A burnt oven ready deal is the meal at the table

I watched quite a lot of the Brexit debate today.  In the latter part backbenchers either seemed to want to celebrate their contribution to bringing about Brexit or say how awful it was.  In fact I switched off after Dame Cheryl Gillan's contribution as in terms of both content and delivery she seemed to be auditioning for a role as a minor royal in the next series of the Crown.  I did catch Caroline Lucas and then the closing speeches.

I suppose if there was a take home message for me it is that, as Hilary Benn said, the agenda now shifts to determining our relationship with the EU which I suspect will be in a state of constant flux and renegotiation like that of Switzerland.

Boris Johnson managed to get away with his usual range of invalid points.  He made a comparison with the time the Uruguay Round negotiations took, but those involved most of the world.  We would be free of state aid rules which is not how I understood the agreement given that the UK will have to set up a new state aid review body.    We could make our own regulatory rules.   But supposing, say, we approved a pesticide banned in the EU.  Crops produced with it could then face tariffs or even a complete ban.   He mentioned again that the EU original transition offer on fishing had been 14 years, but that soon reduced to eight which is why 5.5 years was halfway between Britain's three and the EU's eight.

He called for an end to rancour and recrimination, but that overlooks the way in which social media makes everything binary.   His best point was at the end when he referred to the UK as a half hearted, sometimes obstructive member of the EU.  We have, indeed, been an awkward partner.   However, T Singh Daesi made one of a number of effective interventions when he referred to a 'burnt oven ready deal'.

Keir Starmer was caught between a rock and a hard place and indeed one Opposition Whip has resigned. He just about managed to hold on to his argument that a thin deal is better than a no deal and that voting against was a self-indulgent luxury given that there would be a vote in favour.   His speech as a whole made some good points on details, such as the fact that there would be non-tariff barriers to trade, but was not very impressive in big picture terms.   Indeed, he often looked grim faced, flustered and exasperated, particularly when the honourable member for Carmarthen (independent) kept interrupting him.   His vision was of an 'outward looking, optimistic and rules-based country.'

Ian Blackford managed to pontificate for 25 minutes in his usual self-satisfied and pompous manner.  At one time he seemed to be yearning for the Auld Alliance.  He did, however, argue with some force that Scotland would lose a 'precious part of what we are' by leaving the EU. He did manage to score a few points against Michael Gove  on fisheries.   Having invoked the spirit of Winnie Ewing as Madame Ecosse, he predicted that the empty seat at the top table at Europe would not remain empty for long.  It is, of course, a possible scenario.

Theresa May's stock is very low these days but I thought she made an effective short speech.   She pointed out to those voting against that there was a better deal on the table in 2019.   She was disappointed by a deal on goods which had little or nothing to say on services which account for 80 per cent of the economy. [Of course, many of these are not traded, but financial services are].  Services would have to be negotiated on a member state basis, those for the Czech Republic, for example, requiring a residence requirement.  She also referred to something called the Partnership Council which I admit that I know nothing about and must investigate further.  [Apparently it is the body that settles trade disputes between the UK and the EU, but much will depend on how this works in practice as with the WTO disputes settlement mechanism].  She warned that sovereignty does not mean isolationism or exceptionalism.  We live in an interconnected world.

Ian Duncan-Smith insisted that he was not anti-European and loved Europe (just as Ian Blackford said that he loved England and the English).   What this means, of course, is that he and others have no objection to enjoying French cuisine, but don't want to work alongside France in a systematic rather than ad hoc fashion.

Caroline Lucas admitted that she and others had voted against a softer form of Brexit, but referred once again to the need for a confirmatory referendum.   I was never as confident as the hard core remainers that a second referendum would have delivered a different result.  I never liked the idea of a second vote to get the right answer and would have probably abstained.  The Brexiteers have had the better strategies and tactics, if only in terms of unrelenting pursuit of their objective.

Michael Gove declared in conclusion that 'We have kept faith with the people.'   He then proceeded to make a number of partisan points against Starmer and the SNP.

Both the second and third readings passed by 521 votes to 73.   My MP, Matt Western, was going to vote in favour which I think was the right decision.

It's all at the Co-op now

The other day I joined the Co-op.  I shop at a local one every so often and realised that they offer 2p in the £ back, but also 2p in the £ for a local charity.

When I was growing up the Co-op was a central part of my life.   Our day to day shopping was done at the shopping parade with its distinctive clock tower built at 'The Links' at Plumstead Common by the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society (sometimes irreverently known as Rob All Customers Slowly). It's where we did much of our shopping with the Co-op also delivering bread and milk by horse and cart. 

The Co-op issued customers with small paper slips which could be exchanged for tin checks at the check office. When the tin checks were tipped on to the kitchen table, they looked like a treasure trove to a youngster. The checks could be exchanged twice a year for the 'divi', but the sum received always disappointed my parents. 

Bigger purchases meant a trip down to the Royal Arsenal's art deco department store in Powis Street, Woolwich. With its lifts and escalators, and topped by a tower pointing skywards, it looked both huge and sophisticated when I was five or six years old. For some reason, the lifts could only go down to the basement with difficulty. The third floor had a restaurant, bookshop and hairdressers and lifts went 'express' there in the lunch period. 

After many years of going down hill, it closed and was left as a vandalised shell, but has now been converted into apartments. There are some photographs of it in its derelict state here: Abandoned

As the years went by, the Co-op lost its market share. As people became more prosperous, the 'divi' paid to Co-op members lost its attraction, and its goods seemed less sophisticated than those of its emerging competitors. We moved away from what the late Mick Moran called 'a world of deferential citizens and grateful consumers'. The Co-op also suffered from the spread of car ownership: its stores were in traditional shopping parades or, as at Plumstead Common, former suburban parades.

Where the Co-op was very successful (and continues to be) was in providing a funeral service. They provided my grandmother's funeral. I wondered irreverently if that qualified for a dividend.

I always thought that the Cooperative Party was a bit of a rotten borough in the Labour Party because of the way in which John Stonehouse used it as a springboard for his career: -https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/politics/2019/02/28/from-soviet-spy-to-the-disappearing-man-how-ex-mp-john-stonehouse-still-fascinates/

However, one shouldn't generalise from a particular case and like a lot of people I am relatively ignorant about the party and its political role within Labour.

Brexit: I want my life back

I must admit that I have not yet looked at the 1,260 page legal text of the agreement between the UK and the European Union or even the summary document.   Boris may says its an extra Christmas present, but it is one I could live without for now.

For four-and-a-half years I have been answering media queries on Brexit.  I agreed to be media point man for our Comms Office over the festive period and was hoist with my own petard.

For example, on Christmas Eve I had to deal with an enquiry from a national newspaper about alleged attempts by President Macron to rule Europe.  At 8 pm I had to go live on France24, although fortunately not to deal with any suspicions that Macron is a shape shifting lizard.   At 5.30 am on Christmas Day, my phone rang again.

So I am quite looking forward to getting my life back.  If I was a MP or a member of the upper house, I would vote in favour of the deal on the grounds that a thin deal is better than no deal at all.  (BTW, congratulations to my former student Vernon Coaker on his peerage, but it does need reforming).

I did vote for remain and I actually campaigned in the north of England.  Invited to be the warm up act for Ken Clarke by Skipton's MP, I encountered an audience full of UKIP supporters.   The first question asked was why was I a waffler?  (Less so than some academics).  The second was how much the EU paid me.  (Nothing).

When Ken came on, a man walked on to the platform, pointed his finger at Ken and said 'You are a traitor to the country, Mr Clarke.'   Needless to say, Ken was not in the least bothered and gave a lively speech with some good jokes.

Having seen the EU close up sitting on a technical committee and as a research leader, as well as organising a MPA class in Brussels for many years, I have a lot of concerns with its decision-making processes.  Reforming them is a monumental effort.  If reform was possible, we wouldn't have had a dysfunctional and expensive Common Agricultural Policy for so long.

Nevertheless, I am sceptical about the possibilities of a new special relationship for the UK.   The idea of the UK sitting at the heart of three overlapping circles of the US, Europe and the Commonwealth doesn't wash any more.  I persuaded Andrew Gamble to write an essay for Political Quarterly on Brexit and the 'Anglosphere': https://politicalquarterly.blog/2020/12/15/after-brexit-the-anglosphere/

For me it's goodbye to the EU not au revoir.  We could only be readmitted on tough terms.   However, I see that a petition on a referendum to rejoin has started.

What I would find much more of a blow is the end of the union with Scotland which is a real risk.  As someone of Scottish descent in the direct male line and a graduate of a Scottish university, I would feel I was losing part of my identity.   More significantly, an England without Scotland could well be a less pleasant place.

As Anand Menon points out, we could be in for a very interesting debate about deregulation versus an interventionist state: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-deal-is-done-but-what-happens-now/?fbclid=IwAR233hWOYZ7dgLCE0MB6uc5HXmDOIeCtgDMqlHjSGnSx1oHHS-4QlIZpB0g

Government handling of pandemic erodes support

A report from the Nuffield College Elections Unit suggests that the Government's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic has undermined its support among voters: http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/media/4388/covidattitudesreport.pdf

As of June 2020, the Government had lost the support of a quarter of its December 2019 voters, who had mainly switched to ‘undecided’.  Conservative losses were greater among the party’s new voters.

Conservative losses, coming so soon after an historic electoral win, were primarily due to perceptions that the government had not tackled the pandemic competently, rather than because of ideological positions on the appropriateness of a full-scale national lockdown. A third of new 2019 Conservative voters thought the government had handled the crisis badly, whereas this figure was only around a fifth for those voters who voted Conservative in both 2017 and 2019. 

Poor public understanding of basic economic concepts

We often talk about political literacy, but what about economic literacy.  A new report finds that public understanding of broad economic concepts is poor: https://www.escoe.ac.uk/public-understanding-of-economics-and-economic-statistics/

Thus leads to questions about people's ability to understand economic news stories and to evaluate the economic element of government performance.

How can we assess the Callaghan Government?

I contributed to what I think is a very interesting collection of essays on James Callaghan as prime minister.  There is going to be an online book launch in December with some distinguished speakers: http://www.liverpoolsalon.org.uk/james-callaghan-book-launch/

Poor relations between business and government

Forty years ago I published an article in Government and Opposition on big business and the Conservative Party in which I stated, 'The basic theme of this article is that this relationship is more problematic and tenuous than is often assumed to be the case.'   More recent events appear to confirm this thesis.

The CBI likes to present itself as the voice of British business.   Its heyday was in the days of tripartite economic policy in the 1970s when it became a governing institution alongside the TUC.  Its cooperation was needed to make prices and incomes policy, the central plank of economic policy, function.  Its role is evident in the chapter on economic policy I contributed to the recent book on the Callaghan Government edited by Kevin Hickson.

It suffered a body blow under the Thatcher Government when it was seen as a throwback to failed corporatism.   Matters weren't helped when one director-general promised a 'bare knuckle fight' with the Government.   Mrs Thatcher preferred to talk to the Institute of Directors which was seen as a more resolutely pro free enterprise organisation.

Influence was regained under the Major Government and New Labour, but in some respects the organisation has been 'hollowed out' like other British institutions.   A complicating factor is that Britain is a 'company state' where direct relations between leading companies and government are often more important than those mediated by associations.

The Brexit referendum posed new difficulties for the CBI.   Most businesses and business leaders (Wetherspoons aside) were opposed to leaving, although consumer facing companies were reluctant to put their heads above the parapet.   In any event, the CBI came under fire from leavers for its stance.  This culminated in Boris Johnson being reported as saying '**** business.'

Now Boris Johnson has called in one of his Oxford pals to set up a Business Action Council.  Maurice Ostro is a little known former frozen yoghurt manufacturer.   The new body is made up of 32 trade associations.   In the past British trade associations had a poor reputation for lack of professionalism, although doubtless they have improved in a digital age.    In any case the stated aim is to help small entrepreneurs rather than big listed companies.

If a report in the Financial Times is to be believed, the organisation comes across as a something of a shambles which is no surprise when anything emanating from 10 Downing Street is concerned.   Its business is apparently conducted in half hour group conference calls and it appears to have achieved very little in seven months.

Business has been disappointed by the lack of effective engagement with government over the consequences of a no deal Brexit, but government has been trying to establish a narrative in which business gets the blame for inadequate preparation.  Either way, the relationship between government and business is as bad as it has ever been.

Call for cost benefit analysis on Covid-19

This is a balanced and informed essay by Conservative Home arguing for a cost benefit analysis in relation to Covid-19 decisions: https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/11/how-conservative-mps-should-approach-todays-vote-on-the-governments-lockdown-plan.html

If one relies on the advice of public health experts, they are quite properly going to prioritise that over everything else whereas there are other considerations which may well impact on health in the longer run.

What is evident is that some Conservative MPs and many Conservative activists are running out of patience with the Government's approach.  A cycle of lockdowns would be increasingly difficult to impose.

Parliament has been marginalised

MPs in revolt are right, argue Meg Russell and Lisa James of the UCL Constitution Unit.   They have been sidelined and Parliament has been marginalised in the pandemic and they explain why scrutiny matters: https://constitution-unit.com/2020/09/28/mps-are-right-parliament-has-been-sidelined/

A blog from the Spectator also discusses the exasperation of MPs with 'government by decree': https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mps-can-no-longer-stomach-government-by-decree

Will the Lords block the internal market bill?

Will the House of Lords block the Government's controversial Internal Market Bill?   Meg Russell of UCL's Constitution Unit is the leading expert on the upper house and gives an authoritative view here: https://constitution-unit.com/2020/09/13/will-the-lords-block-the-uk-internal-market-bill/ 

From what I hear, some on the right are getting ready to portray the Lords as an undemocratic body standing in the way of the will of the people.  

Looking at elections at constituency level

The article I wrote for Political Quarterly with Sally Scarlett on the 2019 general election in two contrasting Warwickshire constituencies is available free to view for a month: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-923X.12868

Warwick & Leamington was the seat of Sir Anthony Eden, but is now marginal Labour while Nuneaton has changed from safe Labour to safe Conservative.

A fine grained analysis at the constituency level can give insights in addition to those available from national studies.

Voters and parties have divergent values

This study of the social and economic values of MPs, party members and voters is clearly very important and will repay careful reading: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Mind-the-values-gap.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ryXxUAGq0l5xZaF3CBAVh8emmG1sY_89FsXKMP7YkIsioiqhcVnCnCAE

One key take home message is that the study shows the serious problems both parties have with the electorate, albeit not on the same issues.  Voters are more aligned with Labour on economic values and with the Conservatives on social values.

'The fact that Conservative MPs so strongly reject widespread perceptions of structural unfairness – far more strongly than grassroots Conservative Party members and activists – hints at the challenge the Johnson government will face if the shock of Covid-19 triggers public demand for economic redistribution and reform'

'The Conservative Party won in 2010 and 2015 by insisting on the need for austerity and cuts that chimed with the views of MPs, activists and members on the role of the state, and made sense to a lot of voters. If, however, a sense that "there is one law for the rich and one for the poor", and that ordinary people who have done nothing wrong are being let down by the government, begins to take hold, then the gap between Conservative Party people and voters as a whole could prove deeply problematic for the Johnson government.'

'On the other side of the fence, Labour’s struggles over Brexit between 2016 and 2019 were arguably symptomatic of a disconnect on a wider set of social values between its MPs, activists and members, on the one hand, and many of its potential voters, on the other.'

What is going on at the Spectator?

For a magazine with a circulation of 87,000, the Spectator (or the Sextator as some of its detractors call it) exerts an extraordinary influence.  I know the circulation is 87,000 because as a subscriber I received an e-mail from the chairman the other day saying they hoped to push it up to 100,000.

Boris Johnson was, of course, an editor of the Spectator.   Dominic Cummings worked for it and his wife, aristo Mary Wakefield, is currently deputy/commissioning editor.   Aeons ago it was a platform for the ultimate patrician Tory wet, Sir Ian Gilmour, who both owned and edited it.

Why do I subscribe to the Spectator?   One reason is that as it functions as a test bed for the ideas of what may loosely be called the 'libertarian right' and I want to find out what they are thinking.   At one time they seemed to be obsessed with wind farms and they still don't like renewable energy.

The preoccupation now is developing a new, harder line on China.   This is somewhat ironic given that the Spectator (natch) supported Brexit and if a 'global Britain' was to look credible it required a closer economic relationship with China after the model of George Osborne and David Cameron.  However, China has made a series of mistakes.

I also have to admit that the quality of some of the writing is very high and the coverage of the arts and books is first rate.  Apart from Private Eye, it is the subscription I most enjoy.   The Economist is authoritative, but quite heavy going and too wedded to a market and free trade solution to everything.  Farmers Weekly is an odd mixture of whingeing and obscure technical articles.  The Times Higher is now fortnightly and always devotes far too much space to Australia.

The reaction of the Spectator to the Dominic Cummings affair was quite baffling on the face of it.  It published an early critical article online and the latest issue contains a cry of pain from a guest columnist repudiating the Conservative Party.   No doubt the editor would say this just demonstrate its commitment to freedom of speech.   It also counteracts the rather misleading article that Mary Wakefield wrote describing the lockdown experience of herself and her husband, Dominic Cummings.

In any case there is plenty of pro-Cummings material and an editorial banging the libertarian drum on lockdown.   Whether or not it reaches its 100,000 target, the Spectator will continue to exert a considerable influence on the thinking of the Johnson Government.   I was going to say 'Conservative thinking', but this is not Tory thinking as I knew it.

A good enough smokescreen?

I have hesitated about saying anything about the Dominic Cummings affair, but I did have to spend a half an hour on the radio yesterday filling dead air while I was waiting for him to appear.

My conclusion afterwards, in the measured tones necessary for a BBC station, was that I did not find his account 'convincing'. I had been expecting some kind of apology on the lines of 'I made poor decisions under pressure which I now regret.'

But he has probably bought some time at least.  Unnamed 'senior cabinet ministers' are gunning for him, however.

I don't want to get into the detail too much because I sense that the spin strategy is to load lots of details on so that everyone talks about that and avoids the big picture.   However, a few points follow. 

On the childcare issue, none of the questioning journalists seems to have latched on to the point that he does have relatives in London, and surely he must have some friends who could help in an emergency.

On the issue of harassment by protesters, could he not have had panic buttons installed or asked the police to investigate and perhaps provide regular patrols?  The Cabinet Office could surely have arranged that.

 

His wife is deputy editor of the Spectator.  I read her article when it was published and gained the clear impression that they had been in London.  Indeed, there is a specific reference in it to a 'London lockdown'.   I used the word 'smokescreen' to describe this yesterday.

Why couldn't a family member have collected his wife and child from the local hospital?  Were there really no taxis?

The account of the trip to Barnard Castle, despite Boris Johnson flourishing his newly acquired spectacles at last night's briefing, lacks conviction - particularly given the coincidence with his wife's birthday.

Boris did say that he would not give unconditional support to anyone which suggests that Cummins may go later.  As one writer in The Times points out today, they need each other because they both have contempt for conventional notions of accountability.   Rules to them are a bourgeois hindrance.

Having said that, I don't find the spectacle of the British public and media having one of its periodical fits of morality all that edifying, particularly when it takes the form of a self righteous Twitterstorm.

The media has been bigging up the dissident Conservative MPs who hardly amount to a major revolt.  Many of them are professional trouble makers or publicity seekers.   The sound of Sir Roger Gale taking the high moral ground on Radio 5 is not that inspiring.

Boris did seem to be floundering in response to the questions last night, although I would not like to have to deal with 'Death' Rigby whose question could be paraphrased as 'Are you an incompetent charlatan'?  The circumlocutions of Robert Peston can easily be brushed aside given the time it takes him to put his question.

Of course, the real issue here is the one rule for us, another for them.   My expectation is that elites tend to behave badly if they can.  Tax evasion anyone?  Gaming the bankruptcy rules?

What I learnt from cattle diseases about epidemiology

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.   Everyone is now an instant expert on viruses and I have kept my peace.  

However, I have been reflecting on what I learnt from participating in a Research Councils project (Governance of Livestock Diseases) on cattle diseases.   I had the privilege of working with Graham Medley, now at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, an epidemiologist who is often quoted in the media on the pandemic and is involved in giving advice to government.   Any views that follow are, of course, mine alone.

Graham has agreed with me on twitter that there was value in the interdisciplinary approach we followed in the project which involved an epidemiologist, a veterinary specialist, a lawyer, an economist and political scientists.

One lesson I learnt is how difficult it is to eradicate a disease - in medicine smallpox is the only one to disappear entirely.   Civil servants in Britain thought they had eliminated bovine tuberculosis and even had a sherry party to celebrate.  Then it reappeared again in badgers in Gloucestershire.

The handling of bovine TB has in my view (and that of others) been characterised by a series of  policy failures by government about which I have written quite extensively in the literature.  It doesn't bode well for the ability of government to deal with a human pandemic.

That doesn't mean that all policy interventions fail.  The bovine diarrhoea virus may sound like nothing more than a case of cows with the runs, but not only does it affect production, it can also lead to the fatal mucosal disease.

The Scottish Government decided they wanted to eradicate BDV north of the border and consulted extensively.   I attended a very well run meeting in Edinburgh.  The policy has proceeded successfully and I was pleased to read in Farmers Weekly this week that it is entering the next stage of development.

It seems to me that the coronavirus will become endemic and as the WHO states is likely to be with us for four or five years.   Even if a vaccine can be found, I am sceptical about whether it will be available before eighteen months.   Policy needs to take these considerations into account and citizens need to reflect on them as well.

The Governance of Livestock diseases website is here: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/gld

Socially distanced PMQs

I give my views on the new format PMQs here: Social distance PMQs

Should the acting prime minister role be more formal?

First Secretary of State is a rather nebulous and ill-defined position. I first remember it being used by Harold Wilson in 1964 to salve George Brown's ego.

One suspects it was given to Dominic Raab in a rather casual fashion. Although no one could anticipate current circumstances, does the role of acting prime minister be formalising if it is to be effective? The Institute for Government considers this issue: Acting Prime Minister

Robert Hazell argues that our constitutional arrangements allow for more flexibility than is the case in the United States: What happens when the prime minister is incapacitated

An effective demolition job, but not beyond criticism

The full version of Donald Sassoon's lacerating review of David Cameron's memoirs is now about to read free of charge online. It is a remarkable polemic: The worst prime minister ever

I am reluctant to criticise a fellow editor of Political Quarterly and he has produced a devastating and eloquent critique. I just make three simple points:

• There clearly isn't a lot of point in comparing Cameron with 18th or 19th century prime ministers who were operating in a very different environment. But if we just confine ourselves to the 75-year period since the end of the Second World War, there is surely a case for Sir Anthony Eden who deceived the House of Commons about going to war. More recently, Theresa May has been criticised on a number of fronts.
• Dave Cameron certainly had his flaws, and his memoirs are self-justificatory and tedious - but that could be said of many political memoirs. I do think he had an inability to think many moves ahead on the chess board of politics (as was evident from my one engagement with him), but that's never easy.
• Much of the view you take of Dave depends on whether you are a hard core remainer. I voted remain and even campaigned for it in front of hostile audiences (I can recall being the warm up act for Ken Clarke). However, I have seen enough of the EU from close up to have some reservations about it, in particular about the strength of the 'reform from within' argument. I still think it was the wrong decision to leave, particularly with what looks like a very hard Brexit, but I don't think a referendum could or should have been avoided for ever (albeit that Dave was too confident about winning it).

Anyway, do read what Sassoon has to say.

Their Lordships House

House of Lords reform has suddenly become a hot topic again with some of the press complaining about an increase in expenses whilst overlooking the fact that the chamber sat more often after the 2017 election. Meg Russell is our leading expert on the House of Lords and it is good to see a review from her of the various ideas that have been put forward: Reform is back on the agenda

Some of the ideas put forward have been simply bonkers, although there was an interesting idea in a letter to The Times that when new government ministers are made lords they should cease to be voting members after their often short tenures.

It should also be remembered that there are advantages in having a second chamber that doesn't have too much legitimacy or power if we want to avoid legislative gridlock.

Javid's interesting statement

In a way I am a bit surprised that the former Chancellor's personal statement to the Commons did not receive more attention in the press today. I can see why Conservative papers might wish to downplay it as it made Boris Johnson squirm and raised some awkward questions about the conduct of the Government and the role of Dominic Cumming, but I was surprised that the FT didn't give it more coverage. Here its in full: Sajid Javid

I thought there were two particularly interesting aspects. First, the way in which he emphasised the traditional Conservative virtues of keeping a control of spending and aiming for low taxation. Fiscal constraints are clearly going to be abandoned, regardless of the economic and public health context.

Second, he set out a defence of the role of the Treasury. There are always arguments being made for splitting it up; for establishing a strong counter weight department; or, now, moving large parts of it to Teesside. However, there are actually good reasons for having a strong finance ministry (which is not to ignore evidence that austerity was overdone).

Let us move on?

I am great Dido fan and I particularly like the track 'Let Us Move on': Lyrics video. It it is apposite to Brexit: 'Let us move on … and it will pass.' She is, of course, referring to a love affair, although the relationship of some people to the EU does seem rather emotional, whereas for others (and for successive UK governments) it is more transactional. Even so, I have not found it that easy to move on.

I voted remain and I campaigned for remain, the high point or low point being when I was the warm up act for Ken Clarke in front of a partially hostile audience in Skipton. The first question I got was 'Why are you a waffler?' and the second was 'How much does the EU pay you?' As Dido says, 'we've done all we can.'

Nevertheless, I do have some reservations about the EU having seen it close up for the whole span of our membership. I don't think that EU decision-making is necessarily undemocratic, indeed I think that the European Parliament is a more effective institution than some national legislatures. I do think that the decision-making process is overly complex. Perhaps that is unavoidable when you have 27 member states, but it does give a lot of scope for corporate business interests to exercise considerable influence.

As for the 'reform from within' argument, I would find this more convincing if a dysfunctional Common Agricultural Policy did not still absorb not far short of 40 per cent of the EU budget.

Even so, I am not sure that I can 'let all that is lost be forgotten.' The economic benefits of membership are in my view considerable. Free trade pacts with countries like Australia carry hazards as well as opportunities: Dom's deal. There are also strong security arguments for membership, although there may be other ways of pursuing these as in President Macron's proposal for a European Security Council.

'Don't fly it like a kite (Dido)'

What does concern me is that the Government is evidently intending to have a no deal Brexit because that is what an 'Australian solution' amounts to. Of course, this is a negotiating ploy and what the Government would really like is a basic Canada style agreement covering trade in goods (but not financial services). That might be possible, although there isn't much time and the issues of state aid and the emotive subject of fisheries are major stumbling blocks. A no deal exit would be economically damaging, although politically the blame could be put on the EU (again).

I might add that my view is that there was a window of opportunity for a softer Brexit, but hard core remainers persisted in their demand for a second referendum. It always puzzled me that they were so confident that they would win it on the basis that people would be 'better informed', although some might have felt that what they learnt was how obdurate the EU could be. Some leavers might have voted remain, but some remainers might have voted leave. The result would have probably been close.

My hope would be that the EU and the UK realise that a working relationship is in both their interests, although the UK has more to lose than the EU. I am not too hopeful.

Was Dave Cameron the worst prime minister ever?

Donald Sassoon does not sit on the fence in this scathing review of David Cameron's memoirs: The worst British prime minister ever.

I must admit I have not yet finished the rather long memoirs. I did go the launch event at the Barbican and was rewarded with a 'signed' copy of the book. It looked like a rubber stamp to me.

I think that one of Dave's biggest problems was that he never thought through the consequences of a particular course of action. He could never see more than a couple of moves ahead. On a personal level, I liked him, but one could dismiss that as smooth Etonian charm.

Like most memoirs, it is a rather self-serving book and he doesn't really explain some of his actions. However, 'the worst prime minister ever' is a competitive league, even if one restricted oneself to the period since the First World War. Sir Anthony Eden would surely merit consideration.

Of course, the real charge against Dave from hard core remainers is the Brexit referendum. Dave argues that it would have been inevitable sooner or later and I am inclined to agree.

I voted remain and I regret the decision that was taken. But I have seen enough of the EU close up to be 'sceptical' (in the original meaning of the word) about it as an institution. It's hardly impressive that it allowed a dysfunctional Common Agricultural Policy to absorb so much of its budget. Unlike hard core remainers, I am ready to move on, albeit it with some misgivings.

Why is ministerial turnover so high?

The Institute for Government looks at the high rate of ministerial turnover in the UK which is now as high as for football managers. It cannot be conducive to good government: Keeping ministers in post

Martin Lewis was making the point at Radio 5 at lunchtime that he often found in his discussions with ministers on financial issues affecting consumers that the minister had not mastered their brief and he had to give them a 101 course on what the problem was.

I remember Richard Rose tackling this topic decades ago and pointing out that ministerial turnover was actually lower in countries like Italy that have frequent changes of government.

What does FlyBe tell us about the Johnson government?

British Airways has now submitted a state aids complaint to the EU. I am no expert on the complexities of state aid policy, although in principle one is allowed to boost regional economies. The actual mechanism used by the Government in terms of airport passenger duty may, however, be open to challenge. In political terms the Government would probably welcome a row with the EU that saw it on the side of the regions against Brussels.

The writer on Sanday, Orkney: you can get there by plane, but I used the boat.

The intervention does, of course, raise questions about the Government's commitment to climate change policy. However, those in the south-west and the Scottish highands and islands would argue that the connectivity that Flybe provides is essential to their ability to do business and attract tourists. I must confess that I have a personal interest here as I use Flybe's Birmingham to Aberdeen flights (almost always nearly full) and then connect via Loganair to Grimsetter international airport, Kirwall, Orkney.

The flag of Orkney is based on that of Norway: you can fly direct to Norwegian destinations from Grimsetter.

A Greenpeace spokesman argued on Radio 5 that we should not be supporting unsustainable rural lifestyles. I don't think the growing number of people living in the Orkney Islands, with an economy in which innovation in renewables plays a key part, would see it that way. Island council officials have to fly to the centre of power in Edinburgh: it can't all be done by video links.

However, should one offer a general subsidy to all domestic flights in the UK by adjusting APD? Or should one subsidise particular services that serve a social need, as already happens with Newquay to Heathrow flights by Flybe? The policy objective may be desirable, but there may be more efficient means of achieving it.

Sticking my head above the parapet

I have refrained from commenting about the crisis in the royal family. It seems to me that it is as much of a quagmire as the Labour Party leadership contest. Whatever you say, you will offend someone. When I made a mildly supportive comment about Jess Phillips on Twitter, I got trolled, largely by the hard right, but also the hard left.

It also strikes me that there are so-called 'royal commentators' round every corner, copying their views from each other or promoting their own website, Instagram account or book.

But with the Sandringham Summit today, I could not hold back any longer. Fortunately, two leading constitutional experts from the UCL's Constitution Unit have written a blog post stating that they think the so-called 'halfway house' solution cannot work: It just isn't an option

What is more they are writing a much needed comparative analysis of European monarchies. Remember there are three in the Nordic countries: Denmark, Sweden, Norway. All the Benelux countries have one, although Luxembourg is a grand duchy. However, Luxembourg has the only two monarchs who can claim to be political scientists.

The current King of Spain does have an international relations degree from Georgetown. I had an audience with him when he was crown prince and he seemed very well informed and he asked me good questions. My Spanish handyman is very impressed by the photo of me with him.

Just one more thought. HRH the Prince of Wales intends to slim down the Royal Family if/when he becomes king. This is probably a good idea, but I do feel a bit sorry for the minor members of the royal family who are dismissed as 'hangers on'.

Obvs. I read the Court Circular every day and I am surprised by the number of mind numbing engagements the Queen's cousin, HRH the Duke of Gloucester, has to undertake. One day in the middle of a busy day he 'visited shops in Bridgnorth'. Was this to get a bargain at Poundland or a microwave meal for the evening?

The irony is that he never wanted to be a member of the royal family. He was training to be an architect when his older brother, William, was killed piloting a plane and the Queen told him he had to join the firm. No one ever told me what career I had to follow.