency, and throughout Britain?

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
Last Sunday , I took my new puppy out for a walk , it was a beautiful day and , always keen to promote the rolling countryside of my constituency , I put a couple of photographs of our expedition on social media .
A few minutes after the images were posted a Facebook message appeared , trying to be helpful , the author had obviously figured out where they were taken and commented “ not sure you should be driving to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from your home.
” As it happens , I had indeed walked from home but , as I pointed out , that isn ’ t what the ‘ guidelines ’ are saying right now .
In a document entitled ‘ What constitutes a reasonable excuse to leave the place where you live ’ the National Police Chiefs ’ Council and College of Policing have produced guidelines which state that “ driving to countryside and walking ( where far more time is spent walking than driving ) ’ is likely to be reasonable ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the post , and so know it was meant in a constructive manner , but it serves to highlight a level of unease and uncertainty about the rules and the apprehension we are living in .
And right now there is a tangible unease and uncertainty ; not just about in what circumstances that you can go for a walk but in many other areas , too .
Speaking to the leader of my Local Resilience Forum on Friday , I asked “ how are we coping ?
His response was both reassuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are back to normal within the constraints of a crisis ” ; there is adequate PPE , access to tests and no staff shortages .
While clearly reassuring , this had a profound effect on me at a wider level : what is the “ new normal ” ?
Last week , Parliament resumed sitting and adopted an unprecedented hybrid approach and , whilst the process was new to us , all it was clear there were issues for some in gauging the tone of debate .
At Prime Minister ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s statement , I was called upon to ask a question .
It ’ s difficult to get the feel right when talking to a webcam , but I hope both – one about the zoo sector , and the other about mental health provision for front line workers – were asked in a way which scrutinises the Government as a real critical friend .
Counter those with Barry Sheerman ’ s ill-judged and shambolic rant during health questions , and you will see a real disparity and arguably confusion between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new Leader of the Opposition in comparison to the more shouty members of his back bench .
Speaking to colleagues , we are all grappling with the same issue : what is now normal , and therefore what is acceptable ?
Should we question solely on COVID and the Government response ?
Or pivot and talk about the issues preceding the crisis ?
Or pick COVID-related issues that will have long standing impacts in “ normal ” times ?
It would appear that this question is ever-present in the back office of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker has done a wonderful job in setting the rules , but tone is so much more difficult to judge .
Despite media provocation to constantly move the story on , a new pseudo-normality has dawned ; and yet no-one quite knows what are the boundaries in play , what is the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law ?
The First Secretary of State has done a remarkable job in his absence but , I ’ m sure like everyone reading this column , I can ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister back at the lectern outside Downing Street on Monday .
Not only was it a powerful personal symbol of his tussle with this dreaded virus , it was an opportunity to reinvigorate and clarify the tone too .
It ’ s a reinvigoration which is certainly needed and , after listening to his words , one which I know is on its way .

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
Last Sunday, I took my new puppy out for a walk, it was a beautiful day and, always keen to promote the rolling countryside of my constituency, I put a couple of photographs of our expedition on social media.
A few minutes after the images were posted a Facebook message appeared, trying to be helpful, the author had obviously figured out where they were taken and commented “not sure you should be driving to take a walk: guidelines are walk from your home.”
As it happens, I had indeed walked from home but, as I pointed out, that isn’t what the ‘guidelines’ are saying right now.
In a document entitled ‘What constitutes a reasonable excuse to leave the place where you live’ the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing have produced guidelines which state that “driving to countryside and walking (where far more time is spent walking than driving)’is likely to be reasonable”.
Now I know the author of the post, and so know it was meant in a constructive manner, but it serves to highlight a level of unease and uncertainty about the rules and the apprehension we are living in.
And right now there is a tangible unease and uncertainty; not just about in what circumstances that you can go for a walk but in many other areas, too.
Speaking to the leader of my Local Resilience Forum on Friday, I asked “how are we coping? His response was both reassuring yet strange. I was told “we are back to normal within the constraints of a crisis”; there is adequate PPE, access to tests and no staff shortages.
While clearly reassuring, this had a profound effect on me at a wider level: what is the “new normal”?
Last week, Parliament resumed sitting and adopted an unprecedented hybrid approach and, whilst the process was new to us, all it was clear there were issues for some in gauging the tone of debate.
At Prime Minister’s Questions, and again during Matt Hancock’s statement, I was called upon to ask a question. It’s difficult to get the feel right when talking to a webcam, but I hope both – one about the zoo sector, and the other about mental health provision for front line workers – were asked in a way which scrutinises the Government as a real critical friend.
Counter those with Barry Sheerman’s ill-judged and shambolic rant during health questions, and you will see a real disparity and arguably confusion between the considered and positive contributions being made by the new Leader of the Opposition in comparison to the more shouty members of his back bench.
Speaking to colleagues, we are all grappling with the same issue: what is now normal, and therefore what is acceptable?
Should we question solely on COVID and the Government response? Or pivot and talk about the issues preceding the crisis? Or pick COVID-related issues that will have long standing impacts in “normal” times?
It would appear that this question is ever-present in the back office of the Palace of Westminster too. The Speaker has done a wonderful job in setting the rules, but tone is so much more difficult to judge.
Despite media provocation to constantly move the story on, a new pseudo-normality has dawned; and yet no-one quite knows what are the boundaries in play, what is the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law?
The First Secretary of State has done a remarkable job in his absence but, I’m sure like everyone reading this column, I can’t have been any more delighted to see the Prime Minister back at the lectern outside Downing Street on Monday.
Not only was it a powerful personal symbol of his tussle with this dreaded virus, it was an opportunity to reinvigorate and clarify the tone too.
It’s a reinvigoration which is certainly needed and, after listening to his words, one which I know is on its way.


conservativehome--2020-04-29--Alison Hernandez: We have a moral duty to accept the lockdown guidance

Alison Hernandez is the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon , Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly I ’ m aware that all of us recognise the importance of doing our bit during this Covid-19 crisis .
Most of us are staying at home , protecting the NHS , and ultimately saving lives .
In fact , businesses have closed and livelihoods been threatened or even lost .
Staying at home is a simple message that everyone can understand and has a moral duty to comply with… Or is it ?
Our police force in Devon , Cornwall and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participant alongside our community in helping people understand what the stay at home message means for us .
As an area with visitor numbers in ordinary times that are second only to London , you can imagine our fear , of being inundated with holidaymakers and second home owners who preferred to spend time at ‘ home ’ elsewhere than at their primary residence .
I have worked closely with elected leaders and MPs to get a feel of their appetite for the level of police presence during the lockdown and had daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rationale and approach .
A Cornwall MP and tourism partner were the first to tell tourists to ‘ come back later ’ before the Government announced that a holiday was not considered essential travel .
That was because Cornwall has only one hospital .
And so to play our part over Easter weekend our force issued 169 fixed penalty notices… putting us in the top five of forces who used this power .
We ’ ve had some of our communities wanting roadblocks and the eviction of second home owners through to allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if people have to drive a distance to get there .
Getting the balance right has been a real thin blue line to tread .
Our force ’ s officers have now spoken with tens of thousands of people , having conversations with what are ordinarily our law-abiding community .
And some are struggling to cope with receiving a verbal warning , or a telling off , by a police officer for not adhering to the guidelines .
We need all of us to recognise we have a part to play and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out our moral duty to stay at home , protect the NHS and save lives .
I believe it would be irresponsible to promote a message that our beauty spots are open for exercise ( other than to those that can walk there ) which would create gatherings going against the spirit of the guidance .
We have already seen surfers in their droves doing this , and beyond the potential spread of coronavirus , we have general safety concerns too .
The RNLI and Coastguards have both said they will not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into trouble .
We do not want deaths on our beaches so we need to fight the temptation to do as we please .
I was astounded at the latest NPCC/College of Policing ‘ guidance ’ that came out to Chief Constables saying it was ‘ reasonable ’ to drive to exercise as long as the exercise lasts longer than the drive .
With a South West coast path of 630 miles , internationally renowned beauty spots , and the largest force area in England of 4,000 square miles , driving for hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not change a thing .
So is this in the best interests of limiting the reach of coronavirus in the South West ?
What we have been doing so far has been working .
We have one of the lowest rates of infection and want to keep it that way .
If the government is on our side we would like them to support our robust policing approach and not leave police forces to hang out to dry .
I am clear I will be held to account at the ballot box @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieving the second lowest crime rate in the country , for the first time , as a force area , it will pale into insignificance when the memories of lockdown will be at the fore .
I am ready for it because I believe our force is doing their best in the circumstances .
Since the lockdown began we have had at least five deaths on our roads , so the 73 per cent reduction in traffic hasn ’ t stopped people tragically dying .
Our hospitals and funeral homes really don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we do not want even more families to struggle to say goodbye to their loved ones .
It is just heartbreakingly sad .
With all of this as a backdrop , you may be able to better understand the important part policing plays alongside our partners and community .
Our advice has been that if you feel in your gut that your journey isn ’ t essential then it probably isn ’ t .
Common sense can prevail .
So stay at home , protect the NHS , and save lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not a legal one .

Alison Hernandez is the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
I’m aware that all of us recognise the importance of doing our bit during this Covid-19 crisis. Most of us are staying at home, protecting the NHS, and ultimately saving lives. In fact, businesses have closed and livelihoods been threatened or even lost. Staying at home is a simple message that everyone can understand and has a moral duty to comply with… Or is it?
Our police force in Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly has been an active participant alongside our community in helping people understand what the stay at home message means for us. As an area with visitor numbers in ordinary times that are second only to London, you can imagine our fear, of being inundated with holidaymakers and second home owners who preferred to spend time at ‘home’ elsewhere than at their primary residence.
I have worked closely with elected leaders and MPs to get a feel of their appetite for the level of police presence during the lockdown and had daily debates with the Chief Constable to check rationale and approach. A Cornwall MP and tourism partner were the first to tell tourists to ‘come back later’ before the Government announced that a holiday was not considered essential travel. That was because Cornwall has only one hospital. And so to play our part over Easter weekend our force issued 169 fixed penalty notices… putting us in the top five of forces who used this power.
We’ve had some of our communities wanting roadblocks and the eviction of second home owners through to allowing free reign of our beauty spots, even if people have to drive a distance to get there. Getting the balance right has been a real thin blue line to tread.
Our force’s officers have now spoken with tens of thousands of people, having conversations with what are ordinarily our law-abiding community. And some are struggling to cope with receiving a verbal warning, or a telling off, by a police officer for not adhering to the guidelines. We need all of us to recognise we have a part to play and to use our common sense to carry out our moral duty to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives.
I believe it would be irresponsible to promote a message that our beauty spots are open for exercise (other than to those that can walk there) which would create gatherings going against the spirit of the guidance. We have already seen surfers in their droves doing this, and beyond the potential spread of coronavirus, we have general safety concerns too. The RNLI and Coastguards have both said they will not be there to rescue us should we get into trouble. We do not want deaths on our beaches so we need to fight the temptation to do as we please.
I was astounded at the latest NPCC/College of Policing ‘guidance’ that came out to Chief Constables saying it was ‘reasonable’ to drive to exercise as long as the exercise lasts longer than the drive. With a South West coast path of 630 miles, internationally renowned beauty spots, and the largest force area in England of 4,000 square miles, driving for hours to exercise is normal for us so would not change a thing. So is this in the best interests of limiting the reach of coronavirus in the South West?
What we have been doing so far has been working. We have one of the lowest rates of infection and want to keep it that way. If the government is on our side we would like them to support our robust policing approach and not leave police forces to hang out to dry. I am clear I will be held to account at the ballot box when elections resume, and while recently achieving the second lowest crime rate in the country, for the first time, as a force area, it will pale into insignificance when the memories of lockdown will be at the fore. I am ready for it because I believe our force is doing their best in the circumstances.
Since the lockdown began we have had at least five deaths on our roads, so the 73 per cent reduction in traffic hasn’t stopped people tragically dying. Our hospitals and funeral homes really don’t need any added pressure right now and we do not want even more families to struggle to say goodbye to their loved ones. It is just heartbreakingly sad.
With all of this as a backdrop, you may be able to better understand the important part policing plays alongside our partners and community. Our advice has been that if you feel in your gut that your journey isn’t essential then it probably isn’t. Common sense can prevail.
So stay at home, protect the NHS, and save lives. It’s clearly a moral duty and not a legal one.


conservativehome--2020-04-29--WATCH: With Johnson absent, care homes are the focus of this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions.

Deaths in care homes `` appear to have been rising '' , while deaths in hospitals decrease , says Labour @ @ @ @ @ is a challenge in care homes '' , replies Dominic Raab , mainly the `` @ @ @ @ @ care sector

Deaths in care homes "appear to have been rising", while deaths in hospitals decrease, says Labour leader Keir Starmer
"There is a challenge in care homes", replies Dominic Raab, mainly the "decentralised" nature of the care sector
Latest: https://t.co/U6sHzOkB9U #PMQs pic.twitter.com/siFHL4Wqc8
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) April 29, 2020


conservativehome--2020-04-29--Andrew Gimson’s Commons sketch: Starmer has yet to master tabloid politics

Sir Keir Starmer has not yet mastered tabloid politics .
By being too long-winded during his second outing at PMQs , he threw away the ascendancy he has started to establish over Dominic Raab .
The Speaker , Sir Lindsay Hoyle , told both of them to “ put some speed on ” or no one else would have a chance .
It was in Starmer ’ s interest to be brief , for then the evasiveness in the rambling replies given by Raab , standing in for new father Boris Johnson , would become more apparent .
But like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excessive quantities of equipment , and would have been better off leaving half of it at base camp , Starmer subjected the Chamber to excessive quantities of evidence .
He began with an analysis of the latest death figures , when all he needed to say , as he at last did , was these “ are truly dreadful ” – a point with which Raab had to agree .
Starmer proceeded to observe that while deaths in hospitals are going down , those in care homes appear to be going up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
“ I will not shy away from saying this is a challenge , ” Raab replied , “ challenge ” being the vaguely positive word our politicians apply to problems they do not know how to solve .
Quite soon , Raab added , in his cloth-eared way , that “ there ’ s no minimising or sugar-coating those cris de coeur he mentioned ” .
“ We ’ d like to try to support the Government ’ s strategy when we know what it is , ” Starmer said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the words , “ What is it ?
” Today was a second practice run for Starmer .
Raab for him is an irrelevance .
The target is Boris Johnson , a formidable debater .
Starmer , one ventures to predict , will sometimes win their encounters .
But he will have to transcend his lawyerly insistence on building a case buttressed at every turn with evidence .

Sir Keir Starmer has not yet mastered tabloid politics. By being too long-winded during his second outing at PMQs, he threw away the ascendancy he has started to establish over Dominic Raab.
The Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, told both of them to “put some speed on” or no one else would have a chance.
It was in Starmer’s interest to be brief, for then the evasiveness in the rambling replies given by Raab, standing in for new father Boris Johnson, would become more apparent.
But like a climber who weighs himself down with excessive quantities of equipment, and would have been better off leaving half of it at base camp, Starmer subjected the Chamber to excessive quantities of evidence.
He began with an analysis of the latest death figures, when all he needed to say, as he at last did, was these “are truly dreadful” – a point with which Raab had to agree.
Starmer proceeded to observe that while deaths in hospitals are going down, those in care homes appear to be going up, and asked why Raab thinks this should be.
“I will not shy away from saying this is a challenge,” Raab replied, “challenge” being the vaguely positive word our politicians apply to problems they do not know how to solve.
Quite soon, Raab added, in his cloth-eared way, that “there’s no minimising or sugar-coating those cris de coeur he mentioned”.
“We’d like to try to support the Government’s strategy when we know what it is,” Starmer said, a remark which needed only the addition of the words, “What is it?”
Today was a second practice run for Starmer. Raab for him is an irrelevance. The target is Boris Johnson, a formidable debater.
Starmer, one ventures to predict, will sometimes win their encounters. But he will have to transcend his lawyerly insistence on building a case buttressed at every turn with evidence.


conservativehome--2020-04-30--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Health & Safety Executive – a

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Health & Safety Executive – 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 .
“ This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps Britain moving .
You would be joining the DVSA at an exciting time , with the opportunity to help shape the future of the agency and ensure its continued success .
This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where technological transformation will significantly influence mobility .
The DVSA is now seeking to appoint two Non-Executive Directors to the Board who will embrace technological disruption , possess an entrepreneurial spirit and have a passion for harnessing the possibilities that digital transformation plays in driving greater customer insight and intimacy .
We seek a Non-Executive Director who will be expected to provide thought leadership in digital transformation and keep abreast of digital transformation trends and innovative approaches to operational excellence , as well as a Non-Executive Director who will have the necessary skills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee.
” Time : Up to 36 days per annum .
“ The Board of Trustees is made up of 15 members .
Board members are guardians of the British Council ’ s purpose and strategy and are ultimately accountable for the organisation ’ s actions and performance .
The Board delegates responsibility for the management of the British Council to the Chief Executive .
The Board also agrees the British Council ’ s Corporate Plan and approves the British Council ’ s annual accounts .
The Board of Trustees meets seven times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times a year in addition .
More details about the governance and funding are available at [ link ] .
The British Council is registered as a charity in England and Scotland and is regulated by charity law .
It is committed to a policy of equal opportunity and works to reflect the diversity of UK society at every level within the organisation.
” “ The Health and Safety Executive ( HSE ) is a Crown Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , injury and death across the UK .
DWP is seeking a Chair with a range of established skills and competences to help set HSE ’ s strategic direction to 2025 and beyond , drive regulatory excellence and oversee the organisation ’ s governance arrangements .
We are therefore looking for candidates who can bring experience from other national and/or international organisations with challenges on a similarly large scale to those facing HSE .
The Chair is expected to attend and preside over eight Board meetings a year , which take place at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Merseyside or in the regions or devolved administrations and involve an overnight stay.
” “ The Institute was established as a Crown Non-Departmental Public Body , independent of Government and employer-led with a mandate set by Ministers .
The Institute is playing a vital role in continuing the apprenticeship and technical education reform process and works on behalf of employers to support the delivery of high quality apprenticeships and T Levels in England .
The Institute enables apprentices or learners to be confident that their apprenticeship or T Level is of high quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build a career with a clear market value.
” “ Led by the Non-Executive Chair , the Crown Commercial Service ( CCS ) Board is responsible for the oversight of the operation of CCS , with emphasis on its strategic direction , management control , and corporate governance .
All Non-Executive Board Members are expected to contribute to decisions covering the strategy for the organisation and the overall direction of the business , adding value by offering counsel , advice and challenge .
We are seeking an exceptional individual to join our Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Technology and Digital Transformation Committee to support progression of our transformation journey… To complement our existing Board we are particularly interested in hearing from individuals who bring recent experience in leading large scale digital transformation in either the private or public sector.
” “ The CCRC ’ s role is to investigate and review cases where it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in relation to conviction , sentence or both .
The CCRC is entrusted with the exercise of wide-ranging , and sometimes intrusive , statutory powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , legal and investigations advisers , casework and administrative staff .
Investigations are mainly carried out by CCRC staff but CCRC can require others , such as the police , to carry out investigations on its behalf… Commissioners may be called on to provide specialist advice depending on their background and expertise .
Commissioners may also be involved in the training of staff and of fellow Commissioners ; again , depending on the expertise they bring.
” “ As a non-executive director , you will play an active role on the board of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and SLC Chair to deliver the company ’ s portfolio of priorities , overcome challenges and exploit opportunities , including the continued growth of its customer base , delivery of recommendations from the Tailored Review ( Annex 3 ) and implementation of the Review of Post-18 Education .
A key element of the role will be to work with the board to ensure that the resources and skills available to the Company are commensurate with and focussed on its delivery obligations .
The SLC administers the data underpinning one of Government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This data supports the sale of tranches of loans to monetise that asset for the benefit of the exchequer and taxpayers ( £3.6bn raised to date ) .
There may be other opportunities to realise the value , in the widest sense , of the SLC ’ s data in the future .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency – Non-Executive Directors
“This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps Britain moving. You would be joining the DVSA at an exciting time, with the opportunity to help shape the future of the agency and ensure its continued success. This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for a future where technological transformation will significantly influence mobility. The DVSA is now seeking to appoint two Non-Executive Directors to the Board who will embrace technological disruption, possess an entrepreneurial spirit and have a passion for harnessing the possibilities that digital transformation plays in driving greater customer insight and intimacy. We seek a Non-Executive Director who will be expected to provide thought leadership in digital transformation and keep abreast of digital transformation trends and innovative approaches to operational excellence, as well as a Non-Executive Director who will have the necessary skills required to chair the audit and risk committee.”
Time: Up to 36 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000.
Closes: 28 April
– – – – – – – – – –
British Council – Board Trustee
“The Board of Trustees is made up of 15 members. Board members are guardians of the British Council’s purpose and strategy and are ultimately accountable for the organisation’s actions and performance. The Board delegates responsibility for the management of the British Council to the Chief Executive. The Board also agrees the British Council’s Corporate Plan and approves the British Council’s annual accounts. The Board of Trustees meets seven times a year with its committees meeting four times a year in addition. More details about the governance and funding are available at [link]. The British Council is registered as a charity in England and Scotland and is regulated by charity law. It is committed to a policy of equal opportunity and works to reflect the diversity of UK society at every level within the organisation.”
Time: 18 days per annum.
Remuneration: “Reasonable expenses”.
Closes: 08 May
– – – – – – – – – –
Health & Safety Executive – Chair
“The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a Crown Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It is responsible for the prevention of workplace illness, injury and death across the UK. DWP is seeking a Chair with a range of established skills and competences to help set HSE’s strategic direction to 2025 and beyond, drive regulatory excellence and oversee the organisation’s governance arrangements. We are therefore looking for candidates who can bring experience from other national and/or international organisations with challenges on a similarly large scale to those facing HSE. The Chair is expected to attend and preside over eight Board meetings a year, which take place at HSE’s headquarters in Bootle, Merseyside or in the regions or devolved administrations and involve an overnight stay.”
Time: 3 days per week.
Remuneration: £84,000 per annum.
Closes: 10 May
– – – – – – – – – –
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education – Non-Executive Board Member
“The Institute was established as a Crown Non-Departmental Public Body, independent of Government and employer-led with a mandate set by Ministers. The Institute is playing a vital role in continuing the apprenticeship and technical education reform process and works on behalf of employers to support the delivery of high quality apprenticeships and T Levels in England. The Institute enables apprentices or learners to be confident that their apprenticeship or T Level is of high quality, respected and will help them to build a career with a clear market value.”
Time: 2 days per month on average
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 15 May
– – – – – – – – – –
Crown Commercial Service – Non-Executive Directors
“Led by the Non-Executive Chair, the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) Board is responsible for the oversight of the operation of CCS, with emphasis on its strategic direction, management control, and corporate governance. All Non-Executive Board Members are expected to contribute to decisions covering the strategy for the organisation and the overall direction of the business, adding value by offering counsel, advice and challenge. We are seeking an exceptional individual to join our Board as a Non-Executive Director and Chair of the Technology and Digital Transformation Committee to support progression of our transformation journey… To complement our existing Board we are particularly interested in hearing from individuals who bring recent experience in leading large scale digital transformation in either the private or public sector.”
Time: Approx 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 May
– – – – – – – – – –
Criminal Cases Review Commission – Commissioners
“The CCRC’s role is to investigate and review cases where it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in relation to conviction, sentence or both. The CCRC is entrusted with the exercise of wide-ranging, and sometimes intrusive, statutory powers. Commissioners are supported by senior managers, legal and investigations advisers, casework and administrative staff. Investigations are mainly carried out by CCRC staff but CCRC can require others, such as the police, to carry out investigations on its behalf… Commissioners may be called on to provide specialist advice depending on their background and expertise. Commissioners may also be involved in the training of staff and of fellow Commissioners; again, depending on the expertise they bring.”
Time: Min. 52 days per annum.
Remuneration: £358 per diem.
Closes: 18 May
– – – – – – – – – –
Student Loans Company Board – Non-Executive Directors
“As a non-executive director, you will play an active role on the board of SLC, supporting the SLC Executive Team and SLC Chair to deliver the company’s portfolio of priorities, overcome challenges and exploit opportunities, including the continued growth of its customer base, delivery of recommendations from the Tailored Review (Annex 3) and implementation of the Review of Post-18 Education. A key element of the role will be to work with the board to ensure that the resources and skills available to the Company are commensurate with and focussed on its delivery obligations. The SLC administers the data underpinning one of Government’s major assets: the Student Loan book. This data supports the sale of tranches of loans to monetise that asset for the benefit of the exchequer and taxpayers (£3.6bn raised to date). There may be other opportunities to realise the value, in the widest sense, of the SLC’s data in the future.”
Time: Two days per month.
Remuneration: £12,000, up to £17,000.
Closes: 19 May


conservativehome--2020-04-30--The shutdown will be with us for the duration.  What the South Korean route out of it will mean – an

The shutdown will be with us for the duration.  What the South Korean route out of it will mean – and why it’s now necessary.

The doves have won .
That is the clear signal emerging from briefing about the Government ’ s review of the lockdown .
On timing , an announcement looks set to come earlier than we expected – before next week ’ s Friday Bank Holiday rather than afterwards .
On content , Britain should prepare for “ the new normal ” : that ’ s to say , a modest loosening of the shutdown at what might be called the lower end , with some outdoor retail providers , such as garden centres , opening , with smaller shops ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the higher end , at locations where the number of people congregating is greater .
So we may have a quarantine period for those arriving into the UK .
There will be strict social distancing at work ; no immediate re-opening of schools ; and no big events , such as sporting and cultural ones , for the forseeable future .
There are differences of view among Government advisers about compulsory masks .
It may also be that there will be regional lockdown variations – an intriguing prospect .
To spell it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gridlock until a vaccine is available ; or a workable antibody test comes , or Britain achieves herd immunity ( which a lockdown of the kind the Government is planning will push back ) .
This has momentous implications .
For those with secure jobs , mostly in the public sector ; or for those furloughed ; or at least for those in both categories who have gardens , whose children are at good schools , who have robust mental health , and who are strangers to domestic violence or abuse , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with its gorgeous accompanying weather , as a kind of holiday from the rigours of life .
This is a fool ’ s paradise .
Early June will mark roughly three months from the start of the economic contraction caused by the virus .
Perhaps at that point – maybe a bit later – reality will kick in .
Some of those furloughed will lose their jobs .
Growth has already collapsed .
Mass unemployment will return for the first time since the 1990s .
The economic bills will soar as tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Rishi Sunak , as well as the rest of us .
Older and vulnerable people will be expected to self-isolate for the interim .
For those without jobs or gardens or access to green space , or with mental health problems or terminal conditions or chaotic families , the prospects are grisly .
The Chancellor will find himself forced to haul out a parade of bigger statist bazookas , in order to rescue the mass of the population , as he has already been compelled to do over loans for business and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are widely deployed in writing about the Coronavirus .
Here ’ s another .
This prospect will be like a long defeat – with an invading , invisible enemy wreaking havoc .
The social , economic and political wounds could scar us as irreversibly as did those of both world wars .
Now , Boris Johnson would say that we don ’ t necessarily need a vaccine , or solid antibody tests , or even herd immunity , to see the Coronavirus mugger off the premises .
We can do by turning ourselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has become the Government ’ s plan .
The Prime Minister is as aware of all the above as you and we are , if not more .
It was never likely that Britain would follow the road originally taken by Israel : in other words , a draconian suppression , possible for a while in that militarised society .
Nor was it ever going to persist in the route still followed by Sweden : a looser suppression of the kind set out in the Government ’ s own original playbook .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NHS on its feet would never have allowed it .
Neither voters nor Conservative MPs would have tolerated people dying “ in their beds alone at home , some of dehydration and starvation alongside their pneumonia , with no palliative care of any kind ” , as Sam Bowman has put it .
And so it is that , after three policy iterations , Ministers have gone Asian – looking to South Korea , the biggest Coronavirus success story so far , as an example to follow .
But there is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Davis argues that the Government ’ s plans for scaling up testing and tracking won ’ t do if a South Korean settlement is truly Johnson ’ s aim .
The former Brexit Secretary is having a good run with figures .
His calculations about Britain ’ s death rates published this week in Reaction , have been widely followed up or reached independently elsewhere .
Keir Starmer , with his eye to the main chance , raised those rates at Prime Minister ’ s Questions yesterday .
Furthermore , the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – with testing .
The eventual inquiry into Ministers ’ handling of the crisis will reach its own conclusions .
But what appears to have happened is that the Government , having settled on mass testing , found that Public Health England couldn ’ t deliver it quickly enough .
So Matt Hancock called in the private sector and the army to reach the 100,000 end-of-April target that he announced earlier this month .
( He was right , by the way , to do so , regardless of whether he hits or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of setting it forced government and its partners to raise the number of tests spectacularly . )
Johnson and his team should be cut a lot of slack .
Our death rates may well be roughly in the middle of the international range .
Not until the virus has receded , and the statisticians have allowed for different demographics , population distribution and concentration , ethnic make-up , health service performances , household formation and a mass of other variables , will it be possible to reach a conclusion about the Government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , in Germany – lauded as a European leader in tackling the virus – debate is currently raging among the politicians , and throughout the country , about the re-tightening of lockdown as its death numbers climb again .
Ministers have had their successes ( Universal Credit , the furlough portal , creating a testing industry from scratch , helping to keep the NHS on an even keel ) as well as their failures ( the main loans scheme take-up , slow testing , the running problems with PPE – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with conventional flu was first rolled out , only to be rolled back ) .
But if a thing is worth doing , it ’ s worth doing well .
If South Korea is to be the model – with its different social and cultural attitudes and outlook – then Ministers will need to scale up their test and track plans , as well as spell out their worst case scenarios for second and consequent waves , and when the NHS could cope with them , if at all .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will end this summer .
It is a struggle for the duration , unless or until that vaccine turns up , with consequences we can only begin to imagine .

The doves have won. That is the clear signal emerging from briefing about the Government’s review of the lockdown.
On timing, an announcement looks set to come earlier than we expected – before next week’s Friday Bank Holiday rather than afterwards.
On content, Britain should prepare for “the new normal”: that’s to say, a modest loosening of the shutdown at what might be called the lower end, with some outdoor retail providers, such as garden centres, opening, with smaller shops; and a possible tightening of it at the higher end, at locations where the number of people congregating is greater. So we may have a quarantine period for those arriving into the UK.
There will be strict social distancing at work; no immediate re-opening of schools; and no big events, such as sporting and cultural ones, for the forseeable future. There are differences of view among Government advisers about compulsory masks. It may also be that there will be regional lockdown variations – an intriguing prospect.
To spell it out plainly, the county will be in gridlock until a vaccine is available; or a workable antibody test comes, or Britain achieves herd immunity (which a lockdown of the kind the Government is planning will push back). This has momentous implications.
For those with secure jobs, mostly in the public sector; or for those furloughed; or at least for those in both categories who have gardens, whose children are at good schools, who have robust mental health, and who are strangers to domestic violence or abuse, it has been possible to experience this lockdown, with its gorgeous accompanying weather, as a kind of holiday from the rigours of life. This is a fool’s paradise.
Early June will mark roughly three months from the start of the economic contraction caused by the virus. Perhaps at that point – maybe a bit later – reality will kick in. Some of those furloughed will lose their jobs. Growth has already collapsed. Mass unemployment will return for the first time since the 1990s. The economic bills will soar as tax revenues vanish. This is a disaster for Rishi Sunak, as well as the rest of us.
Older and vulnerable people will be expected to self-isolate for the interim. For those without jobs or gardens or access to green space, or with mental health problems or terminal conditions or chaotic families, the prospects are grisly. The Chancellor will find himself forced to haul out a parade of bigger statist bazookas, in order to rescue the mass of the population, as he has already been compelled to do over loans for business and help for the self-employed.
War metaphors are widely deployed in writing about the Coronavirus. Here’s another. This prospect will be like a long defeat – with an invading, invisible enemy wreaking havoc. The social, economic and political wounds could scar us as irreversibly as did those of both world wars.
Now, Boris Johnson would say that we don’t necessarily need a vaccine, or solid antibody tests, or even herd immunity, to see the Coronavirus mugger off the premises. We can do by turning ourselves into South Korea.
This, evidently, has become the Government’s plan. The Prime Minister is as aware of all the above as you and we are, if not more. It was never likely that Britain would follow the road originally taken by Israel: in other words, a draconian suppression, possible for a while in that militarised society.
Nor was it ever going to persist in the route still followed by Sweden: a looser suppression of the kind set out in the Government’s own original playbook. The social and political imperative of keeping the NHS on its feet would never have allowed it. Neither voters nor Conservative MPs would have tolerated people dying “in their beds alone at home, some of dehydration and starvation alongside their pneumonia, with no palliative care of any kind”, as Sam Bowman has put it.
And so it is that, after three policy iterations, Ministers have gone Asian – looking to South Korea, the biggest Coronavirus success story so far, as an example to follow. But there is a problem.
On this site today, David Davis argues that the Government’s plans for scaling up testing and tracking won’t do if a South Korean settlement is truly Johnson’s aim. The former Brexit Secretary is having a good run with figures. His calculations about Britain’s death rates published this week in Reaction, have been widely followed up or reached independently elsewhere. Keir Starmer, with his eye to the main chance, raised those rates at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday.
Furthermore, the Government has already been round this course once – with testing. The eventual inquiry into Ministers’ handling of the crisis will reach its own conclusions. But what appears to have happened is that the Government, having settled on mass testing, found that Public Health England couldn’t deliver it quickly enough.
So Matt Hancock called in the private sector and the army to reach the 100,000 end-of-April target that he announced earlier this month. (He was right, by the way, to do so, regardless of whether he hits or misses it, because the mere fact of setting it forced government and its partners to raise the number of tests spectacularly.)
Johnson and his team should be cut a lot of slack. Our death rates may well be roughly in the middle of the international range. Not until the virus has receded, and the statisticians have allowed for different demographics, population distribution and concentration, ethnic make-up, health service performances, household formation and a mass of other variables, will it be possible to reach a conclusion about the Government’s performance compared to it counterparts.
After all, in Germany – lauded as a European leader in tackling the virus – debate is currently raging among the politicians, and throughout the country, about the re-tightening of lockdown as its death numbers climb again.
Ministers have had their successes (Universal Credit, the furlough portal, creating a testing industry from scratch, helping to keep the NHS on an even keel) as well as their failures (the main loans scheme take-up, slow testing, the running problems with PPE – and strategic uncertainty, as a plan for dealing with conventional flu was first rolled out, only to be rolled back).
But if a thing is worth doing, it’s worth doing well. If South Korea is to be the model – with its different social and cultural attitudes and outlook – then Ministers will need to scale up their test and track plans, as well as spell out their worst case scenarios for second and consequent waves, and when the NHS could cope with them, if at all.
This is not a pleasant holiday from ordinary life that will end this summer. It is a struggle for the duration, unless or until that vaccine turns up, with consequences we can only begin to imagine.


Coronavirus Count

UK cumulative total of lab-confirmed cases : 165,221 ( Up from 157,149 ) .
UK cumulative total of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 26,097 ( 21,092 ) .
Latest daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 4,076 ( Down from 4,310 ) .
Latest daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 765 ( Up from 360 ) .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK .
Wednesday April 29th note : Dominic Raab told today ’ s Government press conference that “ we are moving to an improved daily reporting system for deaths , so that deaths in all settings are included , wherever the individual has tested positive for COVID-19 , rather than just those in hospitals ” “ 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 .
GOVERNMENT RULES ON STAYING AT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GUIDANCE : FURTHER BUSINESSES AND PREMISES TO CLOSE See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
HOW EVERYONE CAN HELP STOP THE CORONAVIRUS ( SOCIAL DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
STAY AT HOME IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE CORONAVIRUS ( SELF-DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR WORKERS ON WHAT AND HOW THEY CAN CLAIM See here .
Published on Friday March 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON WHAT THE CORONAVIRUS BILL WILL DO See here .
Published on Wednesday March 18 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 7.00 on Thursday April 30th . )

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--2020-04-30--Stephen Booth: Why Trans-Pacific Partnership membership can bolster the UK’s relationship with the U

Stephen Booth: Why Trans-Pacific Partnership membership can bolster the UK’s relationship with the US

Stephen Booth is Head of the Britain in the World Project at Policy Exchange .
The UK is seeking to reshape its global role just as the world itself is changing as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic .
We are still grappling with the short-term effects , but the long-term implications are likely to be profound .
As noted elsewhere on this site , the new normal is likely to be very abnormal indeed .
In the post-war period , as the importance of the Commonwealth declined , UK foreign policy was often at risk of falling between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both will always be key relationships for Britain , but the 21st Century – one of greater global prosperity , connectivity and a new technological revolution – promises greater opportunities to diversify the UK ’ s political and economic partnerships and take part in new coalitions .
In the post-Covid-19 world , the essential objective of Global Britain remains to forge a role that recognises the importance of our relationships with the United States and the European Union , but which isn ’ t solely dependent on either .
The current crisis highlights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some ways exacerbate it , as several trends already underway become starker .
Most notably , the crisis has underlined China ’ s emergence on the global stage and appears to be amplifying US-China great power rivalry .
It is not simply the origination of the disease and China ’ s equivocation in alerting the international community to it that has correctly prompted scrutiny .
The extent to which China drives global trade and economic growth is clear for all to see .
It now accounts for around 17 per cent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent at the time of the SARS episode in 2003 .
Then China accounted for less than four per cent of global tourist spending compared to just under 20 per cent at present , according to JP Morgan research .
The Higher Education Statistics Agency ’ s breakdown of students shows that over a third of non-EU students studying in UK universities are now Chinese .
However , there is no choice but for UK policy to be much more hard-nosed in future .
At a recent Policy Exchange webinar , Lord @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ two pillar ” approach of seeking to avoid strategic dependency on Beijing , while accepting that China ’ s co-operation would be required to solve global problems .
The extent to which UK policy will be influenced by Washington remains to be seen , but the Huawei dispute is not the first time , and is unlikely to be the last , that US policymakers will express a view on UK engagement with China .
Logically , as the English Channel widens , Brexit points to closer cooperation and convergence with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already indispensable to the UK , particularly in the fields of security and defence , and successfully concluding a UK-US trade deal would provide an important economic and geopolitical boost to Global Britain .
However , it is also the case that President Trump has vacated the US ’ traditional global role at a time when the West could do with some leadership .
Just as the Remain campaign found it difficult to make the case for a continued political alliance with the EU , there is also a risk that advocates of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public opinion for granted .
As previously , the UK relationship with the US will need to be tempered with others .
Some will argue that rising political and economic nationalism at the expense of the multilateral system illustrates the folly of Brexit .
However , the crisis has revealed that the EU is ill-suited to global leadership in a world where the nation state is reasserting itself as the essential unit of governance .
Brussels ’ preoccupation has been to uphold solidarity within the bloc , rather than to promote it globally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ superpower on our continent .
We have yet to determine the precise nature of our future relationship but it is in our interests for it to remain functional , if not warm .
To the extent that the EU engages in protectionism , we are shortly going to be on the other side of the fence .
Moreover , the EU ’ s ongoing quest for “ strategic autonomy ” in foreign affairs begs the question of autonomy from whom ?
The only answer can be the US .
The UK may need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Atlanticism from the outside , mobilising allies , particularly in Eastern Europe , to do so .
Meanwhile , the crisis has illustrated the vulnerability of long and fragmented global supply chains and the need for greater national resilience .
In some cases , such as the supply of protective medical equipment , strategic stockpiling will be part of the solution .
But the UK is not big enough on its own to sustain autarky , even if it was desirable .
These challenges also serve to highlight potential ways forward .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ partners in forging its new role .
We , alongside a host of other medium and small-sized powers , share an interest in securing a diversity of supply .
This means maintaining and reforming the rules-based international system , rather than see it upended or diminished .
Helping to broker a new and sustainable settlement between the West and China will be difficult but preferable to an escalation in the US-China conflict .
As Liz Truss , the UK Trade Secretary , recently argued , with her counterparts from Australia , New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK ’ s membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership ( CPTPP ) has been strengthened .
Japan , its biggest member , views the grouping as a means of engaging with China from a position of greater strength and , unlike the EU , the CPTPP does not aspire towards ever closer union .
It is already a club with major economic , and potentially geopolitical , significance .
UK membership would enhance both of these properties .
The UK ’ s Integrated Review of Security , Defence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paused as attention is directed towards the Government ’ s immediate crisis response .
When it resumes once some of the dust has settled , it is important that the UK reflects on the full range of tools at its disposal in the new world we find ourselves in .
It was curious that trade was not explicitly included in the original remit of the review .
The crisis has illustrated that , whether we wish it or not , trade and foreign policy are inextricably linked .

Stephen Booth is Head of the Britain in the World Project at Policy Exchange.
The UK is seeking to reshape its global role just as the world itself is changing as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.
We are still grappling with the short-term effects, but the long-term implications are likely to be profound.
As noted elsewhere on this site, the new normal is likely to be very abnormal indeed.
In the post-war period, as the importance of the Commonwealth declined, UK foreign policy was often at risk of falling between the two stools of Washington and Brussels.
Both will always be key relationships for Britain, but the 21st Century – one of greater global prosperity, connectivity and a new technological revolution – promises greater opportunities to diversify the UK’s political and economic partnerships and take part in new coalitions.
In the post-Covid-19 world, the essential objective of Global Britain remains to forge a role that recognises the importance of our relationships with the United States and the European Union, but which isn’t solely dependent on either.
The current crisis highlights the nature of the challenge and may in some ways exacerbate it, as several trends already underway become starker.
Most notably, the crisis has underlined China’s emergence on the global stage and appears to be amplifying US-China great power rivalry.
It is not simply the origination of the disease and China’s equivocation in alerting the international community to it that has correctly prompted scrutiny.
The extent to which China drives global trade and economic growth is clear for all to see. It now accounts for around 17 per cent of global GDP, compared to only four per cent at the time of the SARS episode in 2003.
Then China accounted for less than four per cent of global tourist spending compared to just under 20 per cent at present, according to JP Morgan research.
The Higher Education Statistics Agency’s breakdown of students shows that over a third of non-EU students studying in UK universities are now Chinese.
In 2015, George Osborne pronounced a “golden era” of Sino-British relations.
However, there is no choice but for UK policy to be much more hard-nosed in future.
At a recent Policy Exchange webinar, Lord Hague, former Foreign Secretary, advocated a “two pillar” approach of seeking to avoid strategic dependency on Beijing, while accepting that China’s co-operation would be required to solve global problems.
The extent to which UK policy will be influenced by Washington remains to be seen, but the Huawei dispute is not the first time, and is unlikely to be the last, that US policymakers will express a view on UK engagement with China.
Logically, as the English Channel widens, Brexit points to closer cooperation and convergence with the US.
The US relationship is already indispensable to the UK, particularly in the fields of security and defence, and successfully concluding a UK-US trade deal would provide an important economic and geopolitical boost to Global Britain.
However, it is also the case that President Trump has vacated the US’ traditional global role at a time when the West could do with some leadership.
Just as the Remain campaign found it difficult to make the case for a continued political alliance with the EU, there is also a risk that advocates of a much closer US relationship take British public opinion for granted.
As previously, the UK relationship with the US will need to be tempered with others.
Some will argue that rising political and economic nationalism at the expense of the multilateral system illustrates the folly of Brexit.
However, the crisis has revealed that the EU is ill-suited to global leadership in a world where the nation state is reasserting itself as the essential unit of governance.
Brussels’ preoccupation has been to uphold solidarity within the bloc, rather than to promote it globally.
Equally, the EU remains a superpower on our continent.
We have yet to determine the precise nature of our future relationship but it is in our interests for it to remain functional, if not warm.
To the extent that the EU engages in protectionism, we are shortly going to be on the other side of the fence.
Moreover, the EU’s ongoing quest for “strategic autonomy” in foreign affairs begs the question of autonomy from whom? The only answer can be the US.
The UK may need to make an even stronger European case for Atlanticism from the outside, mobilising allies, particularly in Eastern Europe, to do so.
Meanwhile, the crisis has illustrated the vulnerability of long and fragmented global supply chains and the need for greater national resilience.
In some cases, such as the supply of protective medical equipment, strategic stockpiling will be part of the solution.
But the UK is not big enough on its own to sustain autarky, even if it was desirable.
These challenges also serve to highlight potential ways forward.
The UK retains considerable assets and willing partners in forging its new role. We, alongside a host of other medium and small-sized powers, share an interest in securing a diversity of supply.
This means maintaining and reforming the rules-based international system, rather than see it upended or diminished.
Helping to broker a new and sustainable settlement between the West and China will be difficult but preferable to an escalation in the US-China conflict.
As Liz Truss, the UK Trade Secretary, recently argued, with her counterparts from Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, the case for the UK’s membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has been strengthened.
Japan, its biggest member, views the grouping as a means of engaging with China from a position of greater strength and, unlike the EU, the CPTPP does not aspire towards ever closer union.
It is already a club with major economic, and potentially geopolitical, significance. UK membership would enhance both of these properties.
The UK’s Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign policy has understandably been paused as attention is directed towards the Government’s immediate crisis response.
When it resumes once some of the dust has settled, it is important that the UK reflects on the full range of tools at its disposal in the new world we find ourselves in. It was curious that trade was not explicitly included in the original remit of the review.
The crisis has illustrated that, whether we wish it or not, trade and foreign policy are inextricably linked.