conservativehome--2020-09-23--Covid. Mass lockdowns v a Swedish option is a flawed choice.  But if Ministers can’t make mass testi

Covid. Mass lockdowns v a Swedish option is a flawed choice.  But if Ministers can’t make mass testing work, it’s the one we’ll have.

Perhaps Boris Johnson ’ s new plan will succeed .
Maybe factories and building sites will stay open , plus the retail and hospitality sectors , as well as universities and ( crucially ) schools .
Perhaps the move back from offices to schools will help keep Coronavirus on public transport under control .
If so , the firewall that Ministers want to build between work and home will stand .
In both , there is to be a new stress on compulsion .
At work , this will largely be limited to retail and hospitality , where the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the requirement to wear face masks will be extended .
At home , in family life and in leisure time , there is the rule of six , smaller weddings , restricted sports events , 10pm curfew for pubs .
All this will be enabled and enforced by Covid marshalls , higher fines and penalties , and not only the police but ( the Prime Minister hinted ) the army – and big lockdowns that cover groups of local authority areas .
As we say , maybe this plan will work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most likely course ahead is a patchy schools ’ service , which will drag parents away from work , plus a further clampdown on first hospitality and then retail .
Johnson suggested as much yesterday : “ we reserve the right to deploy greater fire power , with significantly greater restrictions ” , he told the Commons .
And although the plan ’ s outline is clear , its details are contested .
In that respect , we are where we were before : the Department of Health stresses tackling the virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunak appears to have staved off a more extensive crackdown on hospitality – for the moment , anyway – but the Government ’ s internal haggling and bargaining points to an uncomfortable truth .
The clampdown seems too extensive to satisfy a growing lobby within the Conservative Parliamentary Party , but not extensive enough to satisfy a significant chunk of the Government ’ s scientific advisers .
So there is a danger that it will fall between two stools , and be revised soon anyway .
In weighing where we are , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rabbit hole of detail ( asking why , for example , it is considered safe to drink in pubs and drink in restaurants before 10pm but not afterwards ) .
Instead , we should stand back from yesterday ’ s change of tack , and think about the big picture .
When Covid-19 first gathered pace , we were told that a lockdown was necessary to save the NHS .
That is a clear goal – and an understandable one , since the public would not have tolerated TV pictures of overwhelmed hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others unable to get treatment at all , so dying at home without any palliative care .
After the original lockdown was eased , the emphasis shifted from “ save the NHS ” to “ control the virus ” .
The Prime Minister said yesterday that we should “ safeguard the NHS ” , but it wasn ’ t clear if the Government believes the rising caseload is a serious threat to it .
It appears that Ministers and their advisers are aiming , rather , to suppress the virus altogether .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ between driving down the virus and other healthcare objectives , and between lives and livelihoods : that ’ s to say , the wider workings of the economy which produces the growth , jobs and wealth without which the NHS would be unable to function in the first place .
We asked in May for the Government to publish a worst-case scenario for the service , and if it there is one we haven ’ t seen it .
Nor is it clear what those healthcare gains and losses have been so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is like trying to take a still photo of a moving person , but the effort must surely be made .
In its absence , opinion among Ministers and backbenchers is dividing , with a growing number – we can ’ t be sure of what it is – favouring a stress on voluntarism rather than compulsion : the Sweden option .
We believe that a choice between Sweden and lockdowns is a false one , for a simple reason .
Why would we model our response on the country with the eleventh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sweden ) – only three places behind the UK – rather than one with the forty-fourth ( Germany ) ?
We concede at once that these international comparisons are fraught with problems .
But that ’ s an issue for those who favour a Swedish-syle approach as much as those who support a German one .
In any event , as a country with the second largest economy in Europe , we are more easily considered alongside the country with the first – another , furthermore , with a relatively large population .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the stress on testing .
The Government has handled some aspects of Covid-19 well ( building the Nightingales ) and some badly ( failing to protect care homes ) .
Johnson will be consoled this morning by the fact that , if the initial polls are right , elite opinion on the Right may lean towards Sweden but the voters still support lockdown – though a growing and articulate minority do not , and exaggerated public fear of the extent of the virus brings problems in its wake , Undoubtedly , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit of a shambles – ever since , significantly , Ministers moved off the message of protecting the NHS .
In July , the Prime Minister was hoping for “ a more significant return to normality from November…possibly in time for Christmas ” .
Instead , we have a significant move from normality in September , which is set to last for six months .
We appreciate that all governments have made mistakes in handling the developing unknown of the virus , here and abroad .
But , frankly , too much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too little stress has been placed on living with the virus ; too much has been allowed to “ the science ” ( with the latest dubious stress from the chief scientists on worst-case scenarios ) – and too much of the debate has swung between two unworkable extremes .
Big lockdowns of whole cities or metropolitan areas , which could well end up as a national one in effect , are not a solution , since they bring with them harmful outcomes and have an unclear objective .
Mass voluntarism might well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s experience suggests it would bring higher death numbers with it – along with voter resistance , openings for Keir Starmer , and the canard that “ the Tories don ’ t care about saving lives ” .
Instead , Johnson needs to set clear testing targets , stick to them build on progress made , and stay on piste .
We are well aware of the problems .
The UK doen ’ t have the laboratory capacity it needs , so scaling it up takes time .
Testing finds more cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false positives ( and negatives ) .
Some people will need tests won ’ t take them .
Others who take them don ’ t need them – or at any rate , need them less than , say , teachers .
Care homes have consumed a lot of the tests ; the return of schools has had an impact ; an earlier-than-expected upswing in cases has caught the authorities out .
Furthermore , we still await a workable NHS app , our health system is over-centralised , and effective tracing remains a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , quick tracing , quarantine and mini-shutdowns if necessary ( not the closure of whole cities and metropolitan areas ) are the best-in-class solution .
It is one that would minimise the debate about trade-offs , since the economy would be able to return to nearer normal .
If it isn ’ t delivered , watch for pressure on the Chancellor for more furlough , more subsidies , more loans , and a shorter spending review – with higher taxes and lower spending coming later down the line .
And for the options @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Perhaps Boris Johnson’s new plan will succeed. Maybe factories and building sites will stay open, plus the retail and hospitality sectors, as well as universities and (crucially) schools. Perhaps the move back from offices to schools will help keep Coronavirus on public transport under control. If so, the firewall that Ministers want to build between work and home will stand.
In both, there is to be a new stress on compulsion. At work, this will largely be limited to retail and hospitality, where the Government’s guidelines will become legal obligations, and the requirement to wear face masks will be extended. At home, in family life and in leisure time, there is the rule of six, smaller weddings, restricted sports events, 10pm curfew for pubs.
All this will be enabled and enforced by Covid marshalls, higher fines and penalties, and not only the police but (the Prime Minister hinted) the army – and big lockdowns that cover groups of local authority areas. As we say, maybe this plan will work, but we doubt it. The most likely course ahead is a patchy schools’ service, which will drag parents away from work, plus a further clampdown on first hospitality and then retail.
Johnson suggested as much yesterday: “we reserve the right to deploy greater fire power, with significantly greater restrictions”, he told the Commons. And although the plan’s outline is clear, its details are contested. In that respect, we are where we were before: the Department of Health stresses tackling the virus, the Treasury supporting the economy.
Rishi Sunak appears to have staved off a more extensive crackdown on hospitality – for the moment, anyway – but the Government’s internal haggling and bargaining points to an uncomfortable truth. The clampdown seems too extensive to satisfy a growing lobby within the Conservative Parliamentary Party, but not extensive enough to satisfy a significant chunk of the Government’s scientific advisers.
So there is a danger that it will fall between two stools, and be revised soon anyway. In weighing where we are, it would be easy to vanish down the rabbit hole of detail (asking why, for example, it is considered safe to drink in pubs and drink in restaurants before 10pm but not afterwards). Instead, we should stand back from yesterday’s change of tack, and think about the big picture.
When Covid-19 first gathered pace, we were told that a lockdown was necessary to save the NHS. That is a clear goal – and an understandable one, since the public would not have tolerated TV pictures of overwhelmed hospitals, with ambulances incapable of discharging patients and others unable to get treatment at all, so dying at home without any palliative care.
After the original lockdown was eased, the emphasis shifted from “save the NHS” to “control the virus”. The Prime Minister said yesterday that we should “safeguard the NHS”, but it wasn’t clear if the Government believes the rising caseload is a serious threat to it. It appears that Ministers and their advisers are aiming, rather, to suppress the virus altogether.
That raises obvious questions about trade-offs – between driving down the virus and other healthcare objectives, and between lives and livelihoods: that’s to say, the wider workings of the economy which produces the growth, jobs and wealth without which the NHS would be unable to function in the first place. We asked in May for the Government to publish a worst-case scenario for the service, and if it there is one we haven’t seen it.
Nor is it clear what those healthcare gains and losses have been so far. Obviously, trying to calculate them is like trying to take a still photo of a moving person, but the effort must surely be made. In its absence, opinion among Ministers and backbenchers is dividing, with a growing number – we can’t be sure of what it is – favouring a stress on voluntarism rather than compulsion: the Sweden option.
We believe that a choice between Sweden and lockdowns is a false one, for a simple reason. Why would we model our response on the country with the eleventh highest number of deaths per head (Sweden) – only three places behind the UK – rather than one with the forty-fourth (Germany)? We concede at once that these international comparisons are fraught with problems.
But that’s an issue for those who favour a Swedish-syle approach as much as those who support a German one. In any event, as a country with the second largest economy in Europe, we are more easily considered alongside the country with the first – another, furthermore, with a relatively large population. The fundamental difference between Sweden and Germany is the stress on testing.
The Government has handled some aspects of Covid-19 well (building the Nightingales) and some badly (failing to protect care homes). Johnson will be consoled this morning by the fact that, if the initial polls are right, elite opinion on the Right may lean towards Sweden but the voters still support lockdown – though a growing and articulate minority do not, and exaggerated public fear of the extent of the virus brings problems in its wake,
Undoubtedly, however, Government communications have been more than a bit of a shambles – ever since, significantly, Ministers moved off the message of protecting the NHS. In July, the Prime Minister was hoping for “a more significant return to normality from November…possibly in time for Christmas”. Instead, we have a significant move from normality in September, which is set to last for six months.
We appreciate that all governments have made mistakes in handling the developing unknown of the virus, here and abroad. But, frankly, too much hope has been invested in vaccines; too little stress has been placed on living with the virus; too much has been allowed to “the science” (with the latest dubious stress from the chief scientists on worst-case scenarios) – and too much of the debate has swung between two unworkable extremes.
Big lockdowns of whole cities or metropolitan areas, which could well end up as a national one in effect, are not a solution, since they bring with them harmful outcomes and have an unclear objective. Mass voluntarism might well be less damaging, but Sweden’s experience suggests it would bring higher death numbers with it – along with voter resistance, openings for Keir Starmer, and the canard that “the Tories don’t care about saving lives”.
Instead, Johnson needs to set clear testing targets, stick to them build on progress made, and stay on piste. We are well aware of the problems. The UK doen’t have the laboratory capacity it needs, so scaling it up takes time. Testing finds more cases, thus feeding public alarm. There are false positives (and negatives). Some people will need tests won’t take them. Others who take them don’t need them – or at any rate, need them less than, say, teachers.
Care homes have consumed a lot of the tests; the return of schools has had an impact; an earlier-than-expected upswing in cases has caught the authorities out. Furthermore, we still await a workable NHS app, our health system is over-centralised, and effective tracing remains a work in progress. But more tests, quick tracing, quarantine and mini-shutdowns if necessary (not the closure of whole cities and metropolitan areas) are the best-in-class solution.
It is one that would minimise the debate about trade-offs, since the economy would be able to return to nearer normal. If it isn’t delivered, watch for pressure on the Chancellor for more furlough, more subsidies, more loans, and a shorter spending review – with higher taxes and lower spending coming later down the line. And for the options to harden to two flawed extremes.


conservativehome--2020-09-23--Presenting ConservativeHome’s online Party Conference fringe events

Many ConservativeHome readers will be familiar with our annual programme of fringe events at the Conservative Party Conference .
Every year the ConHome marquee is full to bursting with audiences who come to hear a wide range of ministers , MPs , experts and commentators discuss the big issues of the day .
People often tell us that they spend more time at our events than in the actual conference hall , which is praise indeed .
I am very pleased to announce that this year we will again be presenting a bustling programme of ConservativeHome fringe events for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside the online Party Conference .
2020 may have disrupted all sorts of events and institutions , but not this one .
Over the course of three days – Saturday 3rd October , Sunday 4th October and Monday 5th October – our team will be hosting no fewer than 18 fringe events .
These include ‘ In Conversation With… ’ interviews with prominent Cabinet Ministers and parliamentarians , and panel events on a panoply of topics , from the Red Wall seats to the future of transport , and from post-Brexit trade policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , by the ConservativeHome editorial team .
The full event listings can be found here .
We hope you will join us , and take the opportunity to engage in what promises to be a fascinating and entertaining few days of discussion and debate .
All of our fringe events are completely free to view , and for the first time they will be open to Party members and non-members alike , meaning that this year we hope to reach an even wider audience than at the traditional in-person conference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your free Party Member or Observer ( member of the public ) ticket to access the Conservative Party Conference here .
We ’ re looking forward to seeing you there .

Many ConservativeHome readers will be familiar with our annual programme of fringe events at the Conservative Party Conference. Every year the ConHome marquee is full to bursting with audiences who come to hear a wide range of ministers, MPs, experts and commentators discuss the big issues of the day. People often tell us that they spend more time at our events than in the actual conference hall, which is praise indeed.
I am very pleased to announce that this year we will again be presenting a bustling programme of ConservativeHome fringe events for our readers to enjoy – hosted online, alongside the online Party Conference. 2020 may have disrupted all sorts of events and institutions, but not this one.
Over the course of three days – Saturday 3rd October, Sunday 4th October and Monday 5th October – our team will be hosting no fewer than 18 fringe events.
These include ‘In Conversation With…’ interviews with prominent Cabinet Ministers and parliamentarians, and panel events on a panoply of topics, from the Red Wall seats to the future of transport, and from post-Brexit trade policy to cutting reoffending – all hosted, of course, by the ConservativeHome editorial team.
The full event listings can be found here.
We hope you will join us, and take the opportunity to engage in what promises to be a fascinating and entertaining few days of discussion and debate.
All of our fringe events are completely free to view, and for the first time they will be open to Party members and non-members alike, meaning that this year we hope to reach an even wider audience than at the traditional in-person conference. To take part, simply register for your free Party Member or Observer (member of the public) ticket to access the Conservative Party Conference here.
We’re looking forward to seeing you there.


conservativehome--2020-09-23--Robert Halfon: Johnson’s coming Party Conference needs to show voters that we’re on their side

What is conservatism for ?
As we grapple with new measures to help us climb down from ‘ Coronavirus Everest ’ ( and weather a few Covid storms along the way ) , our virtual Party Conference next week is an important opportunity to redefine what being a Conservative is all about .
The Government talks about ‘ levelling up ’ .
But this is not always easy to pin down .
Ask anyone what it means to them and you will get some very different answers .
One person questioned if it is about money for potholes .
Another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a Nintendo Switch game .
Similarly , Tories often mention ‘ social mobility ’ .
But to those outside Westminster , this has little resonance – resembling more a strapline for a new Vodafone commercial than a proposal to extend the ladder of opportunity .
Of course , the Government ’ s messaging about new hospitals , more police and increased funding for our schools is welcome , but as so often with such announcements , it comes over as a kalashnikov firing off initiatives , with nothing linking it all together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target .
In order to make a case to the public , surely the first thing to do must be to signpost Conservative values .
That way , even if policies go awry , if they need to be changed or the Government faces problems , there is more chance of the public giving us the benefit of the doubt ( at least for a time ) .
At present – perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic – it is hard to know whether Toryism is for freedom or for authoritarianism , for individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscal conservatism or ending austerity .
The only thing in which there is certainty , is Brexit .
But this is not enough in itself .
I hope Boris Johnson will use his speech for the Conservative Party Conference as a means of setting out what his brand of conservatism is .
Of course , we need a bit of ‘ boosterism ’ to lift our spirits at this time .
But how about a definition of Conservative values for the times we live in ?
Something we can explain on the doorsteps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that really shows people we are on their side .
In the Commons Tea Room a few days ago , while I was chatting with a down-to-earth , rising star Conservative MP , he made a very eloquent case as to why the Labour Party faces insurmountable challenges at the next election .
His argument was Keir Starmer ’ s lack of charisma , the incoming Labour civil war and the electoral hurdles the party must overcome , mean that the Opposition is unlikely to win in four or five years time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my esteemed colleague .
Starmer is slowly climbing in the polls : the latest YouGov showed level-pegging to the Tories .
Even if this is because of the Coronavirus , it does not matter .
Once up , is it really likely that Labour polling figures will go back to Jeremy Corbyn levels ?
By stealth , under the cover of Covid-19 , he is changing the Labour Party , moving it to one based on social democracy , rather than red-blooded socialism .
In his own conference speech yesterday , Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Taking on the mantle of patriotism , appealing to workers , is a pretty big repudiation of Corbynism .
His Chief Adviser , Claire Ainsley , wrote a book about Blue-Collar Britain entitled , ‘ How to win hearts and minds of the new working class ’ .
Expect more of her ideas to be reflected in the development of Labour policy .
It is notable that the Shadow Chancellor has not committed Labour to any tax rises at present , nor big public spending programmes .
This will make it harder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grounds of more borrowing , more spending and more debt .
On television , Starmer comes over as reasonable , rather than dogmatic .
However , the flip-flopping on policy , his ‘ Captain Hindsight ’ persona , the “ forensic analysis ” that does not see the political wood for the trees , are all flaws that can be exploited by the Tories .
In addition , Labour ’ s refusal to make any hard choices in terms of cutting Government spending – and the continued presence of many hard-left activists in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real brake on the party ’ s progress .
The public , who are weary and exhausted from Coronavirus , might just vote for Labour , just as they did in 1945 .
After all , in four years ’ time , Conservatives will have been in power for nearly 15 years .
“ Time for change ” might be a mantra that the public can be persuaded by , especially if voting Labour doesn ’ t frighten the horses .
My MP colleague may be right and the electoral maths may make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
But with a volatile electorate and the option of a social democrat party on the ballot paper – with which most of the public ’ s economic views align – they certainly could present a real challenge to the Tories .
A book on the Cameron years you should read I am not talking about Sasha Swire ’ s tome on “ the County Set meet Notting Hill ” , but a brilliant memoir by Baroness Fall on the Cameron years : ‘ The Gatekeeper .
Life at the Heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the mechanics of politics ; it is like reading about the engine of a sleek car , rather than the story of the car itself .
You learn a lot about the workings of a Prime Minister ’ s Office and it is well worth a read .
My favourite part , so far , is the account of former Education Secretary , Michael Gove , crashing his automobile in the Department for Education car park , trying to put his car into the vehicle lift to get to the parking space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lift , having had the same thing happen to me when I was Skills Minister ( although , I just scraped mine , rather than denting ) and have concluded that it is seemingly only built for drivers of Lewis Hamilton ’ s calibre .
I found the whole experience quite terrifying , since it reminded me of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the cave walls close in .
I never used that car lift again .

What is conservatism for?
As we grapple with new measures to help us climb down from ‘Coronavirus Everest’ (and weather a few Covid storms along the way), our virtual Party Conference next week is an important opportunity to redefine what being a Conservative is all about.
The Government talks about ‘levelling up’. But this is not always easy to pin down. Ask anyone what it means to them and you will get some very different answers. One person questioned if it is about money for potholes. Another asked if it was a new level on a Nintendo Switch game.
Similarly, Tories often mention ‘social mobility’. But to those outside Westminster, this has little resonance – resembling more a strapline for a new Vodafone commercial than a proposal to extend the ladder of opportunity.
Of course, the Government’s messaging about new hospitals, more police and increased funding for our schools is welcome, but as so often with such announcements, it comes over as a kalashnikov firing off initiatives, with nothing linking it all together; a series of bullets without a target.
In order to make a case to the public, surely the first thing to do must be to signpost Conservative values. That way, even if policies go awry, if they need to be changed or the Government faces problems, there is more chance of the public giving us the benefit of the doubt (at least for a time).
At present – perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic – it is hard to know whether Toryism is for freedom or for authoritarianism, for individual aspiration or family and community, for fiscal conservatism or ending austerity. The only thing in which there is certainty, is Brexit. But this is not enough in itself.
I hope Boris Johnson will use his speech for the Conservative Party Conference as a means of setting out what his brand of conservatism is. Of course, we need a bit of ‘boosterism’ to lift our spirits at this time. But how about a definition of Conservative values for the times we live in? Something we can explain on the doorsteps to an anxious electorate. A conservatism that really shows people we are on their side.
Watch Starmer
In the Commons Tea Room a few days ago, while I was chatting with a down-to-earth, rising star Conservative MP, he made a very eloquent case as to why the Labour Party faces insurmountable challenges at the next election. His argument was Keir Starmer’s lack of charisma, the incoming Labour civil war and the electoral hurdles the party must overcome, mean that the Opposition is unlikely to win in four or five years time.
Sadly, I don’t agree with my esteemed colleague. Starmer is slowly climbing in the polls: the latest YouGov showed level-pegging to the Tories. Even if this is because of the Coronavirus, it does not matter. Once up, is it really likely that Labour polling figures will go back to Jeremy Corbyn levels?
By stealth, under the cover of Covid-19, he is changing the Labour Party, moving it to one based on social democracy, rather than red-blooded socialism.
In his own conference speech yesterday, Starmer has moved to slay the Corbyn shibboleths. Taking on the mantle of patriotism, appealing to workers, is a pretty big repudiation of Corbynism. His Chief Adviser, Claire Ainsley, wrote a book about Blue-Collar Britain entitled, ‘How to win hearts and minds of the new working class’.
Expect more of her ideas to be reflected in the development of Labour policy. It is notable that the Shadow Chancellor has not committed Labour to any tax rises at present, nor big public spending programmes. This will make it harder for Conservatives to attack the Opposition on grounds of more borrowing, more spending and more debt.
On television, Starmer comes over as reasonable, rather than dogmatic. However, the flip-flopping on policy, his ‘Captain Hindsight’ persona, the “forensic analysis” that does not see the political wood for the trees, are all flaws that can be exploited by the Tories.
In addition, Labour’s refusal to make any hard choices in terms of cutting Government spending – and the continued presence of many hard-left activists in the constituencies – could act as a real brake on the party’s progress.
The public, who are weary and exhausted from Coronavirus, might just vote for Labour, just as they did in 1945. After all, in four years’ time, Conservatives will have been in power for nearly 15 years. “Time for change” might be a mantra that the public can be persuaded by, especially if voting Labour doesn’t frighten the horses.
My MP colleague may be right and the electoral maths may make it impossible for Labour to win next time. But with a volatile electorate and the option of a social democrat party on the ballot paper – with which most of the public’s economic views align – they certainly could present a real challenge to the Tories.
A book on the Cameron years you should read
I am not talking about Sasha Swire’s tome on “the County Set meet Notting Hill”, but a brilliant memoir by Baroness Fall on the Cameron years: ‘The Gatekeeper. Life at the Heart of No 10.’
This is a book about the mechanics of politics; it is like reading about the engine of a sleek car, rather than the story of the car itself. You learn a lot about the workings of a Prime Minister’s Office and it is well worth a read.
My favourite part, so far, is the account of former Education Secretary, Michael Gove, crashing his automobile in the Department for Education car park, trying to put his car into the vehicle lift to get to the parking space.
I know a little about this lift, having had the same thing happen to me when I was Skills Minister (although, I just scraped mine, rather than denting) and have concluded that it is seemingly only built for drivers of Lewis Hamilton’s calibre. I found the whole experience quite terrifying, since it reminded me of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the cave walls close in. I never used that car lift again.


conservativehome--2020-09-23--Darren Grimes: Not even Charles Moore can save the BBC

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK .
When the former editor of the Guardian and exemplar of metropolitan liberalism , Alan Rusbridger , tweets about it being “ inconceivable that someone fined for refusing to pay a licence fee ” could become Chairman of the BBC , readers of this site could be forgiven for assuming that I would be a fervent supporter of such an anti-licence fee appointment .
After all , anyone who could robustly challenge this anachronistic and regressive form of taxation on anyone wanting to watch live television , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely pave the way to reforms that we at Defund The BBC want to see , right ?
I ’ m afraid I ’ m not so optimistic .
Charles Moore , the fantastically eloquent former editor of the Daily Telegraph , the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator is reportedly Downing Street ’ s favoured choice to take over at the Corporation as Chairman when David Clementi ’ s three-year term expires in February 2021 .
Such a move , argue proponents of licence fee reform – and those in favour of bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public it is supposed to serve and unite – would send a strong signal to the upper echelons of the Corporation that this Government means business , and isn ’ t afraid to set a conservative cat among the uber-woke pigeons .
But I ’ m afraid we are way past the point of message-sending being enough to save the BBC from itself .
Earlier this month , some hopeful conservatives were hailing Tim Davie , the latest Director-General of the BBC , as a man with a plan that could save the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , reports that Davie was set to tackle “ perceived left-wing comedy bias ” as he arrived , dressed in jeans , for his first day in the job .
At this point , Frankie Boyle seems to have decided to ask Davie to hold his beer – and watch how it ’ s done .
During his BBC Comedy New World Order show , in which humour masquerades as virtue signalling and applauding each other ’ s woke credentials , so-called comedian Sophie Duker cracked a so-called joke about killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When we say we want to kill whitey , we don ’ t really mean we want to kill whitey , ” before adding , “ we do ” .
The rest of the panel quickly realised there is no way in which they could surpass what Duker had just contributed to the wokeometer .
The BBC has refused to be drawn on the row over the show .
So much for challenging left-wing ‘ comedy ’ .
The Corporation ’ s new boss also spoke about cost-saving measures .
The BBC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to much outcry : in total staff pay has soared from 3.5 per cent to £1.5 billion , while the BBC pushes ahead with its plans to strip a million over-75s of their free TV licences .
Gary Lineker earned a table-topping £1.75 million in 2018/19 , and the Guardian reported that he has agreed to a pay cut – a new five-year contract worth a quarter less than his current one – adding that Gary “ knows his responsibility to the BBC in terms of his use of social media ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of change were beginning to sprout , Lineker dismissed the Guardian ’ s report of the story as untrue , and said that the Corporation recognises he “ tweets carefully ” .
In what reality ?
Lineker has a history of virtue-signalling on Twitter on everything from the English Channel crisis to Brexit , and all semblance of impartiality is thrown from the window .
So , no change there either then .
To rub further salt in the wound , Zoe Ball is now earning £1.3 million , after the BBC pledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She got a £900,000 pay rise , despite losing a million listeners last year .
Would this be allowed to happen in the private sector just to fiddle their gender pay gap statistics ?
And as the BBC spends our own cash on lecturing us about what good value for money the licence fee is and boosting their diversity , you ’ d be forgiven for believing that the liberal bastion ’ s only diversity issue is its lack of diversity of thought .
But it now seems to be intent on getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from A Question of Sport .
The only under-represented groups on our screens are the disabled and the over-50 ’ s .
Why should we believe that any new Chairman could have any meaningful impact and deliver change , when the new Director-General has seen his pledges fail in his first month in the job ?
What it all boils down to , ultimately , is that we , folks , are utterly powerless to do anything about this .
Just to watch our telly sets , we are forced to fund the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pounds , pay for hate-filled so-called comedy and put up with right-on woke opinions that blatantly breach impartiality rules – or face the threat of prison .
It ’ s just not on , and the licence fee should have been decriminalised yesterday , never mind today .
We at Defund The BBC will not be pacified by totemic position holders , even one as gifted as Moore , and it would seem the public agrees with us .
We ’ ve already raised £60,000 in our crowdfunding efforts from those that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regressive anachronism in the modern broadcasting world .
And it ’ s time for the Conservative Party to pull its finger out and drags the Corporation , against its own will , into the twenty-first century and back in touch with the public that it purportedly serves .

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK.
When the former editor of the Guardian and exemplar of metropolitan liberalism, Alan Rusbridger, tweets about it being “inconceivable that someone fined for refusing to pay a licence fee” could become Chairman of the BBC, readers of this site could be forgiven for assuming that I would be a fervent supporter of such an anti-licence fee appointment.
After all, anyone who could robustly challenge this anachronistic and regressive form of taxation on anyone wanting to watch live television, from within the behemoth itself, would surely pave the way to reforms that we at Defund The BBC want to see, right? I’m afraid I’m not so optimistic.
Charles Moore, the fantastically eloquent former editor of the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator is reportedly Downing Street’s favoured choice to take over at the Corporation as Chairman when David Clementi’s three-year term expires in February 2021.
Such a move, argue proponents of licence fee reform – and those in favour of bringing the BBC more in touch with the public it is supposed to serve and unite – would send a strong signal to the upper echelons of the Corporation that this Government means business, and isn’t afraid to set a conservative cat among the uber-woke pigeons.
But I’m afraid we are way past the point of message-sending being enough to save the BBC from itself. Earlier this month, some hopeful conservatives were hailing Tim Davie, the latest Director-General of the BBC, as a man with a plan that could save the broadcaster from Titanic-like disaster.
Consider, for example, reports that Davie was set to tackle “perceived left-wing comedy bias” as he arrived, dressed in jeans, for his first day in the job. At this point, Frankie Boyle seems to have decided to ask Davie to hold his beer – and watch how it’s done.
During his BBC Comedy New World Order show, in which humour masquerades as virtue signalling and applauding each other’s woke credentials, so-called comedian Sophie Duker cracked a so-called joke about killing white people.
She said: “When we say we want to kill whitey, we don’t really mean we want to kill whitey,” before adding, “we do”. The rest of the panel quickly realised there is no way in which they could surpass what Duker had just contributed to the wokeometer. The BBC has refused to be drawn on the row over the show. So much for challenging left-wing ‘comedy’.
The Corporation’s new boss also spoke about cost-saving measures. The BBC’s rich list was published last week to much outcry: in total staff pay has soared from 3.5 per cent to £1.5 billion, while the BBC pushes ahead with its plans to strip a million over-75s of their free TV licences.
Gary Lineker earned a table-topping £1.75 million in 2018/19, and the Guardian reported that he has agreed to a pay cut – a new five-year contract worth a quarter less than his current one – adding that Gary “knows his responsibility to the BBC in terms of his use of social media”.
Yet as soon as the first shoots of change were beginning to sprout, Lineker dismissed the Guardian’s report of the story as untrue, and said that the Corporation recognises he “tweets carefully”. In what reality? Lineker has a history of virtue-signalling on Twitter on everything from the English Channel crisis to Brexit, and all semblance of impartiality is thrown from the window. So, no change there either then.
To rub further salt in the wound, Zoe Ball is now earning £1.3 million, after the BBC pledged to tackle the gender pay gap. She got a £900,000 pay rise, despite losing a million listeners last year. Would this be allowed to happen in the private sector just to fiddle their gender pay gap statistics?
And as the BBC spends our own cash on lecturing us about what good value for money the licence fee is and boosting their diversity, you’d be forgiven for believing that the liberal bastion’s only diversity issue is its lack of diversity of thought. But it now seems to be intent on getting rid of the much-loved 64-year-old Sue Barker from A Question of Sport. The only under-represented groups on our screens are the disabled and the over-50’s.
Why should we believe that any new Chairman could have any meaningful impact and deliver change, when the new Director-General has seen his pledges fail in his first month in the job?
What it all boils down to, ultimately, is that we, folks, are utterly powerless to do anything about this. Just to watch our telly sets, we are forced to fund the salaries of those that luxuriate in millions of pounds, pay for hate-filled so-called comedy and put up with right-on woke opinions that blatantly breach impartiality rules – or face the threat of prison. It’s just not on, and the licence fee should have been decriminalised yesterday, never mind today.
We at Defund The BBC will not be pacified by totemic position holders, even one as gifted as Moore, and it would seem the public agrees with us. We’ve already raised £60,000 in our crowdfunding efforts from those that recognise that the licence fee is a regressive anachronism in the modern broadcasting world. And it’s time for the Conservative Party to pull its finger out and drags the Corporation, against its own will, into the twenty-first century and back in touch with the public that it purportedly serves.


conservativehome--2020-09-23--Shaun Bailey: We can’t let London grind to a halt

Shaun Bailey is a member of the London Assembly and the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London .
Remember the days when London ’ s transport network led the world ?
It wasn ’ t that long ago .
Look back to before Sadiq Khan and you see what we used to be capable of .
When Boris Johnson was the Mayor of London , we signed off Crossrail 1 .
We started planning Crossrail 2 .
We got Boris bikes .
We rolled the Overground out to more areas than ever .
And we had a congestion charge that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times have changed .
Now we ’ ve got a Mayor who spent four years managing Transport for London so inefficiently that he had to be bailed out by the government .
He let TfL debt rise to a historic £13 billion .
He hiked the congestion charge to £15 and extended it to seven days a week .
He came into office with Crossrail on time and on budget , but managed to delay it and increase its cost .
And he has allowed countless bridges to close , turning journeys across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our former Mayor might have said .
These days the only way our transport system leads the world is in headlines about how London ’ s bridges are falling down .
It ’ s incredibly disappointing .
Forget about the rest of the world — our transport system is what makes this city possible .
It ’ s how businesses get around but it ’ s also how we see family and friends .
That ’ s why I believe Londoners have the right to an efficient transport system .
And I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibility to deliver it .
So I can ’ t understand why Sadiq Khan has let our transport network fall into its current state .
I don ’ t buy the narrative that failure is inevitable .
After all , it ’ s not like we ’ ve seen these transport failures in other parts of the country .
Far from it .
Conservative mayors like Andy Street and Ben Houchen are setting a great example for London , something our Mayor should take note of .
Andy Street , the Mayor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Metro system and opening new stations in Coventry and Wolverhampton .
Ben Houchen , the Mayor of the Tees Valley , saved the local airport from closure and helped bring new investment into the region .
They are doing exactly what Conservative mayors always do : working with business and government to deliver improvements in people ’ s lives .
Recently , Greg Hands and I had to take some of Khan ’ s job description into our own hands .
When Hammersmith Bridge was closed yet again , Khan refused to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were too great for us to ignore .
Residents faced three-hour bus rides just to get across the river .
Emergency services struggled to respond to call-outs .
Businesses were reporting that trade was down between 30 per cent and 40 per cent .
So together , Greg and I asked the government to intervene and take over Hammersmith Bridge .
And we are hugely grateful that the government listened .
Grant Shapps , the Transport Secretary , bailed out Sadiq Khan by taking over the bridge and funding the repairs .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing , it should never have come to this .
As the Mayor of London , I ’ ll make it my priority to get TfL ’ s finances back in order .
I ’ ll cut waste , end inflated executive pay , and provide the leadership TfL needs .
That way , Londoners will have a transport network fit for a global city — and we can start to lead the world once again .

Shaun Bailey is a member of the London Assembly and the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London.
Remember the days when London’s transport network led the world? It wasn’t that long ago. Look back to before Sadiq Khan and you see what we used to be capable of. When Boris Johnson was the Mayor of London, we signed off Crossrail 1. We started planning Crossrail 2. We got Boris bikes. We rolled the Overground out to more areas than ever. And we had a congestion charge that raised money without being extreme.
How times have changed. Now we’ve got a Mayor who spent four years managing Transport for London so inefficiently that he had to be bailed out by the government. He let TfL debt rise to a historic £13 billion. He hiked the congestion charge to £15 and extended it to seven days a week. He came into office with Crossrail on time and on budget, but managed to delay it and increase its cost. And he has allowed countless bridges to close, turning journeys across the river into Homeric odysseys, as our former Mayor might have said. These days the only way our transport system leads the world is in headlines about how London’s bridges are falling down.
It’s incredibly disappointing. Forget about the rest of the world — our transport system is what makes this city possible. It’s how businesses get around but it’s also how we see family and friends. That’s why I believe Londoners have the right to an efficient transport system. And I believe it’s the Mayor’s responsibility to deliver it. So I can’t understand why Sadiq Khan has let our transport network fall into its current state.
I don’t buy the narrative that failure is inevitable. After all, it’s not like we’ve seen these transport failures in other parts of the country. Far from it. Conservative mayors like Andy Street and Ben Houchen are setting a great example for London, something our Mayor should take note of.
Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands, is pioneering a Metro system and opening new stations in Coventry and Wolverhampton. Ben Houchen, the Mayor of the Tees Valley, saved the local airport from closure and helped bring new investment into the region. They are doing exactly what Conservative mayors always do: working with business and government to deliver improvements in people’s lives.
Recently, Greg Hands and I had to take some of Khan’s job description into our own hands. When Hammersmith Bridge was closed yet again, Khan refused to take responsibility yet again. But the consequences were too great for us to ignore. Residents faced three-hour bus rides just to get across the river. Emergency services struggled to respond to call-outs. Businesses were reporting that trade was down between 30 per cent and 40 per cent.
So together, Greg and I asked the government to intervene and take over Hammersmith Bridge. And we are hugely grateful that the government listened. Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, bailed out Sadiq Khan by taking over the bridge and funding the repairs.
But even though Grant Shapps did the right thing, it should never have come to this. As the Mayor of London, I’ll make it my priority to get TfL’s finances back in order. I’ll cut waste, end inflated executive pay, and provide the leadership TfL needs. That way, Londoners will have a transport network fit for a global city — and we can start to lead the world once again.


conservativehome--2020-09-23--Ben Roback: Trump may not win the election, but this sudden Supreme Court vacancy gives him a chance

Ben Roback: Trump may not win the election, but this sudden Supreme Court vacancy gives him a chance to make a long-term mark on America.

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
RIP RBG .
You will have seen those six letters plastered across news websites and social media since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the Supreme Court Justice , was announced last Saturday morning .
Entirely irrespective of your politics – red or blue , either side of the Atlantic – Ginsburg commanded respect .
During a long and distinguished career , she was a titan in American politics and law .
Posthumously , she continues to push barriers and chip away at the glass ceiling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ever receive the honour of lying in state in the Capitol ’ s National Statuary Hall on Friday .
She will be remembered for her brilliant legal mind and unprecedented leadership on women ’ s rights .
Ginsburg became a multigenerational vanguard for women across America .
Her story , told with wit and precision in the 2019 documentary ‘ RBG ’ , is a lesson both for our sons , as well as our daughters .
A vacancy on the nation ’ s most important bench The death of the longest-serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vacancy that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are in a hurry to fill .
Ginsburg ’ s death , 46 days before the election , is the second-shortest amount of time between an opening on the court and an election .
The President announced he will unveil his Supreme Court nominee in an event at the White House on Saturday .
Democrats are crying foul .
They have good reason .
In 2016 , Barack Obama sought to nominate Merrick Garland to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat .
Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the most candid political operator on Capitol Hill , blocked a hearing on Mr Garland on the grounds that only eight months remained before the presidential election .
“ The American people should have a voice in the selection their next Supreme Court Justice ” , Senator McConnell said four years ago .
How times have changed .
Hypocrisy has become the watchword in one half of Washington .
One can not understate the importance of Ginsburg ’ s successor on the highest court in the land .
Supreme Court Justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett , at age of 48 , could feasibly serve on the bench for four decades .
Ginsburg ’ s replacement will therefore shape the court for a generation to come , putting in serious doubt seismic legal rulings on cases like Roe v. Wade ( 1973 ) which gave women the right to an abortion and Obergefell v. Hodges ( 2015 ) which paved the way for same sex marriage across the whole country .
These are not just judicial precedents .
They are decisions which have immediate and serious impacts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already appointed two Justices – Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 .
Both replaced Justices appointed by Republican presidents , meaning their appointments merely maintained the existing balance of the Court .
A conservative constitutional scholar ennobled by Trump would fundamentally shift the balance of the Court , ensuring a clear conservative majority of 6-3 .
Speculation on Ginsburg ’ s replacement has centred thus far on two federal appeals court judges – Barrett , and Barbara Lagoa .
The former is the favourite having met with the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the latter would represent a safer bet .
The Senate confirmed Lagoa 80-15 last year , so she has previous support amongst many Senate Democrats .
The President wants a vote on his proposed nominee before the election , but that requires procedural support in the Senate .
Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski oppose a vote before the election , which means that two more Republican defections would force the vote to be delayed until the lame-duck session of Congress .
Should Donald Trump lose the election , huge pressure would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the incoming president .
Mitt Romney , who has made a habit of being an outspoken critic of the president in the Senate , has come out in favour of pushing a vote on the vacancy .
His support had not been guaranteed , and has therefore given the President and McConnell a boost .
That all but ensures a nominee put forward by the president will be confirmed – bar any major missteps from the nominee .
For Trump and his 2020 re-election team , the Supreme Court vacancy comes as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For all the president ’ s warm words about Ginsburg , there is no hiding the naked political benefit of shifting the conversation away from Coronavirus – America has now passed the grim milestone of 200,000 deaths – and the subsequently ravaged US jobs market .
Instead , the political dynamic focuses on appointing a conservative judge to the Supreme Court .
The President has tried to make judicial appointments a major plank of his election campaign .
Pushing through a third Supreme Court Justice would imprint a major Trump stamp on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond a first or second term in the White House .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
RIP RBG. You will have seen those six letters plastered across news websites and social media since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court Justice, was announced last Saturday morning.
Entirely irrespective of your politics – red or blue, either side of the Atlantic – Ginsburg commanded respect. During a long and distinguished career, she was a titan in American politics and law. Posthumously, she continues to push barriers and chip away at the glass ceiling, as she becomes the first woman to ever receive the honour of lying in state in the Capitol’s National Statuary Hall on Friday.
She will be remembered for her brilliant legal mind and unprecedented leadership on women’s rights. Ginsburg became a multigenerational vanguard for women across America. Her story, told with wit and precision in the 2019 documentary ‘RBG’, is a lesson both for our sons, as well as our daughters.
A vacancy on the nation’s most important bench
The death of the longest-serving liberal Justice on the Supreme Court creates a vacancy that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are in a hurry to fill. Ginsburg’s death, 46 days before the election, is the second-shortest amount of time between an opening on the court and an election.
The President announced he will unveil his Supreme Court nominee in an event at the White House on Saturday. Democrats are crying foul. They have good reason.
In 2016, Barack Obama sought to nominate Merrick Garland to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat. Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s Majority Leader, and the most candid political operator on Capitol Hill, blocked a hearing on Mr Garland on the grounds that only eight months remained before the presidential election.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection their next Supreme Court Justice”, Senator McConnell said four years ago. How times have changed. Hypocrisy has become the watchword in one half of Washington.
One cannot understate the importance of Ginsburg’s successor on the highest court in the land. Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointments meaning that Amy Coney Barrett, at age of 48, could feasibly serve on the bench for four decades.
Ginsburg’s replacement will therefore shape the court for a generation to come, putting in serious doubt seismic legal rulings on cases like Roe v. Wade (1973) which gave women the right to an abortion and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which paved the way for same sex marriage across the whole country. These are not just judicial precedents. They are decisions which have immediate and serious impacts on the fabric of American society.
Trump has already appointed two Justices – Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Both replaced Justices appointed by Republican presidents, meaning their appointments merely maintained the existing balance of the Court. A conservative constitutional scholar ennobled by Trump would fundamentally shift the balance of the Court, ensuring a clear conservative majority of 6-3.
A shortlist of two
Speculation on Ginsburg’s replacement has centred thus far on two federal appeals court judges – Barrett, and Barbara Lagoa. The former is the favourite having met with the president at the White House on Monday, but the latter would represent a safer bet. The Senate confirmed Lagoa 80-15 last year, so she has previous support amongst many Senate Democrats.
The President wants a vote on his proposed nominee before the election, but that requires procedural support in the Senate. Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski oppose a vote before the election, which means that two more Republican defections would force the vote to be delayed until the lame-duck session of Congress.
Should Donald Trump lose the election, huge pressure would then build on Senate Republicans to defer to the incoming president.
Mitt Romney, who has made a habit of being an outspoken critic of the president in the Senate, has come out in favour of pushing a vote on the vacancy. His support had not been guaranteed, and has therefore given the President and McConnell a boost. That all but ensures a nominee put forward by the president will be confirmed – bar any major missteps from the nominee.
For Trump and his 2020 re-election team, the Supreme Court vacancy comes as an unexpected gift amid a fledgling campaign. For all the president’s warm words about Ginsburg, there is no hiding the naked political benefit of shifting the conversation away from Coronavirus – America has now passed the grim milestone of 200,000 deaths – and the subsequently ravaged US jobs market.
Instead, the political dynamic focuses on appointing a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. The President has tried to make judicial appointments a major plank of his election campaign. Pushing through a third Supreme Court Justice would imprint a major Trump stamp on the future of American society, long beyond a first or second term in the White House.


conservativehome--2020-09-23--With the 10pm curfew starting tomorrow, Sunak’s “imaginative” measures will need to come within days

With the latest new rules imposed by the Government – from 10pm curfews for bars and restaurants , to the stipulation that they can now only offer table service – it ’ s clear that the economic toll on the hospitality industry is going to be astronomical .
And so , the question everyone ’ s asking is : what will Rishi Sunak do next ?
For months Labour has put pressure on the Chancellor to extend his furlough scheme ( which is due to end on October 31 ) – a proposal which he has repeatedly rejected .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Bailey , Governor of the Bank of England , called for him to have a “ rethink ” , despite previously supporting the scheme being brought to a close .
The Confederation of British Industry ( CBI ) , too , has pleaded with Sunak to take action , warning that there could be millions of job losses coming from firms in city centres and in the hospitality sector .
Carolyn Fairbairn , its director-general , said it was “ desperately urgent ” to have a successor to the furlough scheme ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need [ ed ] to be brought in within days or weeks.
” CBI has suggested a subsidy scheme , and by all indications this is what Chancellor is contemplating .
Indeed , The Guardian reports that Sunak is weighing-up a German-style wage scheme , having previously considered extending the availability of state-backed loans .
As I have written for ConservativeHome before , there are several subsidised schemes which he could take inspiration from , another being France ’ s .
The German system – titled the Kurzabeit job subsidy – is different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that it encourages employees back to the workplace , albeit on reduced hours .
Businesses then pay employees for the hours they ’ re needed , and the government subsidises any wages lost from ( around 60 to 80 per cent ) their typical hours .
The key advantage of the scheme is its flexibility , as it allows companies to adapt to increases , or decreases , in demand for their business ; something that is greatly needed , given how difficult it is to predict the virus , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also been suggested that the Treasury is considering a plan in which workers undertake education or training while they are away from their work – something that could tie in with Sunak ’ s investment in traineeships .
While the furlough scheme has no doubt been extremely expensive for the taxpayer , it ’ s clear that the latest set of measures could prove even more financially crippling in the long-term – wiping out large numbers of businesses .
Moreover , hospitality closures are only going to exacerbate youth unemployment , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacts of this crisis ; a problem that will become even more troublesome given that many of these individuals will be required in the future to pay off the Covid-19 debt .
Whatever Sunak does , one thing is for certain : it will have to be in the next few days , as the CBI ’ s director-general points out .
Not least because , along with the introduction of curfews tomorrow , next week many businesses are likely to announce job cuts in accordance with the furlough scheme ( employers intending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run a 30-day consultation ) .
In PMQs today , Johnson promised Britain would go “ forward with further creative and imaginative schemes to keep [ the ] economy moving.
” Let ’ s hope we see this imagination fast .

With the latest new rules imposed by the Government – from 10pm curfews for bars and restaurants, to the stipulation that they can now only offer table service – it’s clear that the economic toll on the hospitality industry is going to be astronomical. And so, the question everyone’s asking is: what will Rishi Sunak do next?
For months Labour has put pressure on the Chancellor to extend his furlough scheme (which is due to end on October 31) – a proposal which he has repeatedly rejected. But the calls have become even louder since Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, called for him to have a “rethink”, despite previously supporting the scheme being brought to a close.
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), too, has pleaded with Sunak to take action, warning that there could be millions of job losses coming from firms in city centres and in the hospitality sector. Carolyn Fairbairn, its director-general, said it was “desperately urgent” to have a successor to the furlough scheme”, and that whatever it was “need[ed] to be brought in within days or weeks.” CBI has suggested a subsidy scheme, and by all indications this is what Chancellor is contemplating.
Indeed, The Guardian reports that Sunak is weighing-up a German-style wage scheme, having previously considered extending the availability of state-backed loans. As I have written for ConservativeHome before, there are several subsidised schemes which he could take inspiration from, another being France’s.
The German system – titled the Kurzabeit job subsidy – is different from the UK’s furlough scheme in that it encourages employees back to the workplace, albeit on reduced hours. Businesses then pay employees for the hours they’re needed, and the government subsidises any wages lost from (around 60 to 80 per cent) their typical hours.
The key advantage of the scheme is its flexibility, as it allows companies to adapt to increases, or decreases, in demand for their business; something that is greatly needed, given how difficult it is to predict the virus, and the subsequent actions the Government takes. It has also been suggested that the Treasury is considering a plan in which workers undertake education or training while they are away from their work – something that could tie in with Sunak’s investment in traineeships.
While the furlough scheme has no doubt been extremely expensive for the taxpayer, it’s clear that the latest set of measures could prove even more financially crippling in the long-term – wiping out large numbers of businesses. Moreover, hospitality closures are only going to exacerbate youth unemployment, which has already been one of the worst impacts of this crisis; a problem that will become even more troublesome given that many of these individuals will be required in the future to pay off the Covid-19 debt.
Whatever Sunak does, one thing is for certain: it will have to be in the next few days, as the CBI’s director-general points out. Not least because, along with the introduction of curfews tomorrow, next week many businesses are likely to announce job cuts in accordance with the furlough scheme (employers intending to make fewer than 100 redundancies need to run a 30-day consultation). In PMQs today, Johnson promised Britain would go “forward with further creative and imaginative schemes to keep [the] economy moving.” Let’s hope we see this imagination fast.


conservativehome--2020-09-23--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Puritans try to smash Johnson’s images

Planet Fact takes on Planet Freedom .
Sir Keir Starmer ’ s questions are evidence-based , utilitarian , grown-up , serious and underlain by the conviction that this is the only moral way to do politics .
Boris Johnson ’ s answers are imaginative , irreverent , disdainful of inconvenient facts and underlain by the conviction that this is the only tolerable way to do politics .
Sir Keir gives us the world as it is .
Johnson responds with the world as we might wish it to be .
The Leader of the Opposition pointed out a clear contradiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three months ago that “ test and trace can be a real game-changer for us ” , and Johnson ’ s statement yesterday of the “ complete opposite ” , with test and trace able to contribute “ very little or nothing ” .
“ Which one is it ?
” the ruler of Planet Fact demanded .
The ruler of Planet Freedom declined to engage with this pedantry .
Sir Keir , in his sternest tone , said that “ pretending there isn ’ t a problem is part of the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another either/or question : did the PM agree with “ the Dido Harding defence ” of the problem with track and trace ( not enough capacity ) or “ the Matt Hancock defence ” ( too many people applying for tests who don ’ t need them ) ?
No Cavalier could allow such an insult from a Roundhead to a damsel in distress to pass unavenged , and Johnson ’ s sword leapt from his scabbard : “ The continual attacks by the Opposition on Dido Harding are unseemly and unjustified.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on , “ is more of the spirit of togetherness that we had yesterday ” , instead of this constant knocking from the sidelines .
Starmer was stung .
He pointed out that his wife , mother and sister all work or worked for the NHS .
He would take no lectures from the PM on the subject .
Ian Blackford , for the SNP , said the Scots did not want Johnson to put his arms round them .
Johnson : “ I can imagine that he doesn ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” On Planet Freedom , the use of imagery is regarded as delightful , while literal fact is ignored .
Puritans are enraged by this , and want to smash Johnson ’ s images .
Their difficulty is that as they do so , they sound a bit self-righteous , and may even find the images are quite widely venerated .

Planet Fact takes on Planet Freedom. Sir Keir Starmer’s questions are evidence-based, utilitarian, grown-up, serious and underlain by the conviction that this is the only moral way to do politics.
Boris Johnson’s answers are imaginative, irreverent, disdainful of inconvenient facts and underlain by the conviction that this is the only tolerable way to do politics.
Sir Keir gives us the world as it is. Johnson responds with the world as we might wish it to be.
The Leader of the Opposition pointed out a clear contradiction between the Prime Minister’s declaration three months ago that “test and trace can be a real game-changer for us”, and Johnson’s statement yesterday of the “complete opposite”, with test and trace able to contribute “very little or nothing”.
“Which one is it?” the ruler of Planet Fact demanded.
The ruler of Planet Freedom declined to engage with this pedantry.
Sir Keir, in his sternest tone, said that “pretending there isn’t a problem is part of the problem, Prime Minister,” and posed another either/or question: did the PM agree with “the Dido Harding defence” of the problem with track and trace (not enough capacity) or “the Matt Hancock defence” (too many people applying for tests who don’t need them)?
No Cavalier could allow such an insult from a Roundhead to a damsel in distress to pass unavenged, and Johnson’s sword leapt from his scabbard: “The continual attacks by the Opposition on Dido Harding are unseemly and unjustified.”
What we want to see, Johnson went on, “is more of the spirit of togetherness that we had yesterday”, instead of this constant knocking from the sidelines.
Starmer was stung. He pointed out that his wife, mother and sister all work or worked for the NHS. He would take no lectures from the PM on the subject.
Ian Blackford, for the SNP, said the Scots did not want Johnson to put his arms round them.
Johnson: “I can imagine that he doesn’t want a hug from me…that was a metaphor.”
On Planet Freedom, the use of imagery is regarded as delightful, while literal fact is ignored.
Puritans are enraged by this, and want to smash Johnson’s images. Their difficulty is that as they do so, they sound a bit self-righteous, and may even find the images are quite widely venerated.


conservativehome--2020-09-24--Henry Hill: The challenges involved in reviving the ‘four-nation’ approach to Covid-19

Whereas Brexit didn ’ t give the Scottish Nationalists the lift-off they were expecting , the Covid-19 pandemic really does appear to be putting the post-1998 constitutional order under even greater strain .
This became apparent over the summer with the breakdown of the Government ’ s efforts to maintain a ‘ four-nation ’ response to tackling coronavirus , resulting in a confusing spread of different rules across the United Kingdom and the spectre of internal movement restrictions between the Home Nations .
As a result , the true extent of devolution has become more apparent than ever and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides .
In Scotland , the Scottish Government continues to have a ‘ good crisis ’ – at least in PR terms – whilst in Wales devoscepticism has arrived as a noteworthy political force .
This week , however , Nicola Sturgeon seems to have changed tack again .
The Scotsman reports that she has written to Boris Johnson to request “ urgent four-nation talks ” about how toughen lockdown .
According to the paper : “ The topics highlighted by the First Minister include what further actions might be necessary , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what arrangements can be put in place to ensure that devolved administrations are not constrained in making what they judge to be essential public health decisions.
” Kenny Farquharson , writing in the Times , describes this approach as “ alignment plus ” .
His explanation for the new approach is that the First Minister recognises that many Scots risk getting quite different information depending on whether , for example , they prefer Scottish or national radio and television stations .
With public patience likely to start fraying as we head into another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room for confusion there is the better .
Of course , it would be a little naïve not to look for possible mischief in any SNP overture to the Government , and one can see how this could make things tricky for Johnson .
By urging the Prime Minister to adopt tougher restrictions , Sturgeon can once again appear ahead of the game to a solidly pro-lockdown public – which is doing her standing no harm in Scotland – whilst also sharpening the possible split between the Government and Conservative backbenchers , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are handling the imposition of economic and social restrictions .
If the Prime Minister does end up leaning into a more restrictive , four-nations approach , residents in England may end up facing some of the more draconian measures which are currently in force elsewhere .
For example , Scotland has banned household visits ( and Wales restricted them to ‘ extended households ’ ) , whereas the Government currently still permits these subject to the ‘ Rule of Six ’ and appropriate social distancing restrictions .
Wales has also used the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health nannying , such as a new ban on off-licences and supermarkets selling alcohol after 10pm .
It will be very interesting to see whether or not that restriction is repealed once the Covid-19 crisis has passed .
Sturgeon also used her letter to call ( inevitably ) for more powers .
The Scotsman says she “ also highlighted that devolved administrations ’ ability to take action is curtailed by a lack of financial levers to deliver economic support.
” This demand is obviously in tension with the Government ’ s desire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to defend the coherence of the British common market and the broader constitutional settlement .

Whereas Brexit didn’t give the Scottish Nationalists the lift-off they were expecting, the Covid-19 pandemic really does appear to be putting the post-1998 constitutional order under even greater strain.
This became apparent over the summer with the breakdown of the Government’s efforts to maintain a ‘four-nation’ response to tackling coronavirus, resulting in a confusing spread of different rules across the United Kingdom and the spectre of internal movement restrictions between the Home Nations.
As a result, the true extent of devolution has become more apparent than ever and this seems to be hardening opinion on both sides. In Scotland, the Scottish Government continues to have a ‘good crisis’ – at least in PR terms – whilst in Wales devoscepticism has arrived as a noteworthy political force.
This week, however, Nicola Sturgeon seems to have changed tack again. The Scotsman reports that she has written to Boris Johnson to request “urgent four-nation talks” about how toughen lockdown. According to the paper:
“The topics highlighted by the First Minister include what further actions might be necessary, what support is required for affected sectors and what arrangements can be put in place to ensure that devolved administrations are not constrained in making what they judge to be essential public health decisions.”
Kenny Farquharson, writing in the Times, describes this approach as “alignment plus”. His explanation for the new approach is that the First Minister recognises that many Scots risk getting quite different information depending on whether, for example, they prefer Scottish or national radio and television stations. With public patience likely to start fraying as we head into another six months of restrictions, the less room for confusion there is the better.
Of course, it would be a little naïve not to look for possible mischief in any SNP overture to the Government, and one can see how this could make things tricky for Johnson. By urging the Prime Minister to adopt tougher restrictions, Sturgeon can once again appear ahead of the game to a solidly pro-lockdown public – which is doing her standing no harm in Scotland – whilst also sharpening the possible split between the Government and Conservative backbenchers, who are growing increasingly restive about how ministers are handling the imposition of economic and social restrictions.
If the Prime Minister does end up leaning into a more restrictive, four-nations approach, residents in England may end up facing some of the more draconian measures which are currently in force elsewhere. For example, Scotland has banned household visits (and Wales restricted them to ‘extended households’), whereas the Government currently still permits these subject to the ‘Rule of Six’ and appropriate social distancing restrictions.
Wales has also used the pandemic to start smuggling in somewhat bizarre public health nannying, such as a new ban on off-licences and supermarkets selling alcohol after 10pm. It will be very interesting to see whether or not that restriction is repealed once the Covid-19 crisis has passed.
Sturgeon also used her letter to call (inevitably) for more powers. The Scotsman says she “also highlighted that devolved administrations’ ability to take action is curtailed by a lack of financial levers to deliver economic support.” This demand is obviously in tension with the Government’s desire, embodied in the UK Internal Market Bill, to defend the coherence of the British common market and the broader constitutional settlement.


conservativehome--2020-09-24--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee – 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 .
“ We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience , international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair .
The central priority of Innovate UK , under a new Executive Chair , will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capability , taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget .
The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation ’ s position within key markets , providing impactful thought leadership to the UK ’ s innovation system .
As the pivotal funding body for business R & D , especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country , the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R & D and technologies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annum base , up to £37,500 performance-related .
“ The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964 , now section 63 of the Police Act 1996 .
Under the remit of the Board , sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee .
In addition to this , the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum ( PCF ) , a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing .
The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000 , the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.
” “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” “ 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 ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” “ Help us make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; 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.
” “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate 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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Police Advisory Board for England and Wales – Chair
“The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964, now section 63 of the Police Act 1996. Under the remit of the Board, sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee. In addition to this, the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum (PCF), a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW. We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing. The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000, the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.”
Time: Approx. 21 days per annum.
Remuneration: £437 per diem, plus expenses.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – 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: 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
– – – – – – – – – –
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