conservativehome--2020-09-28--Steve Bell: Corbynism achieved power in Brighton and Hove. It failed spectacularly.

Cllr Steve Bell is Leader of the Conservative Group on Brighton and Hove Council .
In July , Labour ’ s minority administration at Brighton and Hove City Council collapsed – just a little over a year after the 2019 May local elections .
When Labour lost two councillors over alleged anti-Semitic racism and had a third councillor suspended pending an investigation , the Greens seized power and have now taken over minority control .
The collapse was a shameful end for a Momentum-backed Labour Administration that destabilised the city , brought Brighton & Hove into disrepute , and consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell after failing to live up to its promise to be an anti-racist council .
This tumultuous administration , which lasted little more than a year after the local elections on 2nd May 2019 , was characterised by resignations , apologies , broken promises , financial mismanagement , and weak leadership from start to finish .
Labour repeatedly broke its trust with the people of this City who elected it , with its broken promises hurting our most vulnerable , time and again .
Its decisions led to a collapse of the Home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a disability at risk , and culminating in Labour facing an independent investigation from the Local Government Association .
Another such investigation may well be on the cards after it was recently reported that disabled groups were not adequately consulted by Labour on the discriminatory road and cycle lane changes recently introduced that reduced disability access to the beach front .
And in the process , while Labour said in its manifesto it would ‘ protect and support the many small businesses that ensure the strength of our city during times of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Brighton ’ s famous seafront strip struggling to pay their council tax and make ends meet after closing the road – and left office with Brighton & Hove languishing as a ‘ below average resort ’ according to a tourism survey of Britain ’ s seaside towns .
Labour let down council house tenants by rediverting millions of pounds in the Housing Repairs Budget on administrative changes to bring the service in house , and then added insult to injury by abandoning its promise to build 500 council houses .
While Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would provide more public open space in the City for residents , including those without gardens , it instead pushed through plans to build on 16 ecological sites in the urban fringe despite there being no need , with the Council Leader breaking her own promise to her constituents to oppose any proposals for the development of urban fringe land at Whitehawk Hill in her East Brighton ward along the way .
Most damagingly for our City , while Labour claimed to have sustained a reputation for Brighton & Hove as being the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it left having unforgivably failed on its pledge to be an anti-racist council .
Labour ’ s Council Leader did not properly stand up to antisemitism when it occurred in her administration , appearing to put power before anti-racism , with councillors suspended and under investigation for antisemitism remaining in her group .
In doing so , the Council Leader failed to back up her own words at the Budget that Brighton & Hove is a City that is ‘ inclusive and welcoming to all ’ .
Politically , the Council Leader failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not commenting or providing clarification when the local Argus newspaper reported on a document outlining infighting and bullying in the Labour Party in which she was mentioned many times and attracting anger for apparently not listening to democratic motions of over 50 per cent of Labour branches opposing the development of local green space at Whitehawk Hill .
The fact that Labour collapsed over racism and ended with the shame of the Leader of our City Council being called upon to resign by a spokesman for Labour Against Antisemitism is a stain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national attention and damaged the reputation of Brighton & Hove to an extent that will be hard to recover from .
Labour ’ s constant failure to deliver for our City resulted in eight public apologies in a little over 12 months , culminating in Labour ’ s Finance spokesman saying he was ashamed of being a Labour councillor .
In the end , seven Labour councillors rebelled when the Council Leader tried to desperately hold onto power by arranging a power-sharing agreement with the Greens .
These councillors knew the game was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to come to an end .
This Council needs a Leader and councillors with the strength and integrity to stand up to racism of all kinds .
Corbynism failed spectacularly in Brighton and Hove and it will be a long time before the people of this City put their trust in Labour to run their City Council again .

Cllr Steve Bell is Leader of the Conservative Group on Brighton and Hove Council.
In July, Labour’s minority administration at Brighton and Hove City Council collapsed – just a little over a year after the 2019 May local elections.
When Labour lost two councillors over alleged anti-Semitic racism and had a third councillor suspended pending an investigation, the Greens seized power and have now taken over minority control.
The collapse was a shameful end for a Momentum-backed Labour Administration that destabilised the city, brought Brighton & Hove into disrepute, and consistently let its residents down.
Labour ultimately fell after failing to live up to its promise to be an anti-racist council.
This tumultuous administration, which lasted little more than a year after the local elections on 2nd May 2019, was characterised by resignations, apologies, broken promises, financial mismanagement, and weak leadership from start to finish.
Labour repeatedly broke its trust with the people of this City who elected it, with its broken promises hurting our most vulnerable, time and again.
Its decisions led to a collapse of the Home to School Transport Scheme, putting children with a disability at risk, and culminating in Labour facing an independent investigation from the Local Government Association.
Another such investigation may well be on the cards after it was recently reported that disabled groups were not adequately consulted by Labour on the discriminatory road and cycle lane changes recently introduced that reduced disability access to the beach front. And in the process, while Labour said in its manifesto it would ‘protect and support the many small businesses that ensure the strength of our city during times of economic uncertainty’ Labour instead left traders on Brighton’s famous seafront strip struggling to pay their council tax and make ends meet after closing the road – and left office with Brighton & Hove languishing as a ‘below average resort’ according to a tourism survey of Britain’s seaside towns.
Labour let down council house tenants by rediverting millions of pounds in the Housing Repairs Budget on administrative changes to bring the service in house, and then added insult to injury by abandoning its promise to build 500 council houses.
While Labour promised voters in its Manifesto that it would provide more public open space in the City for residents, including those without gardens, it instead pushed through plans to build on 16 ecological sites in the urban fringe despite there being no need, with the Council Leader breaking her own promise to her constituents to oppose any proposals for the development of urban fringe land at Whitehawk Hill in her East Brighton ward along the way.
Most damagingly for our City, while Labour claimed to have sustained a reputation for Brighton & Hove as being the most inclusive city in the world, it left having unforgivably failed on its pledge to be an anti-racist council. Labour’s Council Leader did not properly stand up to antisemitism when it occurred in her administration, appearing to put power before anti-racism, with councillors suspended and under investigation for antisemitism remaining in her group. In doing so, the Council Leader failed to back up her own words at the Budget that Brighton & Hove is a City that is ‘inclusive and welcoming to all’.
Politically, the Council Leader failed to provide leadership in her own party, not commenting or providing clarification when the local Argus newspaper reported on a document outlining infighting and bullying in the Labour Party in which she was mentioned many times and attracting anger for apparently not listening to democratic motions of over 50 per cent of Labour branches opposing the development of local green space at Whitehawk Hill.
The fact that Labour collapsed over racism and ended with the shame of the Leader of our City Council being called upon to resign by a spokesman for Labour Against Antisemitism is a stain on our city. It has attracted national attention and damaged the reputation of Brighton & Hove to an extent that will be hard to recover from.
Labour’s constant failure to deliver for our City resulted in eight public apologies in a little over 12 months, culminating in Labour’s Finance spokesman saying he was ashamed of being a Labour councillor.
In the end, seven Labour councillors rebelled when the Council Leader tried to desperately hold onto power by arranging a power-sharing agreement with the Greens. These councillors knew the game was up and the dysfunction for our city had to come to an end.
This Council needs a Leader and councillors with the strength and integrity to stand up to racism of all kinds.
Corbynism failed spectacularly in Brighton and Hove and it will be a long time before the people of this City put their trust in Labour to run their City Council again.


conservativehome--2020-09-28--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the East West Railway Company – a

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the East West Railway Company – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report.
” “ As we approach life outside of the EU , Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity .
As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry .
The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone ( EEZ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers .
Given this period of great change , the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish , working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.
” “ Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation ?
Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations ?
Then look no further than the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry , delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford , Milton Keynes , Bedford and Cambridge and places in between .
The East West Railway Company ( EWR Co ) was set up as a company in 2017 , and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018 .
It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities , as well as reducing journey times , congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.
” “ The role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes ; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following : strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ Help us make a better future for people and the environment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction .
This includes enabling a high standard of discussion ; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government ; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles ; Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills , experience and outlook ; offering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan ; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.
” “ Formed in 2009 , and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body ( NDPB ) since 2012 , the RPC ’ s role is to provide Government with external , independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures .
It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing so , helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses , civil society , charities and other non-government organisations .
The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department ’ s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members , who provide robust and objective advice to government , parliament , and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigates the most serious and sensitive incidents and allegations involving the police in England and Wales. It also oversees the police complaints system, and sets the standards by which the police handle complaints. The IOPC carries out hundreds of investigations into incidents and allegations involving the police each year. These include investigations into: deaths or serious injuries during or following police custody; police shootings; allegations of use of excessive force. The IOPC is seeking up to six non-executive board members, including one Senior Independent Director. The responsibilities of the non-executive members will include ensuring robust governance and financial management of the organisation; setting and promoting the strategic aims and values of the IOPC; providing support, advice and constructive challenge to the Director General in the carrying out of his/her functions; and monitoring and reviewing organisational performance and contributing to the efficient and effective running of the IOPC.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Sea Fish Industry Authority – Chair
“As we approach life outside of the EU, Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity. As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry. The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the precious resources within it, is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers. Given this period of great change, the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish, working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 16 October
– – – – – – – – – –
East West Railway Company – Chair
“Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation? Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations? Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry, delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge and places in between. The East West Railway Company (EWR Co) was set up as a company in 2017, and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018. It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line, providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities, as well as reducing journey times, congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.”
Time: 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Policy Committee – Chair
“Formed in 2009, and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) since 2012, the RPC’s role is to provide Government with external, independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures. It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals, and by doing so, helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department’s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members, who provide robust and objective advice to government, parliament, and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 25 October


conservativehome--2020-09-28--The police must be politically impartial. That includes being even-handed in upholding the law on pr

The police must be politically impartial. That includes being even-handed in upholding the law on protests.

Soldiers are not able to pick and choose which wars they fight in .
Nor can the police decide the laws they are tasked with upholding .
Naturally , there are practical limits , but we rely on our elected representatives to show some consideration and exercise restraint in the burdens they impose on public servants .
It is hard to think of a greater change in the requirements expected from the police than the coronavirus restrictions .
In some ways the lockdown made their work easier – for obvious reasons crime levels fell .
If we are at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as they are for muggers .
When most shops were closed it was unremarkable that a reduction in shoplifting took place .
On the other hand , enforcing the restrictions meant the police had to rapidly absorb considerable new duties .
The role of the police should not be to go beyond the regulations in restricting our activity .
There were unfortunate instances of this – going through supermarket trolleys for “ non-essential items ” or ordering people not to sit in their front gardens .
But I suspect these were exceptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pace at which the new rules were introduced .
What has been more concerning is the police force expressing an opinion on the merits of the lockdown .
The police can and should advise on the practicalities of enforcing it .
Individual police officers will have their own views .
The majority of the public agreed with the lockdown as necessary to save lives .
A minority of us felt ( or feel in retrospect ) it was disproportionate and may well end up costing more lives than it saved .
The police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view on that .
Nor on the array of the details that arise .
Some police officers may feel the 10pm closing time for pubs is a mistake – that doesn ’ t mean they are entitled to allow the pubs to stay open .
In Scotland and Wales the “ rule of six ” exempts children under 12 .
In England , it does not .
The respective police forces should get on with applying it accordingly .
We all need to try and follow whatever the law happens to be where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it is a sensible law .
The police have a duty to ensure we comply – but it is impertinent for them to tell us we should agree with any particular law even though we are obliged to accept it .
Nothing can be more important in terms of the police ’ s political neutrality than the conduct of demonstrations .
Yet the blatant lapses by the police have been alarming .
The regulations have changed but , quite properly , make no distinction as to the allegiance of the protestors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which they are enforced .
Before July 4th , public gatherings were limited to no more than six people .
The law defines a “ gathering ” as a meeting involving “ social interaction with each other , or to undertake any other activity ” .
That includes protests – even if social distancing was maintained , even if they are entirely peaceful .
So when 19 people ( included Piers Corbyn , brother of Jeremy ) were arrested at an anti-lockdown demonstration in Hyde Park on May 16th the police were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown consistency ?
On May 31st there was a Black Lives Matter protest outside the US Embassy and there were five arrests – two for assaulting a police officer .
In many other protests – in Bournemouth , Coventry , Liverpool and elsewhere – no arrests were made .
Criticism has been made of the passive police response to a statue being pulled down by a mob in Bristol and vandalism , in Westminster , of the Cenotaph and Winston Churchill ’ s statue .
But these demonstrations were already illegal even before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13th rival demonstrators came to London supposedly to “ protect ” statues and monuments .
They included a cohort of racists and another of drunken football hooligans who were mainly were “ up for a ruck ” rather than having any very clear political motive .
One of them urinated outside Parliament next to a memorial to PC Keith Palmer .
113 arrests were made which would seem a suitably robust response .
But why the leniency shown on other occasions ?
An indulgent response is usually given to Extinction Rebellion .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in defiance of the lockdown rules .
The police could not give “ precise numbers ” on arrests .
Since July 4th , the rules changed so that demonstrations were allowed but with a requirement for organisers to carry out a health and safety risk assessment .
The pressure group , Liberty , objected that demonstrations should have a full exemption .
It argued that : “ The risk assessment is impossible to meet because : It is a workplace assessment which makes no legal sense when applied to a protest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest organiser should manage risk , or what a proper assessment looks like .
No information has been provided on how assessments will be monitored .
“ This means that anyone attending or organising a protest could find themselves at risk of arrest because it is impossible to know if a satisfactory risk assessment has been carried out.
” Another concern is that it gives the police great discretion over which particular “ risk assessments ” come up to scratch .
16 arrests were made on Saturday after an anti lockdown protest – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theorist , David Icke .
Apparently , a risk assessment was sent in but it was not complied with .
Then we had the very effective disruption of newspaper deliveries by Extinction Rebellion in the early hours of September 5th .
The reason it succeeded was due to the police being so feeble .
Hertfordshire Police said : “ Our officers are engaging with the group , which consists of around 100 people , and we are working to facilitate the rights of both the protestors and those affected by their presence.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have been arrested and removed without delay .
The police should be aware there is no “ right ” to “ protest ” in such a way – even if they had sent in a “ risk assessment ” which would seem unlikely .
Some may dismiss such complaints on the grounds that in the past the police have been accused by the Left of bias .
Certainly , during the mass pickets of the Thatcher era there was great controversy .
Sir Keir Starmer , before he became Labour leader , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solidarity ” with coal miners and striking print workers .
The police were accused of “ taking sides ” – but in allowing those who wished to go into work to do so , they were upholding the law .
So far as the police are concerned , they would presumably deny any political discrimination at the number of arrests at different demonstrations .
Operational decisions are not always easy .
No doubt .
But the credibility is undermined by the police “ taking the knee ” to some demonstrators ( indeed being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and not to others .
I am not proposing they should kneel before Piers Corbyn .
They should not do so before anyone .
Equality before the law is vital to a free and democratic society .
The political impartiality of our police is a matter of historic pride for our country .
It has been eroded and must be restored .

Soldiers are not able to pick and choose which wars they fight in. Nor can the police decide the laws they are tasked with upholding. Naturally, there are practical limits, but we rely on our elected representatives to show some consideration and exercise restraint in the burdens they impose on public servants. It is hard to think of a greater change in the requirements expected from the police than the coronavirus restrictions.
In some ways the lockdown made their work easier – for obvious reasons crime levels fell. If we are at home then the opportunities for burglars are diminished, as they are for muggers. When most shops were closed it was unremarkable that a reduction in shoplifting took place. On the other hand, enforcing the restrictions meant the police had to rapidly absorb considerable new duties.
The role of the police should not be to go beyond the regulations in restricting our activity. There were unfortunate instances of this – going through supermarket trolleys for “non-essential items” or ordering people not to sit in their front gardens. But I suspect these were exceptions and genuine misunderstandings due to the rapid pace at which the new rules were introduced.
What has been more concerning is the police force expressing an opinion on the merits of the lockdown. The police can and should advise on the practicalities of enforcing it. Individual police officers will have their own views. The majority of the public agreed with the lockdown as necessary to save lives. A minority of us felt (or feel in retrospect) it was disproportionate and may well end up costing more lives than it saved. The police as an institution should not have a view on that. Nor on the array of the details that arise. Some police officers may feel the 10pm closing time for pubs is a mistake – that doesn’t mean they are entitled to allow the pubs to stay open. In Scotland and Wales the “rule of six” exempts children under 12. In England, it does not. The respective police forces should get on with applying it accordingly. We all need to try and follow whatever the law happens to be where we live – whether or not we think it is a sensible law. The police have a duty to ensure we comply – but it is impertinent for them to tell us we should agree with any particular law even though we are obliged to accept it.
Nothing can be more important in terms of the police’s political neutrality than the conduct of demonstrations. Yet the blatant lapses by the police have been alarming. The regulations have changed but, quite properly, make no distinction as to the allegiance of the protestors. The problem is over the selective way in which they are enforced.
Before July 4th, public gatherings were limited to no more than six people. The law defines a “gathering” as a meeting involving “social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity”. That includes protests – even if social distancing was maintained, even if they are entirely peaceful.
So when 19 people (included Piers Corbyn, brother of Jeremy) were arrested at an anti-lockdown demonstration in Hyde Park on May 16th the police were doing their job. But have they shown consistency? On May 31st there was a Black Lives Matter protest outside the US Embassy and there were five arrests – two for assaulting a police officer. In many other protests – in Bournemouth, Coventry, Liverpool and elsewhere – no arrests were made. Criticism has been made of the passive police response to a statue being pulled down by a mob in Bristol and vandalism, in Westminster, of the Cenotaph and Winston Churchill’s statue. But these demonstrations were already illegal even before such instances took place.
On June 13th rival demonstrators came to London supposedly to “protect” statues and monuments. They included a cohort of racists and another of drunken football hooligans who were mainly were “up for a ruck” rather than having any very clear political motive. One of them urinated outside Parliament next to a memorial to PC Keith Palmer. 113 arrests were made which would seem a suitably robust response. But why the leniency shown on other occasions?
An indulgent response is usually given to Extinction Rebellion. The group organised several demos on May 30th, in defiance of the lockdown rules. The police could not give “precise numbers” on arrests.
Since July 4th, the rules changed so that demonstrations were allowed but with a requirement for organisers to carry out a health and safety risk assessment. The pressure group, Liberty, objected that demonstrations should have a full exemption. It argued that:
“The risk assessment is impossible to meet because: It is a workplace assessment which makes no legal sense when applied to a protest. There is no guidance on how a protest organiser should manage risk, or what a proper assessment looks like. No information has been provided on how assessments will be monitored.
“This means that anyone attending or organising a protest could find themselves at risk of arrest because it is impossible to know if a satisfactory risk assessment has been carried out.”
Another concern is that it gives the police great discretion over which particular “risk assessments” come up to scratch. 16 arrests were made on Saturday after an anti lockdown protest – where speakers included Piers Corbyn and the conspiracy theorist, David Icke. Apparently, a risk assessment was sent in but it was not complied with.
Then we had the very effective disruption of newspaper deliveries by Extinction Rebellion in the early hours of September 5th. The reason it succeeded was due to the police being so feeble. Hertfordshire Police said:
“Our officers are engaging with the group, which consists of around 100 people, and we are working to facilitate the rights of both the protestors and those affected by their presence.”
But those involved in criminal obstruction should have been arrested and removed without delay. The police should be aware there is no “right” to “protest” in such a way – even if they had sent in a “risk assessment” which would seem unlikely.
Some may dismiss such complaints on the grounds that in the past the police have been accused by the Left of bias. Certainly, during the mass pickets of the Thatcher era there was great controversy. Sir Keir Starmer, before he became Labour leader, put out a video stressing his “solidarity” with coal miners and striking print workers. The police were accused of “taking sides” – but in allowing those who wished to go into work to do so, they were upholding the law.
So far as the police are concerned, they would presumably deny any political discrimination at the number of arrests at different demonstrations. Operational decisions are not always easy. No doubt. But the credibility is undermined by the police “taking the knee” to some demonstrators (indeed being advised by their superiors to do so) and not to others. I am not proposing they should kneel before Piers Corbyn. They should not do so before anyone. Equality before the law is vital to a free and democratic society. The political impartiality of our police is a matter of historic pride for our country. It has been eroded and must be restored.


conservativehome--2020-09-29--James Frayne: Covid-10. Seven action points for Ministers – as pressure rises on the Government

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
The Government always knew that keeping public opinion onside during the early days of a second spike would be hard .
These are times when public finances are under pressure , lockdown fatigue is setting in ( particularly amongst the young ) , but when dangers to public health are still high .
Ministers face criticism from all corners , whatever decisions it takes .
Some of the popular media ’ s websites channel criticism towards the Government from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So what should Ministers do to keep public opinion onside ?
I never write about clients ’ work , unless expressly agreed and declared .
My thoughts here are entirely derived from my own recent reading of the public mood .
In any case , not only has it been a relative age since I ran groups for Government , but my agency has decided not to pursue opportunities for future work with the Cabinet Office .
As those that understand qualitative research know , the work , while interesting , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distraction from commercial work .
First things first – the Government needs to junk almost all the polling .
Public opinion is in a state of total unreality and has been for many months .
All the polls show the public back strict lockdown measures – just as they always have .
But voters are on morphine supplied by Ministers in the form of vast furlough payments and emergency support to businesses , tenants and the rest .
As such , the public has no sense at all of the real state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever of the trade-offs the Government is making between public health and public finances .
People will always favour tighter restrictions when they think there ’ s little direct risk to them .
As it stands , few think their taxes will rise , their personal debt will increase or that their jobs are at risk .
For most people , risk lies with others .
Ministers have created a vicious cycle of opinion : they ’ re artificially pumping up support for tight restrictions , then reading the polls telling them the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extending support .
If the Government is going to help the country ultimately get back to normal , it ’ s going to have to break this cycle .
Stop reading the polls for a bit .
2 .
Start being honest about risk and public choice .
While the nature of the conversation will necessarily be brutal and uncomfortable , the Government must start talking about the balanced risks of ongoing restrictions .
It has to : the chances of the cavalry arriving with millions of vaccine shots before the money runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at some point , that we ’ ll have to find a way to live with risk .
If Ministers don ’ t prepare the ground now , they ’ ll find the public in a state of hostile shock when all of a sudden the Government removes financial support .
As part of this process , they ’ ve also got to start encouraging the public to start managing their own risk .
So far , only Rishi Sunak has been prepared to deliver , in flashes , this message .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public some fundamental truths about the need to protect the economy , and in turn our public services and living standards .
The public aren ’ t daft and they ’ ll come to accept this .
But it ’ s a message that is going to take time to filter through ; it needs to be delivered now .
3 .
Don ’ t misunderstand the character of the English .
There ’ s only one value the English hold dearer than fairness , and that ’ s family .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punished in the name of fairness , they ’ ll also do whatever it takes to protect their families and they believe utterly in the sanctity of the private home .
The Government has been dicing with political death in recent times .
They ’ ve appeared to encourage snitching on other families , which will come back to haunt them in calmer times ; they ’ ve left themselves open to putting , say , attending demos ahead of visiting relatives ; and they will have made lifetime enemies of middle class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ministers should remember who the English are : law-abiding ; fair-minded ; ( nuclear ) family-focused ; and ultimately liberal .
Pushing them into civil disobedience to protect their families will end catastrophically badly .
( And , whatever you do , don ’ t mess with the English Christmas ) .
PR Advice 101 is always the same : wheel out the independent experts that the public trust , and play down the role of politicians .
And so we ’ ve seen nothing but Government scientists for months .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it has implied that the scientists are ultimately in control of the situation and that there are simple , empirical decisions which can and must be made .
This isn ’ t true , and has given the public a false sense of security .
Secondly , most of the scientists are poor communicators .
The media love the idea of the boring , trusted scientist that the public all love .
But this isn ’ t reality .
The scientists aren ’ t professional communicators and putting them in positions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake .
The Government needs to show some balls and downgrade the scientists ’ role as communicators , and take responsibility for what are essentially political decisions .
5 .
Use Rishi Sunak more , use businesspeople more .
Strategically speaking , communicating on the economy is now the most important comms challenge – because of the need to prepare people for balanced risk .
People know as much as they ever will about the health risks and the need to socially distance , wash hands etc .
So there ’ s little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about the health risks .
They won ’ t help keep the public onside if a million people join the dole queues .
Instead , the Government needs to promote business voices who can both explain the rationale for Government action , and who can explain risk and reward in ways others can ’ t .
Ultimately , since we ’ re all going to need to get back out there and manage risk at some point , we need businesspeople to explain in necessarily lurid terms the dangers of not doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more from Rishi Sunak and ideally a panel of businesspeople to amplify his warnings .
This is such an obvious point , I ’ m reluctant to make it .
However , one of the problems that has arisen from the public role of the scientists is the casual use of pointlessly technical language that ordinary people can ’ t possibly understand .
The use of the “ R rate ” in public communications is merely the most obvious example .
Of course , when used enough , they take on the meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But as part of the shift to promote political voices , there ’ s got to be an onus on using the simplest language .
One of the weird things about the global pandemic is that each country seems to be grappling with its own specific outbreak ; it ’ s as if we all have our own national pandemics .
It will be far easier to keep the public onside if politicians are seen to be actively talking and learning from one another .
And , no , this isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world .
The public will be more open to change if they can see we are cooperating with the other countries and learning lessons from them .
Over the summer , all we heard was the possibility of tit-for-tat quarantine restrictions imposed on different countries ’ tourists , as if this was all a zero sum game ; this wasn ’ t given the attention it warranted : it was a real low point in the crisis .
The Government would do well to work publicly with other governments at this @ @

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
The Government always knew that keeping public opinion onside during the early days of a second spike would be hard.
These are times when public finances are under pressure, lockdown fatigue is setting in (particularly amongst the young), but when dangers to public health are still high. Ministers face criticism from all corners, whatever decisions it takes. Some of the popular media’s websites channel criticism towards the Government from entirely different directions on the same day. So what should Ministers do to keep public opinion onside?
I never write about clients’ work, unless expressly agreed and declared. My thoughts here are entirely derived from my own recent reading of the public mood. In any case, not only has it been a relative age since I ran groups for Government, but my agency has decided not to pursue opportunities for future work with the Cabinet Office. As those that understand qualitative research know, the work, while interesting, is ultimately extremely low-margin, all-consuming and a distraction from commercial work.
1. Forget the polls.
First things first – the Government needs to junk almost all the polling. Public opinion is in a state of total unreality and has been for many months. All the polls show the public back strict lockdown measures – just as they always have.
But voters are on morphine supplied by Ministers in the form of vast furlough payments and emergency support to businesses, tenants and the rest. As such, the public has no sense at all of the real state of the economy – and therefore no sense whatever of the trade-offs the Government is making between public health and public finances.
People will always favour tighter restrictions when they think there’s little direct risk to them. As it stands, few think their taxes will rise, their personal debt will increase or that their jobs are at risk. For most people, risk lies with others.
Ministers have created a vicious cycle of opinion: they’re artificially pumping up support for tight restrictions, then reading the polls telling them the public want tight restrictions, then further extending support. If the Government is going to help the country ultimately get back to normal, it’s going to have to break this cycle. Stop reading the polls for a bit.
2. Start being honest about risk and public choice.
While the nature of the conversation will necessarily be brutal and uncomfortable, the Government must start talking about the balanced risks of ongoing restrictions. It has to: the chances of the cavalry arriving with millions of vaccine shots before the money runs out look slim. It seems likely, at some point, that we’ll have to find a way to live with risk.
If Ministers don’t prepare the ground now, they’ll find the public in a state of hostile shock when all of a sudden the Government removes financial support. As part of this process, they’ve also got to start encouraging the public to start managing their own risk.
So far, only Rishi Sunak has been prepared to deliver, in flashes, this message. He should be unleashed to start telling the public some fundamental truths about the need to protect the economy, and in turn our public services and living standards. The public aren’t daft and they’ll come to accept this. But it’s a message that is going to take time to filter through; it needs to be delivered now.
3. Don’t misunderstand the character of the English.
There’s only one value the English hold dearer than fairness, and that’s family. While they want ludicrous violations of lockdown rules punished in the name of fairness, they’ll also do whatever it takes to protect their families and they believe utterly in the sanctity of the private home.
The Government has been dicing with political death in recent times. They’ve appeared to encourage snitching on other families, which will come back to haunt them in calmer times; they’ve left themselves open to putting, say, attending demos ahead of visiting relatives; and they will have made lifetime enemies of middle class parents of students in recent weeks.
Ministers should remember who the English are: law-abiding; fair-minded; (nuclear) family-focused; and ultimately liberal. Pushing them into civil disobedience to protect their families will end catastrophically badly. (And, whatever you do, don’t mess with the English Christmas).
4. Promote politicians, downgrade scientists.
PR Advice 101 is always the same: wheel out the independent experts that the public trust, and play down the role of politicians. And so we’ve seen nothing but Government scientists for months.
There are two problems with this approach. Firstly, it has implied that the scientists are ultimately in control of the situation and that there are simple, empirical decisions which can and must be made. This isn’t true, and has given the public a false sense of security.
Secondly, most of the scientists are poor communicators. The media love the idea of the boring, trusted scientist that the public all love. But this isn’t reality. The scientists aren’t professional communicators and putting them in positions of public influence in this way is a mistake. The Government needs to show some balls and downgrade the scientists’ role as communicators, and take responsibility for what are essentially political decisions.
5. Use Rishi Sunak more, use businesspeople more.
Strategically speaking, communicating on the economy is now the most important comms challenge – because of the need to prepare people for balanced risk. People know as much as they ever will about the health risks and the need to socially distance, wash hands etc.
So there’s little gain now in having the scientists keep talking about the health risks. They won’t help keep the public onside if a million people join the dole queues. Instead, the Government needs to promote business voices who can both explain the rationale for Government action, and who can explain risk and reward in ways others can’t.
Ultimately, since we’re all going to need to get back out there and manage risk at some point, we need businesspeople to explain in necessarily lurid terms the dangers of not doing so. We need to hear even more from Rishi Sunak and ideally a panel of businesspeople to amplify his warnings.
6. Drop the technical language.
This is such an obvious point, I’m reluctant to make it. However, one of the problems that has arisen from the public role of the scientists is the casual use of pointlessly technical language that ordinary people can’t possibly understand.
The use of the “R rate” in public communications is merely the most obvious example. Of course, when used enough, they take on the meaning they’re supposed to have. But as part of the shift to promote political voices, there’s got to be an onus on using the simplest language.
7. Internationalise the response.
One of the weird things about the global pandemic is that each country seems to be grappling with its own specific outbreak; it’s as if we all have our own national pandemics. It will be far easier to keep the public onside if politicians are seen to be actively talking and learning from one another.
And, no, this isn’t a Brexit thing; this seems true around the world. The public will be more open to change if they can see we are cooperating with the other countries and learning lessons from them.
Over the summer, all we heard was the possibility of tit-for-tat quarantine restrictions imposed on different countries’ tourists, as if this was all a zero sum game; this wasn’t given the attention it warranted: it was a real low point in the crisis. The Government would do well to work publicly with other governments at this point.


conservativehome--2020-09-29--The 55 Conservative MPs backing Brady’s amendment on coronavirus regulations

“ Line [ 1 ] , leave out from “ expire ” to end and add “ provided Ministers ensure @ @ @ @ @ practicable that in the exercise of their powers to tackle the pandemic under the Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ legislation , including for example part 2A of the Public Health ( Control of Disease @ @ @ @ @ has an opportunity to debate and vote upon any secondary legislation with effect in the @ @ @ @ @ whole United Kingdom before it comes into effect .
”

Updated September 29
Amendment: Prior parliamentary scrutiny of major national coronavirus regulations
“Line [1], leave out from “expire” to end and add “provided Ministers ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that in the exercise of their powers to tackle the pandemic under the Coronavirus Act 2020 and other primary legislation, including for example part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, Parliament has an opportunity to debate and vote upon any secondary legislation with effect in the whole of England or the whole United Kingdom before it comes into effect.”
Sir Graham Brady
John Cryer
David Davis
Harriet Harman
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
John Spellar
Other signatories:
Conservatives:
Steve Baker
Harriet Baldwin
Bob Blackman
Peter Bone
Andrew Bridgen
Paul Bristow
Christopher Chope
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
James Daly
Philip Davies
Dehenna Davison
Jonathan Djanogly
Jackie Doyle-Price
Richard Drax
George Freeman
Richard Fuller
Sir Roger Gale
Nus Ghani
Cheryl Gillan
James Gray
Damian Green
Sally-Ann Hart
John Hayes
Philip Hollobone
Tom Hunt
Bernard Jenkin
David Jones
Daniel Kawczynski
Pauline Latham
Edward Leigh
Chris Loder
Tim Loughton
Craig Mackinlay
Karl McCartney
Stephen McPartland
Esther McVey
Stephen Metcalfe new
Huw Merriman
Bob Neil
John Redwood
Laurence Robertson
Bob Seely
Henry Smith
David Simmonds
Greg Smith
Sir Robert Syms
Julian Sturdy
Craig Tracey
Tom Tugendhat
Charles Walker


conservativehome--2020-09-29--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the East West Railway Company – a


conservativehome--2020-09-29--The Conservatives should watch for a rival to their right

Many pixels and much paper have been spent trying to explain UKIP and , briefly , the Brexit Party .
Some see them as having been driven mainly by economics , and the effect of the financial crash and techological change on living standards , jobs and security .
Others highlight the role of culture , citing the long-term effect of mass immigration , changing social attitudes , and the deracination of the main political parties .
Others still go for a more simple explanation : lots of people just wanted to leave the European Union .
That last take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds are stacked against a new political party in the UK – all the more now that European elections , the stage for UKIP ’ s main electoral successes , are no more .
First past the post is a high barrier to entry .
Recent history suggests that , to succeed , a new party either needs a clear objective to spearhead its appeal , as the Brexit Party and UKIP had , or a significant number of Parliamentary defections from one or more of the main parties , like the Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also helps to have a leader who can cut through to a slice of the electorate – a thought that allows us to cram Roy Jenkins and Nigel Farage into the same sentence .
This takes us to Lawrence Fox , who is reported to be launching a new political party .
He wants it to champion free speech , “ reform publicly funded , controlled and operated institutions ” ( the BBC , anyone ? )
and preserve our national history and cultural inheritance .
It ’ s a programme without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and without the prospect of MP defections – at least , as far as we know .
Perhaps we are under-estimating Fox , but it seems unlikely to us that this project will take off .
The political landscape is littered with the wreckage of failed political parties : the Jury team , Renew , the SDP itself and , talking of parties which picked up support in Parliament , the Independent Group for Change .
Money doesn ’ t equal success : James Goldsmith pushed a chunk of his considerable fortune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It failed to win a single Commons seat in 1997 .
Nor does name recognition : in the post-expenses scandal general election of 2010 , Esther Rantzen won only four per cent of the vote in Luton South .
You may say that this is too Westminster-focused a view .
What about the dominance of the SNP at Holyrood ?
Or the mass of independents and members of small parties who together make up the fourth biggest force in English local government ?
Or the independent mayor in Middlesbrough ?
Nonetheless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patchwork of directly elected Mayors in England , and of Police and Crime Commissioners , remains largely red or blue .
Ken Livingstone won the London mayoralty as Labour ’ s candidate second time round , though only after his victory as an independent in the first contest .
But before we write off new challengers altogether , it ’ s worth pausing for thought .
For perhaps we ’ re becoming too complacent about the Conservatives having no real opposition to their right .
After all , Farage and his parties were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best part of ten years – between the formation of the Coalition in 2010 and the advent of Boris Johnson last year .
Perhaps the next new challenger party in British politics will be from the Left , like Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece .
( Mind you , UKIP and the Brexit Party won a slice of former Labour and “ natural Labour voters ” . )
Or even from the Rory Stewart-flavoured centre .
But the story of the last ten years suggests that the Tories are most vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These have occupied ground , to use crude but effective labelling , to the right of the Party .
As David Gauke pointed out in his ConservativeHome column on Saturday , there is now distance between Johnson and Tory backbench opinion on Coronavirus policy , and potentially on a Brexit trade deal , too .
A new challenger could be anti-lockdown , libertarian in flavour , pro-free market – troubled by what its supporters would see as a Tory shift to Red Wall statism and authoritarian virus control .
In our view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which may help to explain why Farage has not yet put himself at the head of an anti-shutdown movement .
Or it could be more like UKIP , fishing in the waters that Fox is dipping into : anti-mass migration ; pro-economic intervention , massing itself to challenge Black Lives Matter , the Left in our universities , the mainstream media – “ wokeness ” everywhere .
The EU referendum and its aftermath took the Conservatives up to about 40 per cent of the vote or so .
Theresa May Mark One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support there .
May Mark Two , afterwards , didn ’ t do so .
Johnson rebuilt that backing and , last December , mobilised it at the polls .
He is now trying to keep that coalition of voters together amidst a pandemic of global scale .
That entails not giving Farage – or anyone else – an opening to his right .
Especially with the Conservative backbenches in their current mutinous condition .

Many pixels and much paper have been spent trying to explain UKIP and, briefly, the Brexit Party. Some see them as having been driven mainly by economics, and the effect of the financial crash and techological change on living standards, jobs and security. Others highlight the role of culture, citing the long-term effect of mass immigration, changing social attitudes, and the deracination of the main political parties.
Others still go for a more simple explanation: lots of people just wanted to leave the European Union.
That last take has another dimension to it. The odds are stacked against a new political party in the UK – all the more now that European elections, the stage for UKIP’s main electoral successes, are no more. First past the post is a high barrier to entry.
Recent history suggests that, to succeed, a new party either needs a clear objective to spearhead its appeal, as the Brexit Party and UKIP had, or a significant number of Parliamentary defections from one or more of the main parties, like the Social Democratic Party during the 1980s. It also helps to have a leader who can cut through to a slice of the electorate – a thought that allows us to cram Roy Jenkins and Nigel Farage into the same sentence.
This takes us to Lawrence Fox, who is reported to be launching a new political party. He wants it to champion free speech, “reform publicly funded, controlled and operated institutions” (the BBC, anyone?) and preserve our national history and cultural inheritance.
It’s a programme without a measurable objective (unlike UKIP’s) and without the prospect of MP defections – at least, as far as we know. Perhaps we are under-estimating Fox, but it seems unlikely to us that this project will take off. The political landscape is littered with the wreckage of failed political parties: the Jury team, Renew, the SDP itself and, talking of parties which picked up support in Parliament, the Independent Group for Change.
Money doesn’t equal success: James Goldsmith pushed a chunk of his considerable fortune at the Referendum Party during the mid-1990s. It failed to win a single Commons seat in 1997. Nor does name recognition: in the post-expenses scandal general election of 2010, Esther Rantzen won only four per cent of the vote in Luton South.
You may say that this is too Westminster-focused a view. What about the dominance of the SNP at Holyrood? Or the mass of independents and members of small parties who together make up the fourth biggest force in English local government? Or the independent mayor in Middlesbrough?
Nonetheless, it’s striking how the sprawling patchwork of directly elected Mayors in England, and of Police and Crime Commissioners, remains largely red or blue. Ken Livingstone won the London mayoralty as Labour’s candidate second time round, though only after his victory as an independent in the first contest. But before we write off new challengers altogether, it’s worth pausing for thought.
For perhaps we’re becoming too complacent about the Conservatives having no real opposition to their right.
After all, Farage and his parties were a feature of British politics for the best part of ten years – between the formation of the Coalition in 2010 and the advent of Boris Johnson last year. Perhaps the next new challenger party in British politics will be from the Left, like Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece. (Mind you, UKIP and the Brexit Party won a slice of former Labour and “natural Labour voters”.) Or even from the Rory Stewart-flavoured centre.
But the story of the last ten years suggests that the Tories are most vulnerable of the main parties to electoral newcomers. These have occupied ground, to use crude but effective labelling, to the right of the Party. As David Gauke pointed out in his ConservativeHome column on Saturday, there is now distance between Johnson and Tory backbench opinion on Coronavirus policy, and potentially on a Brexit trade deal, too.
A new challenger could be anti-lockdown, libertarian in flavour, pro-free market – troubled by what its supporters would see as a Tory shift to Red Wall statism and authoritarian virus control. In our view, this would be an elite project. Which may help to explain why Farage has not yet put himself at the head of an anti-shutdown movement.
Or it could be more like UKIP, fishing in the waters that Fox is dipping into: anti-mass migration; pro-economic intervention, massing itself to challenge Black Lives Matter, the Left in our universities, the mainstream media – “wokeness” everywhere.
The EU referendum and its aftermath took the Conservatives up to about 40 per cent of the vote or so. Theresa May Mark One, before the 2017 election, kept support there. May Mark Two, afterwards, didn’t do so. Johnson rebuilt that backing and, last December, mobilised it at the polls.
He is now trying to keep that coalition of voters together amidst a pandemic of global scale. That entails not giving Farage – or anyone else – an opening to his right. Especially with the Conservative backbenches in their current mutinous condition.


conservativehome--2020-09-29--Tony Devenish: Opponents of planning reform ignore the big changes in the kind of buildings we need

Tony Devenish is a member of the London Assembly for West Central .
The Government ’ s White Paper “ Planning for the Future ” is 80 pages long , but essential reading – and not just for ” built environment nerds ” .
Nicholas Boys-Smith , of Create Streets , has made an excellent case for it .
As someone who has served as a Planning Chairman on Westminster City Council for much of the last 15 years ’ and more recently served as the London Assembly ’ s Planning Chairman ( 2016-17 ) and Regeneration Chairman ( 2018-20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boys-Smith covered the planning specifics , it ’ s the politics I wish to cover here .
A recent Financial Times report should be a “ wake up call ” for those who think we still live in an analogue age – including some voices at the Local Government Association , London Councils , and “ Sadiq Can ’ t ” – as the Prime Minister calls the deeply disappointing Mayor of London .
The FT declares that “ Apple passes markets ’ milestone as shares take valuation to $ 2 trillion.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The White Paper spells out these realities – with proposed solutions .
To be clear , Covid has accelerated trends as great as those that followed the changes to society within decades of the invention of trains , motor cars , and jet engines .
The internet is here to stay .
The public has chosen to do nearly half of shopping online .
They exercise choice – which is a Conservative word .
That means the mix of buildings we will need in the future will be very different .
When I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White Paper it makes me think of the mob which protested outside Wapping Print Works and Orgreave mines in the 1980s .
Luddites are as old as history .
My London constituency contained ( at least pre-covid ) the biggest cluster of wealth-creating businessmen and women globally with the possible exception of New York .
One canny self-made Sunday Times Rich List constituent put it much better than I can : “ Whenever someone says they have made their money in X , it almost always came from either food , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s where the tax comes from to pay for our public services .
Which the Left forget ” .
When I first sat on a Council Planning Committee in 2006 , I was astonished by the almost artisan 19th Century approach of much of planning .
But , as the White Paper states “ notices ( of planning applications ) on lampposts are changing to an interactive map based online system ” .
Since March 2020 , many Councils have seen greater political engagement , with Covid encouraging residents ’ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views .
Hundreds , not dozens , of people are having their say .
The White Paper will be modified before becoming law .
It is not perfect , nor does it pretend to be .
But it is right to focus on two outcomes : • Reform equals more homes and more jobs .
We hear a great deal about Europe from the media .
I have yet to see many quote page 14 of the White Paper : “ In Italy , Germany and the Netherlands , you can get twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to the UK ” .
We can make the necessary reforms here and learn the lessons which underpin the White Paper from the late great Sir Roger Scruton ’ s Building Better , Building Beautiful Commission .
Does anyone seriously believe we don ’ t need more homes or jobs ?
• Reform equals proper ( not tickbox ) engagement of the entire community .
From MP ’ s expenses – to the Brexit referendum – has shown we all need to do more to win back the publics ’ trust .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails a week from upset constituents in Hammersmith and Fulham who feel a planning application was rushed through just before Covid with little or no communication changing the entire feel of their locality .
The current system is not fit for purpose .
Only those who work full time in the planning world fully comprehend how to “ work the system ” .
Reform of a 1947 system is urgently required .
Please note it does not mean conservation areas are under threat – something I would fight against with all my power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buildings .
So do read and respond to the White Paper with its 26 questions .
To all my colleagues in local government , please help make this long overdue reform work .
Something we can be proud of .
My grandfather was a housebuilder in the 1920s and 1930s .
When I read that in the last 30 years , the number of small builder businesses have dropped by 40 per cent I applaud Robert Jenrick , the Housing , Communities and Local Government , for taking on noisy special interests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Duncan-Smith , and Michael Gove , and be one of the few Cabinet Ministers to actually achieve something .

Tony Devenish is a member of the London Assembly for West Central.
The Government’s White Paper “Planning for the Future” is 80 pages long, but essential reading – and not just for ” built environment nerds”. Nicholas Boys-Smith, of Create Streets, has made an excellent case for it. As someone who has served as a Planning Chairman on Westminster City Council for much of the last 15 years’ and more recently served as the London Assembly’s Planning Chairman (2016-17) and Regeneration Chairman (2018-20) I commend his work.
While Boys-Smith covered the planning specifics, it’s the politics I wish to cover here. A recent Financial Times report should be a “wake up call” for those who think we still live in an analogue age – including some voices at the Local Government Association, London Councils, and “Sadiq Can’t” – as the Prime Minister calls the deeply disappointing Mayor of London.
The FT declares that “Apple passes markets’ milestone as shares take valuation to $2 trillion.” A doubling in just two years. The White Paper spells out these realities – with proposed solutions. To be clear, Covid has accelerated trends as great as those that followed the changes to society within decades of the invention of trains, motor cars, and jet engines. The internet is here to stay. The public has chosen to do nearly half of shopping online. They exercise choice – which is a Conservative word. That means the mix of buildings we will need in the future will be very different.
When I read some of the ill-informed coverage of the White Paper it makes me think of the mob which protested outside Wapping Print Works and Orgreave mines in the 1980s. Luddites are as old as history. My London constituency contained (at least pre-covid) the biggest cluster of wealth-creating businessmen and women globally with the possible exception of New York.
One canny self-made Sunday Times Rich List constituent put it much better than I can:
“Whenever someone says they have made their money in X, it almost always came from either food, the rag trade, land and property. That’s where the tax comes from to pay for our public services. Which the Left forget”.
When I first sat on a Council Planning Committee in 2006, I was astonished by the almost artisan 19th Century approach of much of planning. But, as the White Paper states “notices (of planning applications) on lampposts are changing to an interactive map based online system”. Since March 2020, many Councils have seen greater political engagement, with Covid encouraging residents’ to use existing online tools to register their views. Hundreds, not dozens, of people are having their say.
The White Paper will be modified before becoming law. It is not perfect, nor does it pretend to be. But it is right to focus on two outcomes:
Reform equals more homes and more jobs. We hear a great deal about Europe from the media. I have yet to see many quote page 14 of the White Paper: “In Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, you can get twice as much housing space for your money compared to the UK”. We can make the necessary reforms here and learn the lessons which underpin the White Paper from the late great Sir Roger Scruton’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. Does anyone seriously believe we don’t need more homes or jobs? Reform equals proper (not tickbox) engagement of the entire community. From MP’s expenses – to the Brexit referendum – has shown we all need to do more to win back the publics’ trust. At present I am receiving dozens of emails a week from upset constituents in Hammersmith and Fulham who feel a planning application was rushed through just before Covid with little or no communication changing the entire feel of their locality. The current system is not fit for purpose. Only those who work full time in the planning world fully comprehend how to “work the system”. Reform of a 1947 system is urgently required. Please note it does not mean conservation areas are under threat – something I would fight against with all my power. Design must be improved for many buildings.
So do read and respond to the White Paper with its 26 questions. To all my colleagues in local government, please help make this long overdue reform work. Something we can be proud of.
My grandfather was a housebuilder in the 1920s and 1930s. When I read that in the last 30 years, the number of small builder businesses have dropped by 40 per cent I applaud Robert Jenrick, the Housing, Communities and Local Government, for taking on noisy special interests. He may follow Ken Baker, Iain Duncan-Smith, and Michael Gove, and be one of the few Cabinet Ministers to actually achieve something.


conservativehome--2020-09-29--Caroline Elsom: The Government’s Online Harms plan threatens freedom and privacy – while being unlik

Caroline Elsom: The Government’s Online Harms plan threatens freedom and privacy – while being unlikely to make us safer

Caroline Elsom is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies .
It ’ s almost eighteen months since the Government laid out its roadmap for tackling online harms .
The Online Harms White Paper ’ s mission was to make the UK the safest place to go online , and the best place to grow a digital business .
This is a laudable aim , yet the plans outlined tell a different story .
They set us on a course that will seriously threaten our freedom , privacy and competitiveness – while being unlikely to make us any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented curbs on private life to combat Covid-19 .
It can ill-afford to commit a potentially embarrassing unforced error that will shrink the private sphere in the UK and might damage both the Party ’ s and the country ’ s reputation for openness , tolerance and freedom .
It is time to reflect on the purpose and design of any new regulation .
My new report for the Centre for Policy Studies , Safety without Censorship , uncovers the extent of the flaws in the system proposed for Ofcom to regulate online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model , clearly differentiating Ofcom ’ s powers over illegal content from its remit over legal speech that may be considered by some to be harmful .
If it the Government chooses to ignore the warnings , it appears almost inevitable that the eventual Online Harms Bill will meet a similar fate to that of France .
In June this year , the French Constitutional Council found large parts of France ’ s online hate speech legislation ( known as the Loi Avia after National Assembly member Laetitia Avia , who drafted it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it breached a basic legality test for impermissible vagueness .
According to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK ’ s own Human Rights Act 1998 , restrictions to free of expression have to be ‘ prescribed by law ’ and ‘ necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim ’ .
This means , for example , that users must be able to reasonably foresee whether the platform will be legally obliged to remove content they are about to post .
In France , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out in clear enough terms that allowed the scope of liability to be determined .
Given how alike the principles in the Loi Avia and the White Paper are , similar judicial challenges would likely be mounted in the UK on human rights grounds right from the start .
Even if the eventual Online Harms Bill manages to clear this hurdle , it could fall down on other legal grounds .
The Loi Avia gave powers to France ’ s Higher Audiovisual Council to require hosts to remove the most extreme content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse imagery ) within an hour .
For other content , deadlines of up to 24 hours apply , depending on who has made the request , the nature of the content and what sort of site it is on .
This failed the requirement of necessity and proportionality , because of the powers it gave to an administrative authority rather than allowing host sites to obtain a judicial ruling on the matter .
The UK Government ’ s proposals are likely to run aground on both of these aspects of legality too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White Paper expands much further into the terrain of ‘ legal but harmful ’ than the Loi Avia .
The Foundation for Law , Justice and Society rightly point out that the White Paper leaves open the possibility that constraints on free speech could be imposed ‘ on the basis of opaque agreements between platforms and politician ’ rather than being subject to the constraints of parliamentary debate .
If this fundamental principle is to change , it will involve amendment or repeal of the Human Rights Act , requiring the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it could still be defeated under principles of freedom of speech under English common law .
Extreme caution should be exercised in going down this route to tackle online harms so as not to erode important checks against creeping censorship .
There are also issues of fairness in leaving all these crucial issues to be decided by a series of court battles .
Tech giants with entire legal departments can mount these legal challenges with relative ease , but smaller companies seeking to dispute the rules do not have the resources for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened with large companies who have been subject to fines from the Information Commissioner ’ s Office .
Last year , Facebook appealed against an ICO fine of £500,000 on the grounds of bias and procedural unfairness .
The ICO was forced to settle this out of court , allowing Facebook to avoid admitting liability .
Much larger cases against the likes of British Airways and Marriott Hotels have been delayed as it appears the ICO is unable or unwilling to defend its position against the legal firepower large corporations are able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely that two years will have passed before the Online Harms Bill makes progress through the House .
Making crucial changes now could avoid many more years of legal disputes dooming this policy to failure .

Caroline Elsom is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies.
It’s almost eighteen months since the Government laid out its roadmap for tackling online harms. The Online Harms White Paper’s mission was to make the UK the safest place to go online, and the best place to grow a digital business.
This is a laudable aim, yet the plans outlined tell a different story. They set us on a course that will seriously threaten our freedom, privacy and competitiveness – while being unlikely to make us any safer.
This Conservative Government has enacted unprecedented curbs on private life to combat Covid-19. It can ill-afford to commit a potentially embarrassing unforced error that will shrink the private sphere in the UK and might damage both the Party’s and the country’s reputation for openness, tolerance and freedom.
It is time to reflect on the purpose and design of any new regulation. My new report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Safety without Censorship, uncovers the extent of the flaws in the system proposed for Ofcom to regulate online content.
The report offers an alternative model, clearly differentiating Ofcom’s powers over illegal content from its remit over legal speech that may be considered by some to be harmful.
If it the Government chooses to ignore the warnings, it appears almost inevitable that the eventual Online Harms Bill will meet a similar fate to that of France. In June this year, the French Constitutional Council found large parts of France’s online hate speech legislation (known as the Loi Avia after National Assembly member Laetitia Avia, who drafted it) unconstitutional. Among other reasons, it breached a basic legality test for impermissible vagueness.
According to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK’s own Human Rights Act 1998, restrictions to free of expression have to be ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim’. This means, for example, that users must be able to reasonably foresee whether the platform will be legally obliged to remove content they are about to post.
In France, it was judged that platforms’ obligations were not laid out in clear enough terms that allowed the scope of liability to be determined. Given how alike the principles in the Loi Avia and the White Paper are, similar judicial challenges would likely be mounted in the UK on human rights grounds right from the start.
Even if the eventual Online Harms Bill manages to clear this hurdle, it could fall down on other legal grounds. The Loi Avia gave powers to France’s Higher Audiovisual Council to require hosts to remove the most extreme content (certain terrorist content and child sexual abuse imagery) within an hour.
For other content, deadlines of up to 24 hours apply, depending on who has made the request, the nature of the content and what sort of site it is on. This failed the requirement of necessity and proportionality, because of the powers it gave to an administrative authority rather than allowing host sites to obtain a judicial ruling on the matter.
The UK Government’s proposals are likely to run aground on both of these aspects of legality too. If anything more so, as the White Paper expands much further into the terrain of ‘legal but harmful’ than the Loi Avia. The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society rightly point out that the White Paper leaves open the possibility that constraints on free speech could be imposed ‘on the basis of opaque agreements between platforms and politician’ rather than being subject to the constraints of parliamentary debate.
If this fundamental principle is to change, it will involve amendment or repeal of the Human Rights Act, requiring the full legislative scrutiny of Parliament. Even then, it could still be defeated under principles of freedom of speech under English common law. Extreme caution should be exercised in going down this route to tackle online harms so as not to erode important checks against creeping censorship.
There are also issues of fairness in leaving all these crucial issues to be decided by a series of court battles. Tech giants with entire legal departments can mount these legal challenges with relative ease, but smaller companies seeking to dispute the rules do not have the resources for a fair fight.
This has already happened with large companies who have been subject to fines from the Information Commissioner’s Office. Last year, Facebook appealed against an ICO fine of £500,000 on the grounds of bias and procedural unfairness.
The ICO was forced to settle this out of court, allowing Facebook to avoid admitting liability. Much larger cases against the likes of British Airways and Marriott Hotels have been delayed as it appears the ICO is unable or unwilling to defend its position against the legal firepower large corporations are able to bring to the fight.
It is likely that two years will have passed before the Online Harms Bill makes progress through the House. Making crucial changes now could avoid many more years of legal disputes dooming this policy to failure.