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.

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.

“But the document made clear that it is not possible to say exactly how the tiers will hit local areas – something that has been a key demand of Tory MPs. It also insisted there was no way of quantifying the consequences of not imposing any curbs.” 

[Document was expected at mid day but has only emerged just before 1700. Another example of over-promising then failing to deliver.Bit of a damp squib.   – Owl]

By James Tapsfield, Political Editor For Mailonline www.dailymail.co.uk

Boris Johnson today insisted he ‘understands’ the scale of anger over the new coronavirus tiers as he finally published an impact assessment of the measures – but the document claimed it is impossible to gauge the economic hit.

The PM appealed for his mutinous MPs to back the new system in a crunch vote tomorrow, as up to 100 threaten to defy the whip and oppose the plan.

The government released its assessment of the economic and social effects of the pandemic and its 

But the document made clear that it is not possible to say exactly how the tiers will hit local areas – something that has been a key demand of Tory MPs. It also insisted there was no way of quantifying the consequences of not imposing any curbs. 

The assessment said it was ‘clear that restrictions to contain COVID-19 have had major impacts on the economy and public finances, even if it is not possible to forecast with confidence the precise impact of a specific change to a specific restriction’. 

Tory rebel ringleader Mark Harper complained that the information was being released too late, just 24 hours before MPs are due to make their decision. ‘This information is what Ministers should have been insisting on before they made their decisions so it surely could have been made available earlier,’ he said. 

Mr Johnson has been scrambling to defuse a massive Tory revolt by offering a series of concessions, including a February renewal date, detailed impact assessments, and more money for pubs and restaurants, and ahead of a crunch Commons vote tomorrow.

Whips are trying to talk round 100 Conservatives on the verge of joining the mutiny, with fury that just 1 per cent of England is being put in the lowest level of restrictions from Wednesday, with many areas in Tier 3 even though they have seen few or no infections. 

Calls for a rethink have been reinforced by more evidence that the UK’s outbreak is shrinking fast, with just 12,330 Covid-19 infections recorded in the lowest Monday toll since September, 

On a visit to pharmaceutical firm Wockhardt at their facility in North Wales, Mr Johnson said England’s lockdown had got the disease under control with the R number – a measure of how quickly the virus is spreading – below 1.

He said: ‘We can’t afford to take our foot off the throat of the beast, to take our foot off the gas, we can’t afford to let it out of control again.

‘The tiering system is tough, but it’s designed to be tough and to keep it under control.

‘I know that lots of people think that they are in the wrong tier and I understand people’s frustration.

‘I particularly understand the frustration of the hospitality sector that has borne so much and been through so much in the last few months, and we will do everything we can, as we have been doing, to protect and to encourage that sector throughout the weeks and months ahead.’ 

Labour is set to save Mr Johnson’s bacon by refusing to help kill off the measures, but being forced to rely on Sir Keir Starmer’s support would be devastating for the premier’s authority. 

Earlier, Environment Secretary George Eustice raised questions about how long restrictions will be needed for this morning, suggesting that ‘we can see a way out of this during the course of early next summer’ – whereas Mr Johnson has previously voiced hope that the crisis will be largely past by Easter. 

And the backlash was further fuelled with Imperial College’s huge monthly React survey finding a dramatic fall off in cases – in line with the daily figures being released by the government.

Pubs and restaurants hit by new coronavirus restrictions will be given extra cash to help get them through Christmas, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to announce as he tries to see off a growing Tory rebellion.

By Gordon Rayner, Political Editor and Charles Hymas, Home Affairs Editor www.telegraph.co.uk 

The Prime Minister has decided the potential closure of tens of thousands of premises is an unacceptable price to pay for a new system that places 99 per cent of England under the toughest Tier 2 or 3 restrictions from Wednesday.

A Government source said: “There are already grants of £2,000 and £3,000 for businesses in Tiers 2 and 3, but we recognise that we need to do more.” 

The new tiers system, which has been described as a death knell for thousands of pubs and restaurants, requires all premises in Tier 3 to offer only takeaway service, while those in Tier 2 can only serve alcohol with “substantial meals” – restrictions which will apply to 99 per cent of the country.  

Mr Johnson will on Monday publish an analysis of the economic, social and health consequences of the tiers amid warnings from up to 100 Tory MPs that they cannot back the plans without knowing their effect.

In a letter published on Sunday evening, Mr Johnson issued a direct appeal to the rebels in the backbench Covid Recovery Group (CRG), saying there was “every reason” to hope and believe “the worst is nearly behind us, so now more than ever is the time to demonstrate unity and resolve.”

Between 70 and 100 Tory MPs are threatening to oppose the Government when the new tiers regime is put to a vote in Parliament on Tuesday, and Mr Johnson has had to up the stakes after promises of a review of the tiers in December and vote to end them in January failed to assuage them.

It leaves the Prime Minister relying on Labour votes, and the opposition has previously demanded extra cash for businesses hit by the toughest coronavirus restrictions in order to support the new system.

Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer is to decide if Labour backs or abstains in Tuesday’s vote after he met with Professor Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer, on Sunday. 

A senior Government source said: “We understand the fact that the hospitality industry has been particularly hard-hit during the pandemic. The Christmas period is a time of year when establishments would expect to be particularly busy so we are looking at how we can support them over the festive period.”

The Prime Minister said in a newspaper article on Sunday he “grieves” for the pub trade due to the effect of the restrictions he has imposed.

And in a letter to MPs, Mr Johnson admitted pubs and restaurants – which fear mass closures under the Tier 2 and 3 measures by Christmas – were losing out because “there are only a limited number of settings where you can bear down on transmission” if schools and workplaces were to remain open.

Details of the extra support are expected to be announced this week, possibly before the crucial Parliamentary vote.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak is understood to have signed up to the plan, which is likely to be funded by extra borrowing in the short term.

In his letter to the CRG, Mr Johnson also pledged new personalised risk assessments to help free vulnerable people from shielding, better communication on how to avoid transmitting the disease, more testing of asymptomatic carriers and regular updates on non-compliance.

At the weekend the Prime Minister had attempted to assuage Conservative rebels by pledging to review all the tiers on December 16 and offering a vote  at the end of January on whether to end the tiers with a sunset clause to abolish them from February 3.

However, Steve Baker, deputy chairman of the CRG, said MPs could not back the plans until they had a comprehensive analysis of whether they were justified.

“We are still waiting for the analysis of the health, economic and social impact. That’s the key thing we have been asking for,” he said.

“The fundamental point is are these restrictions necessary and proportionate to the threat faced by the community as a whole.

“That is the fundamental question when you look at the pain of people losing their businesses, or the 20 and 30-year-olds facing isolation and missing out on the best years of their lives. We need to know if this is necessary and proportionate. It is not enough to say the NHS will struggle because the previous chart turned out not to be true.”

Another senior Conservative from the north of England said: “What they have to have in that assessment if it is to be credible is the number of lives that will be lost a result of lockdown, the mental health problems that will result from unemployment, the number of businesses that will be closed, the cost in GDP terms.

“If they do that, I think it is inevitable that they weaken their argument which is why they have resisted doing it so far.”

There is mounting anger in the hospitality industry at the new restrictions. Legal action is being considered over “flawed and discriminatory” closures of pubs and restaurants after it emerged Government scientists found that the virus does not spread in well ventilated spaces.

Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UK Hospitality, said the evidence showed the Government had treated pubs, restaurants and hotels inconsistently and needed to rethink its approach. “

Depending on the outcome of that, we will then consider our option in terms of the legal next steps,” Ms Nicholls told The Telegraph.

Britain is on course for one of the worst periods of income growth since records began, according to an analysis outlining the economic fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Michael Savage www.theguardian.com 

With the government already under pressure to improve the financial aid it is providing, it emerged that real household disposable income is set to rise by just £220 from 2019 to 2024, the expected period of the current parliament, a lift of just 1%.

The analysis by the Resolution Foundation thinktank, based on official figures, highlights how long the economic scarring from the pandemic will take its toll on household finances. It concluded that it would mark the second worst parliament for income growth since 1955, when records began. Only the 2015-17 parliament, when incomes actually fell by 0.1% a year, has a worse record.

It comes with unemployment set to peak at 2.6 million in mid-2021 and remain high long after the pandemic is over, the foundation said. It warns that a plan to cut universal credit and tax credits in April would see around six million households lose more than £1,000 a year. While many Tory MPs expect the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, to cancel the cut, he did not do so at last week’s review of public spending.

Adam Corlett, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: “On Wednesday the chancellor warned that the economic emergency was just beginning – and that’s true of both the public and household finances. Improving the stark outlook for living standards should be a top priority for the government once the pandemic is over, especially if the prime minister wants to go into the next election claiming that people are better off than they were five years ago. The chancellor can start right now by cancelling the planned cut to universal credit next April that would dash hopes of any recovery for millions of households.”

The hit to household income emerges amid a growing outcry over the plight of 2.9 million self-employed workers who say they are facing “a miserable Christmas period” after being excluded from the government’s financial aid schemes. London’s mayor Sadiq Khan, Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, unions and business groups have signed a powerful open letter to Sunak calling on him to intervene.

The groups who have not been helped include the newly self-employed, directors of small limited companies, self-employed workers who have earned £50,000 or more in trading profits in recent years and certain types of freelancers.

The authors of the letter state they are “deeply concerned about the impact of the current gaps in the financial support schemes on our workforce. The failure to address these gaps in the Spending Review this week leaves these workers facing an extremely difficult winter.” The letter, whose signatories include the Bectu and Prospect unions, as well as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors, continues: “We understand that these schemes were set up in haste and that it was difficult at the outset to broaden their scope, however these schemes are now set to run for at least a year and the continued omission of these workers is causing immeasurable hardship and huge mental health consequences for those impacted and their families.

“These workers are facing a miserable Christmas period, and the evidence is mounting that many may turn away from self-employment and freelance work in the future. This is a tragedy for these individuals, their families and their businesses, but it is also a disaster for the economy.”

There have been claims that as many as one million people in the UK are planning to give up being self-employed after seeing their earnings decimated by the Covid-19 pandemic. A report from the London School of Economics found that a two-decade-long trend in favour of more people working for themselves was now under threat.

The government ethics watchdog has been asked to assess whether the ministerial code was breached by Rishi Sunak not declaring in the register of ministerial interests a multimillion-pound portfolio of shares held by his wife and her family.

Juliette Garside www.theguardian.com

The Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi has written to Lord Evans, chair of the committee on standards in public life, to ask him to look into the issue “as a matter of urgency”. Her concerns were echoed by the shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, who said the revelations raised “serious questions” about the chancellor’s conduct.

The Guardian revealed on Friday that Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, was richer than the Queen thanks to a £430m shareholding in the IT multinational Infosys, which was founded by her father and is a contractor to the UK government and public bodies. She also holds direct shareholdings in at least six UK companies. None of these investments were mentioned in the chancellor’s entry in the official register.

Ministers are obliged to publish details of any financial interests held by themselves, and their close family, which are relevant to their role in government and “which might be thought to give rise to a conflict” with their public duties.

“The reports around the chancellor’s financial affairs are extremely concerning, and I am writing to ask you to assess whether this is a direct contravention of the ministerial code of conduct,” Antoniazzi wrote.

The committee on standards in public life monitors the conduct of public office holders and advises the prime minister on ethics. It has no formal powers but its recommendations are traditionally accepted by the government of the day.

Antoniazzi said allegations of a lack of transparency by the chancellor “further erode public trust in politicians and bring parliament into disrepute”.

Murray added: “The ministerial code is clear that ministers must ensure no conflict arises between their position and their private interests, as well as those of their close family members. If the chancellor has nothing to hide, he should come clean to the British public.”

Sunak and Murty have not responded directly to requests for comment. The Treasury said Sunak made a full declaration of his wife’s interests to senior civil servants, and that the decision about what to publish in the list was taken by advisers.

Before entering the Treasury, Sunak met the government’s then head of propriety and ethics, Helen MacNamara, to decide what needed to be declared, a government source said. MacNamara reviewed the interests of Sunak and Murty and confirmed at the time, and again recently, that she was “satisfied” with what had been registered. The former independent adviser on ministers’ interests Sir Alex Allan also approved the disclosures, according to the source.

A Treasury spokesperson said Allan had confirmed he was “completely satisfied with the chancellor’s propriety of arrangements” and that he had “followed the ministerial code to the letter in his declaration of interests”.

Allan resigned from his role this month after falling out with the prime minister over his decision not to take action against the home secretary, Priti Patel. A report by Allan concluded Patel had breached the ministerial code by bullying civil servants.

At the time, Evans, the chair of the committee on standards in public life, said Allan’s departure raised “serious questions about the effectiveness of the current arrangements for investigating and responding to breaches of the ministerial code”.

His committee recently launched a “landscape review” of the institutions, processes and structures that uphold standards in public life, after acknowledging mounting concern about the conduct of Boris Johnson’s government over issues such as the purchasing of PPE.

Transparency International said the register of interests was there to ensure decisions were being made in the national interest, not for “personal gain”.

Alex Runswick, the senior advocacy manager at the campaign group, said: “To rebuild public confidence, we need a political culture where it is common practice to go above and beyond the letter of the guidance in declaring potential conflicts of interest and where there are consequences for breaching the rules.”

www.dpt.nhs.uk 

The First Response Service (FRS) puts you and your mental health first, providing a service seven days a week, 365 days a year. The service is an urgent mental health service for people with mental health and learning disability needs.

Callers either experiencing a mental health crisis, or have concerns about someone’s mental wellbeing can now access mental health care, advice and guidance 24/7. 

The FRS will work closely with you, your family/carers and social networks to access the right care at the right time in the right place.

If you are concerned about feeling unsafe, are very distressed or if you are known to our services and there are signs of a mental health relapse, you can contact the FRS by dialling 0300 555 5000.

What happens when I call?

• The phone will be answered by a mental health practitioner who will listen to your concerns and help you get what you need. 
• They can offer advice over the phone, or refer or give you information about other services which may help such as The Moorings (a support service run by Mental Health Matters – a mental health charity or put you in contact with other health services).

Who can call?

If you aren’t able to make the call yourself then anyone can call on your behalf, for example a friend, carer, loved one, or your GP. The service is available to anyone aged 18 and above in a mental health crisis currently living in Devon (excluding Plymouth). 

The following could be reasons to call the FRS:

• Changes to your mood
• Withdrawing from people (close family, friends or work colleagues)
• Not taking care of yourself like you usually would 
• Having increased thoughts about your life not being worth living 
• Excessive worry 
• Feeling out of control or unable to cope 
• Feeling anxious about leaving the house
• Hearing voices or seeing things that others can’t 
• Thinking about harming yourself 

By calling the FRS on 0300 555 5000 we can work together to get the right help. 

For professionals

If you are a professional and have concerns regarding a person’s mental wellbeing, believing they are experiencing a mental health crisis, please dial 0300 555 5000 and select option 1 then option 2. 

When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die

[Go to original article to pick up links to references – Owl]

Abbasi Kamran. www.bmj.com (Published 13 November 2020)

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

The UK’s pandemic response provides at least four examples of suppression of science or scientists. First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency.2 The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care, women, and ethnic minorities. Indeed, the government was also recently ordered to release a 2016 report on deficiencies in pandemic preparedness, Operation Cygnus, following a verdict from the Information Commissioner’s Office.34

Next, a Public Health England report on covid-19 and inequalities. The report’s publication was delayed by England’s Department of Health; a section on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and then, following a public outcry, was published as part of a follow-up report.56 Authors from Public Health England were instructed not to talk to the media. Third, on 15 October, the editor of the Lancet complained that an author of a research paper, a UK government scientist, was blocked by the government from speaking to media because of a “difficult political landscape.”7

Now, a new example concerns the controversy over point-of-care antibody testing for covid-19.8 The prime minister’s Operation Moonshot depends on immediate and wide availability of accurate rapid diagnostic tests.9 It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.1011

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public. But even that approach retains public and professional trust only if science is available for scrutiny and free of political interference, and if the system is transparent and not compromised by conflicts of interest.

Suppression of science and scientists is not new or a peculiarly British phenomenon. In the US, President Trump’s government manipulated the Food and Drug Administration to hastily approve unproved drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.15 Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas.16

The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines.17 Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.18

How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what.

Once transparency and accountability are established as norms, individuals employed by government should ideally only work in areas unrelated to their competing interests. Expertise is possible without competing interests. If such a strict rule becomes impractical, minimum good practice is that people with competing interests must not be involved in decisions on products and policies in which they have a financial interest.

Governments and industry must also stop announcing critical science policy by press release. Such ill judged moves leave science, the media, and stock markets vulnerable to manipulation. Clear, open, and advance publication of the scientific basis for policy, procurements, and wonder drugs is a fundamental requirement.19

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

Footnotes

• Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.
• Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

Invoking the Cromwellian era rather than the Churchillian one beloved by Boris, Robert Jenrick write in the Telegraph:

I am cutting the red tape and allowing shops to extend opening hours this Christmas and New Year

Robert Jenrick www.telegraph.co.uk

For Christmas shopping the high street in Newark has it all. A picturesque ruined castle, a cobbled market square surrounded by fine buildings that tell the story of England and at every turn charming and eclectic shops, cafés and pubs decorated with festive lights, trees and in different circumstances, an old fashioned grotto that is a favourite of my girls.   

However, in this most unusual and challenging year, Father Christmas is not the only one whose presence is missed.

It is we, the customers, these enterprising shopkeepers would expect to be filling the lanes, laden with bags, giving them the end to the year they need to prosper.

As one said to me recently, not since the end of the Civil War has the town centre been in such a tight spot. Then it was under siege by Oliver Cromwell, today by a pandemic and the unstoppable rise of internet shopping.  

No doubt this year will see record sales online. 2020 will be a watershed, with accelerated market forces already in train.

Of course, new jobs and enterprises are being created to service the demand, including down the road in Newark where thousands are now employed at the vast KnowHow distribution centre that delivers millions of TVs, phones and tablets to our doors.

Our town centres will need to adapt and evolve, seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to replace some retail and offices with housing and we in Government are providing the tools to facilitate that, like the right to convert one type of shop seamlessly to another or into a home, sweeping away the outdated Use Class Orders.

And the new right to demolish empty eyesores, enables small builders to regenerate town centres with good quality urban housing and save greenfields from development at the same time.  

But let’s not write off the great British high street. It’s centrality to our sense of place and community is surely too important not to support in its hour of need.

As the national restrictions lift this week, and non-essential retail reopens regardless of tier, across the country we can show our support. And with some imaginative changes from Government we can enjoy the experience safely too.  

Earlier in the year I cut red tape to ensure every pub, café or restaurant in the land could open for takeaway and delivery services, which proved a lifeline for many.

And I changed the law so that any establishment could apply simply and cheaply to use outdoor tables and chairs, playing a part in the alfresco dining revolution we experienced this summer and which I hope will continue this winter, perhaps under cosy blankets and heaters given our climate. Heat Out to Help Out if you like.  

I’ve discovered so much regulation surrounding our high streets, it’s no wonder shopkeepers are having a hard time. 

It seems that every administration since King Henry I granted a charter to Newark’s market has added more complicated and costly rules.

We’re changing that. Councils and others can now hold winter markets with ease. Pubs can erect marquees in their gardens for longer without planning permission.  

I am going further and announcing a temporary relaxation in shop opening hours this Christmas and throughout January, asking councils to allow extended hours for shoppers on every high street Monday to Saturday.

None of us I suspect enjoy navigating the crowds and none would relish that when social distancing is so important to controlling the virus in the final furlong before the vaccine rollout commences.

So, with these changes your local shops can open longer, ensuring more pleasant and safer shopping with less pressure on public transport.

How long will be a matter of choice for the shopkeepers and at the discretion of the council, but I suggest we offer these hard-pressed entrepreneurs and businesses the greatest possible flexibility this festive season.

Therefore as Local Government Secretary I am relaxing planning restrictions and issuing an unambiguous request to councils to allow businesses to welcome us into their glowing stores late into the evening and beyond if wish.

And those stores and supermarkets will be able to replenish their shelves whenever they wish, with flexible deliveries to keep the streets free for the rest of us when we are out and about.  

In a year when Government has necessarily interjected into our lives in ways none of us who value individual liberty would ever have imagined, these changes remind us that we can and must seek every way to reduce the burden of bureaucracy and free our small businesspeople to get on with earning a living and serving the public.

I hope we can return to this Conservative mission more broadly before long.  

So this Christmas, look after one another by following the guidelines, but please support your high street.

Some like Newark have been there for a thousand years and with our help and the right approach from government, I suspect will long outlive the pessimists.