The government has drawn up a secret dossier detailing the impact of coronavirus on the economy, with a dozen sectors rated “red” and facing significant job cuts and revenue losses, The Times has been told.

By Propiteer www.thetimes.co.uk

The Covid-19 sectoral impacts dashboard, which is prepared by officials from across Whitehall and frequently updated, gives “granular” detail on the effect of coronavirus on nearly 40 areas of the economy.

Among the sectors with a red rating are aerospace, the automotive industry, retail, hospitality and tourism, arts and heritage, maritime, including ferries and cruises, and sport.

Details of the document emerged as up to 70 Tory MPs prepared to rebel today over the government’s new tiering system, which is due to come into force tomorrow.

Ministers published an assessment yesterday of the health, social and economic impacts of coronavirus after weeks of pressure from Tory rebels, who have accused the government of failing to take into account the economic effect of the lockdown.

The 48-page impact assessment says that it is not possible to know the impact of the restrictions on the economy while warning that failing to control the virus would have “intolerable consequences” for businesses.

However, the unpublished dashboard provides a “deep dive” into the effect of coronavirus. For each sector it gives a red, amber or green rating for revenue, jobs and financial stability, with an assessment of the “overall trend” for the industry. A minister familiar with the document said: “There is a lot of detail in there, none of which is in the official impact assessment the government has published today.”

A government spokesman said: “The document referred to contains publicly available information and does not alter the fundamental analysis published today.”

Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, will increase pressure on the government today by abstaining for the first time in the vote on the new tiered restrictions. The party wants more support for the hospitality sector.

The tier system will put 99 per cent of the country in Tier 2 and Tier 3, leading to bans on indoor socialising and the closure of many pubs and restaurants.

In an attempt to win over Tory rebels Boris Johnson will announce today that “wet” pubs and bars, which cannot open under Tiers 2 and 3 because they do not serve “substantial” meals, will be given additional grants.

The government’s official impact assessment did not include any new economic analysis. Instead it referred to modelling by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which suggested that the economy could contract by 11.3 per cent by the end of the year.

The document states: “It is not possible to know with any degree of confidence what path the economy would take if restrictions in place were not sufficient to prevent exponential growth, or in the absence of restrictions entirely . . . More widespread infections and the consequences of pressure on the NHS would affect spending in the economy due to voluntary social distancing, effects to confidence and impacts on businesses, including through high levels of employee sickness.”

Mel Stride, a Tory MP and chairman of the Treasury select committee, said: “This rehashed document offers very little further than that which the OBR published last week. It’s frustrating that there is little that sets out how the different tiers might impact on the specific sectors and regions across the country. Those looking for additional economic analysis of the new tiered system will struggle to find it in this document.”

Published analysis gives little insight into effects of tier system

Running to 48 pages, the government’s analysis of the economic, health and social effects of England’s new tiering system draws together existing facts and figures but also reveals ministers’ wider rationale and acknowledges what they still do not know:

Consequences for the NHS

The analysis shows just how far the NHS has come in treating Covid-19 patients since the start of the pandemic. Of the patients admitted to intensive care before August 31, 39 per cent died. In the second wave from September to November 19, this fell to 24 per cent. But the document does not try to assess explicitly what the consequences would be of the NHS exceeding its capacity to cope. Instead it simply concludes it “is clear” that a “much higher proportion” of patients would die.

Economic impact of no action

The document is most sketchy on what the effect on the economy would be if the current restrictions were relaxed. It simply states that it “is not possible to know with any degree of confidence” what the outcome would be. While fewer restrictions could allow businesses to operate as normal, increased infections could affect spending.

Health impact of the new tiers

The document cites evidence from Sage which, it says, shows that the previous tiering restrictions had not been enough to control rising case numbers except in those areas with the most stringent restrictions. This, it states, is why the new tiers need to be broader than those they replaced. Yet it warns that they may still not be enough to control the virus.

Economic impact of the new tiers

The document relies on previous national forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which are already out of date because they were compiled before vaccine trial results. These include an upside scenario in which most of the UK is in pre-lockdown Tier 2 restrictions until the spring when a vaccine becomes available, a central scenario in which most of the UK is placed in Tier 3 lockdown until the spring with an gradual easing of restrictions until a vaccine arrives later in the year. A downside scenario sees national lockdowns become necessary until well into next year.

In the upside scenario GDP falls 10.6 per cent this year but bounces back next year and unemployment peaks at 5.1 per cent. In its central forecast GDP falls by 11.3 per cent and recovers at the end of 2022 while unemployment hits 7.5 per cent. In the downside scenario, GDP levels do not recover until 2024.

It concludes that while it is “clear” that restrictions to contain the spread of Covid-19 have had and will have a “major impact on the economy and public finances” it is not possible to “forecast with confidence” the precise impact of a “specific change to a specific restriction”.

Ex-Chancellor Sajid Javid will earn more than £300,000 for just three weeks work after landing his second lucrative job outside Parliament, official documents have revealed.

By David Wilcock, Whitehall Correspondent For Mailonline www.dailymail.co.uk

The former Cabinet minister, who quit in February after clashing with the PM’s then aide Dominic Cummings, has been appointed an advisor to a Silicon Valley artificial intelligence firm.

His contract with C3.ai will see him paid £151, 835 for working 80-86 hours a year – or between 10 and 12 days – according to the register of MP’s financial interests. 

The pay works out to around £1,900 per hour. He took up the post on October 22 and will provide ‘advice on the global economy, geo-politics and market opportunities’.

It comes months after he landed a similar sum to work for a US-based bank. In August he landed a lucrative role as a senior adviser at  JP Morgan, where he started his career as a graduate in New York. He will earn a £150,000 salary for working the same number of hours as at C3.

This is on top of his £80,000 salary as the Conservative MP for Bromsgrove.

The former Cabinet minister, who quit in February after clashing with the PM’s then aide Dominic Cummings, has been appointed an advisor to a Silicon Valley artificial intelligence firm

His contract with C3.ai will see him paid £151,835 for working 80-86 hours a year – or between 10 and 12 days – according to the register of MP’s financial interests

The appointments come as Mr Javid is being tipped by some to return to Boris Johnson’s Cabinet. 

Reports suggested he could be brought in in a new year reshuffle if Mr Johnson decides to freshen up his top team.

Mr javid, a former banker who quite the financial world for politics, left the Cabinet just before the coronavirus outbreak in February.

The Bromsgrove MP – who challenged Mr Johnson for the Tory leadership last year before becoming his top minister – was given an ultimatum by the PM that he must accept his political advisers being ousted and replaced by Cummings loyalists to stay in No11.

Instead he chose to walk away and was replaced by his deputy Rishi Sunak.

Days later he made a thinly-veiled attack on Mr Cummings in the Commons, saying he quit as chancellor because changes to the Treasury planned by the powerful aide were ‘not in the national interest’.

It comes months after he landed a similar sum to work for a US-based bank. In August he landed a lucrative role as a senior adviser at JP Morgan (London HQ pictured) 

The former minister used a resignation statement in the Commons – in front of a watching Boris Johnson – to say that a semi-merger of behind-the-scenes teams at No10 and N011 would hamper the finance department’s ability to ‘speak truth to power’.

He declined to name Mr Cummings directly, but joked that there had been a lot of gossip already about ‘comings and goings’, to laughter from MPs.

Mr Javid follows in the footsteps of former prime minister Tony Blair, who is paid £2million per year as a part-time global adviser for JP Morgan. The ex-Chancellor will be under strict rules over what he can divulge, especially privileged information gained as a minister.

Earlier this year, JP Morgan posted the biggest annual profits of any US bank in history – just shy of £28billion. Its 64-year-old chief executive Jamie Dimon was the best paid banking boss for a fifth year in a row, scooping £24million.

C3.ai bills itself as ‘a leading enterprise AI software provider’. Today it announced a link-up with defence giant Raytheon, ‘to develop artificial intelligence solutions for aerospace and defense missions for government customers, including the US Air Force and intelligence community.

The Electoral Commission have never been more vital in its 20 year history

By Darren Hughes  inews.co.uk

Our independent elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission, has been in the crosshairs recently – and we all need to take notice.

Back in August, the chair of the Conservative Party Amanda Milling set up a showdown with the Electoral Commission, threatening to abolish the electoral regulator if it didn’t “get its house in order”. This is despite widespread support for the Commission from those who engage with it, including transparency campaigners.

Ensuring our parties don’t break the law or try and game the system is a vital check and balance in any democracy – one of the reasons the Electoral Commission is respected across the world.

Individual MPs and campaigners (as well the Remain and Leave campaigns alike) have been among those investigated in recent years, whether that’s on overspending in the 2015 general election and or the the 2016 EU referendum. Sometimes there’s no rule breach, sometimes there is: the important thing is the fact that the process is trusted and independent.

But threatening to shut down our watchdog responsible for ensuring a level playing field represents something quite dangerous: chipping away at our established democratic norms and safeguards.

There has been a consensus that we can’t go back to the dark days of the 1990s – when party funding scandals felt like a weekly phenomenon.

It was 20 years ago this month that the Electoral Commission was established – the first independent electoral regulator of its kind here in the UK. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000 put into law clear rules on donations, spending and campaigning – the most significant modernisation of the system in over 100 years.

Before this, political parties weren’t even required to disclose their financial accounts, donations to political parties and campaigners were unregulated, and there was little transparency over who funded our politics.

The 1990s were plagued by party funding scandals, with parties free to rake in cash from anywhere they could. From the ‘cash for questions’ scandal to allegations of cash for law-changes, it was becoming increasingly clear that something needed to be done to regulate party politics. Who knows what scandals went unreported, when parties didn’t have to declare their donations and have them audited?

Two decades on, much has changed, and our elections face new challenges – ones we could not have imagined 20 years ago, when dial-up internet was just about reaching a third of homes.

Now much of our politics is conducted in an unregulated ‘wild west’, with online campaigning changing our elections beyond recognition. Far from kneecapping our independent elections body, we need to give it a boost for the digital age.

At the last election nearly £3m was spent on online Facebook ads from non-party campaigners. We saw pro-Green Party ads set up by Vote Leave figures apparently intended to split the left vote. Meanwhile, opaque ‘outrider’ organisations spent tens of thousands of pounds – with almost no transparency – variously decrying ‘Labour’s tax raid’ or ‘Tory tax cuts for the rich’. Since foreign donations aren’t explicitly banned in UK law – and online groups not having to say clearly who is behind their ads – we don’t really know who was influencing our election debate.

While the nature of our elections has changed, the powers of the Electoral Commission have not. Even now, electoral rules refer only to ‘printed material’ when demanding transparency in campaign literature. In 2019, millions of voters were subjected to a barrage of ads through their phone, tablet or PC with little idea of who was behind them and why.

That’s why defending our democracy and standing up for our elections watchdog is so important. Without it, the integrity of our elections is at risk.

While threats to the Electoral Commission may be simply sabre-rattling, they should be taken seriously. Make no mistake: removing this respected scrutineer would create a free for all when it comes to unscrupulous campaigning, with MPs able to mark their own homework when it comes to donations.

Handing all this over to the police is not an option: they don’t want to get tangled in constant technical election disputes, and nor should they. Turning all breaches into a criminal matter would be the worst of all worlds for what are sometimes honest mistakes.

There’s much to be done to revitalise democracy in the UK – from a fairer voting system to lower caps on election spending to level the playing field. What we cannot do is go back to the corrupting chaos of the last century.

We all need to stand up and defend our elections watchdog from these attacks. We need to know who is funding our politics, that our elections are fair, and that voters can see who is trying to influence their vote.

Twenty years ago, the Electoral Commission was given this task. Now, two decades on, it must be given the powers to get to grips with online campaigning – and stand up to attacks on democratic integrity, wherever they come from.

Darren Hughes is Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society.