An £8million lifeline could be on the way for Exeter Airport after the combination of the collapse of Flybe and the coronavirus pandemic had placed its future in doubt.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

Passenger numbers are down 90 per cent year-on-year and without some financial support, the Airport could have faced the worst case scenario of closure.

East Devon councillors at the end of September had agreed to a further deferral of £180,000 of business rate relief and forward-funding the Airport’s share of the Long Lane enhancement scheme to the tune of nearly £750,000.

But now, regional airports, including Exeter Airport, will be able to apply for dedicated financial support, which will provide business rates relief and cover fixed costs up to £8million per airport.

The scheme will open for applications in January and follows calls by East Devon MP Simon Jupp to help secure financial support to protect the future of Exeter Airport.

Mr Jupp said: “I warmly welcome the decision by Government to provide business rates relief for regional airports.

“I raised my concerns with the Prime Minister and Chancellor after passenger numbers at Exeter Airport dropped by 95 per cent and they recognised the need to support our airport.

“Together with the new testing regime, the government is providing much needed support to help protect jobs and connectivity provided by Exeter Airport.”

The announcement comes as the Government unveils a new testing strategy to reduce the self-isolation period by at least a week.

From December 15, passengers arriving into England from countries not featured on the Government’s travel corridor list will have the option to pay for a test after five days of self-isolation, with a negative result releasing them from the need to isolate.

A spokesman for Exeter Airport, said: “We are pleased the Government has listened to our calls and the campaign led by East Devon MP Simon Jupp to secure business rates relief for airports.

“The measures announced today will provide much-needed support and we will continue to lobby hard and work with Government on what other steps can be taken to safeguard the UK’s regional airports.”

London and the south-east have benefited disproportionately from the installation of new electric car charge points in the last year, amid a push to be ready the UK for the ban on internal combustion engine cars in 2030.

Time to insist that one charging point per XX houses in new developments is the norm? – Owl

Jasper Jolly www.theguardian.com 

The two regions together received 45% of new charger capacity in the year to October, well in excess of their 27% share of the population, according to a Guardian analysis of Zap Map data which shows charging points across the UK published by the Department for Transport.

Every other region received a lower proportion of new charge points installed during the year to October than their population would suggest.

Public car-charging infrastructure was a key part of Boris Johnson’s plans for a “green industrial revolution” published last week. Johnson’s 10-point plan included £1.3bn of investment in car charging, although only £800m of that was new spending. Further details are expected to be outlined in the chancellor’s one-year spending review this week.

The 2030 ban means that all new car buyers across the UK within a decade will need easy access to charging infrastructure, but the current public charging network is already skewed towards London in particular.

There are 63 public chargers per 100,000 people in the capital, more than double the average of the rest of the UK, according to the data compiled by Zap Map. Northern Ireland had the lowest, with only 16.8 per 100,000 people – although other regions with a lower proportion of urban residents may be able to depend more on charging at home in off-street parking spaces.

Matt Western, the Labour MP who chairs a parliamentary group on electric vehicles, said the government needed to address regional disparities as well as ensuring open access to existing charge points.

“What we need is government incentives to put these charge points in place … to provide the incentive for consumers to follow,” he said.

The total number of publicly accessible chargers last month passed 20,000, but there are still 46 local authority areas with fewer than 10 public charging points per 100,000 residents, demonstrating the scale of the challenge ahead to make the whole country ready for electric cars. The RAC has reported a doubling this year in the number of instances where drivers of electric vehicles have needed assistance after running out of charge, because charge points have been out of service, their home chargers have failed to charge overnight, or drivers have run out of charge before reaching a charge point.

Ben Nelmes, head of policy at thinktank New AutoMotive, said: “The transition to electric cars has the potential to contribute to the government’s levelling-up agenda because electric cars are much cheaper to run. Access to a local and reliable public charging network is essential for the one-third of people who do not have access to off-street parking.

“Public funding for charge points should be spent where it is most needed and will provide most benefit to motorists, but cash-strapped local councils often struggle to get the data they need to bid for charge-point funding from the Department for Transport.”

Analysis commissioned by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the UK industry lobby group, suggested the UK would need to build more than 1.9m public charging points by 2030 – well over 500 per day. The bill is expected to be £16.7bn.

Mike Hawes, the SMMT’s chief executive, said government investment so far was “a step in the right direction” but still “only a fraction of the multi-billion pound investment required”.

“The industry invested £54bn in electrification across Europe last year,” Hawes said. “We need others to step up.”

Even before the 2030 ban was confirmed, the move to electric vehicles had triggered a race by private companies.

Chargemaster, bought by oil company BP in 2018, has the largest UK network. During 2020 it has built 31% more rapid chargers, which are vital for topping up on longer journeys, according to Zap Map. However, rivals such as Germany’s Ubitricity and energy provider EDF’s Pod Point are expanding their overall networks faster. No single provider has more than 13% of the market.

The confirmation of the 2030 ban will prompt an acceleration in investment in chargers, according to Nick Ballamy, managing director of EVC, which is planning to spend £150m to install 100,000 charge points over the next five years.

He said he was optimistic that the barriers could be overcome. “The reason the uptake [of electric cars] has been a lot slower is because the infrastructure is not in place,” he said. “People want to be able to buy their vehicles and know they can charge at their convenience.”

MPs from across Devon are united in their relief that England’s second national lockdown won’t be extended – and all calling for the county to be placed into the lowest tier of restrictions.

[Owl is disappointed that there is no quote from from “Marie Antoinette” Selaine Saxby, MP North Devon, who sounded off about local businesses supporting free school meals and no doubt has strong views on tiers] 

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the Commons on Monday that the three-tiered regional measures will return from December 2 and the lockdown will end, but he added that each tier will be toughened.

Areas will not find out which tier they are in until Thursday and the allocation of tiers will be dependent on a number of factors, including each area’s case numbers, the reproduction rate – or R number – and the current and projected pressure on the NHS locally.

Tier allocations will be reviewed every 14 days, and the regional approach will last until March, and Devon’s MPs feel that the area should be placed in Tier 1.

New coronavirus cases across the county are dropping, and only Cornwall, the Isle of Wight, Suffolk, Dorset, West Berkshire, Cambridgeshire and Central Bedfordshire of upper tier authorities currently have a lower infection rate per 100,000 than Devon’s 106.6.

Devon Coronavirus cases as of November 23

At a lower tier level, Teignbridge has the fourth lowest rate of England’s 315 districts, with West Devon, Mid Devon and the South Hams also in the bottom 15, based on the previous seven days’ of figures.

In terms of people who have died within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test, Devon currently has the lowest rate per 100,000 population of anywhere in England.

Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP for Exeter, said that it was hoped that the area would be in Tier One, but that the Government must publish the scientific basis for the restrictions in the various tiers, if it wants to regain public trust and compliance with the rules.

He said: “Of course, the hope must be that Exeter and Devon are in Tier One, but it is essential that the Government publishes a clear set of criteria for each Tier and for moving between them. The last three tier system did not work and the Government refused to implement an earlier circuit breaker, which is what led to the current four week national lockdown.

“The Government must also publish the scientific basis for the restrictions in the various tiers, if it wants to regain public trust and compliance with the rules. It would be awful if, by making the wrong decisions now, the Government has to tighten restrictions again over Christmas and New Year, just when families are looking forward to the chance of getting together.”

Simon Jupp, MP for East Devon, said: “We should welcome the move from national to local restrictions. We must safely re-open businesses forced to close to help protect jobs and our economy. Devon should be in the lowest tier of restrictions to reflect the hard work and significant sacrifices we’ve made to suppress the virus.

“We must safely re-open businesses forced to close to help protect jobs and our economy. And, as an example, I spoke this week in Parliament about gyms and leisure centres being closed for this period. Can we be certain that closing them to limit coronavirus transmission is worth it on balance? Hundreds of East Devon residents contacted me saying their closure is physically and mentally detrimental to their wellbeing.

“Behind all the charts and graphs, there’s a very real social side to lockdown that no amount of financial supports schemes – however welcome – can replicate. And if we are to consider tighter restrictions again, the government must publish stronger evidence that they protect more lives than they harm.”

Mel Stride, the Conservative MP for Central Devon, said: “Tiering is the right way to go as it will help match the measures taken with the level of threat from the virus. My constituency has been generally highly compliant with lockdown rules and I am hopeful that we might be in Tier One.”

Neil Parish, the Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton, said that he hoped and wanted the region to be placed in the lower tier of restrictions, and that the vaccine news was light at the end of the tunnel.

He said: “On Thursday, of course I want us to be in the lowest possible tier of restrictions, because it means we are doing well at combating the virus here in the West Country.

“The news today about the Oxford vaccine is more light at the end of the tunnel, increasing the chances that we can get out of coronavirus restrictions sooner. I am glad we are returning, next week, to a local tiered approach, but the virus hasn’t gone away yet and we all need to be vigilant this winter.

“I want our businesses to be open and thriving and for people to have safe working and social environments to enjoy. However, even if we are in a higher tier than before, I am particularly pleased to see that places of worship will be open across all tiers, as will recreational sports, and retail too. This is a welcome change – and I think people can look forward to safer, brighter Christmas, after the tough month we have all endured.”

Sir Gary Streeter, MP for South West Devon, agreed that the region should be placed in Tier 1 from next week.

He said: “I am in regular contact with all Plymouth and Devon Conservative MPs and we all agree that the South West should be placed in Tier 1 and we are pressing hard for this. The South West for this purpose includes Bristol which still has significant transmission of the virus and accordingly, we are asking for Devon and Cornwall to be treated as a separate sub-region for this purpose, if necessary. We will find out tomorrow or Thursday whether we have been successful.”

Anthony Mangnall, the Conservative MP for Totnes, whose constituency straddles both Devon and Torbay, said that he would be supported the tiered system, provided the measures are based on accurate information and divided in the correct manner, with him pushing for his area to be in Tier One.

He said: “We have a vaccine and the end of the lockdown is in sight, and now it is about making sure that we are in the lowest tier. I do think it is very important that people recognise, including those in Whitehall, the difference between Bristol and the surrounding areas, and the South West around Plymouth, Devon and Torbay, and our numbers are significantly lower here.

“It is very important that when we come to a tiering system, we don’t get lumped in with places like Bristol as it doesn’t equate.

“I have been perfectly clear, I will not vote for another lockdown. I will support the tier measures, provided they are based on accurate information and divided in the correct manner, and that must be done in a way that reflects what is going on in the ground.

“Now that we have a vaccine, that’s a cause for great celebration but to maintain our personal level of responsibility and keep our own personal preventative measures that we have done so well in the South West.”

Torbay’s infection rates are slightly higher –currently 160 per 100,000, although have also been falling quite sharply, and Kevin Foster, the Conservative MP for Torbay, said: “I welcome the statement today and the news we will exit national restrictions as promised on December 2.”

He added: “This has been possible thanks to the hard work of our NHS and Social Care teams, plus the many residents who have done their bit by sticking to the rules and following the guidance.

“It will be especially welcome to see church services return and many retail businesses re-open in time for Christmas, with the news about a possible vaccination programme giving a real sense of light at the end of the covid-19 tunnel.

“In terms of the next steps in our Bay, it is vital these are guided by the advice of our local public health teams, yet I hope we will soon have confirmation many hospitality businesses will be able to re-open under the tiered system, given we are very unlikely to be placed in the highest tier.”

Newton Abbot MP, Anne Marie Morris, who voted against the second lockdown, said she sincerely hoped that next Wednesday would be the end of lockdowns forever, but her fear is that most of the country will be in tier two or three with very few in tier one.

She added: “In Tier 2 that means no social gathering at home and in tier three no social gathering outside except in public places. With Devon MPs I am fighting for a place in Tier one.

“This lockdown has seen small, family-run, independent businesses closed and pretty much sacrificed, whilst the major out-of-town supermarkets have been able to remain open and make a fortune selling non-essential items.

“It is welcome that collective worship, weddings and outdoor sports can resume, subject to social distancing and that people will no longer be limited to seeing only one other person in outdoor public spaces, with the rule of 6 now applying as it did in the previous set of tiers.

“But being placed in Tier 2 would have a hugely damaging impact on our hospitality sector, with pubs and bars being forced to close unless operating as restaurants. Much like the 10pm curfew, which has quite rightly been extended to 11pm, the Government needs to publish the evidence to show that transmission of the disease in a wet-led pub is any different to that in a restaurant, church, cinema or any other enclosed space.”

She added: “I am enormously concerned with the talk of us having to lockdown in January in order to ‘pay’ for those 4 or 5 days over Christmas. This is utter madness. January is already a miserable time of the year for individuals and businesses, and to lock us all down again would have an even more significant impact not just on the economy but on mental health, loneliness and other non-Covid related health conditions.”

And on whether she will vote for the tiered system, she added that unless the evidence for it comes forward, she would be voted against any further restrictions.

Members of the public complete a test swab during a lateral flow Covid test at Rhydycar leisure centre in Merthyr Tydfil, where mass coronavirus testing begins following a two-week “firebreak” lockdown.

She said: “Serious damage has already been caused by previous lockdowns and restrictions and I simply will not vote for measures that cause further damage to the health and wellbeing (physical and economic) of our community. A tiered system will have such a huge impact on people’s lives, their health and their businesses, and the Government needs to prove that these measures are going to save more lives than they cost.

“Therefore, they need to produce the risk assessment for these measures and prove beyond doubt that they have an overall benefit. So far, that evidence and the necessary assessments have not been forthcoming, and, therefore, I will be voting against the measures. We need long term planning and an exit strategy, not short term, knee-jerk reactions.”

Subject to approval by MPs, the new tier system will take effect from 12.01am on Wednesday, December 2. Areas will find out which tier they are to be placed in on Thursday, before a vote on the new measures will take place, likely to be on Monday.

WHAT ARE THE NEW RULES?

All tiers:

• The tiers will have a uniform set of rules, there will be no negotiations by different regions.
• Everyone should work from home if they can.
• Shops and personal care services can open.
• Early years settings, schools, colleges and universities remain open.
• Registered childcare, other supervised activities for children and childcare bubbles allowed.
• Indoor leisure – gyms and swimming – can open.
• Elite sport, under-18 sport and disabled sport can continue.
• Police will get new powers to close down premises breaking the rules.

Tier 1:

• Households can mix inside and outside, but the rule of six applies.
• Bars, pubs and restaurants must be table service only, last orders at 10pm, closing by 11pm.
• Entertainment can reopen.
• Avoid travel into Tier 3 areas.
• Overnight stays permitted with your household/bubble, or up to six people from different households.
• All accommodation can reopen.
• Places of worship can reopen but more than six people from different households cannot interact.
• Weddings, civil partnerships and wakes can have 15 guests.
• Funerals can have 30 guests.
• Exercise classes and organised adult sport can take place outdoors, but rule of six indoors.
• Elite sporting events, live performances and large business events can take place with 50% capacity, or 4,000 people outdoors/1,000 indoors (whichever is lower) – social distancing applies.

Tier 2:

• No mixing of households indoors apart from support bubbles – rule of six outdoors.
• Pubs and bars must close unless operating as restaurants, and hospitality venues can only serve alcohol with substantial meals.
• Last orders at 10pm, close by 11pm.
• Reduce the numbers of journeys made and avoid travel into Tier 3 areas.
• Overnight stays permitted with your household or support bubble.
• Accommodation open.
• Places of worship open but people cannot interact with anyone outside their household or support bubble.
• Weddings, civil partnerships and wakes can have 15 guests.
• Funerals can have 30 guests.
• Exercise classes and organised adult sport can take place outdoors, but not indoors if there is any interaction between different households.
• Elite sporting events, live performances and large business events can take place with 50% capacity, or 2,000 people outdoors/1,000 indoors (whichever is lower) – social distancing applies.

Tier 3:

• No mixing of households indoors or most outdoor places – rule of six in outdoor spaces such as parks and sports courts.
• Hospitality venues closed, except for takeaway, drive-through or delivery.
• Indoor entertainment venues closed.
• Avoid travelling outside the area other than where necessary, including foreign travel.
• No overnight stays outside local area, unless necessary for work, education or similar reasons.
• Accommodation closed (with limited exceptions such as work purposes).
• Places of worship open but people cannot interact with anyone outside their household or support bubble.
• Weddings, civil partnerships and wakes can have 15 guests – but no wedding receptions allowed.
• Funerals can have 30 guests.
• Exercise classes and organised adult sport can take place outdoors, but avoid higher-risk contact activity.
• Group exercise and sports indoors should not take place, unless with household/bubble.
• Elite sporting events, live performances and large business events banned but drive-in events permitted.

How different parts of England rank on Downing Street’s key considerations for the new system of restrictions.

[Not so much a mutant algorithm as through a glass darkly! – Owl]

By Alex Clark and Dominic Gilbert www.telegraph.co.uk

England will return to a tiered system of coronavirus restrictions when the national lockdown ends on December 2. While for some this will mean greater freedoms than they have enjoyed in the past, more areas will face tougher restrictions than under the previous tier regime.

The Government will announce on Thursday which areas will be in Tiers 1, 2 and 3, but has already briefly outlined the factors that will influence its decisions.

Case rates and surges, particularly among the over-60s, as well as pressures on the testing and health systems will all be taken into account by Number 10, which has declined to give any estimate of the thresholds.

Documents released by the Cabinet Office, however, reveal that “broader economic and practical considerations” will also play a part. 

Here is how local areas in England compare on these five key lockdown metrics. 

How cases fared under national lockdown

England’s worst infected areas have seen significant declines in their case rates since the second national lockdown began, the latest data shows, but other previously low-ranking areas have seen cases surge. 

Oldham was one of the worst infected areas just before the new lockdown on November 5, having already been placed in tier three along with the rest of Greater Manchester.

Though case rates have fallen significantly in the two weeks since, they still remain stubbornly high, suggesting a relaxing of rules may not be imminent. 

While rates have fallen in many areas in the North, they have spiked elsewhere, particularly in the South-East.

Swale and Thanet, neighbouring local authorities in West Kent, are among the biggest risers in the past month. Both areas may face the toughest Tier 3 restrictions when Boris Johnson announces the new lockdown map of England. 

Over-60s suffering in hotspots

The case rate among the over-60s – one of the most at-risk groups for Covid infections – will be high on the criteria when the Government sets out its new parameters.

As the graph below shows, East Lindsey, in Lincolnshire, and Corby, in Northamptonshire, are the worst affected in this demographic.

Both areas are seeing significant increases in the general rate of confirmed cases – up by 137.6 in East Lindsey and 66.4 in Corby compared to the previous week of data.

Both local authorities were in Tier 1 before November 5, but now appear to be at high risk of more stringent restrictions. But in a reversal of fortunes, many areas that had been placed into Tier 3 are now seeing week-on-week falls in the rate of confirmed cases.

In particular, Lancaster seems to have fared well on most of the Government’s criteria. Its case rate among the over-60s is currently 241st of 315 English local authorities at 88 per 100,000, and the general case rate has fallen by 91 per 100,000 over the last week.

Is the testing system coping?

Number 10 will also be looking at how well its testing system is coping in different parts of the country, guided by one key metric in particular – the positivity rate. This stat represents the total number of positive Covid-19 cases as a proportion of all tests carried out.

Countries need to keep this rate below five per cent or risk seeing cases spiral out of control, according to the World Health Organisation. Yet the vast majority of local areas in England currently exceed this limit. 

There is one notable exception: Liverpool. The city has been the scene of a rapid test trial in recent weeks, which appears to have kept the area’s positivity rate below five per cent despite its higher case rate. 

A health system under pressure

Before an area can move down the tier system, the Government will want to ensure that the local health system can handle any fresh surge in hospitalisations.

Areas in the South-West and east of England are in a stronger position in terms of spare bed capacity.

According to the latest data, from November 22, 62 patients in the South-West and 77 in the East are on mechanical ventilation beds. 

Meanwhile, in the Midlands more than 300 mechanical ventilation beds are occupied by Covid-19 patients. London, the North-West and North-East and Yorkshire all have more than 200 patients.

The cost of lockdown

Finally, the Government will also be considering the economic consequences of plunging specific areas into lockdown.

As online job advert data from Adzuna shows, hiring for new positions in England has fallen off a cliff. 

Not all regions have been hit equally though, the data suggests, with businesses in London, the South-East and the East suffering the most. 

On the 3rd of November, Prime Minister Boris Johnson brought in strict new lockdown measures across England. At the same time, Wales and Scotland were already under heavy restrictions. With the firebreak now over in Wales, the introduction of four tiers in Scotland, and the lockdown in England due to be lifted on the 2nd December, I wanted to take a look at what the figures say about the last few weeks. 

covid.joinzoe.com 

Generally we would expect to see an effect on new cases after 10-14 days, with a knock-on effect on hospital admissions and reduced deaths a few weeks later.

So have these national efforts been working?

The answer is… it depends.

COVID-19 rates for the UK are falling, but there are regional differences

The good news is that our latest analysis for the whole of the UK shows that we are past the peak of new COVID-19 cases, which probably occurred before we went into Lockdown 2.0. 

The bad news is that this positive trend masks significant regional differences.

Areas that were under relatively strict tier restrictions in October – including the North East and North West of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – are all seeing a continued drop in the number of new COVID-19 cases after peaking in the second half of October. 

By contrast, the number of new cases in the Midlands has risen steadily since the beginning of October and continued during lockdown. Rates are now higher here than in the North of England, although hopefully showing signs of levelling off. 

The increases over the last month are hard to explain, given that the Midlands has had many areas under tight restrictions for months. It may be due to reduced compliance over time, or a last-minute increase in socialising before the national lockdown.

Areas that were under lighter Tier 1 restrictions in October with relatively low numbers of cases – such as the South East, South West and East of England – showed initial rises during the first two weeks of lockdown, which now have largely plateaued. 

London, which was badly hit in the first wave, has not increased dramatically as feared, apparently peaking at the third week of October and now levelling off.

London

Who is getting COVID-19 across the UK in Lockdown 2.0?

Our data shows that people who fall ill with COVID-19 tend to be younger. The highest rates are in the 20-39 age groups, who are probably most exposed, and the lowest in people over 60. 

Most age groups are showing a decline in cases, except for children and young people under 19 at school and university which are stable.

So while it looks like younger people are driving the current wave of infections, numbers are still relatively low in the older age group that is most likely to become seriously ill or die from the disease, and these numbers appear to be on the way down as well. 

Age groups

However, we shouldn’t be complacent given that up to one in twenty people will suffer from ‘long COVID’, including younger age groups, it’s still vitally important that we all do everything we can to reduce the spread of coronavirus through the UK without crippling the economy, whether mandatory restrictions are in place or not.

How the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app calculates COVID-19 rates

Our figures are predictions about the number of COVID-19 cases based on symptom data provided by over a million weekly users of the app across the UK, combined with the number of local cases confirmed with positive COVID-19 tests. 

Although our numbers track in line with other sources, including the national ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey (which randomly tests households across England), the Imperial College REACT-1 study and official government test figures, we calculate these rates using predictions based on reported symptoms rather than testing alone. 

This means that we include people who are highly likely to have COVID-19 but haven’t been tested or are waiting for results. 

Reassuringly our rapid near real-time data matches the other surveys well. This graph shows how the ONS, Government and ZOE COVID Symptom Study surveys compare, with both our study and the ONS Survey suggesting that we were well past the peak of new infections before the new lockdown started, with our data showing trends a few days earlier. 

Are the restrictions working?

Our data shows that England’s tiered system of COVID-19 restrictions was already working when the decision was made to enter a second national lockdown. The situation is similar in Scotland, with cases falling ahead of the new stricter rules being introduced this week.

Broadly, it looks like things are getting under control, with new cases slowly coming down around the country, although at very different rates depending on where you live. According to NHS data up to November 18th Hospital admissions have stabilised, with the seven-day average beginning to fall for the first time, and a peak possibly reached on November 11th. This cannot be due to lockdown, since this would take at least two weeks to have an effect on admissions, and so reflects changes in infections pre-lockdown. Deaths have also now stabilised since November 11th and, again, this can only be due to decreases in infection pre-lockdown, since it would take at least three weeks for the lockdown to impact deaths.

This should mean that this second wave of infections and resulting hospital cases will decline further and we can return to more modest restrictions in December. Those restrictions should be based on encouraging voluntary behaviour changes and using regional data on new cases and hospital admissions / capacity rather than just projected models.

The ZOE COVID Symptom Study app is providing the data we need

The more people we have using the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app, the more accurate our data about how COVID-19 rates are changing across the UK. 

Collecting data in this way not only gives us information in near real-time, days ahead of the government testing programme, but is amazingly cost-effective. The ZOE COVID Symptom Study costs a fraction of other testing-based survey methods.

Please share the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app with someone else today, to give the UK public the information we need to get through the coming months and back to normal.

Together we’ll get through this – stay safe and keep logging.

Tim Spector

This is shocking – Owl

The head of the judiciary has admonished six Tory parliamentarians for seeking to influence a judge overseeing a hearing this week on whether references written in support of the former MP Charlie Elphicke can be made public.

Ben Quinn www.theguardian.com

The six wrote last week to senior judges, copying in the judge who will oversee the hearing on Wednesday, expressing concern that “matters of principle” should first be considered by senior members of the judiciary and by parliament.

But in a response from the office of the lord chief justice for England and Wales, they were told it was “improper” to seek to influence the decision of a judge who would ultimately rule on the basis of evidence and argument in court.

“It is all the more regrettable when representatives of the legislature, writing as such on House of Commons notepaper, seek to influence a judge in a private letter and do so without regard for the separation of powers or the independence of the judiciary,” said the reply from Ben Yallop, the private secretary to the lord chief justice.

“It is equally improper to suggest that senior judges should in some way intervene to influence the decision of another judge. The independence of the judges extends to being free from interference by judicial colleagues or superiors in their decision-making. Judges must be free to make their decision independently of pressure or influence from all, including legislators.”

The original letter was sent to the president of the Queen’s bench division and the senior presiding judge for England and Wales by the Tory peer David Freud and the MPs Sir Roger Gale, Adam Holloway, Bob Stewart, Theresa Villiers and Natalie Elphicke.

The latter is the estranged wife of Charlie Elphicke, who succeeded him as the MP for Dover before his conviction and jailing this year for three counts of sexual assault against two women.

The other five parliamentarians identified themselves last week as the authors of some of the character references provided for Elphicke’s sentencing, and claimed that publishing the statements could deter people from providing similar background details in future cases.

An application is being made on Wednesday by the Guardian, Times and Associated Newspapers for release of the letters where the author is a public figure, in public office or holds or has held a position of public responsibility.

Where the authors are ordinary members of the public – such as former constituents – the media organisations’ position is that if publication will cause unwanted intrusion into private life, the letters could be anonymised.

The issue has also been raised in parliament by Stewart, who called for a debate. The leader of the house, Jacob Rees-Mogg, told him he had raised a concerning point and said he would refer the matter to the lord chief justice and the attorney general.

The British government has been accused of running an ‘Orwellian’ unit in Michael Gove’s office that instructs Whitehall departments on how to respond to Freedom of Information requests and shares personal information about journalists, openDemocracy can reveal today.

Peter Geoghegan www.opendemocracy.net 

Experts warn that the practice could be breaking the law – and openDemocracy is now working with the law firm Leigh Day on a legal bid to force Gove’s Cabinet Office to reveal full details of how its secretive ‘Clearing House’ unit operates. 

Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are supposed to be ‘applicant-blind’: meaning who makes the request should not matter. But it now emerges that government departments and non-departmental public bodies have been referring ‘sensitive’ FOI requests from journalists and researchers to the Clearing House in Gove’s department in a move described by a shadow cabinet minister as “blacklisting”.

This secretive FOI unit gives advice to other departments “to protect sensitive information”, and collates lists of journalists with details about their work. These lists have included journalists from openDemocracy, The Guardian, The Times, the BBC, and many more, as well as researchers from Privacy International and Big Brother Watch and elsewhere.

The unit has also signed off on FOI responses from other Whitehall departments – effectively centralising control within Gove’s office over what information is released to the public.

Conservative MP David Davis called on government ministers to “explain to the House of Commons precisely why they continue” with a Clearing House operation that is “certainly against the spirit of that Act – and probably the letter, too.” 

Labour shadow Cabinet Office minister Helen Hayes said: “This is extremely troubling. If the cabinet office is interfering in FOI requests and seeking to work around the requirements of the Act by blacklisting journalists, it is a grave threat to our values and transparency in our democracy.”

Details of the Clearing House are revealed in a new report on Freedom of Information published today by openDemocracy. 

‘Art of Darkness’ finds that the UK government has granted fewer and rejected more FOI requests than ever before – with standards falling particularly sharply in the most important Whitehall departments. 

The Clearing House circulates a daily list of FOI requests to up to 70 departments and public bodies that contains details of all requests that it is advising on. This list covers FOI requests about “sensitive subjects” as well as ‘round robin’ requests made to multiple government departments.

Press freedom campaigners have sharply criticised the Clearing House operation and have called for full transparency.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said: “The existence of this clearing house in the Cabinet Office is positively Orwellian. It poses serious questions about the government’s approach to access to information, its attitude to the public’s right to know and the collation of journalists’ personal information.”

Jon Baines, a data protection expert at the law firm Mischon de Reya and chair of the National Association of Data Protection Officers, said that he was “far from assured that the operation of the Clearing House complies with data protection law.”

“Data protection law requires, as a basic principle, that personal data be processed fairly and in a transparent manner – on the evidence that I have seen, I do not feel that the Clearing House meets these requirements,” Baines added.

‘Art of Darkness’: the worst offenders

The new report published by openDemocracy paints a disturbing picture of the state of Freedom of Information in Britain. 

In 2019, central UK government departments granted fewer and rejected more FOI requests than ever before. In the last five years, the Cabinet Office – as well as the Treasury, Foreign Office and Home Office – have all withheld more requests than they granted, according to the report.

The Cabinet Office – which is the government department responsible for Freedom of Information policy – has one of the worst records on access to information. Last year, Michael Gove’s department was the branch of Whitehall most likely to have its decisions referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which regulates information rights in the UK.   

New analysis by openDemocracy also shows that some public bodies are cynically undermining requests for information by failing to respond to requests in any way – a tactic described in openDemocracy’s report as ‘stonewalling’. Decision Notices, which are issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about stonewalling, have increased by 70 per cent in the last five years. Again, the Cabinet Office is a repeat offender. 

The study reveals that the ICO fully or partially upheld complaints about mishandled requests in 48 per cent of its Decision Notices last year: the highest proportion in five years.

Yet the ICO’s capacity to investigate complaints and enforce the Act is diminishing. The regulator has seen its budget cut by 41 per cent over the last decade, while its complaint caseload has increased by 46 per cent in the same period.

The ICO’s enforcement may also be hampered by its governance structure – under which it is accountable on FOI to the Cabinet Office. Michael Gove’s department also is involved in setting the ICO’s annual budget.

Responding to openDemocracy’s questions about the Clearing House, a government spokesperson said:

“The Cabinet Office plays an important role through the FOI Clearing House of ensuring there is a standard approach across government in the way we consider and respond to requests. 

“With increasing transparency, we receive increasingly more complex requests under Freedom of Information. We must balance the public need to make information available with our duty to protect sensitive information and ensure national security.” 

‘Jenna Corderoy is a journalist’

openDemocracy has had first hand experience of how the Clearing House slows down or obstructs FOI requests, and profiles journalists, on a number of different occasions.

In February 2020, openDemocracy journalist Jenna Corderoy sent an FOI request to the Ministry of Defence about meetings with short-lived special advisor Andrew Sabisky. The MoD subsequently complained internally that “due to the time spent in getting an approval from Clearing House, the FOI requestor has put in a complaint to [the FOI regulator] the ICO”. 

The MoD refused the Sabisky request after 196 days, which is more than six times the normal limit for responding to an FOI request.

Separately, when Corderoy sent a Freedom of Information request to the Attorney General’s Office, staff at the office wrote in internal emails: “Just flagging that Jenna Corderoy is a journalist” and “once the response is confirmed, I’ll just need [redacted] to sign off on this before it goes out, since Jenna Corderoy is a reporter for openDemocracy”. 

Today’s findings on the operation of the Clearing House add to mounting questions about the British government’s approach to transparency and press freedom. 

Earlier this year, Number 10 was heavily criticised after it barred openDemocracy from COVID press briefings. The Ministry of Defence was also subsequently accused of ‘blacklisting’ DeclassifiedUK after the department refused to provide comment to the investigative website.

Edin Omanovic, advocacy director at Privacy International said that “the point of Freedom of Information is to access information from individual authorities themselves, not from a centralised body within the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office should not be interfering.”

Silke Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch said, “We’re appalled that such important information rights have been so disrespected by the government. The centralisation of difficult FOIs, the secrecy of this list and the fact that our names have been circulated around Whitehall is seriously chilling. This is a shameful reflection on the government’s attitude towards transparency.”

Long legal battle for transparency 

openDemocracy first asked for copies of the Clearing House lists back in 2018. The Cabinet Office refused this Freedom of Information request but, 23 months later, in July 2020 the ICO finally decided that the lists – including the advice that the Cabinet Office provides on dealing with FOI requests – should be disclosed to the public. 

While the Cabinet Office eventually disclosed some material from the Clearing House list, it is keeping its advice to departments secret and is appealing against the ICO’s decision. 

openDemocracy, represented by the law firm Leigh Day, will now be submitting evidence to an information tribunal hearing to determine whether this information about the Clearing House should be made public. 

According to ICO guidance, a public authority can only look up a requester’s identity if the request is repeated – potentially a vexatious request – or whether the cost of two or more requests made by the requester can be aggregated under FOI.  

The ICO has been aware of the Clearing House’s existence for some time. In 2005, the Clearing House’s annual budget was reported to be £700,000.

The Clearing House was initially housed within the then Department for Constitutional Affairs then later moved to the Ministry of Justice. In 2015, when the Cabinet Office took responsibility for freedom of information policy, the department also took over the Clearing House, despite concerns about its operation. 

The Cabinet Office has previously advertised roles to work in the Cabinet Office’s Clearing House. Specific responsibilities listed for the positions included “creating a weekly FOI tracker of new cases and releases”, and “forwarding drafts for clearance, reverting to departments with advice and negotiating redrafted responses”.  

But openDemocracy’s findings – and the upcoming tribunal case – have highlighted fresh and pressing concerns, including among rights advocates who campaigned for the initial, groundbreaking Freedom of Information legislation more than 15 years ago. The Campaign for Freedom of Information’s Katherine Gundersen has said: “It’s time the clearing house was subjected to proper scrutiny.”

Meanwhile Gavin Freeguard, head of data and transparency at the Institute for Government, said that, 15 years after the Freedom of Information act came into effect, it was not right that the public was still having to fight to access information.

“With delayed responses, more requests being rejected than ever before and these reports of a Clearing House it feels like we’re having to fight for the right to information all over again,” said Freeguard.

“And all this at a time when it’s vital for politicians, the press and the public to be able to scrutinise government.” 

The Cabinet Office organises quarterly engagement meetings and biannual information rights forums with other government departments. openDemocracy sent an FOI requesting materials from these meetings and forums, but the request was denied.

While the government has pledged to invest £100m in supporting public leisure centres this winter, no details of the scheme have yet been made available, with East Devon not knowing how much, if any, they will receive.

[From the cabinet briefing papers here is a link to LED accounts to year ending 31 Dec 2019]

DANIEL CLARK www.midweekherald.co.uk 

A rescue package of nearly three quarters of a million pounds is set to be given to LED Leisure to ensure they can continue to operate as a result of losses incurred by coronavirus lockdowns.

East Devon District Council’s cabinet on Wednesday night [11 November] heard that the forecasted losses from the implications of Covid-19 meant that without additional support, LED’s operations would not be viable, and would likely lead to closing of the facilities, particularly the swimming pools.

While leisure centres in Sidmouth, Ottery St Mary, Axminster, Colyton, Exmouth and Honiton had reopened prior to the second lockdown, as well as swimming pools in Sidmouth, Honiton and Exmouth, Broadclyst and Cranbrook leisure centres had remained closed.

While the government has pledged to invest £100m in supporting public leisure centres this winter, no details of the scheme have yet been made available, with East Devon not knowing how much, if any, they will receive.

The cabinet on Wednesday agreed to recommend to full council that an additional subsidy to LED of £732,275 to reimburse their actual net losses incurred to September 2020 resulting from Covid-19 is paid.

They also agreed that from October 2020 a monthly review and payment is then made until the end of March 2021 to cover further net losses incurred, but that the total of any additional subsidy payment in the current financial year shall not exceed £1,339,000.

In the report to the cabinet, Charlie Plowden, service lead for countryside and leisure, said: “The financial position of LED is outlined in the report including their incurred costs to date and future projected losses as result of Covid-19. If the Council decide not to financial supported LED then their reserves are projected to fall to £14,000 by the end of November, a position which would not be sustainable.

“Clearly East Devon District Council wants to be supporting our leisure provider to enable them to maintain their facilities and events programmes, which contribute towards our shared health & wellbeing objectives. Officers have provided assurance to LED that we would use our best endeavours, subject to Council approval, to ensure that their budget deficit is met

“If the situation becomes worse, then a further update report will be brought back to Cabinet via the new LED Monitoring Committee detailing the options and requirements. In the meantime, all attempts will continue by Cabinet and Officers to recover LED’s lost income from Government, or if a payment is received direct to LED then our funding arrangements will allow us to recover any sums we have paid.”

Councillor Bruce de Saram said closures would be bad thing, but there was a need to ensure sustainable long-term growth and they were fit for purpose in the future. He added: “We don’t want them to close but we need to find the right solution that doesn’t commit us to large funding.”

Cllr Paul Hayward said: “We are where we are and we will be made out to be the baddies if we withdraw the facilities, but we are not even getting the courtesy of a response from government. Writing and getting no response is disgusting and this is the fault of Government who have not thought out the funding process. They are leaving our finances and LEDs on a knife edge.”

Leader of the council, Cllr Paul Arnott, added: “We are walking the tightrope between keeping this going and not wanting to write a blank cheque.”

The cabinet unanimously agreed to recommend to full council to pay the additional £732,275 subsidy to LED Leisure to cover losses to September, and then for a monthly review and further payments to be made which shall not exceed £1,339,000.

They also called for the district’s three MPs to as matter of urgency lobby ministers to ensure leisure trusts receive Covid-related leisure funding equitable to non-trust run leisure centres and to try and hold an urgent meeting with the relevant minister where they can explain the difficulty as a result of failure to provide funding and to demand it is immediately forthcoming.

$64,000 question: which tier will East Devon be in?

Simon Murphy www.theguardian.com 

While the end of the month-long Covid-19 lockdown 2.0 in England will come as welcome news to many, the strengthened tier system with which it is to be replaced could leave some people scratching their heads as they grapple with a fresh set of complex rules. Here we explain how some of the key aspects of the new system – due to be imposed when restrictions end on 2 December – compare with the old one.

Tier 1

From 2 December

Under the new system hospitality businesses in England can stay open until 11pm with table service only but last orders must be made by 10pm, in an effort to stagger departures. The “rule of six” will also remain in place indoors, meaning social household mixing is still allowed.

Spectator sport is set to resume, albeit with limits on numbers and abiding by social distancing. In tier 1, there will be a maximum crowd capacity outdoors of 50% of occupancy of the stadium or 4,000 people, whichever is smaller. Indoors, the maximum capacity is 1,000.

In tier 1, people will be encouraged to minimise travel and work from home where possible. Support bubbles – which allowed a single household to join with another household – are also being broadened across all tiers. Parents with a child under one will be able to form a support bubble, as well as those with a child under five who needs continuous care, such as a child with a disability. Also, in cases where there is a single adult carer, for a partner with dementia for example, they would also be able to form a support bubble.

How was it before?

In the least restrictive tier, also known as alert level “medium”, the rule of six applied indoors and outdoors, meaning up to half a dozen people from different households could gather. Hospitality businesses, such as pubs and restaurants, could stay open but were forced to shut by 10pm – a move that prompted much criticism, including from Conservative backbenchers.

Tier 2

From 2 December

Under the new system, although hospitality venues will be allowed to stay open until 11pm – with last orders at 10pm – only those that serve substantial meals can operate. It means pubs and bars that do not will have to close.

As before, social mixing outside of households or support bubbles will not be allowed indoors. The rule of six will apply outdoors.

Spectators will be allowed to watch sport in tier 2, with a maximum crowd capacity outdoors of 50% of the capacity of the stadium or 2,000 people, whichever is smaller. Indoors, the maximum capacity is 1,000.

Indoor entertainment venues, such as cinemas, casinos and bowling alleys, must also close.

How was it before?

In the “high” alert level tier, faced by Londoners and others, people were prohibited from mixing socially indoors with anybody outside of their household or support bubble but the rule of six remained in place outdoors. Hospitality businesses, such as pubs and restaurants, could open until 10pm but people were only allowed to visit with their household or support bubble.

Tier 3

From 2 December

Hospitality venues will have to close, except for delivery and takeaway service. In tier 3, hotels and other accommodation providers must also close, except for specific work purposes where people cannot return home. Outdoor sports, including golf and tennis, will be allowed to continue in all tiers, as will amateur team sports such as football. Unlike the first two tiers, spectators will not be allowed to watch sport in tier 3.

Across all tiers, shops, personal care, gyms and the wider leisure sector are set to reopen. Collective worship and weddings – with a maximum of 15 in attendance – can also resume.

How was it before?

In the most restrictive tier, known as the “very high” alert level that was endured by vast swathes of the north of England, mixing socially indoors between households – unless a support bubble was in place – was banned. Under baseline measures hospitality venues serving substantial food could remain open until 10pm. Up to six people from different households could socialise outdoors in public spaces, such as parks, beaches or public gardens.

 Boris Johnson sets out ‘tougher’ tiered restrictions for England during Commons debate – video

Sir Desmond asked Boris Johnson: “The last ruler that told us how we may or may not celebrate Christmas was Oliver Cromwell. It didn’t end well, did it?”

Darren Slade www.bournemouthecho.co.uk

A CONSERVATIVE MP has likened the government to Puritan Oliver Cromwell as Britain faces restrictions on its Christmas celebrations.

New Forest West MP Sir Desmond Swayne questioned the prime minister after a Commons statement on the restrictions that will take the place of the current lockdown.

The prime minister said the UK deserved “some kind of Christmas”, but rules on social gatherings have not yet been finalised.

Sir Desmond asked Boris Johnson: “The last ruler that told us how we may or may not celebrate Christmas was Oliver Cromwell. It didn’t end well, did it?”

Oliver Cromwell, who ruled England as Lord Protector from 1653-1658, supported measures that sought to stop the festivities which surrounded Christmas.

Boris Johnson said: “My right honourable friend is completely right in his basic instincts, which I share, and his fundamental libertarian yearnings, which I also share.

“I love Christmas. I love a big get-together. I think the trouble is that the people of this country can see that there is a real risk that if we blow it with Christmas, with a big blowout Christmas, then we’ll pay for it in the new year and they want a cautious and balanced approach and that’s what we will deliver for the whole UK.”

Sir Desmond’s concise question drew praise from deputy speaker Dame Eleanor Laing, who said: “Can I make a plea for all members to be as brief for the right honourable gentleman for New Forest West? Because after two hours we’re not even half way through the number of people who are here hoping to ask questions in this statement.”

The elderly and people with mobility issues will soon be able to walk on the sand and dip their toes in the sea at Sidmouth, if up to £50,000 can be raised for a new beach ramp.

An exciting new project has been launched to design and build an access ramp at Chit Rocks in Sidmouth.

sidmouth.nub.news

The elderly and people with mobility issues will soon be able to walk on the sand and dip their toes in the sea at Sidmouth, if up to £50,000 can be raised for a new beach ramp.

An exciting new project has been launched to design and build an access ramp at Chit Rocks in Sidmouth.

Town resident Dave Rafferty, who is organising the project, said he experienced first hand, as a grandparent, the difficulties of getting onto the sandy beach with pushchairs and toddlers in tow.

Dave has now set a £50,000 target in a bid to pay for the project which has been back by Sidmouth Town Council and East Devon District Council.

NPS South West has also thrown its support behind the project which means the survey and design work can start straight away, and will be funded directly by NPS.

Sidmouth Coastal Community Hub has also agreed to host the project and provide the necessary oversight and banking facilities.

Chit Rocks 1

Donations have started to come in and Devon County Councillor Stuart Hughes has already agreed to support the project and has allocated £1,000 from his locality budget.

Dave added: “We are lucky to be fit and active but none the less struggled with the pebbled beach and steep steps.

“In talking with others who were experiencing the same problem we realised this could be easily overcome with a ramp at Chit Rocks.

“It would allow frail elderly people and anyone with mobility problems to once again walk on the sand and dip their toes in the sea.

“The town and district council were approached for initial advice and with support given in principle, the project launched earlier this month.

Chit Rocks 2

“A Facebook page and Go Fund Me appeal were set up to start raising funds and awareness.

“There is still a long way to go to raise enough funds for construction costs so if anyone would like to donate or support in any way please get in touch by phone.”

The NPS South West spokesperson added: “NPS South West are delighted to support this local initiative and be part of an exciting project to provide a permanent ramp directly onto Chit Rocks sands, providing access for many people who currently struggle or are unable to access and enjoy this lovely beach.”

Contact Dave by calling 07977 064498.

Click here to see the latest updates on the Sidmouth Coastal Community Hub Ramp Facebook page.

East Devon Owl finds common ground with the Fleet Street Fox. Will we see East Devon MPs donating their increase to charity – as Ben Bradshaw does in Exeter?

This government is awe-inspiring.

Fleet Street Fox www.mirror.co.uk

Because just when you think it’s hit a peak of venal scumbaggery which cannot possibly be surpassed, Boris Johnson’s “cabinet of giants” strains its sinews to manage a further feat of breathtaking bastardy.

Just when you thought paying their mates millions was bad, they ‘lose the paperwork’ for up to £18billion of government contracts. When you think paying £50million for an absence of ferries was the worst they could manage, then find they’ve blown £12billion on barely any tests or tracing. And once you have ingested the news of a public sector pay freeze on the grounds of “fairness”, they are wheeled out to defend a pay increase for themselves.

The likes of Matt Hancock have had so much practice this year at twisting truth and language that their necks are no longer made of brass, but pure tungsten. A man who can claim he “threw a protective ring around care homes” by turning them into plague pits can have no issues with taking home 4 times the average pay of a nurse who risked their life mopping up his disasters.

Newspapers have been widely briefed that in Wednesday’s spending review, Chancellor Rishi Sunak will announce a freeze on public sector pay, with the exception of NHS doctors and nurses. The reason is because so many in the private sector have suffered in the pandemic that it would not be fair – and, in tax revenue terms, even harder to fund – pay increases for all 5.4m of the nation’s public servants.

Today it’s been revealed that MPs, on the other hand, are due a 4.1% uplift, equivalent to £3,300 on their basic £81,932 salary. The official line is that, because MPs pay is set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, it’s nothing to do with them, guv. Unfortunately, calling something “independent” does not make it so.

IPSA’s board is appointed, funded, and set its rules by the Speaker’s Committee. It consists of Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, chair of the Committee of Privileges Chris Bryant MP, as well as another 5 MPs, and 3 lay members appointed by, you guessed it, MPs.

The definition of “independent” means to be free of outside authority or control. But the system MPs set up for themselves after the 2009 expenses scandal is the same as it had before, when the House of Commons voted on its own pay, except fewer of them get a vote, and there’s less to see. It’s a brilliant example of how a huge scandal led to greater official obscurity.

“Scrutiny, mutiny, it’s all the same to I” (Image: Anna Turley MP/Getty)

The police’s independent review body, on the other hand, includes ex-police, a magistrate, and an economics professor. There’s another economist on the one for school teachers, along with a retired university vice-chancellor, and an ex-headteacher. The one that covers the NHS includes several people who worked in HR, and yet another economics professor. An existing police officer, teacher, or nurse has no say on who sits on those boards, their budgets, or how they make their decisions.

In July, the government decided to honour the pay review suggestions made by these truly-independent bodies for the entire public sector. So nurses are getting 2.8%, teachers 2.75%, police 2.5%.

This was dressed up as a pay rise for their hard work. In fact, it was the pay they deserved for the work their did before the pandemic hit; not a bump, so much as their due. And it came, in many cases, along with cuts to budgets, which means those running the hospitals, schools, and police forces had to decide what to axe in order to fund the ‘pay rise’.

MPs do not have to cut a single thing to afford their own pay rise, not least because there’s fewer of them. And, what’s more, the size of their rise depends on the average weekly earnings of the rest of the public sector. Give coppers a bung they can’t afford to actually pay, then, and it still means cash drops into MPs’ pockets.

IPSA is not clear which formula it uses to calculate all this. Those who’ve analysed MP pay rises say, of the different options, not one appears to have been used consistently. And it may be that overtime payments go into the calculation, which could mean that paying nurses overtime, but no salary increase – for example during a pandemic – increases the average earnings, and MPs then get a bigger salary. and then, of course, bigger pensions too.

It’s too easy to get cross at MPs. Many of them do fine, important jobs over long hours. Most care deeply, and during the past year have had a bigger workload, and with this government more reason to check and argue with every decision.

A pay rise that’s truly in line with the rest of the public sector would be quite reasonable. And while we do not seem to be short of people who fancy being an MP, we ARE short of nurses, teachers and police officers. Ask any of them whether they’d like a pay rise or the resources to do their jobs properly, and most would ask for better budgets.

The reason this pandemic has hit Britain so badly, both in terms of deaths and economics, is because public sector budgets were pared to the bone. The UK had fewer hospital beds, had cut more of them, and had higher occupancy rates of those left, than most other countries in the EU and the OECD. We had a sicker population, with high rates of obesity, respiratory disease, and diabetes, along with cuts to public health budgets, school meals, and community programmes. And when lockdown came, we had fewer police to catch those breaking the rules, which contributed to our second wave.

Had we funded our public sector properly, we would not be so fat, as sick, or get away with being so stupid. We would not need new hospitals, doctors, or police, because we would have enough already. School children would have been armed with iPads, broadband would have been laid on by the state, and all the many harms of this crisis would have been less.

“Seriously, any old fool could do this job. Which job is it, again?” (Image: AFP/Getty Images)

To do that, we would need to pay more tax. And the wonderful thing, for governments, is that if you award a pay rise to the public sector you get tax revenue in return – not only from staff, but from their increased spending, their house sales, their new car. It’s why sane governments make sure they pay public servants properly, and it’s because ours is so damagingly stupid that we’re not doing the same.

At one point during the first lockdown, the London Tube was seeing just 7% of its usual journeys, and the rail network about 5%. Those were the people who kept the lights on – the NHS cleaners, the police support staff, council workers, engineers. It was indicative of how useful they are, and how the remaining 90% of us can do nothing without them. There’d be no newspapers without lorry drivers, no food in the shops without road repairs, no medicines without dockers, no public safety without prison officers.

We have all suffered, this year. And we’ll be even poorer still if we don’t reward those – public or private sector – who have done the most to ensure we made it to Christmas. That means money for the NHS, not for private healthcare to overcharge for clearing the waiting lists; funding for school meals, not Boris’ school mates; and the same rules for all, whether it’s millions of of public sector staff or 650 MPs.

As it is, what we’ve got is a ruling class that is “independent” only of us, and that’s not the deal we agreed.

Court reporter www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

PUBLISHED: 15:06 23 November 2020 [Note: case published by Owl 30 October]

A former Mayor of Exmouth has appeared in court accused of historic sex assaults against two boys in the 1990s and 2000s.

Alderman John Humphrey, who was a Conservative East Devon councillor for 12 years until 2019, pleaded not guilty to ten charges at Exeter Crown Court.

The allegations relate to sexual assaults on two boys between 1990 and 2002.

Humphreys, of Hartley Road, Exmouth, denied three counts of committing a serious sexual assault, and two of indecent assault on a boy between 1990 and 1991.

He also denied five counts of indecent assault against a second boy between 2000 and 2002.

Judge David Evans set a trial date of August 9, 2021 and released Humphreys on bail.

Just shows his lacklustre cabinet would believe anything!

This is Owl’s “in bad taste” joke of the day.

Eleni Courea, Political Reporter www.thetimes.co.uk 

Boris Johnson spoke out against bullying yesterday during a cabinet meeting and referred to Winston Churchill’s wife imploring him to be kind.

The prime minister last week overruled Sir Alex Allan, his adviser on ethics, as he cleared Priti Patel, the home secretary, of breaching the ministerial code. Sir Alex found Ms Patel had “unintentionally” bullied civil servants but Mr Johnson argued that the cases were not clear. Sir Alex subsequently resigned.

Mr Johnson told cabinet he would not accept bullying and referred to Clementine Churchill, who in 1940 wrote to her husband after one of his friends had complained of his “rough, sarcastic and overbearing manner”.

She urged him to combine his “terrific power” with “urbanity, kindness and if possible Olympian calm”. “You won’t get the best results by irascibility and rudeness,” she wrote. “They will breed either dislike or a slave mentality.”

A former cabinet secretary has said that Mr Johnson should reassert the principle of ministerial responsibility instead of demonstrating “tribal” loyalty to allies such as Ms Patel.

The prime minister appears not to “hold his colleagues responsible for their actions where they have got things wrong but it would be inconvenient to accept it”, Lord Wilson of Dinton, a crossbench peer and former head of the civil service, wrote in a letter published in The Times today.

Lord Wilson criticised Mr Johnson’s refusal to sack his home secretary after Sir Alex found that she had bullied officials. Sir Alex’s report said that Ms Patel had shouted and sworn at officials in her department, amounting to “behaviour that can be described as bullying”, in breach of the code.

Lord Wilson, who was cabinet secretary from 1998 to 2002, described the prime minister’s decision as “worrying”.

“There is a growing string of cases where ministers wrongly disclaim responsibility, whether it be the harassment of civil servants or intervening improperly in the planning process or blaming others for the exams fiasco or poor handling of the pandemic,” he wrote.

“Forming a square around a colleague who is in trouble sounds tribal rather than good governance. Perhaps refurbishment of No 10’s image could include reassertion of the principle of ministerial responsibility.”

This episode of the Stories of our Times podcast will form part of a week-long series. We’ll explore: what should happen to British nationals who left to join Islamic State, and do we have a responsibility to bring them back?

A union leader criticised Ms Patel over reports that she intended to shake up the Home Office by forcing officials to work some weekends and introducing performance reviews for senior civil servants.

Figures from a union survey of senior Home Office officials this month, seen by The Times, suggested that 40 per cent worked at least an additional eight or more hours every week, unpaid.

Dave Penman, head of the FDA union, which represents civil servants, said: “To suggest the home secretary is now responsible for performance reviews for the ‘senior ranks’ is simply fiction. It is also insulting to suggest that the civil service does not respond to demands or is stuck in a 9-5 culture, as the anonymous briefings suggest.”

The election watchdog faces calls to investigate Facebook ads about the government’s controversial Towns Fund targeted at key marginal seats in 2019.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

HuffPost UK revealed last year that the government paid for more than 20 ads in swing seats trumpeting £25m investment in “your town”.

The messages, which could still be found on the site when MPs backed an early general election in October, all appeared to be specifically targeted at areas where the sitting MP had a majority below 5,000, such as Milton Keynes, Morley and Workington. 

Facebook pulled the ads after they were highlighted, saying they were not correctly labelled.

“Ads about social issues, elections or politics that appear on our platforms should include a disclaimer provided by advertisers,” a spokesman for the site said. 

Now, Labour has written to the Electoral Commission asking the body to “investigate the circumstances of this alleged misuse of public funds”. 

It follows fresh questions for communities secretary Robert Jenrick, whose Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government runs the scheme, who has repeatedly been called to parliament to answer questions about whether the fund was used to “funnel” cash to target seats.

The government has insisted the process “comprehensive, robust and fair” but a highly critical report by the Public Accounts Committee said the fund was “not impartial” and ministers ignored officials’ advice. 

Meg Hillier, chair of the committee, said the system gave “every appearance of having been politically motivated”.

MPs also said some towns were picked by ministers, including Jenrick’s own Newark constituency, “despite being identified by officials as the very lowest priority”.

Cat Smith, shadow minister, has written to Bob Posner, chief executive of the Electoral Commission.

In the letter, seen by HuffPost UK, she says: “On the cusp of a general election, this sort of targeted advertising is clearly inappropriate when paid for out of the public purse.

“This is a clear case of public money being used to advance the political interest of the Conservative Party.

“In light of the recent Towns Fund scandal, we know that taxpayers’ money has been used to benefit the Conservative Party.”

She adds: “In a time of increasing disregard for democratic processes and norms worldwide, it is vital that the UK government is held to the highest democratic standards and acts both legally and transparently.

“I would urge the Electoral Commission to investigate the circumstances of this alleged misuse of public funds, and to report on its findings publicly as soon as possible.

“Ministers must answer these questions and reassure the public that taxpayers’ cash is not being spent by the Conservatives for their own gain.”

When approached the government about the Facebook ads last year, a spokesman said “all towns selected were chosen according to the same selection methodology, including analysis of deprivation, productivity, economy resilience and investment opportunities”.

It said that the ad campaign ended before the official election campaign started, even though posts could still be found.

They said: “The My Town campaign began on 25 October and has now ended in the run up to the pre-election period. While the posts are still be present on Facebook, they are no longer being promoted as the paid-for campaign has ended.”

Figures have shown that the number of people in Devon claiming Universal Credit almost doubled since the start of the coronavirus lockdown.

Colleen Smith www.devonlive.com 

The figure rose by 95 per cent from 48,190 claimants in March to 93,917 in October. The latest provisional figures from the Department of Work and Pensions have revealed the devastating impact of the pandemic on incomes in the county.

It means one in eight people of working age – from 16 to 64 – are now on Universal Credit. The figure ranges from 10% in places like Exeter and West Devon, to 18% in Torbay.

Sara Willcocks, head of external affairs at Turn2us, said: “These new Universal Credit figures clearly show the pandemic’s profound and devastating impact on people’s income, employment and how close to the cliff edge many of us are – even prior to the first lockdown.

“Recent government schemes have protected some people from the economic consequences of the pandemic, yet there’s more that needs to be done.

“A Universal Credit system that is fit for purpose would do much to help people recover and to loosen poverty’s grip.

“If this government truly wants to stop people from being pulled into homelessness, hunger and debt, we urge them to increase to the child element of Universal Credit, maintain the increase to Local Housing Allowance rates and urgently review policies like the Benefit Cap and Two-child Limit.”

Nationally, there were 5.7 million people across Great Britain claiming Universal Credit as of October. That was nearly double the 3.0 million claimants in March.

A government spokesperson said: “We are wholly committed to supporting the lowest paid families and our policies, in particular those related to the pandemic, are under constant review.”
They added that they have recently confirmed the £20 UC uplift will remain in place until March 2021, and that they have already taken steps to help ease the burden of UC debt repayments, including reducing the maximum deduction from 40% to 30% of a claimant’s standard allowance.
From October 2021 they will reduce this further to 25%, and will double the time available to repay an advance to 24 months.

The table above shows that while Torbay has the highest percentage of people of working age claiming Universal Credit – other areas are seeing a fast rise, with figures more than doubling this year in many other parts of the county.

Hidden Devon

Devon Live has launched Hidden Devon, a series of campaigns highlighting issues that lie beneath the surface of our county.

The first concerns the issue of homelessness in the county’s cities, towns and villages – exacerbated by the grim impact of the global pandemic.

Not only do scores of people sleep rough on streets, in parks and even on farmland, there are those labelled ‘of no fixed abode’ for other reasons. They may have fled to a refuge, they may have been temporarily housed in a bed and breakfast or they may simply be living in one of region’s dedicated homeless hostels.

How to give

A big part of our campaign is recognising the institutions across the region that are desperately trying to help those in need. In many instances, they are staffed with volunteers giving up their own free time.

You can donate to various charities including PATH Torbay via this link, the Julian House Christmas Appeal covering Exeter and other parts of Devon via this link, or St Petrocks in Exeter via this link.

Are you a charity that would benefit from our fundraising? Contact us at newsdesk@devonlive.com

Find more Hidden Devon stories here

The UK and its “spider‘s web” of overseas territories are responsible for more than a third of global tax avoidance each year, a study has found.

Ben Chapman www.independent.co.uk

Abuse of the tax system by multinational firms and wealthy individuals deprived countries of $427bn (£321bn) for hospitals, nurses, schools and other public services last year, according to advocacy group the Tax Justice Network. Of that figure, more than $160bn was facilitated by the UK and its territories and dependencies.

As coronavirus claims hundreds of thousands of lives and causes governments across the globe to spend trillions of dollars to support their citizens, the research gives the clearest picture yet of the damage wrought by those who funnel profits into tax havens and stash wealth offshore.

TJN analysed the first detailed, international set of data reported by companies showing where they avoid tax.

It calculated that Europe lost the equivalent of one-eighth of its health budget to tax dodging last year.

While wealthy countries are responsible for 98 per cent of tax avoidance, less wealthy ones bear the brunt of the impact. Latin America and Africa lost the equivalent of a fifth and half of their respective health spending, TJN calculated.

Lower-income countries lose the equivalent of 5.8 per cent of the total tax revenue they typically collect a year whereas higher income countries on average lose 2.5 per cent.

The UK maintains its position at the top of the list of jurisdictions helping firms shift vast sums of money away from public  investment and services.

The Cayman Islands – a British Overseas Territory of just 65,000 people – helped multinational companies and individuals avoid paying $70bn, or one dollar in every six that countries are deprived of each year.  

The UK itself, which provides world-beating tax avoidance advice through City of London banks, trust lawyers and accountants is second on the list, responsible for $42bn of tax losses. Together, the UK and Cayman facilitate more than a quarter of the booming tax avoidance industry.

Since the 1950s, when the UK helped to create the world’s tax haven network, ministers have claimed that they have little control over territories like Cayman.  However, the UK has power to veto laws and appoint key government officials, and is also responsible for the island’s defence and international relations.

The Netherlands is the third most damaging country for the global tax system, responsible for $36bn of losses annually. Luxembourg and the US make up the top five, responsible for £28bn and  £24bn respectively. Jersey, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands make the top 20, alongside China, Singapore, Ireland and Hong Kong.

Globally, more than half of tax losses – $245bn – resulted from companies shifting $1.38 trillion of profits out of the countries where they were generated into jurisdictions where they pay little or no tax.

The rest was from individuals avoiding tax by holding $10 trillion of assets offshore. The amount held in secretive, low-tax countries is roughly equivalent to five years of the entire economic output of every person in the UK.

“A global tax system that loses over $427bn a year is not a broken system, it’s a system programmed to fail,” said Alex Cobham, TJN’s chief executive.

“Under pressure from corporate giants and tax haven powers like the Netherlands and the UK’s network, our governments have programmed the global tax system to prioritise the desires of the wealthiest corporations and individuals over the needs of everybody else.  

“The pandemic has exposed the grave cost of turning tax policy into a tool for indulging tax abusers instead of for protecting people’s wellbeing.

“Now more than ever we must reprogramme our global tax system to prioritise people’s health and livelihoods over the desires of those bent on not paying tax.”

TJN is calling on governments to introduce an excess profits tax to recoup money from multinationals that have “short-changed” countries for years.

Those companies that have seen their profits soar while local businesses have been forced to shutdown should be targeted first, TJN said.

“A wealth tax alongside this would ensure that those with the broadest shoulders contribute as they should at this critical time,” Mr Cobham said.

Rosa Pavanelli, general secretary at Public Services International, said: “The reason frontline health workers face missing PPE and brutal under-staffing is because our governments spent decades pursuing austerity and privatisation while enabling corporate tax abuse.  

“For many workers, seeing these same politicians now ‘clapping’ for them is an insult. Growing public anger must be channelled into real action: making corporations and the mega rich finally pay their fair share to build back better public services.”

Boris Johnson was probably right to kick off a much-needed conversation about devolution of power last week, even if the manner of doing so – saying it had been a disaster in Scotland – was for many Tories the kind of quip the head-exploding emoji 🤯 was invented for.

Sam Coates news.sky.com 

In fairness to the PM, you need to highlight this subject in an eye-catching way because it is so immensely dull and complex.

Any question to which well-meaning people can then suggest the answer is a “constitutional convention” (Google it and you’ll wish you hadn’t) is often better not asked in the first place. Devolution in all its forms is a mess – precisely because it is just so boring and complex to sort out.

The coronavirus pandemic has driven home in Westminster what has been obvious in Manchester, Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Birmingham – most places outside of London in fact: That devolution of power is a serious business, and has involved the transfer of serious powers.

Every bit of local regional and national government has had to step up to the plate to deal with the effects of COVID-19, causing much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Downing Street.

It is presumably no coincidence that London mayoralty has some of the weakest powers of any devolution deal. City Hall and its bully pulpit alone were the travellator which took Mr Johnson from backbench obscurity to Downing Street.

Image: The mayoralty took Boris Johnson from backbench obscurity to Number 10

Westminster was, and is, vaguely in favour of the devolution of power, but cannot decide where and how decisions should be made, and ministers always have an aversion to anything that looks or smells like an alternative powerbase.

So it’s all inconsistent: the devolution settlement with Edinburgh is different to the one with Cardiff (the scale of tax-raising powers in the former being the biggest difference). Northern Ireland operates without directly elected government for years at a time.

Meanwhile in England each “City Deal” is different: NHS spending is devolved to the 10 councils in the Greater Manchester region, but not in Birmingham. Some areas are without mayors altogether, and after the PM’s row with Andy Burnham last month, they seem likely to stay that way.

The uncertain attitude to devolution was captured by Mr Johnson rather brilliantly in his speech to Tory Scottish conference.

“Devolution should be used not by politicians as a wall to sequester, to break away, an area of the UK from the rest,” Mr Johnson said.

“It should be used as a step to pass power to local communities and businesses to make their lives better. It’s that kind of localism which I believe in and want to take further.”

It’s entirely ambiguous who these “local communities” are – be they councils, regional authorities or mayors. He won’t tell us where power should be devolved to. Maybe he doesn’t know.

The Tory answer seems to be putting Union Jacks on everything. Labour’s answer looks like it will be a constitutional convention. Neither answer will go down well with those trying to run services across the country.

Nobody captured this ambiguity better than George Osborne, whose messy legacy Rishi Sunak must now decide whether to clear up. For some he is the champion of the Northern Powerhouse – he oversaw the “City Deals” and was in office when more powers were handed to Scotland.

Yet he was also the chancellor who put an extraordinary squeeze on council day-to-day spending. A breakdown by the Financial Times of council spending between 2010 and 2015 revealed that local government budgets cut by £18bn in real terms.

This trend accelerated. The House of Commons library says this year’s local government finance settlement leaves most authorities “well below” the level of funding that they were receiving in 2015.

Mr Osborne raided local authority budgets with impunity because he knew there was very unlikely to be political repercussions in parliament, unlike squeezing the education and welfare budgets which both came to his cost.

This legacy, on top of present day problems, is unsettling leaders of Tory councils in Conservative heartlands.

Keith Mans, the Tory leader of Hampshire council, told me that he wished his party had been more concerned with local government. Now they want sums which sound eye-watering.

“We would expect with the annual funding round going on at the moment to expect at least the same increase as the health service is getting because our increase in demand is very similar,” Mr Mans said, adding: “The NHS has got £30bn more. Local government has got £20bn less.”

There are similar views from the Tory leader of Leicester Council Council, who said the government made a promise at the start of the pandemic it now looks in danger of breaking.

“When we first started off with the coronavirus – the government said whatever it takes, and I took that to mean that whatever we spent would be covered by grant,” said Nicholas Rushton.

“They have been relatively generous but they’ve possibly only funded 50% of our increased costs. The problems are entirely about money. We need money to carry on what we’re doing.”

He spelt out which services were at risk. “20% of our budget is spent on things that people appreciate that isn’t protected (in law so could be cut). Subsidising buses isn’t protected, filling potholes isn’t protected, cleaning road signs not protected, repainting markings, not protected. Libraries are not protected. We need money to ensure we can provide 20% of services unprotected by statute.”

There are two fronts when it comes to fighting coronavirus – one for national government, the other local councils.

But council leaders are worried that they don’t have the same megaphone or the same representation round the cabinet table, as, say, the Department of Health, which the Treasury confirmed on Sunday would get £3bn more in the spending review.

Mr Sunak was once a local government minister, but budgets are tight, and the reason Mr Osborne was able to squeeze local authority budgets was because it came with no political cost to the Tories in Westminster. So the dilemma continues.

For ministers, local councils are often seen as a cost centre. For voters, an everyday lifeline. Will the pandemic mean warnings are heeded this time?

I live in Frome in Somerset – where, in 2011, a town council with an annual budget of about £1m was wrested from the Tories and Lib Dems. A new group of self-styled independents began running things, with an accent on participation, sustainability, community wellbeing, and the rejection of traditional party politics. The same basic idea has now spread to about 15 other places: its name, coined by an inspirational councillor called Peter Macfadyen, is “flatpack democracy”.

John Harris www.theguardian.com 

About eight months ago, a fascinating social change began to ripple through hundreds of British neighbourhoods. Given the deluge of news that has happened since, it is easy to forget how remarkable it all seemed: droves of volunteers who were gripped by community spirit coming together to help deliver food and medicines to their vulnerable neighbours, check on the welfare of people experiencing poverty and loneliness, and much more besides. From a diverse range of places all over the country, the same essential message came through: the state was either absent or unreliable, so people were having to do things for themselves.

A couple of tantalising questions were triggered by all this. Would at least some of the energy and creativity that had been unleashed be sustained beyond the pandemic? And if that happened, might any of the people involved shift their attention to politics? Unfortunately, before any answers started to become clear, the end of the first lockdown saw many local efforts apparently being wound down or fizzling out.

Look closer, though, and it’s clear that in plenty of places, the basic structures of self-help have remained in place. And, in some areas, what seems to have kept the early lockdown spirit intact is the fact that on-the-ground work has been based around town and parish councils that were once barely visible; these are now run by energised community activists who have used recent localism laws to push their work way beyond such staple responsibilities as parks and bus shelters. They’re now blazing a trail for a new kind of ultra-local government.

I live in Frome in Somerset – where, in 2011, a town council with an annual budget of about £1m was wrested from the Tories and Lib Dems. A new group of self-styled independents began running things, with an accent on participation, sustainability, community wellbeing, and the rejection of traditional party politics. The same basic idea has now spread to about 15 other places: its name, coined by an inspirational councillor called Peter Macfadyen, is “flatpack democracy”.

In the first phase of the pandemic, the agile, open way that the town council now works came into its own. The town centre venue previously used for gigs and indoor markets was turned into a bustling food depot. Banners suddenly appeared everywhere, suggesting we all check in on five of our neighbours. Cyclists raced around town dropping off food and prescriptions. This work, which also includes help for local businesses, has carried on; the town council is now thinking hard about how to sustain it beyond the pandemic.

Something similar has happened in Queen’s Park, the London “civil parish” where a new community council held its first elections six years ago, and has dedicatedly worked on helping people through the crisis. But perhaps the most vivid story of all has transpired in Buckfastleigh – a small Devon town on the edge of Dartmoor with high levels of deprivation, and a town council run by a new force called the Buckfastleigh Independent Group, whose prime mover is former civil servant Pam Barrett.

Devon county council, she told me last week, gave the town only £500 for Covid response work during the first lockdown, about 13p per resident. But by that point, the independent-run town council had already directed £20,000 into a relief programme that stretched from supplies of food and medicines, through activity books for local children, to YouTube videos capturing the start of spring for people trapped indoors.

Now, Barrett says, new parents are worrying that their babies are becoming toddlers without having meaningfully socialised with other children, so the council is turning its attention to early-years provision. “We don’t have any public sector in Buckfastleigh any more,” she explains: she and her colleagues are not just filling gaps left by austerity, but basically reinventing local government from the ground up.

There and elsewhere, the key story of the Covid crisis has been that of town and parish councils enabling people to participate in community self-help. But as Macfadyen, Barrett and other flatpackers see it, the next chapter is about moving in the opposite direction, and trying to get people who have been involved in mutual aid to start running the places where they live. As part of the local elections scheduled for May 2021, there will be elections for a huge number of town and parish councils. So, online launch meetings are now being organised to bring people together, and mentors are being put in touch with those who might fancy standing for office. There is an accompanying initiative, partly rooted in the activism around Extinction Rebellion, called Trust the People, which has just started running courses in community organising, grassroots democracy and how to get involved in local decision-making.

These are early, tentative moves. But even in more orthodox parts of politics, you can sense something of the same mood. In the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Labour-run council has worked on a new way of collaborating with voluntary and grassroots groups that was a huge help in dealing with the pandemic (as the left-of-centre pressure group Compass put it, “a council working hand in hand with the community unleashed purpose, speed and agility”). From the other side of politics, it is worth reading a recent report by the Tory MP Danny Kruger, commissioned by the government to look at “sustaining the community spirit we saw during lockdown, into the recovery phase and beyond”. Kruger proposes a new Community Power Act, using deliberative democracy, participatory budgeting and citizen assemblies “to create the plural public square we need”.

Last week I spoke to Adam Hawley, a maths teacher who is trying to galvanise people to run for office in Hull, the city that has lately become a byword for the virus and the crisis it has caused. His focus goes beyond the town and parish level, to seats on the city council. Party politics, he says, seems “awful and embarrassing, and just unhelpful at a local level”. He talks about people’s experience of the Covid crisis, and “a sense that our institutions didn’t know how to respond in a very direct, or even human way”.

If the grassroots politics of 2020 can be boiled down to their essence, he says, it’s been “a big increase in the number of people getting involved in where they live, and looking for ways to do more of it”. These sound like simple enough things. But whether we can reshape our systems of power and politics to accommodate them strikes me as one of the key questions of this crisis, and the uncertain, turbulent future to come.

• John Harris is a Guardian columnist

The NHS is heading into winter with the fewest hospital beds in a decade – leaving jam-packed A&Es and patients lined head-to-toe in corridors, came a warning last night.

John Siddle www.mirror.co.uk

New figures show a 13,500 fall in general beds since 2010 as exhausted staff battle unprecedented demand.

The British Medical Association warned: “The NHS needs proper support, now more than ever. Otherwise we face a hard winter like no other.”

Data published this week by NHS England revealed there were just 94,787 general beds in September – down more than 5,500 from 100,370 in 2019.

In 2010 there were 108,349.

It was reported this week that patients in Manchester, including those with Covid, had been kept “head to toe” on trolleys, with some forced to wait 40 hours for a bed.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine estimates the NHS has 10,000 fewer beds than it will need this winter.

Vice-president Dr Adrian Boyle said: “It was bad last year before Covid – people picked up flu, norovirus. It’s doubly dangerous now.”

NHS chiefs say there are fewer beds because of Covid distancing measures.

But critics blame under-investment by successive Conservative governments.

NHS Providers, which represents trusts, warned some hospitals will have 20 per cent less capacity this winter.

Chief executive Chris Hopson said: “We have been arguing for a long time that the NHS is short of beds. One key reason for the gap is the deepest and longest financial squeeze in NHS history we have seen over the last decade.”

The Department for Health and Social Care said it had put £450m towards A&E upgrades, on top of £31.9bn announced in July for health services to cope with the pandemic.

A spokesman insisted: “We are working hard to provide the NHS with everything it needs this winter.”