Nick Walker

Two new voting intention polls this week showing very similar figures. YouGov‘s latest poll was actually conducted last week, but was only released today and has topline figures of CON 41%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 4% (full tabs are here.

The regular ICM poll for the Guardian, conducted over the weekend, has extremely similar topline figures – CON 42%, LAB 42%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 3% (full tabs are here).

ICM also asked about people’s attitudes towards Britain paying a financial settlement as part of our Brexit negotiations (a so-called “exit fee”). ICM asked similar questions back in April and found very little support – only 10% thought paying a £20bn settlement would be acceptable, 15% a £10bn fee and 33% a £3bn exit fee. This time the figures suggested in the question were changed to what are probably more realistic figures and with interesting results – now 9% think a settlement of £40bn would be acceptable, 11% a £30bn settlement, 18% a £20bn settlement, 41% a £10bn settlement.

On the face of it this one might think this is a startling change, a few months ago only 15% thought it would be acceptable to pay a £10bn settlement as part of Brexit, now 41% think it’s acceptable. I think it’s probably actually a good example of the importance of context in a question. Most people are really not that good at putting figures of billions of pounds in context – any sum that involves the words billion is a huge amount of money to begin with, so what would be a relatively small settlement? A moderate settlement? A huge settlement? The only thing respondents have to scale it by is the question itself. In April £3bn was implicitly presented as the small option and £10bn was presented as the medium option. In this poll £10bn is implicitly presented as the small option and £20bn or £30bn are presented as the medium options – hence why a £10bn settlement suddenly seems to be so much more paletable.

That’s not to say the question doesn’t tell us anything at all – there’s still an interesting increase. In April only 33% thought a “small” financial settlement would be acceptable as part of the Brexit deal; now that figure has risen to 41% (despite the actual figure quoted tripling!). It looks as if the public may be moving towards accepting that a financial settlement may be an inevitable part of Brexit.

read more

It was obvious for anyone following this race that for Sébastien Destremau, the solo round the world voyage was anything but easy. Technical problems, calms, storms, being alone… Last night after finishing the race fifty days after the winner, Armel Le Cléac’h, the skipper of TechnoFirst-faceOcean gave us his first impressions. Then this afternoon, after a good night’s rest, he entered the harbour in Les Sables d’Olonne marking the conclusion to this eighth edition of the Vendée Globe. The crowds were there to welcome him home on this sunny afternoon as for every skipper completing the race. Destremau looking thinner after rationing his food for the last fortnight answered questions from the waiting journalists on the pontoon before climbing on the podium and holding a press conference. Here is what the skipper has been saying.

I’m sure you’ll know of the unfortunate saga about Woodlands Lane Bridge – a couple of my reports HERE and HERE. The bridge was demolished in November 2016, adding to traffic congestion on local roads. The planned re-opening of a new bridge is advertised as being in the Winter of 2017/18.

It maybe that you’ve missed seeing, on the M3, there’s work underway to replace the bridge. Below is my photo of the work, taken today. Subsequently, I visited the Balfour Beatty site on New Road to enquire as to when the work would be completed. See the latest Highways England progress report on the bridge replacement.

The answer  I received was they are hoping to complete by the end of 2017, perhaps might extend into January 2018 if things don’t go to plan. A key part of the work to be completed is to erect a bridge support pier in the central reservation.

The good news is that work on the replacement of the bridge is progressing, as it should be. Looks like it’ll end up as only 14 months without a bridge – still far too long.

I recently had the misfortune of featuring in a BBC documentary that repeatedly breached the corporation’s own editorial standards. I happened to be at the gym when word reached me that BBC Inside Out London wanted to interview me the following day. It was late in the evening, and I was told that the documentary was looking at game shooting and game meat, and the growing popularity of both in London. Not an anti-shooting piece at all, I was assured.

Arriving at Regent’s Park for the interview, the team from the Beeb were decidedly furtive. There was much fiddling with phones and muttered conversations between interviewer and producer, in which I clearly heard someone say: ‘Surely he needs to see it in order to have right of reply?’

‘See what?’ I asked. It turned out the crew had undercover footage in which they believed they had captured poor standards of animal welfare. They couldn’t or wouldn’t show it to me, but expected me to comment on it anyway. I made a snap decision to go ahead regardless; this was clearly going to be an anti-shooting piece all about game farming, not at all what I had been told to expect. But if I didn’t speak then, it might go out with no one putting the case for shooting.

The interview went as you might expect, given the expectation that I would comment on footage I hadn’t seen. With the camera rolling, BBC journalist Chris Rogers slowly revealed the extent of the undercover filming and alleged all manner of welfare abuses that he had apparently seen with his own eyes. I responded as best I could without knowing what had actually been witnessed – well aware that previous ‘exposés’ of this nature had been spearheaded by animal rights groups using very dubious techniques to obtain sensational-looking footage. I explained there was a scientifically-validated Defra code of practice, and pointed out that in my seven years of experience teaching gamekeeping I had never visited a farm that breached it, whereas farms targeted by animal rights groups were unlikely to be representative.

But I was told that animal rights groups weren’t involved in the undercover filming, and besides, they assured me that if I had seen what they had, I wouldn’t be defending it. But, of course, I hadn’t seen what they had, because they hadn’t shown it to me. It was a faintly ludicrous interview.

Back in the office, we called the BBC to register our concerns and were invited to Broadcasting House to view the undercover footage. There were a couple of shots that didn’t look great, and anyone without experience of livestock farming might think they were witnessing something sinister but, in reality, there was nothing to substantiate the lurid claims that had been put to me in the interview. BBC editorial guidelines are very strict on when trespass and covert filming can be undertaken, and the undercover footage we were shown didn’t provide any such justification. We asked whether they had felt the need to trespass due to information passed to them by animal rights groups such as Animal Aid and the League Against Cruel Sports. We were reassured that while they had asked the League for a comment on one element of the programme, they had not used their filming or involved them in the undercover operation. And, of course, we were told once again that the piece was not anti-shooting.

So perhaps we should have been surprised when the programme appeared in BBC listings as ‘exposing cruel breeding practices’ associated with shooting. The documentary carried the catchy, if not exactly ‘not anti-shooting’, title of ‘The Killing Fields’. Which just so happens to be the title of Animal Aid’s own anti-shooting report. All of our suspicions were confirmed when the programme aired. In addition to what we had been shown was additional undercover footage from the League, in precise contradiction to what we had been told to expect. Spokespeople from the League, Animal Aid and (bizarrely) a Professor of Tropical Zoology lined up to give shooting a good kicking, all having been shown the secret footage in advance. The programme was sensationalist and horrendously biased.

Of course, we weren’t surprised. Between our meeting at Broadcasting House and the airing of the documentary, we had sent numerous letters highlighting our concerns. All we received in reply was a denial that any undercover filming had occurred, which is a farcical claim given that in a clip used to promote the documentary the presenter is shown running away from the sound of a tractor to avoid detection, and a recommendation that we watch the broadcast and complain afterwards.

This was of course the whole point of the obfuscation and the misdirection of our attempts to put the documentary back on the right track – the Beeb wanted to air it with maximum sensation for their urban viewers. The viewers of Inside Out London won’t hear any future apology, and their initial impressions of game farming won’t be undone. A sector of British farming will have been smeared by the BBC, and only game farmers will suffer the consequences.

Liam Stokes the Countryside Alliance’s head of shooting.

The post How can the BBC be allowed to break their own editorial standards? appeared first on Coffee House.

Since Andrea Leadsom announced her leadership bid, the Conservative candidate has been dogged by allegations that she lacks the experience and knowledge to lead her party — let alone the country.

Reports this week from Leadsom’s former colleagues claiming she exaggerated her banking credentials on her CV have only fuelled concerns that she could be out of her depth. Now Mr S understands that Leadsom could be in breach of parliamentary rules over the registered address of her leadership campaign.

On her campaign website, Leadsom uses the House of Commons as the registered address from which she can be contacted:

However, the Members’ handbook says that parliamentary facilities should not be used for ‘party political campaigning’:

‘These facilities and services are provided in order to assist Members in their parliamentary work. They should be used appropriately, in such a way as to ensure that the reputation of the House is not put at risk. They should not be used for party political campaigning or private business activity.’

While Leadsom’s campaign assure Mr S that they will ‘fully comply’ and are to announce a campaign address by Monday, the slip will no doubt be seen by her opponents as just another sign that she is still a novice when it comes to the ways of Westminster.

The post Is Andrea Leadsom’s campaign already in breach of parliamentary rules? appeared first on Coffee House.

FULL NAME: Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson
BORN: June 19, 1964, New York
AGE: 52
EDUCATION: Eton, Balliol College Oxford
STATUS: Married, 6 children
FIRST ELECTED: 2001
CONSTITUENCY: Uxbridge – Majority 10,695
EXPERIENCE: Shadow Arts Minister May-November 2004, Shadow Universities Minister December 2005-July 2007, Mayor of London 2008-16
OTHER EXPERIENCE: Journalist, The Times & Daily Telegraph 1987-1999, Editor, The Spectator 1999-2006
MOST LIKELY TO SAY: “Cripes, I didn’t mean it.”
LEAST LIKELY TO SAY: “Let me give you a detailed analysis of the difference between microfiscal economic policy and macrofiscal strategy.”
FAMOUS QUOTES: “My chances of being PM are about as good as the chances of finding Elvis on Mars, or my being reincarnated as an olive.” “The dreadful truth is that when people come to see their MP they have run out of better ideas.” “My friends, as I have discovered myself, there are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters.”
STRENGTHS: Huge star quality, charisma, ability to shrug off potential gaffes and scandals, intellect, public speaking
WEAKNESSES: Stormy private life, priapic tendencies, lack of attention to detail, economic expertise, strategic ignorance, not a team player, yet another Old Etonion from Oxford
MAIN ADVISERS: Will Walden
MAIN ALLIES: Jesse Norman, Ben Wallace, Nadhim Zahawi, Nadine Dorries
LIKELY TO STAND: 100%
LADBROKES ODDS: Evens

SCOREBOARD
(scored a panel of 50 Conservative activists, politicians and commentators)

Experience: 7.6
Negotiating Skills: 6.4
Star Quality: 9.1
Likeability: 7.9
Ability to take the fight to Labour: 8.6
Economic Competence: 6.4
Intellectual Capacity: 8.2
Ability to Unite the Country: 7.3
Ability to Unite the Party: 5.9
Integrity: 6.1
Courage: 7.5
Leadership: 6.9
National Appeal: 8.0
International Experience: 6.4

Against all the other potential candidates Boris Johnson top-scored in Star Quality, Likeability, Ability to take the Fight to Labour, Ability to Unite the Country as well as National Appeal. He was joint highest on Intellectual Ability, alongside Michael Gove.

OVERALL RATING OUT OF 100: 73

MY ANALYSIS

Boris suffers from being the front runner. The last time a front runner won the leadership of the Conservative Party was when Ted Heath won in 1965. I have particular cause to remember 2005 when David Davis held that position and then crashed and burned. The longer the timetable, the more likely it is that the same could happen to Boris. Even now there is an “Anyone But Boris” campaign.

Boris’s main weakness is his perceived lack of conviction and the way he flipflopped over the whole issue of EU membership. His apparent expediency may be forgiven by the voluntary party but the parliamentary party may be less forgiving. His main challenge will be to win enough support from his parliamentary colleagues to get on the ballot paper which goes out to the 150,000 Conservative Party members. His older colleagues remember his antics from the 2001 Parliament when he was considered the very antithesis of a team player, and frankly a bit of a joke. Because he has only recently returned to Parliament and therefore isn’t very familiar with the 2010 or 2015 intakes. As Mayor of London he by and large ignored MPs and held very few ‘get to know you’ cocktail parties. These have started in recent months but to more than three quarters of the Parliamentary Party, Boris is ‘that celebrity off the TV’ rather than a colleague.

Having said all that, the man has star quality. You just have to walk to down a street with him to experience it. And his appeal does actually stretch north of Watford. If Tory MPs want to elect someone who is a proven election winner they can do no better than elect Boris Johnson. But that’s not the issue now. Many of them believe that they should be electing a tough negotiator who has a wide range of economic expertise and can think radically. Maybe that candidate is not on offer anyhow, but it’s in those areas that Boris Johnson needs to convince his fellow MPs.

Boris could be a great Prime Minister. Or he could be a disaster. There are no shades of grey with Boris. He would be a very great risk, for a Tory Party which needs unity and direction. But it would be a wonderful period for people like me to cover!

Coming next: Theresa May

Today’s Cabinet was historic but not bloody. It was the first Saturday Cabinet since the Falklands war and an echo of the 1975 Wilson Cabinet when collective responsibility was suspended for the first In/Out referendum on Europe. Then 7 out of 23 Cabinet ministers dissented from the Prime Minister’s position to stay in; today 6 of the 30 who sat round the table (full Cabinet members and 8 ministers who attend) dissented.

The Prime Minister opened it with his selling of what he is describing as a transformative deal. Whitehall has time-honoured rankings for Cabinet ministers and others then spoke going down the strict order of who’s technically the most important in the room.

So the Chancellor spoke next followed by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, each of them speaking to particular parts of the deal they’d played a role in forming and speaking at decent length. The Prime Minister had already said that they would stay until everyone had spoken however long it took but as the contributions continued down the rankings the ministers’ addresses got smaller, some of the points had already been made, no one was closed down, “no-one was grandstanding” one minister said.

Many talked of their journeys. Michael Gove, Chris Grayling, Iain Duncan Smith, John Whittingdale and Theresa Villiers explaining how they had longstanding positions on Europe. All 5 Cabinet ministers voting for Leave spoke of the sovereignty issue and the need for Britain to take control of its own affairs. Iain Duncan Smith was amongst those careful to say that the Prime Minister had got “the best deal anyone could’ve got in the circumstances.”

Sajid Javid, long seen as a passionate anti-European out-flanking the mainstream Tory Euro-sceptics, explained how his was a “pragmatic” decision about what was best for business and jobs.

Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary joked that the prospect of the months ahead made him hope the date could be brought forward. The Scottish Secretary David Mundell said people mustn’t say Vote Remain to save the United Kingdom as that was playing into the nationalists’ trap.

After the full Cabinet members had been heard in strict ranking order the 8 ministers attending Cabinet spoke (there are no rankings, something that may keep Sir Jeremy Heywood the Cabinet Secretary awake tonight). Priti Patel spoke of her longstanding views on Europe. Matt Hancock was the last of the ministers attending to speak praising the Prime Minister’s deal.

The PM had then arranged for the Chief Whip to be the man closing these proceedings giving him the opportunity to remind everyone about how the conduct themselves in the campaign and the need to maintain a respectful tone towards colleagues.

The Prime Minister then drew events to a close explaining how there was clearly consensus that what he’d negotiated was a good deal though not good enough for some with longstanding objections to the EU and that there was clear backing around the table for his position, now the government position, to remain in the EU.

Ministers then had to hang around in the waiting room outside the Cabinet so they didn’t crash into the back of the TV pictures as David Cameron addressed the nation from the podium in front of No.10. That moment replaces the cross-channel Prime Ministerial broadcast to the nation which had been considered.

The Cabinet ministers for Leave then left in a co-ordinated series of cars taking them off to the Vote Leave campaign headquarters to pose for photos and the hit the phone banks. Vote Leave hopes this will be a shot in the arm for their campaign, vying with Grassroots Out (allied to Leave.eu) for the mantle of official campaign. David Cameron hopes their internecine bickering can go on for as long as is humanly possible.

Reading one of Moor Larkin’s excellent posts the other night, an excerpt from the Pollard report caught my eye. I had seen it before, but in isolation; now I was reading it again in conjunction with the memory of an except from Jimmy Savile’s autobiography (I confess I neither own a copy nor have read it – excerpts only!).

It was Meirion Jones making his disingenuous background notes to Mark Williams-Thomas and talking about the Duncroft girls:

4.5 In the 1950s, Duncroft was an elite institution where only the most intelligent young criminal girls were sent. If you were influential and your daughter had been caught doing something criminal, you would try and work the system so that she could go to Duncroft. As a result, the pupils at Duncroft included individuals who were connected to fairly influential and high profile families.

And again, in Savile’s autobiography  a similar sentiment was expressed – that somehow parent’s could influence the result of a court case and ensure that their ‘well connected’ daughter ended up at Duncroft and not one of the many other similar Approved Schools dotted across the country.

It is cobblers. Cobblers on stilts as it happens.

First, and most important, any girl arriving at Duncroft in the 1960s, as I did, had been through the criminal justice system via the local Magistrates Court. The resulting ‘Care and Protection Order’ counted as a criminal record at the time – it barred future employment in the Civil Service or Armed Forces – both still bastions of upright God fearing citizens serving their country.

In fairness, some of the reasons why you might need to be criminally sanctioned as in need of ‘Care and Protection’ would seem laughable today. There was one girl, whose parents had upped and disappeared, who had maintained herself and her young brother by stealing food until caught – unthinkable today that she should be so punished, today social services would be running in circles furnishing a flat for her.

1960 was a different country, and it pays to remember that.

Other girls had played truant from school – today their parents would be punished. Another girl had taken a raincoat from a school coat rack on a rainy Friday night – when she returned it on the Monday morning she was charged with theft. Today you have to ‘intend to permanently deprive’ before being charged with theft. Without doubt there were some girls who had taken to prostitution at an early age, and one I shared a dormitory with, who proudly boasted of her starring role in early blue movies.

The point being that every single one of us had done something that was considered to be against the law at that time. I have detailed my own path to Duncroft. The notion that we were merely ’emotionally disturbed’ and that well-heeled parents had opted for this palatial manor house known as Duncroft to avoid us getting into more trouble is to seriously misunderstand what was going on here.

The courts, having sentenced us to (normally) a three year ‘Care and Protection order, we were then moved to an ‘assessment centre’.  The first criteria for Duncroft was IQ. Here again, the thinking was not to isolate some well-heeled elite, but to ensure that the experiment of seeing whether further education, still in its infancy, would help us to return to normal life. The IQ element was not rigid. (I was later amused to find, when some fellow Duncroftians arrived on this site and commenced a conversation about IQ results, that I was the Dunce of the class of ’65. Their Barnardo’s notes revealed IQs of terrifying heights, unlike my own more modest score!). The IQ result was coupled with an assessment of ‘likely to benefit from further education’. That in turn meant that those who hadn’t played truant, and playing truant is far more difficult at a boarding school than it is for those at day school in their home town, had a head start here – they hadn’t missed so many lessons.

Parents, well-heeled or otherwise, had nothing whatsoever to do with this process.

Readers under the age of 60 may not be fully aware that back in the 1960s, ‘being at boarding school’ didn’t necessarily mean that your parents were well-heeled as it does now. The world map was still coloured pink, and boarding school was a sort of gentile fostering service for the children of the army of sometimes quite lowly civil servants and military that were stationed in the outposts of the British empire. I went to boarding school at 3 (Froebel’s in Guernsey) and I wasn’t unusual in having gone at an age that would be considered abuse in itself nowadays. I also wasn’t unusual in being part of the band of children that didn’t go home at Christmas or Easter holidays, simply because the journey to ‘home’ – Australia, Hong Kong or wherever – was really only ‘do-able’ in the longer summer holidays. B.O.A.Cs nanny service for ferrying such children to their parents is a fond memory for many. The more lowly the parent’s overseas occupation, the more likely boarding school rather than a private tutor in the ambassador’s residence…

So, was Duncroft only for the children of the well-heeled? Stuff and nonsense. I did a quick phone round of other Duncroft girls the other night, and between us, spanning 1965 to 1973, we can only come up with a total of two girls who were ex-boarding school, and only one of them (not I, that’s for sure) could remotely be described as ‘middle class’ let along ‘upper class’. The rest of our class mates were defiantly ‘working class’. One was the product of ‘fairground employees’. Two we can think of, had parents who had never been nor intended to be, gainfully employed. Again, as Moor has so painstakingly researched, some had no family home to return to. No parents to speak for them. Nowhere to go on the occasional home leaves. That was why people like Professor Bell took us on camping holidays to Norfolk. (*Waves to Ellen*).

The ‘celebrity connections’ that people make so much of, came about (mainly) because the school psychiatrist, Dr Mason, was married to an Elstree film producer, and the fact that the school and its ethos was a liberal experiment, an early exponent of the idea that neither your cultural background, nor your past, should count against you in ‘life chances’. People, especially the liberal elite, were fascinated by this notion of ‘bad girls’ being given a second chance. Little doubt that there were some who found the notion positively offensive.

The raising of the school leaving age to 16, and the concomitant requirement that everyone received a full time education, posed a problem for the mental health services. Young people are as prone to mental illness as adults. Schizophrenia can strike alarmingly early. Autism, though not a mental illness, can lead to behavioural problems that were not readily understood at the time. Psychiatric hospitals didn’t even have ‘young persons units’ and they most definitely didn’t have educational facilities.

One of the important changes brought about under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 was that central government divested itself of direct responsibility for the former Approved Schools. Many were closed. Duncroft, already a ‘secure unit’ and with residential psychiatric facilities, became a ‘Community Home with Education’, administered by the Local Authority, and for the use of those with mental health issues who could not, because of the requirement for secure accommodation, utilise mainstream education.  I have taken a straw poll of 1975/78, not as comprehensively as I did for the 1965/73 period, and girls from that period don’t remember anyone who would qualify as coming from a privileged background.

It is curious how this myth of a financially privileged elite has taken root. Initially from Savile’s idea that somehow parents were ‘clamouring’ to get their ‘gals’ into Duncroft; then from Meirion Jones’ comments to Pollard, and possibly the news that ‘Fiona’ was parented by a highly placed BBC apparatchik. On the one hand we were ‘poor little vulnerable waifs’ and on the other hand we were the ‘spoilt offspring of wealthy parents’ trying to avoid the court system?

Neither is true. We were an egalitarian experiment in what is now a very modern idea – that neither your past and nor your birth circumstances should preclude you from having a second chance at making a life for yourself.

The post Will David Cameron deliver ‘associate membership’ of the EU for Britain? appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Airbus UK, who employ 16,000 people in Britain, have given a gentle warning about leaving the EU: “The best way to guarantee this is by remaining part of the EU.”

In light of JCB saying it would be no biggie to leave, and the CBI organising companies to come out in favour of staying in, Airbus have put down a marker. Just a shame it completely contradicts to all the other markers the company have have put down in the past. Here is what their Chief Executive said in January 2014:

“Clearly we have a massive investment in the UK and I don’t think there has ever been a plan to change that. The key issue is for the UK to continue to be a competitive place to do business. Profitable trade and political union are not joined at the hip. Russian and American companies trade with companies in Europe without being part of a political union. Business investment depends on profits not politics.”

Guido could not agree more…

We are fast approaching a statement from Mr Hague on how the government, and the Conservatives, will carry forward the work on English votes.

I have long argued we should not be plotting evil – English votes for English laws – but English votes for English issues. Why not adopt the cross party word of needs, so the mnemonic can be EVEN – English votes for English needs.

I expect Mr Hague to accept that more is involved than a few votes on a few bills that are England only. Once the Union Parliament has decided the total grants to local government in the four parts of the UK, for example, surely all the detail on how the English money is divided up are matters for England and English MPs, just as Scotland’s detailed settlement is for the Scottish Parliament? Once the UK Parliament has settled England’s NHS budget, then surely English health policy under that budget is a matter for England, just as Scotland’s is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Similarly we should want English MPs to decide England’s Income Tax rate as Scottish MSPs will be deciding Scotland’s. Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would also take part at Westminster all the time their Income tax is settled with England’s.

I also expect Mr Hague to agree there needs to be an early debate in this Parliament, when the parties can set out their differing approaches.

I want him to sign up to the first proposal in his White Paper, English votes on any English matter. That is the simpler way, and the fair way. The other remaining proposal he is considering does not allow English MPs to settle English matters, as it retains a vote for Scottish MPs on any proposal England wants. That is not fair to England and does not keep the promise to deliver English votes for English needs.

There is no complexity on deciding which is an English (or English, Welsh and Northern Irish issue) as it is one settled in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament. They seem to have no difficulty deciding which they are for the Scottish Parliament, so it should be equally easy to decide a non Scottish issue.