The new owner of Flybe has applied for a UK operating licence – raising hopes the former Exeter-based airline is poised to take off once again.

Paul Greaves www.devonlive.com

The Civil Aviation Authority has received an operating licence application from Thyme Opco, which bought the company in October.

Flybe was the largest independent regional airline in Europe before collapsing in early 2020 due to financial difficulties.

The news of the operating application is the first concrete step towards aircraft flying once again.

However, there is no word yet on where Flybe will be based.

East Devon MP Simon Jupp, the Exeter Chamber of Commerce and the South West Business Council have all urged the new investors to make Exeter the centre of Flybe operations once again.

Responding to the latest news the MP said: “It’s another step in the right direction to get Flybe back in our skies.

“I’ve urged the airlines new owners to bring Flybe home to Exeter Airport which will now benefit from up to £8m additional support from government to protect jobs and connectivity in our region. I fought hard for government support for our airport and I’ll continue to push for Flybe to come home.”

The airline employed 2,000 people and flew over nine million passengers a year, according to Statista.

It went into administration in March with all routes from Exeter and Newquay airports cancelled.

A deal to buy what was left of the company was struck with hedge fund firm Cyrus Capital, a company associated with Thyme Opco.

A spokesperson for Thyme Opco said in October: “We are extremely excited about the opportunity to relaunch Flybe.

“The airline is not only a well-known UK brand, it was also the largest regional air carrier in the EU, so while we plan to start off smaller than before, we expect to create valuable airline industry jobs, restore essential regional connectivity in the UK, and contribute to the recovery of a vital part of the country’s economy.”

In January the government was recruiting weirdos and misfits: Dominic Cummings calls for ‘weirdos and misfits’ for No 10 jobs

A few days ago it was “Sensible Celebrities”: NHS to enlist ‘sensible’ celebrities to persuade people to take coronavirus vaccine

Now it’s down to Matt Hancock to save the day (whatever can come next?):

Matt Hancock: I’ll take coronavirus vaccine on TV to combat antivaxers

Kat Lay, Health Editor | Emma Yeomans www.thetimes.co.uk

The health secretary has volunteered to be vaccinated live on television to prove that the coronavirus jab is safe.

Matt Hancock made his offer as YouGov polling found that a fifth of Britons were not confident at all or not very confident that the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine was safe and antivaxers took aim at the newly approved drug.

Last night Jonathan Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer for England, told Britons that they needed to take the vaccination to get rid of restrictions. He said: “Everyone wants social distancing to come to an end, we’re fed up with it. Nobody wants to see the damage they do. But if you want that dream to come true as quickly as it can come true, then you have to take the vaccine when it’s offered to you. Low uptake will almost certainly make restrictions last longer.”

Earlier, during a television appearance, it was suggested that Mr Hancock could lead the way with an injection broadcast to the nation.

Piers Morgan, the presenter of ITV’s Good Morning Britain, said: “I’ll come to where you are any time next week if we can do this. Let’s do it together, live on air. It would be powerful, it would send the right message.”

Mr Hancock said: “Well, we’d have to get that approved because, of course, there is a prioritisation according to clinical need and, thankfully, as a healthy, middle-aged man, you’re not at the top of the prioritisation. But if we can get that approved and if people think that’s reasonable then I’m up for doing that because once the MHRA has approved a vaccine — they only do that if it is safe. And so, if that can help anybody else, persuade anybody else that they should take the vaccine then I think it’s worth it.”

A snap YouGov poll found that the public overwhelmingly supported the idea, with 66 per cent in favour against only 12 per cent who opposed it.

Allegra Stratton, Boris Johnson’s press secretary, suggested the prime minister might also be prepared to be vaccinated against coronavirus live on television — but only if it did not prevent someone more in need of a jab from receiving one. Ms Stratton told reporters: “We all know the character of the prime minister. I don’t think it would be something that he would rule out but what we also know is that he wouldn’t want to take a jab that should be for somebody who is extremely vulnerable and who should be getting it before him.”

In the Commons on Tuesday Sir Desmond Swayne, a former international development minister, said: “The way to persuade people to have a vaccine is to line up the entire government and its ministers and their loved ones and let them take it first, and then get all the luvvies, the icons of popular culture out on the airwaves singing its praises.”

The YouGov poll also found 27 per cent of Brits were very confident the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine was safe and 43 per cent fairly confident. However, 11 per cent were not very confident, 9 per cent said they were not confident at all, and 44 per cent opposed making the vaccination compulsory in law.

By midday Thalidomide was trending on Twitter as antivax activists sought to discredit the newly approved vaccine. Among those arguing against its use was Gerard Batten, a former Ukip leader, who claimed it could cause infertility, something for which there is no evidence.

The claim appears to stem from a petition submitted to the European Medicines Agency by two doctors and campaigners against lockdown who have both previously claimed the pandemic either does not exist or is already over. Their claims about the vaccine were described as lacking in evidence, “hard to follow and tenuous” by Professor Danny Altmann, head of an immunology lab at Imperial College London.

Testing times

1796

Edward Jenner, left, gave the first vaccine to James Phipps, aged eight, on May 14, 1796 using matter from a smallpox sore on Sarah Nelmes, a milkmaid. His paper was rejected by the Royal Society but within a few years he had won over enough doctors and by 1800 his smallpox vaccination was popular in Britain and spreading into Europe.

1879

Louis Pasteur created a laboratory-developed vaccine for chicken cholera — in error. His assistant forgot to inject the chickens with fresh bacterial cultures before a holiday. When he returned a month later, he carried out the injections with the old culture, and the chickens survived fatal disease. Pasteur gave them fresh bacteria and they did not become ill.

1955

The Salk polio virus vaccine was deemed successful a little over a year after a huge trial began. It was licensed in the US on the same day, and by 1960 polio rates across the country had dropped by 90 per cent.

1956

One of Elvis Presley’s lesser-known live performances came in October 1956, when he received a polio shot on television. Rates of polio vaccination were slumping among teenagers, who were vulnerable to the disease, so celebrities were enlisted to get the message out.

1977

Ali Maalin, a Somalian cook, became the last person to contract smallpox in the wild. He survived and became an advocate for vaccination. A British woman contracted it from a lab studying the disease a year later, but smallpox was declared eradicated globally in 1980.

1984

After the HIV virus was isolated Ronald Reagan’s secretary of health announced that a vaccine would be found within two years. Decades later, however, no vaccine yet exists and numerous studies have failed. One trial was stopped after it appeared the vaccine raised people’s chances of contracting HIV.

1988

Andrew Wakefield published a study, later discredited, claiming a link between the MMR — measles, mumps and rubella — vaccine and autism. The paper was retracted and he was subsequently banned from practising medicine but his claims have resulted in a significant reduction in vaccination rates.

2008

The HPV vaccine was introduced for girls in the UK age 12 and 13. Boys started receiving the jab too last year. The World Health Organisation has said that cervical cancer, caused by the HPV virus, could be eliminated and Australia aims to wipe it out by 2035.

2019

The WHO reported 140,000 deaths from measles with outbreaks across all regions of the world. Four European countries, including the UK, lost their measles-free status, with the drop in vaccination rates blamed.

So much has gone wrong since the Tories won their general election victory a year ago next week that it is easy to take their majority of 80 for granted.

Iain Martin www.thetimes.co.uk 

A new report, No Turning Back, published today by the think tank Onward, serves as a reminder that the victory was hard-won, even against Jeremy Corbyn, because it involved the construction of a remarkable new electoral coalition of interests. Quite deliberately, the Tory leadership set out, Disraeli-style, to reposition the party, appealing to patriotic, working-class voters.

This was smart politics that worked. Boris Johnson duly smashed through the “red wall” to turn parts of the north of England blue for the first time in generations. Two in five Tory voters are working class. The Tories hold 57 per cent of the seats in the north and Midlands, their highest share since the mid-1930s.

To retain those seats and to maintain a winning coalition at the next election in 2024 or earlier, the Onward report suggests the Tories must now deliver on “levelling up” in the north, while not neglecting southern Conservative voters. Obviously, this balancing requires a high degree of political dexterity and focus.

At Westminster, where the Balkanisation of the party continues apace, the need for unity has not yet got through to many Conservative MPs. So widespread is the fashion for factionalism that new groupings are continually springing up, with Tory MPs forming ever more interest groups to apply pressure to the prime minister.

The CRG, the Covid Recovery Group, was formed last month and has organised resistance to the virus restrictions. The other CRG is the China Research Group, pushing for a tougher policy against the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). Then there is the Northern Research Group, the NRG. And the grandaddy of contemporary Conservative internal warfare is the ERG, the European Research Group, which organised resistance to Theresa May. Its members are still on guard against any backsliding on Brexit by their former hero Johnson.

With rebellions rolling, the steady corrosion of the government’s whipping operation has started to produce serious fractures. On Tuesday evening, 55 Tory MPs voted against the new coronavirus restrictions. The prime minister’s hide was saved only by the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer ordering his MPs to abstain. In the Westminster game, this is a significant moment. The opposition knows that the prime minister cannot rely on his majority. It can now bait and switch its position, saying it will abstain on a controversial matter before perhaps changing suddenly, closer to the vote, leaving the Tory whips scrambling.

A senior Conservative MP, a veteran of the whipping war during the doomed attempts to pass a Brexit deal during the May premiership, blames backbenchers for bad habits: “Many Tory MPs are still to be weaned off the Brexit years rebellion adrenaline fix.” Rebels respond that it is the fault of a high-handed No 10, which until his departure recently was built around Dominic Cummings, a revolutionary who actively dislikes the party. A noxious atmosphere was created and trust in Johnson’s judgment is low. Among the discontented are former cabinet ministers. Says one: “No 10 has behaved with such hubris in the last nine months during the Covid crisis that colleagues have concluded the government has no monopoly of wisdom.”

Tory factionalism is not a new phenomenon. In the 1840s the party split over the Corn Laws, with the free-trading leadership peeling away. In the aftermath of the First World War there was internal warfare. In the early 1980s, much of Margaret Thatcher’s first cabinet was opposed to the prime minister’s approach. From the late 1980s until 2019, the party was bedevilled by divisions on Europe.

But what should worry the prime minister now is that today’s divisions don’t appear to be particularly ideological — yet. The situation is more perilous than an arcane row about policy because it rests on that most subjective of qualities, personality. The doubts are about his ability to function effectively in government, to process the flow of paper and decisions and make good use of patronage.

The squabbling is displacement activity while the party works out what to do with him. Johnson was selected as a winner by MPs and Tory members to get two things done: to win an election and to deliver Brexit. The first was achieved and the second will happen, one way or the other, next month.

After that, and mass vaccination against Covid-19, it is fair to ask: what is this government for? Where are the public sector reforms to power improvement? Where are the policies to capitalise on what should be a boom next year unless the government screws it up?

The prime minister may object, with some justification, that he has had a hell of a year and everyone in government looks whacked. He can complain about unjustness and ingratitude all he likes but this is a tough old world and the Tory tribe are a ruthless bunch. So are the voters. There are always alternative prime ministers available.

That Onward report does contain some encouragement for the prime minister. Its authors say that the 2019 election marked a big realignment, making the Tories as much a party of the working class as of the provincial middle class. If so, Johnson has a special connection with those voters who will look to see whether or not he delivers.

If he is to succeed he’ll need an agenda and to implement it he will require the solid support of his party. That means he must learn the art of party management, and quick.

Parliament’s Whitehall watchdog has accused the government of putting its head in the sand over no-deal Brexit as it becomes increasingly clear ministers have failed to prepare in time.

www.independent.co.uk 

The cross-party Public Accounts Committee warned in a new report that the government was still “taking limited responsibility” for Brexit readiness despite there being just four weeks left until Britain leaves the single market.

In a grim report published on Wednesday the MPs warned that they were “extremely concerned about the risk of serious disruption and delay” because of government inaction at ports like Dover.

The MPs noted that it was the twelfth time they had warned the government about the issue since the Brexit vote, but that it was still “not doing enough to ensure businesses and citizens will be ready for the end of the transition period”.

Brexit preparations have involved more than 22,000 civil servants at their peak and have cost at least £4.4 billion, the spending watchdog said – and yet there are still “critical gaps in the civil service’s approach to planning, particularly for unexpected events or undesired outcome”.

This costly approach is compounded by the fact that the Treasury “still does not have a good grip on how much taxpayers’ money is being spent on cross-government priorities”, with excess spending on consultants and little investment in the civil service itself.

“Pretending that things you don’t want to happen are not going to happen is not a recipe for government, it is a recipe for disaster,” said Meg Hillier, the MP who chairs the committee.

“We’re paying for that approach in the UK’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic and can only hope that we are not now facing another catastrophe, at the border in 4 weeks’ time.

“But after 12 PAC reports full of warnings since the Brexit vote, the evidence suggests that come January 1st we face serious disruption and delay at the short Channel crossings that deliver a majority of our fresh food supplies.

“The lack of definite next steps and inability to secure a deal adds to the challenge. A year after the oven ready deal, we have more of a cold turkey and businesses and consumers do not know what to be prepared for.”

Trade talks with the EU to sign a deal have now continued in December, but there is little sign of a deal on the horizon.

Trade experts however warn that the hard nature of the Brexit chosen by Boris Johnson makes disruption inevitable, even if an agreement is forthcoming.

A UK Government Spokesperson said: “We are making significant preparations to prepare for the guaranteed changes at the end of the transition period including investing £705 million in jobs, technology and infrastructure at the border and providing £84 million in grants to boost the customs intermediaries sector. This is alongside implementing border controls in stages so traders have more time to prepare”

“With less than one month to go, it’s vital that businesses and citizens make their final preparations too. That’s why we’re intensifying our engagement with businesses through the Brexit Business Taskforce and running a major public information campaign so they know exactly what they need to do to get ready.”

An investigation into the free school meal voucher fiasco, which left many families without food during lockdown, has found the government signed contracts worth up to £425m with a company for which there was “limited evidence” of its capacity to deliver.

Sally Weale www.theguardian.com 

The troubled scheme was set up in just 18 days and awarded to the French-owned company Edenred, despite the government’s own assessment that the company’s UK arm did not have the financial standing that would normally be required for the scale of contract, according to a report by the National Audit Office (NAO).

The public spending watchdog said Edenred was appointed to run the scheme using an existing government framework contract, as it was already a supplier to a number of government departments, which meant there was no need for a lengthy tendering process.

Within weeks, however, problems began to emerge, with schools across England complaining of problems in registering for the £15-per-child weekly vouchers. School staff worked into the night to try to log on to Edenred’s website and parents waited up to five days for their vouchers.

At one point in April, the Edenred helpline was receiving almost 4,000 calls and nearly 9,000 emails a day from frustrated school staff and parents. At the height of the crisis, ministers were forced to intervene directly and Department for Education officials held daily calls with Edenred to monitor progress.

One of the key problems identified in the NAO report was Edenred’s IT capacity, which was inadequate to meet the challenge of supplying vouchers to up to 1.4 million children who were eligible for free school meals.

The report says performance improved following DfE intervention, with processing times for orders dropping from an average of five days in April to just hours in July, and waiting times to access the website falling from 42 minutes to virtually no wait over the same period.

According to the report, Edenred issued 10.1m vouchers in total at a final cost to the DfE of £384m, significantly less than the original cost estimated at the start of the scheme. The report says the DfE “does not know whether Edenred made a profit” on the scheme, but while the government paid them the face value of the supermarket vouchers, Edenred was able to generate revenue by buying vouchers at a discount on their face value.

Meg Hillier, the chair of the Commons public accounts committee, said: “DfE chose an adapted off-the-shelf system to save time. But when it launched, families typically had to wait five days to get the vouchers they needed to buy food.

“Edenred’s systems buckled under the pressure, and schools and families found it much too difficult to get in touch when things went wrong. DfE and Edenred eventually managed to turn things around – but too many parents had to wait too long to get the support they needed.”

Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said: “Problems at the start of the scheme led to a frustrating experience for many schools and families, but DfE and Edenred worked hard to get on top of these issues. Performance steadily improved as the scheme progressed.”

Edenred said it had delivered a scheme of unique scale for the DfE, which the majority of parents said worked well and translated every pound of public money into vouchers.

“The report is fair in its reflection of the challenges faced in the first four weeks,” a spokesperson said. “We welcome the recognition of the hard work and investment we put into solving those problems, resulting in improvements to a scheme which delivered for parents and schools in the final four months of the programme, when it saw the greatest demand.”

The children and families minister, Vicky Ford, said: “The NAO has recognised the swift action we took so that eligible children could access this important provision while schools were partially closed, with £380m-worth of voucher codes having been redeemed into supermarket gift cards by the time the scheme ended.”

It was only a matter of time before the UK’s twin preoccupations of 2020 – Covid and Brexit – really collided. Within minutes of the 7am announcement that British regulators had approved the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, business secretary Alok Sharma and health secretary Matt Hancock tried to stick a Union Jack on the news.

Paul Waugh  2 Dec  www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

While Sharma boasted that “we will remember this moment as the day the UK led humanity’s charge against this disease, Hancock said that the UK was able to achieve a faster approval than the EU “because of Brexit”. Yet within a few hours, the MHRA regulator June Raine pointed out she had in fact operated under European law, which runs out in the UK at the end of the year.‌

The PM’s spokesman refused several times to endorse the Hancock line, and got into a muddle about Sharma’s (read the Lobby exchanges in all their painful glory in my Twitter thread HERE). Even Boris Johnson himself, never knowingly unavailable for a bit of Brussels bashing, refused to hit the “Brexit Bonus” softballs fed him by the Sun and Express in the later press conference.‌

In fact, it was deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam who most ridiculed the suggestion of Little Englander triumphalism, pointing not only to the German-American teams who developed the vaccine but also the wider global cooperation to combat Covid-19.

And what was most notable in the No.10 briefing, and earlier in PMQs, was how unusually cautious Johnson was in hailing the vaccine progress. Acutely aware of the danger that the public may see it as an excuse to drop their guard, he said people should “not get their hopes up too soon” about being rapidly vaccinated.

Van-Tam underlined the point by warning the public that “you have to take the vaccine…low uptake will almost certainly make restrictions last longer”. That wasn’t a direct threat to link an area’s vaccine rates to lifting tiers, more a home truth that vaccinations can get the R number right down.

But the whole press briefing ended on a truly awkward note when the PM and Van-Tam differed over the longer-term impacts of the virus on public behaviour. In the first explicit reprimand of one of his scientists, Johnson asserted himself after Van-Tam suggested long-term mask-wearing and hand-sanitising “maybe a good thing”.‌

The PM’s line – “on the other hand, we may want to get back to life as pretty much as close to normal” – was quite the public slapdown. And when the deputy medical officer later explained he meant some individuals would stick with mask-wearing, Johnson sounded incredulous at the suggestion that the UK could copy Japan or South Korea. “As in the Far East? Well, who knows?”‌

Many of Johnson’s allies will say he was well within his rights to avoid the long-term downer, not least as he knows the promise of a brighter 2021 is crucial to getting people to stick to more lockdown-style curbs this winter. Others will say he sounded like he was putting politics ahead of Van-Tam’s honest judgement.

Van-Tam tends to be plain speaking, and that’s his main asset. He famously made clear Dominic Cummings should not have broken Covid rules earlier this year, and was not seen for months thereafter. Given his importance on the vaccines front, a new sin-binning is unlikely, but the awkward moment with the PM can’t help.

There was another “Far East” lesson today, from former chief medical officer Sally Davies. She told MPs on the science and tech committee that the UK’s advisers failed to spot that Covid was not like flu. “We did not – our infectious disease experts – really believe that another Sars would get to us, and I think it’s a form of British exceptionalism.” That was a reminder to some Johnson supporters that his own scientists were themselves fallible early in this pandemic.

It is perhaps precisely because Johnson has gone along with the scientists’ advice on “tough tiers” that he chafed when pushed further today. But further tensions still beckon, not least as his plans for “community testing”, as a way out of tough restrictions, lack concrete data.

And one of the most pressing tensions will come in a fortnight, when that “meaningful review” (will it be as meaningful as Theresa May’s “meaningful votes”?) arrives on October 16. The PM told MPs yesterday he wanted “granular” assessments of “human geography”. In tonight’s briefing he said: “We are going to make sure we are as local and as sensitive as we can possibly be to local achievement and local incidence of the disease.”

That contrasts with his own words only six days ago, when he said smaller tiered areas would lead to “loads of very complicated sub-divisions” that would cost clarity. He also made plain on Friday that contagion was unavoidable, warning “unless you beat the problem in the high-incidence area, the low-incidence area I’m afraid starts to catch up.” Has he ditched those concerns just to avoid another Tory rebellion?

No one has yet asked Chris Whitty or Patrick Vallance, let alone Sage, whether a shift to tiers based on individual boroughs would simply mean the virus again running out of control. If the PM shifts back to his hyperlocal “whackamole” approach, it may be Van-Tam and the awkward squad of scientists he ends up whacking hardest – as well as his own hopes of a sunlit spring.

This being 2020, it didn’t take long for the brilliant news about the UK approving a coronavirus vaccine to turn into a massive row about Brexit.

Arj Singh www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

Matt Hancock kicked off the debate, suggesting that “because of Brexit” the UK has been able approve the vaccine more quickly than if it was an EU member.

The EU has yet to approve the vaccine for use in member states.

“We do all the same safety checks and the same processes, but we have been able to speed up how they’re done because of Brexit,” the health secretary said on Wednesday morning.

But his claim was quickly shot down by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), which actually granted the temporary authorisation of the Pfizer/BioNTech jab for use in the UK.

“We have been able to authorise the supply of this vaccine using provisions under European law which exist until January 1,” June Raine, chief executive of MHRA, told a Downing Street briefing.

Later, No.10 repeatedly refused to endorse Hancock’s claim.

“I think the important point is that we are clearly the first (western) country in the world to approve a vaccine, it’s obviously a very positive move forward,” a spokesperson told reporters.

And yet – of course – the row continues online, with Leaver talking head Darren Grimes claiming “Brexit is vindicated” and arch-Remainer Lord Adonis accusing Hancock of being “utterly juvenile”.

So who is right? 

The clue is in a consultation document put out by Hancock’s own Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) earlier this year, which makes clear that Brexit has nothing to do with it.

The department stated that until the end of the Brexit transition period on December 31, during which the UK follows Brussels rules, “EU legislation requires biotechnological medicines (which would include candidate Covid-19 vaccines) to be authorised via the European Medicines Agency”.

But it also stressed an exemption in EU law which allows the MHRA to issue a temporary authorisation “if there is a compelling case, on public health grounds, for using a vaccine before it is given a product licence”.

This is backed up in the UK’s own Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which allows the domestic regulator to permit a “temporary authorisation for the supply of an unlicensed medicinal product for use in response to certain specific types of public health threat”.

The law then copies language from directly from Article 5(2) of the EU Medicines Directive 2001/83, which states that “member states may temporarily authorise the distribution of an unauthorised medicinal product in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation.”

In October, the UK then went on to amend this law.

Health minister Jo Churchill explained in a written ministerial statement these were simply “technical” changes to “make sure that any unlicensed products that the government recommends for deployment in response to certain public health threats must meet required safety and quality standards”.

When Pfizer reported on November 18 that its vaccine had 95% efficacy, the MHRA put out a statement making clear that if “strong supporting evidence of safety, quality and effectiveness from clinical trials becomes available before the end of the transition period, EU legislation allows for temporary authorisation of supply in the UK, based on the public health need”.

Mark Dayan, head of public affairs at the healthcare think-tank Nuffield Trust, told HuffPost UK: “I don’t really see any grounds on which you can say Brexit has facilitated this.

“We’re in this transition period at the moment where legally speaking for things like medicines there’s absolutely no change to what the situation was in 2012 or before the referendum or when we were full members.

“So I don’t really understand the mechanism by which Brexit could have accelerated this.”

On November 20, Hancock “formally asked the MHRA to assess the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for its suitability for authorisation”.

On Wednesday, the MHRA made history by granting that temporary authorisation.

And it had nothing to do with Brexit.

The DHSC has been approached for comment.

The coronavirus death toll passed 75,000 yesterday with the release of figures from the Office for National Statistics.

Kat Lay Health Editor www.thetimes.co.uk

The total is higher than the government’s official figure of 59,051, which counts only those who die within 28 days of a positive test. The latest data from the ONS, which records any death with Covid-19 on the death certificate, regardless of whether they tested positive for the virus, showed 2,697 such deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending November 20.

That took the combined death toll recorded by Britain’s three statistical agencies to 71,719.

Adding the 3,384 deaths recorded on the government’s list since the agencies’ latest figures takes the number of Covid-19 deaths to 75,103.

The ONS figures show that deaths from Covid-19 are still rising in England and Wales, despite the number of infections starting to fall in recent weeks.

Although hospital admissions are beginning to follow suit, deaths will be the last indicator to decline. The 2,697 deaths were 231 more than the week before and the highest number since the week ending May 15.

They represent more than a fifth of the 12,535 deaths from any cause registered that week, which were 21 per cent, or 2,155 deaths, above the five-year average. That means the number of deaths not caused by Covid-19 was slightly below the five-year average.

The rate of deaths above what would normally be expected for the time of year, or excess deaths, is considered one of the best ways to track the pandemic because it captures coronavirus deaths that have not been recognised as such and any caused by a lack of access to usual healthcare, for example.

Sir David Spiegelhalter, chairman of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, said that the total deaths figure was “substantially larger than the peak for this week over the past ten years, which was 10,882 in 2019” and “far greater than could be explained by an ageing population”.

He added: “It is encouraging that deaths that were not caused by Covid were slightly below the five-year average. We might expect some deaths that would normally occur now to have been brought forward by the first wave. But this still suggests that the collateral damage of the measures against the pandemic have not yet had an impact on overall mortality.”

Of deaths with Covid-19 mentioned on the certificate, 88 per cent (2,361) mentioned it as the underlying cause.

Professor Spiegelhalter said: “Between September 5 and November 20, 12,907 deaths involving Covid were registered in the UK and there have been roughly 3,000 since then, making 16,000 altogether in the second wave. Sadly, the prediction that the second wave would involve tens of thousands of Covid deaths looks like it will be fulfilled. We can expect this second-wave total to rise to over 20,000 by Christmas.”

Out of desperation more than anything else, Boris Johnson has taken to calling Keir Starmer “Captain Hindsight”. Even when the Labour leader is making predictions about what will happen next. But in the Commons debate on the new coronavirus tiers, the prime minister revealed a new persona for himself: Major Sulk.

John Crace www.theguardian.com

You could tell Johnson wasn’t a happy bunny from the off, because he arrived looking a total mess. More often than not, Boris’s appearance is less art than artifice. He hopes that appearing shambolic will make people think he’s not too bothered. That he’s the Mister Good Time Guy on whom you can rely for a joke. Except no one is laughing any more. Least of all Boris. His bedraggled, slumped demeanour was not a sign that he wasn’t bothered. Rather it was the opposite. He couldn’t bear for his public to see just how much he did care. Not for the country, obviously. But for himself.

Up till now, the Great Narcissistic Sulk has never really given a toss about his rank-and-file backbenchers. He didn’t even know the names of three-quarters of them. But this was the day he came to realise the one-way love affair was over and the magic had worn off for a significant number of the Conservative parliamentary party. MPs willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he had managed to win an 80-seat majority now realised they had bought a dud. A prime minister who at a time of crisis could be relied on to let you down.

Johnson’s opening speech was a lazy, badly argued ramble through the familiar arguments he had been making over the past week. He began by listing the positives of the new regime – hairdressers, gyms and round-the-clock shopping – insisting that the evidence for reopening them had been taken with granular thoroughness. Despite the fact that his economic impact assessments, released at the last minute the previous day, bore a closer resemblance to something knocked up on the back of cigarette packet.

He then went on to say that no one should take Christmas for granted. Only that was precisely what he was doing by granting a five-day Christmas amnesty that could turn into a New Year killing zone. He also promised an extra £1,000 to every pub that didn’t serve scotch eggs as a sop to the Tory malcontents. Or beer money, as Keir Starmer scathingly described it. The longer Boris spoke the emptier his words became. By the end he was running on fumes.

In reply, the Labour leader merely voiced what was on everyone’s mind. We’d all been here before on several occasions with Johnson, but every time he had let the country down. He had been too late to lock down initially; he had ignored Sage’s advice for a circuit breaker in September; he had introduced a tiering system that was soon proved to be hopelessly inadequate; Typhoid Dido’s track and trace had been a joke. He had promised the pandemic would be over by the summer. And then by Christmas.

Now we were clinging on for dear life waiting for the vaccines to save us. So why should anyone believe a word the prime minister said when it looked as though the new tiers were guided by what Boris could smuggle past enough of his backbenchers rather than by the science. A third national lockdown in January was all but an inevitability. And in the meantime, where was the financial help for the hospitality sector and the self-employed? As so often, Johnson had over-promised and under-delivered.

Even so, something had to be better than nothing. So Labour would be abstaining to make sure everyone’s main focus was on the number of Tory rebels. Yet again then, Starmer would be giving Johnson the benefit of the doubt and putting the government on notice. It’s been on notice for a while now. There would come a time when Keir would have to say enough was enough and vote against the government on its handling of the coronavirus. But now was not the right time.

The rest of the debate was dominated by unhappy Tories, either promising to rebel or to vote reluctantly for the government. Bernard Jenkin, after listing all the many faults in the new tiering system, sadly concluded that he would vote for Boris. Out of pity as much as anything else. Others were less forgiving, demanding more localised banding of tiers and proof that the hospitality industry was the root of all Covid evils. Steve Baker even went so far as to demand expert evidence. This from the MP who happily ignored both experts and evidence during numerous Brexit debates. Better a sinner who repenteth, I suppose.

It was Chris Grayling who delivered the real coup de grace by saying that he was “very concerned”. When you’ve lost the trust of Failing Grayling, who has cost the taxpayer more than £3bn in a ministerial career of unrivalled uselessness, then you’ve lost the soul of the Tory party.

With Labour abstaining, the vote itself was a formality, the motion passing with a majority of 213. But with 56 Tories voting against him and more abstaining, this was Boris’s darkest hour. One from which he may never recover. Many of us saw through Johnson long ago. An opportunist chancer only interested in self-glorification. Now it looks as if the mist has lifted from the eyes of many of his own benches. Enough for him never to take a vote again for granted. What goes around, comes around.

Boris Johnson has vowed to take back control of the UK’s “spectacular maritime wealth” but at 6am on Monday in Brixham, England’s biggest fishing port by value, there is nervousness that the prime minister’s efforts to defend the industry in post-Brexit EU trade talks could end in disaster.

[Extracts of this FT article are included in today’s Western Morning News]

George Parker in Brixham and Jim Brunsden in Brussels yesterday www.ft.com

Ian Perkes is sitting at his computer screen by the harbour buying sole in an online auction to sell to markets across Europe. He fears that if Mr Johnson allows EU trade talks to collapse in a dispute about fisheries, the industry will face crippling tariffs in its main market on January 1 when the UK’s Brexit transition period ends.

“If the tariff was only 5 per cent we would be killed,” said Mr Perkes, the founder of a £5m-a-year fish exporting company. In fact, if trade talks collapse, the EU will soon be levying tariffs of 20 per cent on key catches like scallops.

The scene on Brixham quayside tells a story of Britain’s emotional but ultimately detached relationship with its fishing industry, which contributes about 0.1 per cent to the UK’s GDP, if processing is included.

Workers hose down boats, gut fish and pack boxes as the sun rises over the south Devon port, on England’s south-west coast — but the fish landed here are not, generally, heading for the dining tables and restaurants of Britain.

According to Mr Perkes, 80 per cent of the scallops, squid, sole, ray, langoustines and other delicacies landed here will be loaded on to trucks and sent straight to Calais and on to markets in France, Italy, Spain and Germany. Similarly, the herring and mackerel caught by Scottish boats are not staples on a UK shopping list. 

The problem, rarely acknowledged by ministers, is that Britons do not much like the fish caught in the UK’s rich fishing waters. To the extent the country eats fish, it is mainly the “big five” of cod, haddock, tuna, salmon and prawns — most of which are imported.

So as trade talks with Brussels enter a decisive phase, Mr Johnson might secure more fish for UK boats but — without a trade deal — will they be able to sell them?

Ian Perkes: ‘If there’s no deal and there are tariffs, we are out of the game’ © Charlie Bibby/FT

Leaving aside processing, fishing and aquaculture, output slumped to just £75m in the third quarter, due mainly to the effects of Covid-19. By contrast, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility reported last week that a “no trade deal” Brexit would cost the economy 2 per cent of GDP next year.

But Mr Johnson recognises that fishing is not just about numbers. Even if Britons are not big fish eaters, the industry has a place in the nation’s psyche; some like to fall asleep listening to the BBC shipping forecast, evoking trawlers working distant storm-tossed waters.

A reminder of that visceral connection with the sea can be seen at the venerable “Man and Boy” statue on Brixham waterfront, now transformed into a shrine to Adam Harper, a young local who died when the scallop boat Joanna C overturned on November 21. Another crew member, Robert Morley, is still missing.

Mr Johnson’s fight for the restoration of fishing rights to UK fishermen after Britain leaves the EU’s common fisheries policy on January 1 is thus highly popular, especially in Scotland, which represents the biggest part of the UK industry.

EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has suggested that the EU fishing fleet should accept a 15-18 per cent cut in its share of rights in UK waters; David Frost, the UK’s negotiator, wants to seize 80 per cent of the €650m worth of fishing rights.

Jim Portus, chief executive of the South West Fish Producers’ Organisation, said the boat owners he represented believed Brexit was a chance to redress historic wrongs; he said that France, for example, had 84 per cent of the cod quota in the English Channel.

Mr Portus claims new boats — or second-hand boats — could be acquired in months to take up the extra quota and he insisted that EU consumers would still buy the fish even with high tariffs after the transition period expired. He added: “For the catching sector, no deal is better than a bad deal that sacrifices the industry.”

But Mr Portus’s optimism is not shared by Mitch Tonks, a restaurateur behind the Rockfish chain and the upmarket Seahorse in Dartmouth, who said British consumers would not take up the slack if tariffs were imposed and reduced exports to the EU.

“The sale of the fish is as important as the fishing,” he said, on a regular early-morning tour of Brixham fish market. “You could end up with fish rotting on the docks.”

Restaurant owner Mitch Tonks fears British consumers will not take up the slack if exports to EU fall © Charlie Bibby/FT

He said diners at his Rockfish outlets were gradually moving from traditional (imported) cod and chips to locally caught fish, but the transition would not make up for the loss of EU markets.

Mr Perkes, who set up his fish export business in 1976, is grappling with the paperwork required to sell into the EU single market after January 1 — paperwork that will be needed regardless of whether there is a trade deal.

“It’s a nightmare,” he said, noting that he will soon have to complete catch certificates and health certificates for each consignment to the EU, covering perhaps 30 different boats catching different species.

He has also been warned that each truck, carrying maybe £150,000 of fish supplied by a number of different exporting firms, could be turned back at Calais if all of the paperwork is not in order.

Sean Perkes, his brother, looks up from his trading screen and said that if there is no trade deal there will be trouble at the border. “If the French are losing their fishing quota, they will make life extremely difficult,” he added.

Ian Perkes, like most of the south-west fishing community, voted for Brexit as a means of taking back control of UK waters. “I wish I hadn’t,” he said. “I never looked at the implications of the paperwork. I was brainwashed.”

Tariffs on exports would — he fears — be a catastrophe for his business and the fishing boats that supply it. Barring a radical change in the dietary habits of Britain, he said the sector would be “stuffed”, adding: “If there’s no deal and there are tariffs, we are out of the game.”

Letter in response to this article:

An EU proposal on fishing to get us all off the hook / From Nicholas Cornwell, London NW3, UK

The UK has become the first western country to license a vaccine against Covid, opening the way for mass immunisation with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to begin in those most at risk.

Sarah Boseley www.theguardian.com

The vaccine has been authorised for emergency use by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), ahead of decisions by the US and Europe. The MHRA was given power to approve the vaccine by the government under special regulations before 1 January, when it will become fully responsible for medicines authorisation in the UK after Brexit.

The first doses of the vaccine will arrive in the coming days, said the company. The UK has bought 40m doses of the vaccine, which has been shown to have 95% efficacy in its final trials.

“Today’s emergency use authorisation in the UK marks a historic moment in the fight against Covid-19. This authorisation is a goal we have been working toward since we first declared that science will win, and we applaud the MHRA for their ability to conduct a careful assessment and take timely action to help protect the people of the UK,” said Albert Bourla, the chairman and chief executive officer of Pfizer.

“As we anticipate further authorisations and approvals, we are focused on moving with the same level of urgency to safely supply a high-quality vaccine around the world. With thousands of people becoming infected, every day matters in the collective race to end this devastating pandemic.”

Although the vaccine has to be kept at -70C, the companies say it can be stored for up to five days in a fridge, at 2-8°C. The first priority groups for vaccination are care home residents, who may not be able to come to a vaccination centre, together with the staff who look after them. At fridge temperatures, it may be possible for the vaccine to be brought to them. Next in line will be the over-80s and NHS staff.

The trial data showed the vaccine had equal efficacy among younger volunteers and those over 65 who are most at risk from Covid. Gender, race and ethnicity also made no difference.

Pfizer and BioNTech say their combined manufacturing network has the potential to supply globally up to 50m vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3bn doses by the end of 2021.

The delivery of the UK’s 40m doses will start immediately. The health secretary, Matt Hancock, has said he expects 10m doses to arrive this year. Delivery will continue throughout 2020 and 2021 in stages “to ensure an equitable allocation of vaccines across the geographies with executed contracts,” say the companies.

The US, which has ordered 100m doses, and Europe, which has bought 200m, are expected to approve the vaccine within weeks.

The MHRA has moved with unprecedented speed to grant emergency use authorisation within just a week, having received the final data from the companies on 23 November. It has been carrying out a rolling approval process, scrutinising data from early trials as they came in.

“The emergency use authorisation in the UK will mark the first time citizens outside of the trials will have the opportunity to be immunised against Covid-19,” said Ugur Sahin, the CEO and co-founder of BioNTech.

“We believe that the rollout of the vaccination programme in the UK will reduce the number of people in the high-risk population being hospitalised. Our aim is to bring a safe and effective vaccine upon approval to the people who need it. The data submitted to regulatory agencies around the world are the result of a scientifically rigorous and highly ethical research and development programme.”

The UK has been hit harder by the pandemic than any other developed economy except Argentina, a global watchdog says.

By Lucy White For The Daily Mail www.thisismoney.co.uk

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said the British economy will be 6.4 per cent smaller at the end of next year than it was in the final three months of 2019.

Of the 37 OECD members, only Argentina is expected to fare worse – its forecast is 7.9 per cent smaller. 

The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development said the British economy will still be 6.4 per cent smaller at the end of next year than it was in the final there months of 2019

China, the centre of the pandemic, is set to be 9.7 per cent larger, accounting for a third of global economic growth next year.

OECD chief economist Laurence Boone said: ‘With the prospect of vaccines and better virus management, the picture for the global economy is looking brighter, but the situation remains precarious, especially for the low-skilled and struggling small businesses.’

Manufacturing hope 

Manufacturing grew at its fastest rate in 35 months in November as suppliers stockpiled ahead of the Brexit transition ending.

The IHS Markit/CIPS Purchasing Managers’ Index hit 55.6 – anything above 50 is growth – up on October’s 53.7, as companies reopened. Machinery and equipment orders for warehouses were strong. 

Rob Dobson, at IHS Markit, said: ‘Whether the upturn can be sustained into the new year is highly uncertain once the temporary boosts from Brexit purchasing and stockbuilding wane.’

But sector optimism is at levels not seen since 2014. Around 61 per cent expect output to rise in the next year.    

The UK economy is expected to contract by 11.2 per cent this year, on the OECD’s estimates, slightly worse than the 10.1 per cent predicted in September.

Growth next year is now expected to come in at 4.2 per cent, instead of 7.6 per cent.

The Paris-based OECD said Britain had allowed the virus to spread too extensively during both the first and second wave before imposing draconian lockdowns. 

That led to a ‘particularly sudden’ shock.

Boone also noted that even though the UK had spent more on supporting its economy, this had not translated to better outcomes. 

She said this may mean that ‘not all measures have been used wisely’.

The OECD has urged against cutting Government spending, warning that recovery is on very uncertain ground.

Its forecasts will be a blow to Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who hopes a strong recovery will raise tax income.

The OECD said vaccines might lead to a recovery that surpasses expectations.

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

Neil Parish, Simon Jupp (and one or two other Devon Tories) “full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing?”. – Owl

By Benjamin Butterworth inews.co.uk

Boris Johnson has suffered a major rebellion for his plan for to introduce an updated system of tiered restrictions in England after the nationwide lockdown ends.

The plan was approved by MPs, but he saw 55 of his own backbenchers reject the plans, his most significant rebellion so far as Prime Minister.

The i politics newsletter cut through the noise

Earlier in the day, he told the Commons to support his latest coronavirus plan, which will see 99 per cent of areas in England facing stringent restrictions on socialising, with many in tougher restrictions than when they went into the lockdown in November.

Defending the revamped rules, Tory frontbencher Lord Bethell told peers that Covid-19 was “not an inconsequential enemy” and claimed lives, including that of his own godfather.

He also argued the tier arrangements were not just a Government policy but “a national endeavour” to combat the virus threat.

Labour opted to abstain on the plan, but 16 MPs defied party leader Keir Starmer’s whip and voted to try and block the new measures.

Full list of Tory MPs who voted against:

Adam Afriyie (Windsor),

Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield),

Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West),

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire),

Paul Bristow (Peterborough),

Christopher Chope (Christchurch),

Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells),

James Daly (Bury North),

Philip Davies (Shipley),

David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden),

Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon),

Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock),

Richard Drax (South Dorset),

Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green),

Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford),

Marcus Fysh (Yeovil),

Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham),

Chris Green (Bolton West),

Damian Green (Ashford),

Kate Griffiths (Burton),

Mark Harper (Forest of Dean),

Philip Hollobone (Kettering),

David Jones (Clwyd West),

Julian Knight (Solihull),

Robert Largan (High Peak),

Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire),

Chris Loder (West Dorset),

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham),

Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet),

Anthony Mangnall (Totnes),

Karl McCartney (Lincoln),

Stephen McPartland (Stevenage),

Esther McVey (Tatton),

Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle),

Robbie Moore (Keighley),

Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot),

Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst),

Mark Pawsey (Rugby),

John Redwood (Wokingham),

Mary Robinson (Cheadle),

Andrew Rosindell (Romford),

Henry Smith (Crawley),

Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge),

Desmond Swayne (New Forest West),

Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire),

Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling),

Matt Vickers (Stockton South),

Christian Wakeford (Bury South),

Charles Walker (Broxbourne),

Jamie Wallis (Bridgend),

David Warburton (Somerton and Frome),

William Wragg (Hazel Grove),

Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)

Full list of Labour MPs who voted against:

Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse),

Richard Burgon (Leeds East),

Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham),

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish),

Mike Hill (Hartlepool),

Kevan Jones (North Durham),

Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields),

Ian Mearns (Gateshead),

Grahame Morris (Easington),

Kate Osborne (Jarrow),

Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham),

John Spellar (Warley),

Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton),

Zarah Sultana (Coventry South),

Derek Twigg (Halton)

Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn also voted against the measures,  Julian Lewis (New Forest East), a former Tory sitting as an independent.

All eight DUP MPs opposed the proposals, too.

Enjoythisorweepeitherwaylet’shopethatignoringthespacebardoesn’tcatchon-Owl

[See also WASHINGTON (AP) — Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.]

Mike Dunford thebulwark.com

Every time you think you have a grasp of how preposterous the Trump team’s election lawsuits are, another one comes out, dumber and more conspiracy-filled than the last.

The Pennsylvania monstrosity that was submitted by Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and the Four Seasons Total Litigation supporting cast was terrible. It made, according to a federal appeals court ruling, “vague and conclusory” allegations about alleged misconduct, tried to get the court to do things that would violate the U.S. Constitution, and had, in the court’s words, “no merit.” Their case was such complete nonsense that two courts and four judges decided it was too dumb to fix.

You want that to be the bottom. You want the lawsuit that the president’s legal team lost, twice, for literally every reason it’s possible to lose the case to be the most preposterous election lawsuit we’re going to see this year. You go to bed Wednesday night hoping that it was.

And you wake up disappointed Thursday morning because while you slept Sidney Powell released the #Kraken.

Powell had been threatening to release the Kraken for the last week, which she spent “practicing law on her own” after being unpersoned by the Trump legal team following a press conference in which she spouted conspiracy theories so insane that even Giuliani’s hair dye was trying to get out of the room. It wasn’t clear what the Kraken was until it was released and we learned that it had taken the form of matching his-and-hers lawsuits in Georgia and Michigan. Lawsuits that have redefined rock bottom.

You don’t need to read far to see how truly awful these lawsuits are. Start with the simplest and most eye-catchingly obvious: Complaints in federal lawsuits have set formatting—at the top of the first page are the words “IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ____ DISTRICT OF ____.” It’s a ritual formula, it’s hard to mess up, and every lawyer I know who practices in federal courts uses a fill-in-the-blanks template. Every lawyer except Sidney Powell, I guess—because between the two filings she managed to spell the word “district” four different ways, batting .250 on accuracy.

And things only got worse from there. Much worse.

The two lawsuits, which are very similar to each other, reiterate more or less the same meritless claims that just got Rudy et al. unceremoniously tossed out of the Third Circuit.  They seem to have been drafted by a spacebar-phobic first-year coming out the back end of a meth binge.

Consider this section of the legal background:

Or this compelling excerpt from the section titled “JURISDICTION ANDVENUE”:

ThejurisdictionoftheCourttograntdeclaratoryreliefisconferredby28U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and by Rule 57, Fed. R. Civ. P.

That kind of spacing problem recurs throughout. The document is practically unreadable.

But as specious the legal arguments are and as incomprehensible as the copy is, the craziest thing about the case is the substance. This complaint reads like it was drafted at the afterparty for a three-day QAnon convention. And it might have been, given that one of Powell’s more absurd “witnesses” is Ronald Watkins who, alongside his father, runs the imageboard where “Q” drops his messages. Hmmmm. The reason Watkins is part of this case is unclear. Powell is claiming him as an expert in Dominion’s voting software, but you would hope that she could find someone better—like I don’t know, someone who has worked with it maybe?

The basis of Watkins’s alleged expertise is the fact that he claims to have read the manual. This may come as a surprise but reading a software manual does not qualify you to testify as an expert witness in a federal courtroom.

If you can believe this, Watkins isn’t even the strangest witness. The award would go to Mystery Man Lord Tensai. Powell redacted this witness’s name from all the filings, including those sent to the defendants. The Mystery Witness proclaims that he/she/it wants  to “let the world know the truth about the corruption, manipulation, and lies being committed by a conspiracy of people and companies” that “began more than a decade ago in Venezuela and has spread to countries all over the world.” Our Mystery Witness, whom the declaration assures us is “an adult of sound mine” [sic . . . lmao] claims to have gathered the information about this conspiracy while serving on long-dead Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s security detail. We don’t know this person’s name, but they tell us that if we doubt the veracity of their claims, we only have to—well, see for yourself.

Ah so the Mystery Witness also has a Mystery Corroborator!

For those who are not versed in the particulars of high-stakes lawsuits of this nature, let me affirm that, no, you cannot hide the identity of your star witness from the people you’re suing. And no, you cannot hide the identity of the people who will vouch for the veracity of your star witness.

This remains true no matter how many poorly explained diagrams with circles and lines and arrows your unnamed experts use in their declarations.

This is especially the case when the claim you are making is as bonkers (that’s a term of art) an expert declaration as this: “Iranian APT teams were seen using ACUTENIX, a website scanning software, to find vulnerabilities within Election company websites, confirmed to be used by the Iranian APT teams buy [sic . . . I think?] seized cloud storage that I had personally captured and reported to higher authorities.”

This is all batshit crazy. It is as stupid an elections lawsuit as I’ve ever seen. And there’s no guarantee that it’s the worst case we’re going to see, because even though their legal arguments are being dismissed with extreme prejudice, when it comes to the political/propaganda aims of the litigants—this stuff works. Once the true believers are on board, it’s hard to get them off.

The complaints that Sidney Powell filed in these two cases are full of so many misspellings and missing spaces that they’d drive a proofreader to drink. The faithful think that’s nine-dimensional chess, intended to distract the media from the quality of the allegations.

If the faithful aren’t going to be scared away by a complaint that was drafted by someone who clearly thinks that the spacebar is an optional extra, they’re not going to be scared away when the case is inevitably dismissed by an “activist judge.”

The Kraken is the stupidest election fraud lawsuit in history today. But who knows what next week will bring.

A further two coronavirus-related deaths have been recorded in both East Devon and Exeter in the latest weekly statistics.

East Devon Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk 

Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures published on Tuesday (December 1) showed the seven-day toll of 34 across Devon and Cornwall is the region’s highest since May.

And every district across both counties has registered a fatality due to Covid-19 for the first time since the middle of April.

They relate to deaths which occurred in the week of November 14 – 20 and were registered up to November 28.

The two deaths recorded in East Devon and both of those in Exeter happened in hospital.

There were eight fatalities in Plymouth; three in each of Teignbridge, North Devon and Torridge; two in each of the South Hams and West Devon; and one in both Torbay and Mid Devon.

Seven deaths due to coronavirus were recorded in Cornwall.

The previous seven-day period saw 24 Covid-related deaths – two of them in East Devon and one in Exeter – recorded across Devon and Cornwall.

In total, 56 Covid-19 deaths have now been registered in East Devon; 23 of them in hospital, 29 in care homes and four at home.

The total for Exeter is 42; 19 of them in hospital, 21 in care homes and two at home.

Some 696 coronavirus-related deaths have been registered across Devon and Cornwall; 393 in hospitals, 248 in care homes, 53 at home, one in a hospice and one ‘elsewhere’.

Of these, 118 have been in Plymouth, 88 in Torbay, 44 in Teignbridge, 30 in North Devon, 27 in Torridge, 23 in Mid Devon, 22 in West Devon, and 19 in the South Hams

A total of 227 deaths due to the virus have been registered in Cornwall.

The ONS figures for Devon and Cornwall include people who have died at home, in hospital, in care homes, hospices, ‘other’ communal places, or ‘elsewhere’.

They are broken down by the local authority area in which the deaths were registered.

Government figures show at total of 1,551 Covid-19 cases have been confirmed in East Devon to date. The number for Exeter is 2,648.

St. Modwen and Devon County Council have secured a 15-year lease with Stovax Heating Group Ltd – trading as Stovax & Gazco – to occupy a 196,037 sq ft manufacturing unit at the Skypark development in Exeter. Construction on the new Stovax & Gazco facility is intended for the second half of next year.

Does this fit with the green agenda? – Owl

www.devonnewscentre.info 

Skypark – a partnership between St. Modwen and Devon County Council – is the cornerstone development of the Exeter and East Devon Growth Point initiative.

Stovax & Gazco is a leading manufacturer in the global stove and fireplace industry and delivers its high-quality gas, electric, woodburning and solid fuel product portfolio to more than 25 countries across the world.

The manufacturer has been in the industry for nearly 40 years and employs approximately 300 staff across Exeter.

St. Modwen has already completed earlier phases at Skypark, including a district heating centre, an ambulance response facility, a distribution facility for DPD, and a range of office units.

The scheme’s strategic location provides quick access to the M5 and neighbours Exeter International Airport. This environmentally sustainable business park is a 20-year project and has the potential to provide up to 6,5o0 jobs in the long-term.

James Irwin-Singer, Development Manager at St. Modwen Industrial & Logistics, said: “Stovax & Gazco are a major regional occupier in the manufacturing sector with significant growth plans and we are delighted to be welcoming them to Skypark. Our proposed building aims to provide capacity for the firm’s continued growth through a new facility with far greater operational efficiencies.

“The high-quality manufacturing unit will serve as a more enjoyable and environmentally sustainable place to work and we are planning to get construction underway in the second half of 2021 on what should be an exciting project for all involved. The development will also significantly benefit the local community, providing more jobs, more skills, and more training to the Exeter area.”

Councillor Rufus Gilbert, Devon County Council Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills, added: “Stovax & Gazco has become a world leader in its field from its Exeter HQ, so it is great to have such a successful local business commit its future to the area. We believe Skypark is the perfect location to help companies to grow and the arrival of Stovax & Gazco demonstrates their confidence in that as well, which is a glowing endorsement.”

Alistair Compton, Managing Director at Stovax & Gazco, added: “Our business has ambitious plans to continue its strong history of growth and to build upon our position as a trusted brand in the premium heating and decorative fireplace market.

“Our new base at Skypark is a fantastic opportunity to achieve this, and crucially allow us to keep our operation in the heart of Exeter and to preserve employment for our longstanding, talented team of staff, whose hard work, expertise and innovative thinking are at the very core of the Stovax & Gazco brand ethos.

“We’re delighted to work in partnership with St. Modwen in meeting our high requirements for a premium, state of the art, sustainable space to facilitate the expansion of our manufacturing and business operations under one roof.”

For more information visit the Skypark website.

Posted in: Business and Economy | DCC Homepage

More than 30 people have been fined over £13,000 for breaching Covid rules during the spring lockdown in the Westcountry.

Paul Greaves www.devonlive.com

Over two dozen men aged between 67 and their early 20s were convicted by Cornwall magistrates for not being at their home addresses during the restrictions.

Half a dozen women aged from 18 were also fined for the same thing.

The defendants breached the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, a piece of legislation put into effect at 1pm on March 26 this year.

People were not allowed to leave their homes except for one form of exercise per day, shopping for basic necessities, travelling to work when necessary, or caring for a vulnerable person.

The people fined by Cornwall Magistrates all had either slept over at another address – some hundreds of miles away from their home – or gathered with more than two other people, which was also forbidden.

The defendants came from London, Coventry, Hertfordshire, as well as locations in Devon and Cornwall, as they were caught at resorts like Polzeath, Rock, Daymer Bay in Cornwall and Sidmouth, Devon.

The magistrates fined them a total of £13,050 with costs with the maximum personal fines of £440 plus costs.

It comes after a number of other court cases linked to Covid rules being broken.

In October it was reported how a Devon lockdown breaker drove 140 miles to pick up a friend in Wales then spat in the face of a concerned citizen who asked her what she was doing.

Rochelle Miah took her Fiat Punto from Paignton to Llantrisant in South Wales on April 4 but abandoned it on a stranger’s front lawn after the clutch broke.

She became aggressive after bemused householder Owen Adams went out to investigate and ended up attacking him and an off-duty police officer who went to his aid.

She spat full into Mr Adams’s face and bit the female officer’s arm, leaving a red mark, before she was detained. She said she panicked because she knew she should not have been so far from home during the most extreme phase of the first lockdown.

In October magistrates in Exeter fined a Topsham man £120 for being outside the place where he was living during the health emergency in April. The offence was in breach in Coronavirus restrictions. Another man appeared at the same court June accused of driving from his native Wolverhampton to visit his girlfriend in Barnstaple.

Do “tourist flats” = “student flats” in Exeter? – Owl

Ashifa Kassam www.theguardian.com

For centuries, the maze of narrow, cobbled streets that make up Lisbon’s Alfama neighbourhood has told the story of the city’s past. But in recent years, as trendy cafes and tourist flats proliferated, the historic quarter began telling a worrying tale of the city’s future.

A rapid transformation had rippled across the city centre as Airbnb-style tourist rentals swelled to a third of the properties. As locals found themselves priced out and communities began hollowing out, many began grumbling about the aftershocks of terramotourism – a tourism earthquake.

That was, at least, until the pandemic brought tourism to a standstill. “In a certain sense Covid has created an opportunity,” Fernando Medina, the mayor of Lisbon, told the Guardian. “The virus didn’t ask us for permission to come in, but we have the ability to use this time to think and to see how we can move in a direction to correct things and put them on the right track.”

The city seized on the moment to cast new light on a programme that was in the works prior to the pandemic: an ambitious plan to convert some of the city’s more than 20,000 tourist flats into affordable housing.

The initiative, billed by the city as a “risk-free” option, offers landlords the possibility of receiving up to €1,000 a month by renting their properties to the city for a minimum of five years. From there the city takes over, finding tenants and renting the homes at a subsidised rate capped at a third of the household’s net income.

For landlords, the rental income is likely to be lower than what they might earn from tourists down the road. But the city is betting that the long-term, stable income – and the offer to pay an advance of as much as three years’ rent – will win over landlords as they grapple with the uncertainty generated by the pandemic.

Lisbon’s efforts hint at how the pandemic has given governments around the world leverage to reshape their approach to the housing crisis. “Just as employment and work are likely to change profoundly as a result of the Covid-19 crisis, housing is likely to change as well,” Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the United Nations envoy on the right to housing, told Reuters in May. “I hope we see it as an opportunity to reimagine housing for the post-Covid-19 world.”

A handful of governments have started doing just that. In England officials have promised to make 3,300 homes available to rough sleepers by next May, while Venice has struck an agreement that will see some tourist flats rented to university students.

Others have fast-tracked plans already in the works. In June, two hotels in Vancouver, with 173 rooms between them, were purchased to house some of the city’s most vulnerable. “The Covid-19 pandemic has put into even sharper focus our urgent need for housing,” the city’s mayor, Kennedy Stewart, said in a statement. Months earlier the Californian city of San Jose said it would accelerate a $17m plan to build up to 500 tiny homes to house homeless residents during the pandemic.

In Barcelona the virus added impetus to a long-running crackdown on empty homes. In July officials sent a warning letter to 14 banks and investment funds whose stock of 194 homes are believed to have been sitting vacant for two years. If the homes were not rented within a month, the letter warned, the city would move to expropriate them at half their market value and turn them into social housing. “The plan was there,” said Lucía Martín, the city’s housing commissioner. “What Covid did was make it even more necessary.”

Some have set their sights on short-term rentals, in plans that could nudge landlords to list them on the long-term market. Amsterdam recently banned vacation rentals in its central old town and imposed restrictions on rentals in other neighbourhoods, while legislators in the Czech Republic have rolled out legislation aimed at better regulating tourist flats. In September Toronto began requiring short-term rental operators to register with the city, a move aimed at allowing officials to enforce a bylaw restricting short-term rentals to principal residences.

The critical role of housing was laid bare early on in the pandemic as governments around the world turned to lockdowns to rein in the spread of the virus, said Leilani Farha, a former UN special rapporteur on adequate housing. “And it couldn’t be more stark. Because in the face of a novel virus for which we have no medicinal cure or protection, the only protection we have is our homes.”

Months later, however, she described the approach of governments as “patchy”. The housing crisis has sharpened in places like the US, where tens of millions of people face evictions, and India, where reports have emerged of forced evictions in Indigenous communities and informal settlements. Even as the pandemic continues to wreak havoc on people’s livelihoods, many governments have been reluctant to extend protections such as bans on evictions and foreclosures.

“I think that governments did realise, maybe in a new way, ‘Oh dear, we have trouble on our hands,’” she said. “But what I’m not seeing enough of is the structural changes that we need.”

That’s where Lisbon is hoping it will be a mould-breaker. The city’s programme comes with a caveat for landlords in the historical centre: once their contract with the city is up, they will not be able to return the property to the short-term rental market.

“We need to make a shift,” said Medina, the mayor. “It should change the way the housing market works here in the city.” The city has budgeted €4m for the programme, allowing 1,000 properties to take part, with the national government offering to double that number if there is enough interest.

So far the response has been tepid, with just 177 owners expressing interest after the first appeal for participants. “There was a wait-and-see approach,” said Medina, as landlords held out hope that tourism would rebound. The city is expecting an uptick in demand after its second round of recruitment.

Where the programme has already made waves, however, is in the northern city of Porto, where officials announced earlier this year that they would launch their own version.

Ultimately, Medina hopes the initiative will help strike a balance between locals wrestling with the fallout of their town becoming one of western Europe’s hottest property markets and a tourism industry that has played a critical role in ushering in urban renewal and lifting the city out of financial crisis.

“There is that tension: too much of a thing is not good, but too little of it is a problem,” he said. “It’s a question of balance. Having a house cannot be such a burden that you have to have two or three jobs – that’s not a dignified life for anyone.”

A Cornish pasty isn’t, unless it’s with chips.

A single slice of pizza wasn’t, but then it was.

And now, the environment secretary, George Eustice, has decreed, a scotch egg probably is, because it’s a starter, apparently.

Archie Bland www.theguardian.com 

The question, of course, is what constitutes a substantial meal: once a dilemma for dieters looking for an excuse for that mid-afternoon pork pie, now a matter of national importance.

Pubs in tier 2 areas will only be allowed to serve drinks if they come alongside a proper feed, the government has said, leading to some confusion over where, exactly, the line is between a bar snack and a feast. For pork scratchings or a Sunday roast, the answer is obvious. So, Eustice was asked on LBC on Monday, what of the scotch egg?

“I think a Scotch egg probably would count as a substantial meal if there were table service,” Eustice improvised. “Often that might be as a starter, but yes, I think it would.” But, of course, it’s not as simple as that.

“It depends on how they’re made,” said David Laing, co-owner of North Yorkshire-based specialists The Clucking Pig.

“A lot of them are very quick, very commercial, cheap stuff. But the likes of ours are a proper meal. You get a large free-range egg, 90g of rare breed Berkshire pork, fresh breadcrumbs, it’s probably a three-and-a-half inch circumference. The royal family have had ours – they’re very filling. A lot of people have to halve them.”

If the image of the Queen being so stuffed she has to hand Philip her leftovers doesn’t persuade you, Laing adds that many of his deli and pub customers serve theirs with sweet potato fries and salad. Plus, “you can definitely eat it with a knife and fork. I would recommend a serrated knife.”

Adam Coghlan, editor of food and restaurant news website Eater London, is less convinced of the sit-down credentials of a classically handheld foodstuff. “Of course it isn’t a meal,” he said.

“I mean, I suppose there are some people who might have a scotch egg for lunch sometimes, but that’s not really the rule, is it? Pubs are really annoyed they can’t open, and anything they can do that allows them to they’re going to attempt.”

Yes, there might be some places where a gastro-egg comes as a main, “but those places will be opening anyway. It’s the places with scampi fries and peanuts that are going to use this as an excuse to serve loads of pints of Foster’s. It’s a perfect example of how difficult all of this is going to be to enforce or police.”

For Oisin Rogers, landlord of the Windmill and the Guinea Grill pubs in Mayfair, London and founder of the hotly contested Scotch Egg Challenge, an attempt at definition leads to a kind of philosophical limbo. “I can’t answer that question, I just can’t,” he said.

“The brilliant thing about them is you can have a pint in one hand and the egg in the other. But it can be a meal too. You get a softboiled egg and you put it inside a sausage, who doesn’t want that?”

Even before the scotch egg question arose, ministers and officials were having a hard time providing clarity on the wider point.

It was the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, who declared that a pasty counted only if it came with sides, which is a frankly bizarre way to eat a pasty; the pizza dilemma, meanwhile, left police in Manchester in knots when they stopped local favourite Common from serving single slices that the venue described as “fucking massive”, only to eventually back down.

In the end, Rogers views the question as a sideshow. “Rather than going down this rabbit hole, the real point of the guidance is to stop people having a casual drink without eating.

“We will make sure that people sit down in a safe environment, well spaced out, servers in masks. If you take those precautions, it’s perfectly safe to have something off a plate.”

An example of the new normal? – Owl

Daniel Clark, local democracy reporter and Radio Exe News www.radioexe.co.uk

Less demand for business space expected

Guests will rendezvous above wine bar at 38 Southernhay East

Plans to convert officers in Southernhay East, Exeter into guest accommodation have been unveiled as ‘home-working here to stay’.

Internal alterations to the ground and first floors of the offices at 38 Southernhay East in Exeter have been proposed to change their use from offices to guest accommodation.

It is not clear who the guests will be, how long they will stay or who will own the properties.

The application says that the proposed alterations will ensure a sustainable and viable future for the property and quotes figures from the Institute of Directors which suggests coronavirus is set to have a lasting impact on office use.

ln a survey of close to a thousand company directors conducted last month, nearly three quarters said they would be keeping increased home-working, and more than half said their organisation intended to reduce long-term use of workplaces. More than one in five reported their usage would be significantly lower.

A statement with the application adds: “The minor internal alterations will not harm the character of the building, which will be enhanced through the restoration of lost internal features and the preservation and continuing maintenance of the exterior to ensure the high-quality visitor satisfaction. There will also be economic benefits to local businesses and the wider city through the provision of this facility.”

The basement, which is a wine bar, and the second floor, which is in residential use, are unaffected by the plans.

Exeter City Council planners will decide whether to accept or reject the scheme at a later date.