conservativehome--2020-11-05--Henry Hill: The public want UK-wide rules for Christmas, but we’re a long way from a ‘Four Nations’

Henry Hill: The public want UK-wide rules for Christmas, but we’re a long way from a ‘Four Nations’ approach

The ‘ Four Nations ’ approach to lockdown – where is it now ?
As we noted earlier in the week when looking at the Government ’ s decision to pivot to a full lockdown , one of the casualties of this summer ’ s coronavirus confusion has been the ‘ four nations ’ approach to combating the pandemic .
Instead of operating in lockstep , the different devolved governments are now all operating different restriction regimes – raising for the first time the prospect of ‘ hard borders ’ on the British mainland .
Polling suggests there are limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this – a clear majority of Brits think that there should be uniform policies towards Christmas across the United Kingdom – but for now the Government is unlearning its reflexive deference to devolution too slowly to hope this will be acted on .
So what is going on in other parts of the country ?
Wales made national headlines with their ‘ firebreak ’ lockdown .
Straying beyond the public health remit of coronavirus regulations ( and thus perhaps opening themselves up to judicial challenge ) , Cardiff Bay ministers decided that ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonetheless be forbidden to sell ‘ non-essential ’ goods , in order to prevent supermarkets having an unfair advantage over smaller retailers .
Despite this , and a raft of other mishandled elements earlier in the pandemic such as priority food deliveries and coordinating volunteers , the latest polls suggest that opposition parties are not yet managing to capitalise ( although more on those polls below ) .
In Scotland , the pandemic is giving the Scottish National Party a chance to give its authoritarian tendencies full vent .
In recent weeks the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puritanical approach towards banning alcohol , and the uneven-handed manner in which Nicola Sturgeon appears to have imposed regional lockdowns on different parts of the country .
This week , Sturgeon has been challenged over proposals to impose movement restrictions , limiting how far Scottish residents are allowed to stray from their homes .
In response to suggestions that this might breach human rights legislation , the First Minister merely asserted that “ it ’ s not respecting human rights to leave a virus to run unchecked ” .
She has also warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new restrictions may be in the offing , and picked a very favourable battle with the Treasury over furlough cash which only ended when the Government announced a full lockdown in England and turned the taps back on .
The Scottish Parliament has also accused her administration of ‘ disrespect ’ over ” the way plans for scrutinising covid restrictions were announced ” , according to the Daily Record .
Over in Northern Ireland , there is growing unease amongst the Democratic Unionists about lockdown , mirroring that increasingly found on the Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a DUP MP , has clashed very publicly with the local head of the BMA over the measures , and some of the party ’ s MLAs are also starting to voice concerns .
The News Letter reports that opposition MLAs ( of which there are a tiny handful ) are also increasingly angry that the NI Executive is preventing Stormont from debating its Covid-19 measures until only a few days before the current set of restrictions expires .
As mentioned above , there is new Welsh polling out : Professor Roger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barometer .
The top line is that Welsh Labour ’ s vote is holding up – if the results came through in a general election it might wipe out all but one of the Tories ’ 2019 election gains .
For the Senedd it would see the Tories rising from 11 seats to 16 but getting nowhere near a position to take power , which is the stated objective of the current Welsh Conservative leadership ( although it would take Labour and the Lib Dems below the 30 MSs needed for a majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , perhaps the most intriguing result is that Abolish the Assembly , the insurgent anti-devolution party , has matched its highest-ever polling showing .
With seven per cent support , Abolish would pick up four regional list seats , giving organising devoscepticism a political voice for the first time since the advent of the system in the 1990s .
And their support could rise further still .
The Barometer also shows the Brexit Party , which too has pivoted to a devosceptic position , picking up a further five per cent support ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can poach this vote – and they recently poached Mark Reckless from the Brexit Party – then it would put them at the same vote share that delivered UKIP seven AMs in 2016 .
Suffice to say that if Abolish can establish themselves as a permanent fixture on the unionist right of Welsh politics , there will almost certainly be no pathway to government for the Conservatives that doesn ’ t involve a deal with them .
Meanwhile one Tory MS is also having to fend off a deselection battle , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has represented Monmouth since 2007 , faces a fight for his seat after more than 50 members signed a petition calling for a meeting to ‘ discuss his future ’ .

The ‘Four Nations’ approach to lockdown – where is it now?
As we noted earlier in the week when looking at the Government’s decision to pivot to a full lockdown, one of the casualties of this summer’s coronavirus confusion has been the ‘four nations’ approach to combating the pandemic. Instead of operating in lockstep, the different devolved governments are now all operating different restriction regimes – raising for the first time the prospect of ‘hard borders’ on the British mainland.
Polling suggests there are limits to the public’s appetite to this – a clear majority of Brits think that there should be uniform policies towards Christmas across the United Kingdom – but for now the Government is unlearning its reflexive deference to devolution too slowly to hope this will be acted on. So what is going on in other parts of the country?
Wales made national headlines with their ‘firebreak’ lockdown. Straying beyond the public health remit of coronavirus regulations (and thus perhaps opening themselves up to judicial challenge), Cardiff Bay ministers decided that ‘essential’ shops which stayed open would nonetheless be forbidden to sell ‘non-essential’ goods, in order to prevent supermarkets having an unfair advantage over smaller retailers.
Despite this, and a raft of other mishandled elements earlier in the pandemic such as priority food deliveries and coordinating volunteers, the latest polls suggest that opposition parties are not yet managing to capitalise (although more on those polls below).
In Scotland, the pandemic is giving the Scottish National Party a chance to give its authoritarian tendencies full vent. In recent weeks the Scottish Government has drawn fire over its puritanical approach towards banning alcohol, and the uneven-handed manner in which Nicola Sturgeon appears to have imposed regional lockdowns on different parts of the country.
This week, Sturgeon has been challenged over proposals to impose movement restrictions, limiting how far Scottish residents are allowed to stray from their homes. In response to suggestions that this might breach human rights legislation, the First Minister merely asserted that “it’s not respecting human rights to leave a virus to run unchecked”.
She has also warned Scots that a broader range of tough new restrictions may be in the offing, and picked a very favourable battle with the Treasury over furlough cash which only ended when the Government announced a full lockdown in England and turned the taps back on. The Scottish Parliament has also accused her administration of ‘disrespect’ over ” the way plans for scrutinising covid restrictions were announced”, according to the Daily Record.
(In other Holyrood news, MSPs have voted for the Scottish Government to publish its legal advice in the Alex Salmond row, with all the opposition parties including the Greens backing a Scottish Conservative move to force ministers’ hands.)
Over in Northern Ireland, there is growing unease amongst the Democratic Unionists about lockdown, mirroring that increasingly found on the Conservative benches in the Commons. Sammy Wilson, a DUP MP, has clashed very publicly with the local head of the BMA over the measures, and some of the party’s MLAs are also starting to voice concerns.
The News Letter reports that opposition MLAs (of which there are a tiny handful) are also increasingly angry that the NI Executive is preventing Stormont from debating its Covid-19 measures until only a few days before the current set of restrictions expires.
Poll suggests devosceptics could win seats in Wales
As mentioned above, there is new Welsh polling out: Professor Roger Awan-Scully has released the new Welsh Political Barometer. The top line is that Welsh Labour’s vote is holding up – if the results came through in a general election it might wipe out all but one of the Tories’ 2019 election gains. For the Senedd it would see the Tories rising from 11 seats to 16 but getting nowhere near a position to take power, which is the stated objective of the current Welsh Conservative leadership (although it would take Labour and the Lib Dems below the 30 MSs needed for a majority).
But as Awan-Scully points out, perhaps the most intriguing result is that Abolish the Assembly, the insurgent anti-devolution party, has matched its highest-ever polling showing. With seven per cent support, Abolish would pick up four regional list seats, giving organising devoscepticism a political voice for the first time since the advent of the system in the 1990s.
And their support could rise further still. The Barometer also shows the Brexit Party, which too has pivoted to a devosceptic position, picking up a further five per cent support (although no seats). If Abolish can poach this vote – and they recently poached Mark Reckless from the Brexit Party – then it would put them at the same vote share that delivered UKIP seven AMs in 2016.
Suffice to say that if Abolish can establish themselves as a permanent fixture on the unionist right of Welsh politics, there will almost certainly be no pathway to government for the Conservatives that doesn’t involve a deal with them.
Meanwhile one Tory MS is also having to fend off a deselection battle, according to Wales Online. Nick Ramsay, who has represented Monmouth since 2007, faces a fight for his seat after more than 50 members signed a petition calling for a meeting to ‘discuss his future’.


conservativehome--2020-11-06--Eamonn Ives: The Government should be doing all it can to give Britain’s green entrepreneurs a head

Eamonn Ives: The Government should be doing all it can to give Britain’s green entrepreneurs a head start

Eamonn Ives is a researcher who specialises in environmental and energy policy .
He is the author of Green Entrepreneurship , which was published by The Entrepreneurs Network with the Enterprise Trust .
Unless you have spent the last several months under a rock – which is , admittedly , not the least attractive proposition right now – you ’ ll know that the economy has taken a beating .
Unemployment and the public debt are up , while gross output and business investment are down .
For many of those who have managed to hold onto their jobs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as fire fighting various economic challenges , the Government is also contending with the small matter of ensuring the house is in order before it hosts COP26 .
Delivering on these two objectives need not be mutually exclusive endeavours .
A new report , published by The Entrepreneurs Network and the Enterprise Trust , highlights a handful of ways in which the Government can unleash the inventiveness of Britain ’ s environmental entrepreneurs – simultaneously giving the economy a shot in the arm , and helping to deliver the sustainability solutions necessary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how do we advise the Government proceed ?
Fundamentally , the report argues that more needs to be done to address instances of environmental market failures .
This is not to say that we should be ruthlessly clamping down on every single source of carbon , or simply throwing what precious little cash the Treasury still has at every eco-idea under the sun .
Rather , it means recognising that it is not unreasonable to expect polluters to take more responsibility for the harms they inflict on third parties .
It also means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be supported in doing so – such as through targeted R & D grants – given the benefits they bequeath to us all .
These are inherently conservative ideas , and it does appear that in the current Government the broad principles underpinning them are reasonably well understood .
As well as this general thesis , we make 20 separate policy recommendations .
These focus on how to improve the environmental credentials of the energy we produce , the transport we make use of , and the consumer goods we buy .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to combat each and every environmental issue , but taken together should at least point the country in a greener direction .
For instance , instead of using Britain ’ s foreign aid budget and export credit agency to promote fossil fuel projects abroad , why not funnel that money into renewables or ‘ cleantech ’ solutions being worked on by British inventors ?
Not only would the climate and green entrepreneurs benefit , but taxpayers would too , if it means less of a risk of loans defaulting on polluting projects which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pace of renewables accelerates .
Or , instead of effectively banning genetic engineering techniques , why not listen to the scientific community and allow trials to take place , opening up a huge market for crop scientists ?
Bigger yields would minimise how much space is necessary to grow the food we need , and this regulatory reform is a genuine example of a Brexit dividend , given how the obstacle to doing so emanates squarely from Brussels .
Or , to help deliver on a clean , modern transport system , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules pertaining to e-scooters , instead of clouding the industry in uncertainty ?
This would be a victory for common sense , carbon emissions , and air quality – and also for the entrepreneurial tech start-ups involved in developing software for platforms associated with them .
From polling we commissioned for the report , it seems that the business community is on board for the shift to a greener economy , too .
Fully three-fifths believed that opportunities await them in a more sustainable future , while a mere eight per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of businesses agreed that employees increasingly want to work in environmentally responsible firms – again , just eight per cent did not .
We also found that there was no end to the sorts of environmental problems businesses believed their customers wanted to see addressed – from embracing sustainable packaging , to sourcing greener materials , to using cleaner energy .
British entrepreneurs could be at the forefront of developing solutions to all of these challenges and more – and indeed many already are .
But the Government must go further still .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case in favour is all the stronger .
Consider what the major industries of the future will be – green , clean , and environmentally conscious .
The Government should be doing all it can to give Britain ’ s entrepreneurs a head start in these markets , lest it want the jobs , investment , exports and growth potential to be captured by other economies .
With our hosting of COP26 just one year away , there is no time to waste .
If the UK is to not be embarrassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be as ambitious as possible .
The Prime Minister talks the talk better than most , but that counts for little if it isn ’ t backed up by a suite of tangible policies which facilitate entrepreneurs and the business community to do the heavy lifting behind the scenes .
Our report maps out a few extra ways he can make that a reality – delivering a cleaner , more competitive economy .

Eamonn Ives is a researcher who specialises in environmental and energy policy. He is the author of Green Entrepreneurship, which was published by The Entrepreneurs Network with the Enterprise Trust.
Unless you have spent the last several months under a rock – which is, admittedly, not the least attractive proposition right now – you’ll know that the economy has taken a beating.
Unemployment and the public debt are up, while gross output and business investment are down. For many of those who have managed to hold onto their jobs, their situation is precarious.
As well as fire fighting various economic challenges, the Government is also contending with the small matter of ensuring the house is in order before it hosts COP26.
Delivering on these two objectives need not be mutually exclusive endeavours. A new report, published by The Entrepreneurs Network and the Enterprise Trust, highlights a handful of ways in which the Government can unleash the inventiveness of Britain’s environmental entrepreneurs – simultaneously giving the economy a shot in the arm, and helping to deliver the sustainability solutions necessary to clean up our planet.
So, how do we advise the Government proceed? Fundamentally, the report argues that more needs to be done to address instances of environmental market failures.
This is not to say that we should be ruthlessly clamping down on every single source of carbon, or simply throwing what precious little cash the Treasury still has at every eco-idea under the sun. Rather, it means recognising that it is not unreasonable to expect polluters to take more responsibility for the harms they inflict on third parties. It also means that innovators who are developing solutions should be supported in doing so – such as through targeted R&D grants – given the benefits they bequeath to us all.
These are inherently conservative ideas, and it does appear that in the current Government the broad principles underpinning them are reasonably well understood.
As well as this general thesis, we make 20 separate policy recommendations. These focus on how to improve the environmental credentials of the energy we produce, the transport we make use of, and the consumer goods we buy. They are not an exhaustive list of how to combat each and every environmental issue, but taken together should at least point the country in a greener direction.
For instance, instead of using Britain’s foreign aid budget and export credit agency to promote fossil fuel projects abroad, why not funnel that money into renewables or ‘cleantech’ solutions being worked on by British inventors? Not only would the climate and green entrepreneurs benefit, but taxpayers would too, if it means less of a risk of loans defaulting on polluting projects which could soon become stranded assets as the pace of renewables accelerates.
Or, instead of effectively banning genetic engineering techniques, why not listen to the scientific community and allow trials to take place, opening up a huge market for crop scientists? Bigger yields would minimise how much space is necessary to grow the food we need, and this regulatory reform is a genuine example of a Brexit dividend, given how the obstacle to doing so emanates squarely from Brussels.
Or, to help deliver on a clean, modern transport system, what about committing to a comprehensive liberalisation of the rules pertaining to e-scooters, instead of clouding the industry in uncertainty? This would be a victory for common sense, carbon emissions, and air quality – and also for the entrepreneurial tech start-ups involved in developing software for platforms associated with them.
From polling we commissioned for the report, it seems that the business community is on board for the shift to a greener economy, too. Fully three-fifths believed that opportunities await them in a more sustainable future, while a mere eight per cent did not. Meanwhile, over half of businesses agreed that employees increasingly want to work in environmentally responsible firms – again, just eight per cent did not. We also found that there was no end to the sorts of environmental problems businesses believed their customers wanted to see addressed – from embracing sustainable packaging, to sourcing greener materials, to using cleaner energy.
British entrepreneurs could be at the forefront of developing solutions to all of these challenges and more – and indeed many already are. But the Government must go further still. In the case of environmental innovation, the case in favour is all the stronger.
Consider what the major industries of the future will be – green, clean, and environmentally conscious. The Government should be doing all it can to give Britain’s entrepreneurs a head start in these markets, lest it want the jobs, investment, exports and growth potential to be captured by other economies.
With our hosting of COP26 just one year away, there is no time to waste. If the UK is to not be embarrassed in its own backyard, it has to be as ambitious as possible. The Prime Minister talks the talk better than most, but that counts for little if it isn’t backed up by a suite of tangible policies which facilitate entrepreneurs and the business community to do the heavy lifting behind the scenes.
Our report maps out a few extra ways he can make that a reality – delivering a cleaner, more competitive economy.


conservativehome--2020-11-06--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Prime Minister’s Council for Science and T

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board ( including its various sub-committees ) , the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass ’ affairs , and that Cafcass ’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for : establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State ; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets , and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks ; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department , and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds… ” Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement “ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit .
The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority ( the UK Health Ministers ) and its executive arm , the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ( MHRA ) , on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe , efficacious and of good quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required .
They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues , many of which would be out of any one practitioner ’ s area of expertise , and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.
” Remuneration : Up to £500 per meeting “ We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the BBC and maintain the Corporation ’ s independence .
As per the BBC Royal Charter , the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition .
The Governance Code , including the public appointment principles , must be followed in making the appointment .
The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code .
Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Time : 3-4 days per week ( Chair ) / Up to 2 days per week .
“ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board .
Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Prime Minister ’ s Council for Science and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments .
It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions , and in building a robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the UK , post Covid .
The Government is seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Council for Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser ( GCSA ) .
” “ The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy , responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress , tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors .
It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain .
We are seeking to appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation , delivers key Government commitments , and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair , the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors .
The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service , with particular emphasis on its strategic direction , management controls , and corporate governance.
” Bank of England – External Member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system .
The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability .
The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ The Steering Board ’ s role is to : advise on external drivers , strategic direction and development of targets , within the framework of the UK Space Agency ’ s objectives , BEIS and wider Government objectives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer ; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance , including process of setting of targets and performance against them ; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency ’ s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk ; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency @ @ @ @ @ @

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – Chair
“The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board (including its various sub-committees), the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass’ affairs, and that Cafcass’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State. The Board is specifically responsible for: establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds…”
Time: 80 days per annum.
Remuneration: £400 per diem.
Closes: 03 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £100,000 – £130,000 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 08 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Commission on Human Medicines – Chair
“The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit. The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority (the UK Health Ministers) and its executive arm, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe, efficacious and of good quality. The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required. They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues, many of which would be out of any one practitioner’s area of expertise, and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.”
Time: Approx. 33 days per annum.
Remuneration: Up to £500 per meeting
Closes: 10 November
– – – – – – – – – –
British Broadcasting Corporation – Chair/Member for England
“We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting, to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation’s independence. As per the BBC Royal Charter, the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition. The Governance Code, including the public appointment principles, must be followed in making the appointment. The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code. Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.”
Time: 3-4 days per week (Chair) / Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £160,000 (Chair) / £33,000 per annum, +£5,000 for committee chairs, reasonable expenses (Member)
Closes: 11 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Consumer Council for Water – Independent Board Members
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: Three days per month.
Remuneration: £11,718 per annum.
Closes: 16 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Insolvency Service – Chair
“The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors. It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain. We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation, delivers key Government commitments, and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair, the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors. The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service, with particular emphasis on its strategic direction, management controls, and corporate governance.”
Time: 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Space Agency – Non-Executive Members/Audit Chair
“The Steering Board’s role is to: advise on external drivers, strategic direction and development of targets, within the framework of the UK Space Agency’s objectives, BEIS and wider Government objectives; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance, including process of setting of targets and performance against them; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency’s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 20/22 days per annum.
Remuneration: £8,000/10,000 per annum honorarium.
Closes: 29 November


conservativehome--2020-11-06--Trump’s path to a narrow win and Biden’s to a comfortable one

We don ’ t believe that Donald Trump will win all of the states in which postal votes are still being counted – Arizona , Georgia , Nevada , North Carolina and Pennsylvania .
Indeed , it is possible that he will win none of them .
But here is a counter-factual map for this Friday morning – or pre-factual map if you prefer – showing how he could still win , when the process of voting , counting , legal challenge and whatever else may be up America ’ s sleeve is eventually complete ( courtesy of the Cook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pecularities in Maine and Nebraska ) .
And here below is another pre-factual map , or counter-factual , or whatever you want to call it – which shows the best result for Biden now apparently possible .
These uncertainties and others help to explain why we have kept our counsel about the results so far – since we have a difference here between a potential narrow Trump and a comfortable Biden one .
And the electoral college result is only the beginning , rather than the end , of any probe into what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Ben Roback wrote on this site on Wednesday , the Blue Wave that some opinion polls suggested has not materialised .
It is very early to draw more conclusions , other than that the President ’ s intention to contest the result was clearly pre-planned ( Ben has been writing about it in his columns for some time ) .
If Trump has any evidence for his claims , he hasn ’ t offered it yet – and the Republican Party institutionally is keeping its distance from them .
America is deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both a symptom and a cause of these differences , and if Biden offers much other than a better yesterday we ’ ve yet to see it .
Let ’ s see what happens next .

We don’t believe that Donald Trump will win all of the states in which postal votes are still being counted – Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Indeed, it is possible that he will win none of them.
But here is a counter-factual map for this Friday morning – or pre-factual map if you prefer – showing how he could still win, when the process of voting, counting, legal challenge and whatever else may be up America’s sleeve is eventually complete (courtesy of the Cook Report, and not taking into account pecularities in Maine and Nebraska).
And here below is another pre-factual map, or counter-factual, or whatever you want to call it – which shows the best result for Biden now apparently possible.
These uncertainties and others help to explain why we have kept our counsel about the results so far – since we have a difference here between a potential narrow Trump and a comfortable Biden one. And the electoral college result is only the beginning, rather than the end, of any probe into what actually happened, and is happening.
As Ben Roback wrote on this site on Wednesday, the Blue Wave that some opinion polls suggested has not materialised. It is very early to draw more conclusions, other than that the President’s intention to contest the result was clearly pre-planned (Ben has been writing about it in his columns for some time).
If Trump has any evidence for his claims, he hasn’t offered it yet – and the Republican Party institutionally is keeping its distance from them. America is deeply divided on culture, Trump himself being both a symptom and a cause of these differences, and if Biden offers much other than a better yesterday we’ve yet to see it. Let’s see what happens next.


conservativehome--2020-11-06--Interview. Mel Stride – a damaged economy provides less for health and social care, “and that has a

Interview. Mel Stride – a damaged economy provides less for health and social care, “and that has a cost in lives”

Rishi Sunak yesterday refused Mel Stride ’ s third request for the Treasury ’ s analysis of the economic impacts of the pandemic .
Stride , who chairs the Treasury Select Committee , suggests in this interview that the Chancellor misunderstands what is being asked for .
Others , Stride adds , might draw the “ unfortunate conclusion ” that providing the information would be “ unhelpful in the context of persuading Members of Parliament to support a lockdown ” .
ConHome : “ I want to take as our theme a quote from the Sage minutes of 21st September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on 21st October and referred to again in your question yesterday to Rishi Sunak : “ Now you ’ ve asked Rishi Sunak on three occasions to show you this analysis .
What did you make of the answer he gave you in the Commons yesterday ?
” Stride : “ I can only imagine there ’ s a misunderstanding about what ’ s being asked for here .
“ Because I think his response , which was really in line with his written response to me , was , well , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Treasury , that ’ s the job of the OBR and others , and these are the various forecasts which are out there – which of course are all in the public domain and we know about those .
“ But that wasn ’ t actually what I was asking for .
“ What I ’ m asking for is precisely the output relating to that section of the minutes of that Sage meeting on 21st September .
If the minutes are accurate , there is work that has been going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacts of the lockdown measures , under the auspices of the Chief Economist [ Clare Lombardelli ] .
“ So we think , in terms of good decision-making , Parliament having access to all the information it needs to take these decisions , and the wider public , that that should be made public.
” ConHome : “ You asked for something that Sage suggests exists .
The letter gave you an answer to something you hadn ’ t really asked .
It said it didn ’ t seek to disaggregate these economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some detail , from their causes , whether they be lockdowns or other restrictions or the virus itself .
“ What do you think is going on ?
You said a moment ago this seems to be a misunderstanding .
What do you think is up ?
Has the Treasury just got the wrong end of the stick ?
Or is there some reason why it ’ s reluctant to engage in this way ?
” Stride : “ I think that ’ s a very good question .
My feeling at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got the wrong end of the stick .
“ If it were not me answering this question , and I were to be a little more cynical about it , I might think , well , maybe this kind of information is unhelpful in the context of persuading Members of Parliament to support a lockdown .
“ Because inevitably it ’ s likely to at the very least throw into sharper relief the kind of economic costs associated with these measures .
“ And I ’ m not for a moment – I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview – suggesting that .
“ Let me put it this way .
I think that would be an unfortunate conclusion that some might draw , and I think that ’ s unnecessary , because if we can clear up the misunderstanding we can see the information.
” ConHome : “ Your committee wanted the information before the vote yesterday , and didn ’ t get it .
With all that in mind , how did you feel about voting yesterday , and what ’ s your general view of the lockdown proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think we have enough information to make the best , most informed decision on this , and I don ’ t just point my finger at the lack of economic information , though there ’ s certainly a complete dearth of that , but equally at the health aspects of this .
“ But at the end of the day you have to take a decision based on the information you have – you can ’ t just lament the fact that there ’ s a hole in it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and it ’ s a matter of judgment .
And my judgment , which was personally fairly finely balanced , so I supported it with a bit of a heavy heart , was that on this occasion I would trust that the Government ’ s judgment was more likely to be right than wrong .
“ Now critical to all of this of course is what is the likely outcome in the counterfactual example of no lockdown , in terms of the over-running of the National Health Service .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least two strands within the health data that are problematic .
One is some projections which I think have been to a degree debunked , like the projection of 4,000 deaths per day , which I think has been unhelpful .
“ But the second thing , to be fair to the Government , is the very nature of responding to this pandemic , and the lags involved for example between infection , hospitalisation and ultimately sadly death , lead you to a situation where it ’ s very difficult to answer a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to answer .
“ Because you don ’ t actually have the data in real time .
An example of that would be what is the average time that somebody infected with Covid spends in a bed within the NHS at the moment compared to the first wave ?
“ Now purely speculatively suppose that that figure is much lower than in the first wave , because you ’ ve got better treatments and we understand how to make people better faster .
“ If it was , for the sake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that would be an effective doubling of the capacity of the National Health Service at a stroke in order to handle these particular problems .
“ But we don ’ t know the answer to that critical question .
And if we did , and it was half the time , we might be able to avoid the lockdown altogether , who knows.
” ConHome : “ You ’ ve said it ’ s a misunderstanding .
That ’ s a very charitable term .
The Chancellor is a staggeringly acute and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ momentarily to misunderstand what you want , he wouldn ’ t misunderstand when you put the question to him again.
” Stride : “ Of course he has a lot on his plate , and let ’ s hope that fairly shortly he has another look at it and perhaps we end up in a position where the information is made available .
“ Or indeed it ’ s categorically stated that the information referred to in the Sage minute is not actually available , because it never existed .
“ If it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given the magnitude of the decisions being taken around lockdown , why would you take a decision like that without that kind of information ?
“ So I think it ’ s difficult both ways , whether it exists or not , for the Treasury .
But my hunch is that it does exist and we should have it.
” ConHome : “ How significant do you think it is that a growing number of your colleagues – Theresa May , Graham Brady , Bob Neill , Nus Ghani and so forth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ve been trying to extract from the Government ?
” Stride : “ Well I think that ’ s just reflective of two things .
One is that the economy has been downplayed in the elements of the discussion so far .
“ And secondly , through time it ’ s becoming more and more relatively underplayed , because the economic situation is getting that much tougher .
“ So it ’ s more relevant today , when we looked at another £20 billion of support , and huge stress on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a close look at this stuff , perhaps compared to on day one back in mid-March .
“ And I think there ’ s one other important thing , which very few commentators have picked up on .
“ It ’ s not just about what are the economic impacts of these measures , it ’ s about what are the consequential health impacts of those economic impacts .
“ And there are at least two things that one thinks of here .
One is that if you go into lockdown then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mental health problems , potentially suicides , and that needs to be quantified .
“ And the second thing is that if you damage the economy , if you scar it , i.e .
you end up with structural long-term contraction of the economy , you ’ re less able to fund the kind of health and social care services that we want to fund going forward , and that has a cost in lives .
“ Now that ’ s not as dramatic as saying that next month we may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be people very sick in NHS beds etcetera , but nonetheless it ’ s not something that can be avoided .
“ And the problem is that not only is the economic analysis there in my opinion , but the consequent health analysis is not there either .
“ We had a very interesting committee meeting that I organised about a week ago , where we looked at how you convert economic damage via something called the QALY , the Quality Adjusted Life Year , and tried to flesh out how you could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , less public spending – and the consequence for lives .
“ And that analysis can be done .
It all sounds a bit esoteric , but at the end of the day , if you ’ re to take rational decisions about actions that are there primarily to save lives over the medium to long term , you can ’ t ignore those issues .
“ Politically , of course , it ’ s very difficult to be entirely rational over the long term , because the immediate political expediencies tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ What happens next to your committee ’ s inquiry into this whole question ?
” Stride : “ Well we will be publishing a report .
We have called for the Government ’ s Chief Economic Adviser to appear before our committee next Wednesday .
“ I ’ m hopeful that she will appear , alongside the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury , and we ’ ll be able to put further questions to her at that point.
” ConHome : “ And how soon will we get your report ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this great tension between immediate actions , including flinging a lot of liquidity into the economy , and the long term , when Keynes said we ’ re all dead , but some of us won ’ t be dead at least in the medium term .
“ You might produce a perfect report which was far too late.
” Stride : “ If it was a report it will vest within the ongoing inquiry we have into the economic impacts of coronavirus , and that probably wouldn ’ t be for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need to rely on a report in order to get out the conclusions of a particular session .
“ One of the things I ’ m acutely aware of , and I know the committee is , is just the point you ’ ve made , that everything is moving frighteningly quickly , and if you ’ re going to add value to the decision-making then you need to be as nimble as the Chancellor , if not even more nimble , in getting in and out with your commentary and your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up what you said about the QALYs – isn ’ t there a natural reluctance of Government , and of MPs , to get into all this ?
Because it is extremely difficult to have a public debate about the value of a life lost to the coronavirus , to the value of a life that isn ’ t lost to it .
“ It invites the charge of the Conservative Government , ‘ the heartless Tories ’ , not putting enough value on some of the lives lost.
” Stride : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said is the art of the possible .
The QALY argument I think is the bridge between the economic and the effect on life and death and so on .
“ It ’ s not a debate that we ’ re not already having .
QALY is used by NICE in order to decide which drugs it will invest in and which it won ’ t .
“ I don ’ t think you end up being heartless about anything .
It ’ s a way of moving into a space where we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s happening far more holistically , and are therefore likely to take better decisions for the medium and longer term.
” ConHome : “ What are the prospects for the economy , broadly speaking , do you think ?
” Stride : “ Not as good as they were a few months ago , unfortunately , because of the advent of the second lockdown and what appears to be a rather difficult second wave .
“ Any idea of a V-shaped bounce back has completely gone , and it ’ s now a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shape , and try to have a kind of Nike tick .
“ One of the biggest elements to look at is going to be unemployment .
To what degree can we avoid going back to where we were in the 1980s or worse ?
“ What the Government ’ s trying to do now is just to hold down that unemployment figure , in the expectation that a vaccine , better treatments and so on will be a game changer.
” ConHome : “ Quite recently you were a very senior gamekeeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tail end of Theresa May ’ s Government .
You ’ re now a very senior poacher , the Chair of a Select Committee , trying to get answers out of the Government .
What ’ s the change like and are you enjoying this new role ?
” Stride : “ It feels quite liberating in many ways .
It was a wonderful privilege to be Leader of the House of Commons , as it was to be Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General and so on .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom now to try and be fair and balanced in our appraisal of what ’ s going on , I ’ ve been very complimentary of the Chancellor and the Treasury in many areas of what they ’ ve done , but to be able to point at things you really don ’ t think are right , and where you think you can add value , you can do that without restraint , and that ’ s been the most positive element I think of the experience for me .
”

Rishi Sunak yesterday refused Mel Stride’s third request for the Treasury’s analysis of the economic impacts of the pandemic.
Stride, who chairs the Treasury Select Committee, suggests in this interview that the Chancellor misunderstands what is being asked for.
Others, Stride adds, might draw the “unfortunate conclusion” that providing the information would be “unhelpful in the context of persuading Members of Parliament to support a lockdown”.
ConHome: “I want to take as our theme a quote from the Sage minutes of 21st September that you read out in the Commons on 21st October and referred to again in your question yesterday to Rishi Sunak:
“Policy makers will need to consider analysis of economic impacts and the associated harms alongside this epidemiological assessment. This work is underway under the auspices of the Chief Economist.”
“Now you’ve asked Rishi Sunak on three occasions to show you this analysis. What did you make of the answer he gave you in the Commons yesterday?”
Stride: “I can only imagine there’s a misunderstanding about what’s being asked for here.
“Because I think his response, which was really in line with his written response to me, was, well, we don’t produce official forecasts from the Treasury, that’s the job of the OBR and others, and these are the various forecasts which are out there – which of course are all in the public domain and we know about those.
“But that wasn’t actually what I was asking for.
“What I’m asking for is precisely the output relating to that section of the minutes of that Sage meeting on 21st September. If the minutes are accurate, there is work that has been going on at the Treasury, looking at the impacts of the lockdown measures, under the auspices of the Chief Economist [Clare Lombardelli].
“So we think, in terms of good decision-making, Parliament having access to all the information it needs to take these decisions, and the wider public, that that should be made public.”
ConHome: “You asked for something that Sage suggests exists. The letter gave you an answer to something you hadn’t really asked. It said it didn’t seek to disaggregate these economic outcomes, which it referred to in some detail, from their causes, whether they be lockdowns or other restrictions or the virus itself.
“What do you think is going on? You said a moment ago this seems to be a misunderstanding. What do you think is up? Has the Treasury just got the wrong end of the stick? Or is there some reason why it’s reluctant to engage in this way?”
Stride: “I think that’s a very good question. My feeling at the moment is that perhaps it’s got the wrong end of the stick.
“If it were not me answering this question, and I were to be a little more cynical about it, I might think, well, maybe this kind of information is unhelpful in the context of persuading Members of Parliament to support a lockdown.
“Because inevitably it’s likely to at the very least throw into sharper relief the kind of economic costs associated with these measures.
“And I’m not for a moment – I think this is very important for this interview – suggesting that.
“Let me put it this way. I think that would be an unfortunate conclusion that some might draw, and I think that’s unnecessary, because if we can clear up the misunderstanding we can see the information.”
ConHome: “Your committee wanted the information before the vote yesterday, and didn’t get it. With all that in mind, how did you feel about voting yesterday, and what’s your general view of the lockdown proposal?”
Stride: “OK. I don’t think we have enough information to make the best, most informed decision on this, and I don’t just point my finger at the lack of economic information, though there’s certainly a complete dearth of that, but equally at the health aspects of this.
“But at the end of the day you have to take a decision based on the information you have – you can’t just lament the fact that there’s a hole in it.
“You have to look at it, and it’s a matter of judgment. And my judgment, which was personally fairly finely balanced, so I supported it with a bit of a heavy heart, was that on this occasion I would trust that the Government’s judgment was more likely to be right than wrong.
“Now critical to all of this of course is what is the likely outcome in the counterfactual example of no lockdown, in terms of the over-running of the National Health Service.
“It seems to me that there are at least two strands within the health data that are problematic. One is some projections which I think have been to a degree debunked, like the projection of 4,000 deaths per day, which I think has been unhelpful.
“But the second thing, to be fair to the Government, is the very nature of responding to this pandemic, and the lags involved for example between infection, hospitalisation and ultimately sadly death, lead you to a situation where it’s very difficult to answer a number of the critical questions that you need to answer.
“Because you don’t actually have the data in real time. An example of that would be what is the average time that somebody infected with Covid spends in a bed within the NHS at the moment compared to the first wave?
“Now purely speculatively suppose that that figure is much lower than in the first wave, because you’ve got better treatments and we understand how to make people better faster.
“If it was, for the sake of argument, half the amount of time, that would be an effective doubling of the capacity of the National Health Service at a stroke in order to handle these particular problems.
“But we don’t know the answer to that critical question. And if we did, and it was half the time, we might be able to avoid the lockdown altogether, who knows.”
ConHome: “You’ve said it’s a misunderstanding. That’s a very charitable term. The Chancellor is a staggeringly acute and quick-in-the-uptake individual. Even if he were momentarily to misunderstand what you want, he wouldn’t misunderstand when you put the question to him again.”
Stride: “Of course he has a lot on his plate, and let’s hope that fairly shortly he has another look at it and perhaps we end up in a position where the information is made available.
“Or indeed it’s categorically stated that the information referred to in the Sage minute is not actually available, because it never existed.
“If it never existed, the question then becomes, given the magnitude of the decisions being taken around lockdown, why would you take a decision like that without that kind of information?
“So I think it’s difficult both ways, whether it exists or not, for the Treasury. But my hunch is that it does exist and we should have it.”
ConHome: “How significant do you think it is that a growing number of your colleagues – Theresa May, Graham Brady, Bob Neill, Nus Ghani and so forth – are calling for this analysis which you’ve been trying to extract from the Government?”
Stride: “Well I think that’s just reflective of two things. One is that the economy has been downplayed in the elements of the discussion so far.
“And secondly, through time it’s becoming more and more relatively underplayed, because the economic situation is getting that much tougher.
“So it’s more relevant today, when we looked at another £20 billion of support, and huge stress on the public finances going forward – we have a close look at this stuff, perhaps compared to on day one back in mid-March.
“And I think there’s one other important thing, which very few commentators have picked up on.
“It’s not just about what are the economic impacts of these measures, it’s about what are the consequential health impacts of those economic impacts.
“And there are at least two things that one thinks of here. One is that if you go into lockdown then you have an increase as we know in mental health problems, potentially suicides, and that needs to be quantified.
“And the second thing is that if you damage the economy, if you scar it, i.e. you end up with structural long-term contraction of the economy, you’re less able to fund the kind of health and social care services that we want to fund going forward, and that has a cost in lives.
“Now that’s not as dramatic as saying that next month we may be overrun in the NHS and there may be people very sick in NHS beds etcetera, but nonetheless it’s not something that can be avoided.
“And the problem is that not only is the economic analysis there in my opinion, but the consequent health analysis is not there either.
“We had a very interesting committee meeting that I organised about a week ago, where we looked at how you convert economic damage via something called the QALY, the Quality Adjusted Life Year, and tried to flesh out how you could make comparisons between economic damage – smaller economy, less public spending – and the consequence for lives.
“And that analysis can be done. It all sounds a bit esoteric, but at the end of the day, if you’re to take rational decisions about actions that are there primarily to save lives over the medium to long term, you can’t ignore those issues.
“Politically, of course, it’s very difficult to be entirely rational over the long term, because the immediate political expediencies tend to lead to shorter-term decision-making.”
ConHome: “What happens next to your committee’s inquiry into this whole question?”
Stride: “Well we will be publishing a report. We have called for the Government’s Chief Economic Adviser to appear before our committee next Wednesday.
“I’m hopeful that she will appear, alongside the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and we’ll be able to put further questions to her at that point.”
ConHome: “And how soon will we get your report? Because as you say there’s this great tension between immediate actions, including flinging a lot of liquidity into the economy, and the long term, when Keynes said we’re all dead, but some of us won’t be dead at least in the medium term.
“You might produce a perfect report which was far too late.”
Stride: “If it was a report it will vest within the ongoing inquiry we have into the economic impacts of coronavirus, and that probably wouldn’t be for some time.
“But we don’t need to rely on a report in order to get out the conclusions of a particular session.
“One of the things I’m acutely aware of, and I know the committee is, is just the point you’ve made, that everything is moving frighteningly quickly, and if you’re going to add value to the decision-making then you need to be as nimble as the Chancellor, if not even more nimble, in getting in and out with your commentary and your suggestions.”
ConHome: “Just following up what you said about the QALYs – isn’t there a natural reluctance of Government, and of MPs, to get into all this? Because it is extremely difficult to have a public debate about the value of a life lost to the coronavirus, to the value of a life that isn’t lost to it.
“It invites the charge of the Conservative Government, ‘the heartless Tories’, not putting enough value on some of the lives lost.”
Stride: “Well it depends. Politics as Bismarck said is the art of the possible. The QALY argument I think is the bridge between the economic and the effect on life and death and so on.
“It’s not a debate that we’re not already having. QALY is used by NICE in order to decide which drugs it will invest in and which it won’t.
“I don’t think you end up being heartless about anything. It’s a way of moving into a space where we look at the impacts of what’s happening far more holistically, and are therefore likely to take better decisions for the medium and longer term.”
ConHome: “What are the prospects for the economy, broadly speaking, do you think?”
Stride: “Not as good as they were a few months ago, unfortunately, because of the advent of the second lockdown and what appears to be a rather difficult second wave.
“Any idea of a V-shaped bounce back has completely gone, and it’s now a question of trying to avoid the W shape, and try to have a kind of Nike tick.
“One of the biggest elements to look at is going to be unemployment. To what degree can we avoid going back to where we were in the 1980s or worse?
“What the Government’s trying to do now is just to hold down that unemployment figure, in the expectation that a vaccine, better treatments and so on will be a game changer.”
ConHome: “Quite recently you were a very senior gamekeeper, Leader of the House, at the tail end of Theresa May’s Government. You’re now a very senior poacher, the Chair of a Select Committee, trying to get answers out of the Government. What’s the change like and are you enjoying this new role?”
Stride: “It feels quite liberating in many ways. It was a wonderful privilege to be Leader of the House of Commons, as it was to be Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General and so on.
“But to be able to have the freedom now to try and be fair and balanced in our appraisal of what’s going on, I’ve been very complimentary of the Chancellor and the Treasury in many areas of what they’ve done, but to be able to point at things you really don’t think are right, and where you think you can add value, you can do that without restraint, and that’s been the most positive element I think of the experience for me.”


conservativehome--2020-11-06--Iain Dale: Trump is displaying all the signs of believing his own lies. And he is undermining democr

Iain Dale: Trump is displaying all the signs of believing his own lies. And he is undermining democracy itself.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
As I write this column on Thursday lunchtime , we still do not know for sure who will be inaugurated in Washington on Wednesday 20 January next year .
As Sky ’ s Mark Austin said earlier this week , the Americans will never be able to take the micky out of us for cricket – a game that can go on for days without a result .
It looks more than likely that Joe Biden will be the next President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the case when I finished presenting LBC ’ s marathon seven-hour overnight election show .
At that point , it seemed clear that Donald Trump would be staying in the White House .
He was ahead in most of the crucial swing states .
But when I woke up after three hours ’ sleep on Wednesday morning , the situation was beginning to change .
By the end of Wednesday , Biden had pulled ahead in both the popular national vote .
Michigan became the American equivalent of Nuneaton or Basildon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was blowing , Donald Trump did what he does best : disrupt .
He went on TV to say that there was widespread vote fraud in the states that he now appeared to be losing , and that all vote counting there should stop .
However , the counts should continue in all the states where he was ahead .
Brazen .
Rudi Giuliani , Trump ’ s lawyer – a man who has lost all of his previously respected reputation – made public pronouncements in which he speculated on whether the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even went so far as to ponder whether Joe Biden himself may have voted 5,000 times .
He demeaned himself – and not for the first time .
All candidates are entitled to challenge a count if they genuinely fear there has been foul play .
In this country that rarely , if ever , happens .
It has to be said that in the US it has happened rather too often .
But if you accuse your rivals of interfering in the electoral process , you need to have some evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk from Trump , since it completely undermines any trust in the democratic process .
It is now easy to imagine a situation in which Biden scores a higher number of electoral college votes than Trump did in 2016 – and yet the President still doesn ’ t accept the result .
There will also be protests , and maybe even violent riots , which seek to keep Trump in the White House .
Being a disrupter is not necessarily a 100 per cent bad thing .
But being a president who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – i.e .
the acceptance of electoral loss – is not a good look .
The trouble is that Trump displays all the signs of being someone who comes to believe his own lies .
The fact , however , that he has won five million more votes than he did in 2016 does tell us something important .
We can not write him off as an aberration .
Trump caught a political wave in 2016 – one of dissatisfaction with politics in general and Washington in particular .
If it hadn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone else .
The Tea Party ’ s rise in the 1990s and early 2000s was the first sign that something was changing , but the Washington elites chose to ignore it .
It ’ s a bit like the Labour Party telling the electorate here that they keep getting it wrong , and what they really want is something that the elites in Islington tell them they should want .
The electorate resile against this , and do the very opposite .
On Wednesday morning , I was watching the BBC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its journalist saying that to appeal to working class voters amounts to “ economic populism ” .
It ’ s that kind of elitist arrogance that turns people off the so-called mainstream media – and plays into the hands of Trump .
Rishi Sunak seemed to catch Labour off balance yesterday , when he announced that the furlough scheme is to be extended until the end of March .
This will provide a lot of reassurance to a lot of people who previously must have feared they would lose their jobs entirely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement came very late in the day , and too late for many thousands of people who had already been laid off – but better late than never .
There is still not enough support of the self-employed , and those who operate limited companies .
After eight months , this is simply not good enough .
To say “ it ’ s all too difficult ” just does not wash .
These are , as Margaret Thatcher , might have said “ our people ” – and they deserve better treatment than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative government .
I have a very short list of people I would like to interview before it ’ s too late , and he was top of it .
I spent an hour with him via Zoom , and it was all I hoped it would be .
I told him I wanted it to be a conversation rather than an interview , and that ’ s how it turned out .
I didn ’ t want it to be an hour where he would just come out with well-worn anecdotes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to just ask the usual questions he gets asked in interviews .
The fact that I had an hour meant that it really could be a proper conversation .
He talked openly about his religious faith , the sex abuse allegations that he had to endure , what he really thinks of the BBC and why he ’ s fallen out of love with Britain .
And of course we talked about his music career .
Even if you ’ re not his biggest fan , I think you ’ ll enjoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on my Iain Dale All Talk podcast .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
As I write this column on Thursday lunchtime, we still do not know for sure who will be inaugurated in Washington on Wednesday 20 January next year. As Sky’s Mark Austin said earlier this week, the Americans will never be able to take the micky out of us for cricket – a game that can go on for days without a result.
It looks more than likely that Joe Biden will be the next President, which didn’t seem to be the case when I finished presenting LBC’s marathon seven-hour overnight election show.
At that point, it seemed clear that Donald Trump would be staying in the White House. He was ahead in most of the crucial swing states. But when I woke up after three hours’ sleep on Wednesday morning, the situation was beginning to change.
By the end of Wednesday, Biden had pulled ahead in both the popular national vote. Michigan became the American equivalent of Nuneaton or Basildon.
When he saw which way the wind was blowing, Donald Trump did what he does best: disrupt. He went on TV to say that there was widespread vote fraud in the states that he now appeared to be losing, and that all vote counting there should stop. However, the counts should continue in all the states where he was ahead. Brazen.
Rudi Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer – a man who has lost all of his previously respected reputation – made public pronouncements in which he speculated on whether the Democratic National Committee was behind multiple voting, and even went so far as to ponder whether Joe Biden himself may have voted 5,000 times. He demeaned himself – and not for the first time.
All candidates are entitled to challenge a count if they genuinely fear there has been foul play. In this country that rarely, if ever, happens. It has to be said that in the US it has happened rather too often. But if you accuse your rivals of interfering in the electoral process, you need to have some evidence for your accusation.
This is dangerous talk from Trump, since it completely undermines any trust in the democratic process. It is now easy to imagine a situation in which Biden scores a higher number of electoral college votes than Trump did in 2016 – and yet the President still doesn’t accept the result. There will also be protests, and maybe even violent riots, which seek to keep Trump in the White House.
Being a disrupter is not necessarily a 100 per cent bad thing. But being a president who cannot accept a basic tenet of democracy – i.e. the acceptance of electoral loss – is not a good look. The trouble is that Trump displays all the signs of being someone who comes to believe his own lies.
The fact, however, that he has won five million more votes than he did in 2016 does tell us something important. We cannot write him off as an aberration. Trump caught a political wave in 2016 – one of dissatisfaction with politics in general and Washington in particular. If it hadn’t been him it would have been someone else.
The Tea Party’s rise in the 1990s and early 2000s was the first sign that something was changing, but the Washington elites chose to ignore it. It’s a bit like the Labour Party telling the electorate here that they keep getting it wrong, and what they really want is something that the elites in Islington tell them they should want. The electorate resile against this, and do the very opposite.
On Wednesday morning, I was watching the BBC’s election coverage and heard one of its journalist saying that to appeal to working class voters amounts to “economic populism”. It’s that kind of elitist arrogance that turns people off the so-called mainstream media – and plays into the hands of Trump.
– – – – – – – – – –
Rishi Sunak seemed to catch Labour off balance yesterday, when he announced that the furlough scheme is to be extended until the end of March. This will provide a lot of reassurance to a lot of people who previously must have feared they would lose their jobs entirely.
It is a legitimate criticism that this announcement came very late in the day, and too late for many thousands of people who had already been laid off – but better late than never.
There is still not enough support of the self-employed, and those who operate limited companies. After eight months, this is simply not good enough. To say “it’s all too difficult” just does not wash. These are, as Margaret Thatcher, might have said “our people” – and they deserve better treatment than they have so far had from a Conservative government.
– – – – – – – – – –
On Tuesday I achieved a lifetime ambition – to interview Sir Cliff Richard.
I have a very short list of people I would like to interview before it’s too late, and he was top of it. I spent an hour with him via Zoom, and it was all I hoped it would be.
I told him I wanted it to be a conversation rather than an interview, and that’s how it turned out. I didn’t want it to be an hour where he would just come out with well-worn anecdotes and lines, and I didn’t want to just ask the usual questions he gets asked in interviews.
The fact that I had an hour meant that it really could be a proper conversation. He talked openly about his religious faith, the sex abuse allegations that he had to endure, what he really thinks of the BBC and why he’s fallen out of love with Britain. And of course we talked about his music career.
Even if you’re not his biggest fan, I think you’ll enjoy the interview, which you can hear on my Iain Dale All Talk podcast.


conservativehome--2020-11-06--Stuart Thomson: Localism should include the power to improve air quality

Stuart Thomson is the Head of Public Affairs at BDB Pitmans Communities up and down the country are seeking to address the air quality issues .
This is not just a health matter ; successfully dealing with air quality delivers educational improvements and can be part of the Government ’ s post-Brexit agenda , provided the Government gives them the necessary tools .
Local government are the ones who have to balance often complex , sometimes competing , local needs and therefore require critical support from central government .
Unfortunately , all too often trust in local government is lacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , the Planning White Paper noted that when it comes to development , public trust is low .
The argument frequently made against giving too many powers to local government is that they lack the expertise needed , a charge always strongly denied .
In its election manifesto , the Conservatives stated very clearly that “ we need to get away from the idea that ‘ Whitehall knows best ” and talked of “ full devolution ” along with a , now delayed , White Paper .
The challenge when dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across a range of areas .
They need to offer , for instance , public transport alternatives but also potentially offer to put charging schemes in place as well .
Authorities complain that both the powers and finance are often lacking .
The Covid-19 pandemic has brought a renewed focus on both air quality and local transport .
The virus ’ s effects on respiration mean that the case for improvements in air quality has never been stronger .
This is coupled with the experience of significantly cleaner air during lockdown , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leading to calls for these lower levels of pollution to be maintained .
Some bigger local transport schemes take time and resources to put in place ; therefore alternatives such as clean air zones ( CAZs ) , where local authorities already have the powers , feature high in the list of initiatives to improve air quality .
At their most basic , a CAZ introduces a daily charge for certain vehicle classes entering or moving within a defined area .
Legally , they are created under the Transport Act 2000 where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make a charging scheme .
The act also allows for traffic authorities to act jointly , opening up the possibility of joined up CAZs covering one or more local authority areas within a conurbation .
A number of cities are already in the process of considering or implementing CAZs and there is ample evidence to suggest their benefits .
The revenue raised from the charge is ringfenced for local transport improvements and so the upfront investment by a city or region can be offset in the longer-term income stream .
It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the introduction of more cycle lanes and improvements to pedestrian safety better facilitate active transport ( as well as , potentially , e-scooters which the Transport Select Committee recommends ) and thus lower the risk of Covid-19 transmission .
CAZs are another tool in local government ’ s arsenal to take steps to improve air quality .
Nonetheless , bigger public transport schemes will be needed as well , not least around HS2 stations .
There is no point levelling-up economically only to level-down environmentally .
A criticism laid at the door of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as Chancellor was that the impacts of austerity were devolved .
It is also the case that central government is very likely to continue to ‘ pass the buck ’ to local authorities to deal with air quality .
However , such action would undermine any recognition of the benefits of air quality measures .
Aside from the obvious health benefits of schemes such as CAZs , local authorities can also use them to build their own reputations .
The manifesto sees bodies such as the Northern Powerhouse , Western Gateway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of promoting the UK and attracting inward investment .
At a time when the emphasis is on the country developing a more outward facing , global approach , what could be better for an authority than being able to ‘ sell ’ the quality of its environment as a way of attracting businesses and inward investment ?
Local authorities too should challenge the Government on its promise to give them “ far more control of how ( that ) investment is made ” and put money towards environmental measures , including public transport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local authorities the powers and the financial flexibility needed to deliver for the environment and air quality .
The benefits for communities and economies are vast .

Stuart Thomson is the Head of Public Affairs at BDB Pitmans
Communities up and down the country are seeking to address the air quality issues. This is not just a health matter; successfully dealing with air quality delivers educational improvements and can be part of the Government’s post-Brexit agenda, provided the Government gives them the necessary tools.
Local government are the ones who have to balance often complex, sometimes competing, local needs and therefore require critical support from central government.
Unfortunately, all too often trust in local government is lacking from a number of audiences. For example, the Planning White Paper noted that when it comes to development, public trust is low. The argument frequently made against giving too many powers to local government is that they lack the expertise needed, a charge always strongly denied. In its election manifesto, the Conservatives stated very clearly that “we need to get away from the idea that ‘Whitehall knows best” and talked of “full devolution” along with a, now delayed, White Paper.
The challenge when dealing with air quality is that authorities need powers across a range of areas. They need to offer, for instance, public transport alternatives but also potentially offer to put charging schemes in place as well. Authorities complain that both the powers and finance are often lacking.
The Covid-19 pandemic has brought a renewed focus on both air quality and local transport. The virus’s effects on respiration mean that the case for improvements in air quality has never been stronger. This is coupled with the experience of significantly cleaner air during lockdown, when traffic levels and associated pollution evaporated overnight, leading to calls for these lower levels of pollution to be maintained.
Some bigger local transport schemes take time and resources to put in place; therefore alternatives such as clean air zones (CAZs), where local authorities already have the powers, feature high in the list of initiatives to improve air quality. At their most basic, a CAZ introduces a daily charge for certain vehicle classes entering or moving within a defined area. Legally, they are created under the Transport Act 2000 where powers are given to local traffic authorities to make a charging scheme. The act also allows for traffic authorities to act jointly, opening up the possibility of joined up CAZs covering one or more local authority areas within a conurbation.
A number of cities are already in the process of considering or implementing CAZs and there is ample evidence to suggest their benefits. The revenue raised from the charge is ringfenced for local transport improvements and so the upfront investment by a city or region can be offset in the longer-term income stream.
It has been widely reported that measures such as the introduction of more cycle lanes and improvements to pedestrian safety better facilitate active transport (as well as, potentially, e-scooters which the Transport Select Committee recommends) and thus lower the risk of Covid-19 transmission. CAZs are another tool in local government’s arsenal to take steps to improve air quality.
Nonetheless, bigger public transport schemes will be needed as well, not least around HS2 stations. There is no point levelling-up economically only to level-down environmentally.
A criticism laid at the door of No 11 during George Osborne’s time as Chancellor was that the impacts of austerity were devolved. It is also the case that central government is very likely to continue to ‘pass the buck’ to local authorities to deal with air quality. However, such action would undermine any recognition of the benefits of air quality measures.
Aside from the obvious health benefits of schemes such as CAZs, local authorities can also use them to build their own reputations. The manifesto sees bodies such as the Northern Powerhouse, Western Gateway, and Midlands Engine, as a way of promoting the UK and attracting inward investment. At a time when the emphasis is on the country developing a more outward facing, global approach, what could be better for an authority than being able to ‘sell’ the quality of its environment as a way of attracting businesses and inward investment?
Local authorities too should challenge the Government on its promise to give them “far more control of how (that) investment is made” and put money towards environmental measures, including public transport.
Government needs to work to give local authorities the powers and the financial flexibility needed to deliver for the environment and air quality. The benefits for communities and economies are vast.


conservativehome--2020-11-07--A one-term President Biden?

A one-term President Biden?

Lyndon Johnson didn ’ t contest a second presidential election .
But he was expected to do so when he won the 1964 contest ; when the 1968 election took place , he had recently passed his 60th birthday , and so had not yet entered old age .
Ronald Reagan was 69 in 1980 , when he became the oldest person to date to assume the presidency .
That record has since been superceded by Donald Trump , who was 70 when inaugurated .
“ The Gipper ’ s ” age was a factor that year , as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Remember his famous turning of the tables on the then 56 year-old Walter Mondale , the Democratic candidate : “ I am not going to exploit…my opponent ’ s youth and inexperience ” . )
Joe Biden is a horse of a different colour .
He will be 78 later this month .
Perhaps he will contest the 2024 presidential contest at the age of nearly 82 , after all , having won this time round .
But if so , many people , including members of his own party and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to .
So his starting position as president would be unlike that of the relatively youthful Johnson and the relatively old Reagan – both of whom were expected to fight a second term .
There ’ s a mass of commentary about what a Biden win would mean for relations between America and Britain ( they would ease in some ways and tighten in others ) .
And about what it might imply for our own general election of 2024 or earlier ( less than you might think ) .
As far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much less is being written about expectations of a President Biden not standing again in four years time .
There is no easy way of quietening speculation about the possibility .
For if Biden says he won ’ t stand again , he will immediately legitimise debate about his successor as Democratic candidate next time round – and the position of Kamala Harris , who recent precedent suggests would succeed him .
( But might not – for who knows ? )
And if Biden says he will stand again , he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which will fail to silence the chatter .
Or late – by which time it will have destabilised an orderly presidency and party unity .
Or somewhere between the two : the least bad option , but not a good one .
All this suggests if not exactly a power vacuum in the White House , then certainly a questionmark over the authority of a President Biden – and one that will surely begin to solidify early in his term .
It is not as though the path to the kind of national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event , even if the Democrats somehow now work their way to a majority in the Senate .
As we say , Biden will be nearly 82 in 2024 .
Donald Trump will be 78 , as Biden is now – and he thinks of himself as , “ the youngest person .
I am a young , vibrant man ” .
This election has not buried Trump beneath a landslide .
He has won more votes than he did in 2016 .
His Republican following won ’ t vanish – and nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds on Trump , not Biden , contesting the presidency in 2024 ?

Lyndon Johnson didn’t contest a second presidential election. But he was expected to do so when he won the 1964 contest; when the 1968 election took place, he had recently passed his 60th birthday, and so had not yet entered old age.
Ronald Reagan was 69 in 1980, when he became the oldest person to date to assume the presidency. That record has since been superseded by Donald Trump, who was 70 when inaugurated.
“The Gipper’s” age was a factor that year, as it was in 1984 when he won re-election. (Remember his famous turning of the tables on the then 56 year-old Walter Mondale, the Democratic candidate: “I am not going to exploit…my opponent’s youth and inexperience”.)
Joe Biden is a horse of a different colour. He will be 78 later this month. Perhaps he will contest the 2024 presidential contest at the age of nearly 82, after all, having won this time round.
But if so, many people, including members of his own party and putative administration, won’t expect him to. So his starting position as president would be unlike that of the relatively youthful Johnson and the relatively old Reagan – both of whom were expected to fight a second term.
There’s a mass of commentary about what a Biden win would mean for relations between America and Britain (they would ease in some ways and tighten in others). And about what it might imply for our own general election of 2024 or earlier (less than you might think).
As far as we can see, however, much less is being written about expectations of a President Biden not standing again in four years time. There is no easy way of quietening speculation about the possibility.
For if Biden says he won’t stand again, he will immediately legitimise debate about his successor as Democratic candidate next time round – and the position of Kamala Harris, who recent precedent suggests would succeed him. (But might not – for who knows?)
And if Biden says he will stand again, he will either have to do so early, which will fail to silence the chatter. Or late – by which time it will have destabilised an orderly presidency and party unity. Or somewhere between the two: the least bad option, but not a good one.
All this suggests if not exactly a power vacuum in the White House, then certainly a questionmark over the authority of a President Biden – and one that will surely begin to solidify early in his term.
It is not as though the path to the kind of national unity he wants is clear in any event, even if the Democrats somehow now work their way to a majority in the Senate.
As we say, Biden will be nearly 82 in 2024. Donald Trump will be 78, as Biden is now – and he thinks of himself as, “the youngest person. I am a young, vibrant man”.
This election has not buried Trump beneath a landslide. He has won more votes than he did in 2016. His Republican following won’t vanish – and nor, surely, will he. What odds on Trump, not Biden, contesting the presidency in 2024?