But what leverage have we had over the Chinese govt? As this article demonstrates, it's during the period of the so-called "golden era" of Sino-British relations ("Kow-Tow") that the regime's aggression beyond its borders and internal repression have got worse.

Good article. Although, re no.5, I'm a bit sceptical of the possibility of reform of China-centric multilateral bodies i.e. UN, WHO etc. Maybe Mr Cameron's dashed hopes of reform of that other supra-national body, the EU, should sound caution.

The reason for the "Kow-Tow" policy towards this repressive and brutal regime is of course economics / money, whereby saving pennies and the cold-calculating economic benefit of the vast Chinese market, takes precedence over higher values of human life and freedom. Hence we have Chinese involvement in our nuclear industry, HS2 and the Huawei deal. At the very least the Huawei deal (perhaps Boris's worst yet decision?) should be scrapped asap.

To retain and grow support of Northern and Midlands former Labour voters, Boris must

1) point out that Starmer is the metropolitan millionaire human rights lawyer who engineered Labour's betrayal of Brexit, and who inhabits the lib left metropolitan elite bubble far away from the world and concerns of former Lab voters in the N and Mids, and point out Lab is now only the party of the woke middle class metropolitans and their student offspring

2) In paying for the Covid crisis, avoid another dose of Osborne-style austerity pain that would adversely affect ordinary people such as those 1st time Tory voters and enable, as the comment above suggests, Starmer to start a climb back into former Lab heartlands

If I may be permitted to comment further on underlying aspects...Perhaps it's Boris's 'libertarian' instincts (these instincts which may have delayed a little the enforced lockdowns etc?), playing a role in this abortion decision? Libertarianism being whereby each must of us must be able to do what we like regardless of the consequences on others and society as a whole. Thankfully this ghastly 'libertarianism', and utilitarianism, hasn't been applied generally in the Covid crisis whereby that the elderly and vulnerable would have been sacrificed to preserve the happiness of the fittest and the most useful, and for the sake of the economy. It’s encouraging that society seems to have adopted the higher value of making sacrifices to protect others.

Except on abortion. Due to the hold the pro-abortion Left has on the Establishment, it seems the unborn are still to be sacrificed for the freedom of others to behave as they want.

So the govt - Boris it seems - chose which side to support, i.e. the activists who can shout the loudest, i.e. the abortion industry.

So some voters lost - as long as there's a credible genuinely conservative (traditional values / social conservative) alternative party to the "Conservatives". Which currently there isn't.

It's surely more likely her critics' ultimate problem is that the Home Secretary is a conservative.

She's determinedly seeking to put into effect policies (although in tune with most voters who voted for this govt) that are hated by the liberal metropolitan establishment, and they must surely want her out.

Boris must stand firm and not let the liberal establishment get their way.

The result of this must surely be that dramatic reform of the Civil Service must be brought forward by Boris and Dom.
Yes to independent and impartial advice.
But NO to the Civil Service having its' own agenda and frustrating the will of the elected government - this must stop.

(And btw, as another commenter has pointed out, we hear comparatively little about Bercow's bullying from the Guardian, Indy, BBC, and the rest of the Lib-left media, and he was allowed to stay in office...oh, of course, he was a Remainer and fighting against Brexit...)

Priti Patel is probably the most genuinely conservative Home Sec for decades, and more in tune with most voters, and is determinedly trying to implement conservative policy and promises. So the metropolitan lib-left establishment must hate her. So presumably as far as they're concerned, she must be got rid of.

In some ways Boris Island would make sense to provide a bigger increase in capacity than the 3rd runway. But could such a Thames Estuary Airport be more difficult to access than Heathrow from the midlands and north? So an aviation strategy could be Boris Island, plus develop the international airports in the regions. I understand there's a trend in aviation to have more international routes to more airports with smaller aircraft than the current biggest 'jumbos'. Could Heathrow then close? Such a strategy could have a spin-off money saving on HS2 by eliminating the need for the Old Oak Common (OOC) station on HS2. Maybe this could also avoid the degradation of Great Western long-distance train services that would be occur through slower journey times caused by stopping at OOC. (But hasn't OOC been finally approved meaning that it cannot be cancelled?)

I've heard it said why gain back control from Brussels, only then give it to Beijing? Could letting Huawei in on the 5G system go down in history as Boris's big mistake? Perhaps the same officials who are recommending this share the same globalist ideals as the anti-Brexit establishment?

We need high speed rail. Extra capacity is needed because the southern section of the West Coast Main Line in particular is congested. The new line would need to be high speed to gain maximum economic benefits. But I have become less convinced that HS2 is the right scheme.

First, it could lead to substantial reductions in services to cities not on HS2, such as Derby, Nottingham, and Stoke. The proposed station at Toton, between Derby and Nottingham, is meant to serve those cities, but it’s in neither. Changing into connecting trams at Toton will mean journey times via HS2 to London won’t be much better than currently to St Pancras.

Second, the HS2 station at Old Oak Common, designed to connect HS2 into Heathrow and Crossrail services, would also lead to degradation of Great Western long-distance expresses due to lengthened journey times if they stop there.

Third, the HS2 stations in Birmingham and Manchester will be terminus stations that do not permit through running without reversing trains in those stations. If the Birmingham (Curzon St) station was a through station, could the cross-country line to Bristol could be connected to HS2?

If Paddington were the terminus, that would save the tunnel from Euston, and enable the Old Oak Common station to be scrapped as Paddington would provide Heathrow and Crossrail connections, has other Underground lines, as well as being nearer central London than Old Oak.

Whether or not we keep the current route and Euston as the terminus, maybe keep the arm to Manchester, and make savings by scrapping the eastern arm towards Yorkshire. HS2 services to Derby and Sheffield could be provided by a connection from HS2 to the current Birmingham – Sheffield line, which could be electrified and upgraded to 140mph or more. Nottingham could have 140mph tilting services via the current Midland Main Line. Leeds and the North East would be served by the current East Coast Main Line (ECML) upgraded to at least 140mph. I read recently that before privatisation, BR said the ECML could be re-engineered for 160mph.

Beside HS2 to Birmingham and Manchester, could a better way forward be piecemeal improvements where new sections of high speed lines are built to improve existing routes. Examples could be a Newcastle-Edinburgh high speed line that would be on a more direct route than the current curvey route; a Sheffield-Leeds High Speed line; and also Exeter-Plymouth to avoid that seriously speed restricted section which is one reason for slow journey times to the SW.