conservativehome--2020-10-06--Radical: Who should count as female in women’s sport?

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER , and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome .
She is co-founder of Radical .
She and Victoria Hewson , her co-founder , alternate authorship of this column on trans , sex and gender issues .
One topic we haven ’ t properly addressed in our Radical columns so far is sport — and , specifically , the ongoing heated debate about who counts as a ‘ woman ’ means for women ’ s sport .
Yet , for many people , this is an obvious starting point into the kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And various recent events have pushed it into the limelight .
See , for instance , discussion following last week ’ s announcement that eight of Australia ’ s ‘ peak sporting bodies ’ have ‘ committed to implementing governance that supports a greater level of inclusion for trans and gender diverse people in their sports ’ .
First , a quick reminder of our focus at Radical .
We believe that everyone should be treated with equal fundamental respect , and that people should be free to behave and express themselves as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organised political society — made up of many human beings , with often competing needs and preferences — there must be some caveats to the second of these beliefs .
A standard example of this involves harm : you can do what you want , as long as you don ’ t harm others .
And one function of positive law is to adjudicate — along that line and others — in situations in which one person ’ s needs and preferences rub up against another ’ s .
Some situations , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jurisdiction , as matters for us to determine for ourselves , privately .
And some fit within the remit of various other kinds of rules and regulations .
Sport neatly exemplifies these distinctions .
Some matters within sport are matters for the law of the land .
If I stab you while we ’ re playing football , it ’ s not just the referee I ’ m going to have to deal with And some matters are private , or community-based — whether you cheated in our newly made-up version of competitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tennis club ’ s particular dress-code rules by wearing my dinosaur t-shirt in the pavilion .
And some matters are for national or international regulatory organisations : the England and Wales Cricket Board , the British Horseracing Authority , the International Paralympic Committee , and so on .
One thing that seems certain , however , is that games involve rules and that when we play a game , we agree to abide by its rules .
Now , that could be seen as a bit of a controversial claim : the word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ define , after all .
But , for our purposes , let ’ s accept that sports are a kind of game , and that if you ’ re not willing to accept that there are going to be some rules to follow , then you ’ d better not bother playing .
( Indeed , it might even be the case that you ’ re not actually playing , if you don ’ t accept that . )
But what the rules should be is a different matter .
Various concerns will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tradition to safety to competitiveness — and the content and enforcement of the rules deriving from these concerns will differ owing to the formality of the situation , and various other relevant factors .
We ’ re probably not going to need to commit to the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method for our knock-around in the park .
Where might all this get us to on the pressing question of inclusion within women ’ s sport ?
This question is a subset of a bigger question : who counts as a woman , more generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a question that ’ s become difficult even to ask .
Just try .
You ’ ll probably come up against some vitriol pretty quickly , and , sadly , particularly if you ’ re not a man… However , just because this question didn ’ t used to be asked , doesn ’ t mean it shouldn ’ t be asked now : that ’ s not a good argument .
That said , it ’ s always worth noting that genuine social and legal change tends to follow relatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consensus .
What is disappointing , however , is when people try to censor questions like this on the grounds that they are fundamentally hateful .
Now , I ’ m a bit hardcore on the matter of whether there are any topics that are morally beyond the bounds of discussion : I tend to think that even the most seemingly settled matters benefit from debate , and that formally preventing this is not only wrong but often counter-productively risky .
Beyond that , however , it seems clear that there very much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular matter at this particular moment .
Arguments for or against the involvement of trans women in women ’ s sport typically come down to three types of reason , related , respectively , to harm , fairness , and rights .
For instance , there are claims of harm coming from both sides of the argument .
Put simply , some people believe that trans women should be allowed to play on women ’ s sports teams because , if they are not , then these trans women would be at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people believe that trans women should not be allowed to play on women ’ s sports teams because this would put the natal women on these teams at risk of physical harm .
The fairness and rights arguments play out along similar lines , relating to the exclusion or inclusion of trans women in what was previously deemed to be a domain only for natal women , and all three types of argument often overlap .
For instance , it might be argued that allowing trans women on women ’ s sports teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might suffer physical harm , or that being put at risk of such harm would violate their rights .
It ’ s also the case that someone might be on one ‘ side ’ in one of these arguments , and on the other in another — or , of course , claim that they ’ re on both sides , in one or all of them .
In fact , many people do try to be on both sides of these arguments , sticking up both for natal women and trans women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Well , two reasons jump out .
The first is that this is very much a zero-sum game : you can not both have trans women playing on women ’ s teams , and also only have natal women playing on them .
The second reason is a little more complex , but comes down to the fact that the side of the argument that initially seems to preference someone may not truly reflect that person ’ s best interests .
In other words , it might turn out that ‘ sticking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense , isn ’ t really a good thing to do for them : for instance , if you know that your friend has told you a lie , it ’ s often not in their interests for you to go along with that lie .
So , in the case of participation within women ’ s sports , it seems as if there are some pressing decisions to be made .
And , to return to our discussion above , part of what needs to be determined here is who should make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , if any , are a matter for democratic society at large , via law ?
Which parts should be up to experts in official sporting bodies ?
Which parts to the membership of individual clubs or other organisations ?
Which to individual players ?
And part of this relates to the scope of the question .
Sex isn ’ t deemed relevant to all sports ; sex is sometimes only deemed relevant when considered in tandem with other matters , like age .
( Young children often play sport in mixed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) And beyond that , what part should tradition play in the formal and informal rule-making of sports ?
And other considerations such as excellence and opportunity and competitiveness and fun ?
And when does a sport stop being a sport , or stop being the particular sport it once was ?
How many rule changes can you have ?
What matters here and why ?
The more I think about all this , the more I realise why we haven ’ t really addressed this topic in our Radical columns so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simplest of relevant areas of discussion .
And parts of it definitely are : if you ’ re going to try to tell me that it ’ s simply not at all problematic for a six-foot-three 20-stone former-men ’ s-team loose-half prop to turn up for trials at the local women ’ s rugby club , and you won ’ t even consider why it might be problematic , then we ’ re probably not going to get very far .
Indeed , I ’ d take a pot shot at the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sportsmanship is — never mind its value , both to sport and to society in general .
But once we get past the simple cases , we get into much more complex territory .
And I ’ d contend that part of the reason for this complexity is that rules in sport are part of the game .
A bit like morality , if you break the rules you ’ re not really playing ; if you over-regulate , you crowd out virtue .
But , beyond that , it ’ s simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we just apply our standard principles .
Often , sport involves special exceptions : people doing things that are normally deemed too risky to themselves or others ; people doing things that would normally be deemed , well , stupid or pointless , or lacking value in other senses .
Games have a curious relationship with the real world .
And determining their rules is never easy .

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. She is co-founder of Radical. She and Victoria Hewson, her co-founder, alternate authorship of this column on trans, sex and gender issues.
One topic we haven’t properly addressed in our Radical columns so far is sport — and, specifically, the ongoing heated debate about who counts as a ‘woman’ means for women’s sport. Yet, for many people, this is an obvious starting point into the kinds of things we’ve been discussing. And various recent events have pushed it into the limelight. See, for instance, discussion following last week’s announcement that eight of Australia’s ‘peak sporting bodies’ have ‘committed to implementing governance that supports a greater level of inclusion for trans and gender diverse people in their sports’.
First, a quick reminder of our focus at Radical. We believe that everyone should be treated with equal fundamental respect, and that people should be free to behave and express themselves as they wish. But that, in organised political society — made up of many human beings, with often competing needs and preferences — there must be some caveats to the second of these beliefs.
A standard example of this involves harm: you can do what you want, as long as you don’t harm others. And one function of positive law is to adjudicate — along that line and others — in situations in which one person’s needs and preferences rub up against another’s. Some situations, however, remain outside of law’s jurisdiction, as matters for us to determine for ourselves, privately. And some fit within the remit of various other kinds of rules and regulations.
Sport neatly exemplifies these distinctions. Some matters within sport are matters for the law of the land. If I stab you while we’re playing football, it’s not just the referee I’m going to have to deal with
And some matters are private, or community-based — whether you cheated in our newly made-up version of competitive hit-the-ball-against-the-wall, or whether I infringed my tennis club’s particular dress-code rules by wearing my dinosaur t-shirt in the pavilion.
And some matters are for national or international regulatory organisations: the England and Wales Cricket Board, the British Horseracing Authority, the International Paralympic Committee, and so on. One thing that seems certain, however, is that games involve rules and that when we play a game, we agree to abide by its rules.
Now, that could be seen as a bit of a controversial claim: the word ‘game’ is famously hard to define, after all. But, for our purposes, let’s accept that sports are a kind of game, and that if you’re not willing to accept that there are going to be some rules to follow, then you’d better not bother playing. (Indeed, it might even be the case that you’re not actually playing, if you don’t accept that.)
But what the rules should be is a different matter. Various concerns will be relevant, here — from coherence to tradition to safety to competitiveness — and the content and enforcement of the rules deriving from these concerns will differ owing to the formality of the situation, and various other relevant factors. We’re probably not going to need to commit to the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method for our knock-around in the park.
Where might all this get us to on the pressing question of inclusion within women’s sport? This question is a subset of a bigger question: who counts as a woman, more generally, in our society? And it’s a question that’s become difficult even to ask. Just try. You’ll probably come up against some vitriol pretty quickly, and, sadly, particularly if you’re not a man…
However, just because this question didn’t used to be asked, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be asked now: that’s not a good argument. That said, it’s always worth noting that genuine social and legal change tends to follow relatively broad, and often hard-won, societal consensus. What is disappointing, however, is when people try to censor questions like this on the grounds that they are fundamentally hateful.
Now, I’m a bit hardcore on the matter of whether there are any topics that are morally beyond the bounds of discussion: I tend to think that even the most seemingly settled matters benefit from debate, and that formally preventing this is not only wrong but often counter-productively risky. Beyond that, however, it seems clear that there very much are discussions to be had on this particular matter at this particular moment.
Arguments for or against the involvement of trans women in women’s sport typically come down to three types of reason, related, respectively, to harm, fairness, and rights. For instance, there are claims of harm coming from both sides of the argument. Put simply, some people believe that trans women should be allowed to play on women’s sports teams because, if they are not, then these trans women would be at risk of psychological damage, Whereas, some people believe that trans women should not be allowed to play on women’s sports teams because this would put the natal women on these teams at risk of physical harm.
The fairness and rights arguments play out along similar lines, relating to the exclusion or inclusion of trans women in what was previously deemed to be a domain only for natal women, and all three types of argument often overlap. For instance, it might be argued that allowing trans women on women’s sports teams is unfair to natal women because they might suffer physical harm, or that being put at risk of such harm would violate their rights. It’s also the case that someone might be on one ‘side’ in one of these arguments, and on the other in another — or, of course, claim that they’re on both sides, in one or all of them.
In fact, many people do try to be on both sides of these arguments, sticking up both for natal women and trans women. And why wouldn’t you? Well, two reasons jump out.
The first is that this is very much a zero-sum game: you cannot both have trans women playing on women’s teams, and also only have natal women playing on them. The second reason is a little more complex, but comes down to the fact that the side of the argument that initially seems to preference someone may not truly reflect that person’s best interests. In other words, it might turn out that ‘sticking up’ for someone, in this sense, isn’t really a good thing to do for them: for instance, if you know that your friend has told you a lie, it’s often not in their interests for you to go along with that lie.
So, in the case of participation within women’s sports, it seems as if there are some pressing decisions to be made. And, to return to our discussion above, part of what needs to be determined here is who should make these decisions. Which parts of all this, if any, are a matter for democratic society at large, via law? Which parts should be up to experts in official sporting bodies? Which parts to the membership of individual clubs or other organisations? Which to individual players?
And part of this relates to the scope of the question. Sex isn’t deemed relevant to all sports; sex is sometimes only deemed relevant when considered in tandem with other matters, like age. (Young children often play sport in mixed teams at school, for instance.) And beyond that, what part should tradition play in the formal and informal rule-making of sports? And other considerations such as excellence and opportunity and competitiveness and fun? And when does a sport stop being a sport, or stop being the particular sport it once was? How many rule changes can you have? What matters here and why?
The more I think about all this, the more I realise why we haven’t really addressed this topic in our Radical columns so far. Superficially, it can seem the simplest of relevant areas of discussion. And parts of it definitely are: if you’re going to try to tell me that it’s simply not at all problematic for a six-foot-three 20-stone former-men’s-team loose-half prop to turn up for trials at the local women’s rugby club, and you won’t even consider why it might be problematic, then we’re probably not going to get very far.
Indeed, I’d take a pot shot at the idea that you have no comprehension of what sportsmanship is — never mind its value, both to sport and to society in general. But once we get past the simple cases, we get into much more complex territory. And I’d contend that part of the reason for this complexity is that rules in sport are part of the game.
A bit like morality, if you break the rules you’re not really playing; if you over-regulate, you crowd out virtue. But, beyond that, it’s simply not an easy normative domain to which we just apply our standard principles. Often, sport involves special exceptions: people doing things that are normally deemed too risky to themselves or others; people doing things that would normally be deemed, well, stupid or pointless, or lacking value in other senses. Games have a curious relationship with the real world. And determining their rules is never easy.


conservativehome--2020-10-06--Samia Hersi: We can win again in London – if we take up the right issues

Samia Hersi works for a Conservative MP .
Previously she worked for an education charity in London .
She writes in a personal capacity .
With the Local and London Mayoral elections being pushed back to next year , following the current coronavirus outbreak , a new opportunity has arisen for the Conservatives to rethink campaigning strategy on how it can win back London from Labour .
Shaun Bailey as the Conservative Party ’ s Mayoral candidate is a great example of how the party has modernised in terms of looking more like London – but it also needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any Londoner , their top three concerns , barring coronavirus , would be the rising levels of violent crime , the need for affordable housing , and transport .
The 80-seat majority the Conservative Party secured following the 2019 general election serves as an extra boost and momentum to support the party ’ s London Mayoral campaign .
The general election saw previous Labour voters , like me , vote Conservative for the first time .
The easing of planning restrictions to ensure the further building of affordable homes complements Bailey ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategic industrial land to build homes and to fix Transport for London ’ s finances following Sadiq Khan ’ s mismanagement as Mayor .
These pledges demonstrate the Conservative Party ’ s commitment to winning back London .
Violent crime , particularly among young people , is a multidimensional issue that requires a multidimensional approach .
Increasing the number of police officers on the streets of London is a welcome step , but on its own is not enough .
Preventative policies rather than reactionary ones are needed .
An example of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programmes in policing , which target young people who have committed their first minor offence and referring them to local boroughs Youth Offending Teams ( YOTs ) , instead of pursuing the matter through the criminal justice system .
There is a growing amount of evidence supporting the effectiveness of police diversion programmes in reducing a young person ’ s likelihood of reoffending .
Indeed , the Home Office trialling of Knife Crime Prevention Orders in London from March this year , and Bailey ’ s assurance to invest in youth services , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preventative measures to tackle violent crime .
I know from my personal experiences how violent crime has affected inner London communities and its these communities that the party will need to appeal to win London back from Labour .
The donut strategy , where Boris Johnson ’ s Mayoral campaign targeted voters residing within the suburban outer London boroughs helped to secure his 2008 and 2012 victories , but it was not enough to hold onto London in 2016 for Zac Goldsmith .
It ’ s fantastic to see Shaun Bailey , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 20 years , run as the Conservative Party London Mayoral candidate , but to win London back he and his campaign team need to rethink which voters they are trying to appeal to .

Samia Hersi works for a Conservative MP. Previously she worked for an education charity in London. She writes in a personal capacity.
With the Local and London Mayoral elections being pushed back to next year, following the current coronavirus outbreak, a new opportunity has arisen for the Conservatives to rethink campaigning strategy on how it can win back London from Labour.
Shaun Bailey as the Conservative Party’s Mayoral candidate is a great example of how the party has modernised in terms of looking more like London – but it also needs to think like London.
If you ask any Londoner, their top three concerns, barring coronavirus, would be the rising levels of violent crime, the need for affordable housing, and transport.
The 80-seat majority the Conservative Party secured following the 2019 general election serves as an extra boost and momentum to support the party’s London Mayoral campaign. The general election saw previous Labour voters, like me, vote Conservative for the first time.
The easing of planning restrictions to ensure the further building of affordable homes complements Bailey’s plans to lift the ban on using strategic industrial land to build homes and to fix Transport for London’s finances following Sadiq Khan’s mismanagement as Mayor. These pledges demonstrate the Conservative Party’s commitment to winning back London.
Violent crime, particularly among young people, is a multidimensional issue that requires a multidimensional approach. Increasing the number of police officers on the streets of London is a welcome step, but on its own is not enough. Preventative policies rather than reactionary ones are needed.
An example of this would be widening the use of diversion programmes in policing, which target young people who have committed their first minor offence and referring them to local boroughs Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), instead of pursuing the matter through the criminal justice system. There is a growing amount of evidence supporting the effectiveness of police diversion programmes in reducing a young person’s likelihood of reoffending.
Indeed, the Home Office trialling of Knife Crime Prevention Orders in London from March this year, and Bailey’s assurance to invest in youth services, are good examples of making use of preventative measures to tackle violent crime.
I know from my personal experiences how violent crime has affected inner London communities and its these communities that the party will need to appeal to win London back from Labour.
The donut strategy, where Boris Johnson’s Mayoral campaign targeted voters residing within the suburban outer London boroughs helped to secure his 2008 and 2012 victories, but it was not enough to hold onto London in 2016 for Zac Goldsmith.
It’s fantastic to see Shaun Bailey, a Londoner, and a youth worker for over 20 years, run as the Conservative Party London Mayoral candidate, but to win London back he and his campaign team need to rethink which voters they are trying to appeal to.


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Andy Street: Our experience in the West Midlands shows how skills drive economic success

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands , and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis .
Covid-19 has hit the West Midlands hard .
Livelihoods and life chances have been impacted by a pandemic that stopped our economy in its tracks – but we are determined to do what we can locally to get people back into work .
Improving the skills of our people will be vital if we are to fill the new jobs we create .
The Conservatives have always been the party of opportunity – encouraging ambition and social mobility .
We must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a revolution in skills and training to rebuild our economy .
I was encouraged last week when the Prime Minister put skills front and centre of the Government ’ s agenda , with a commitment to provide free courses for those without A-level or equivalent qualification .
This commitment came alongside a package of other measures , including expanding the “ digital bootcamp ” concept pioneered here .
In the West Midlands , we know how improving skills can help build a strong economy .
Before the pandemic struck , our economy was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK other than London .
We had record jobs numbers and were setting records for housebuilding and productivity .
A significant part of this economic success was down to improving skill levels .
Much work has been done to turn around a skills gap that , in 2007 , branded us the worst qualified UK region .
Back then , a fifth of young people here left school with no qualifications at all .
When I became Mayor of the West Midlands , this was an unacceptable situation I was determined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Social Mobility Commission has shown , an individual ’ s skills determine their long-term social mobility .
What ’ s more , poor skill levels can lock families into disadvantage for generations .
As someone who grew up here , this issue gnawed at me .
I have tried to provide business-like leadership to tackle the problem head-on and deliver real results .
Our seven member boroughs of Birmingham , Coventry , Dudley , Sandwell , Solihull , Walsall and Wolverhampton have worked together to address the skills issues we faced .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ improvement has been marked .
By last year , more than 50 per cent of local people were qualified at level three .
In the Black Country , where the gap had been the most pronounced , more residents are now educated to degree level or above than ever before .
The percentage of people with no qualification continues to reduce .
As we work to create new opportunities and jobs in the wake of the pandemic , the UK must take a similar approach .
Because as the economy resets , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will often have new requirements in terms of skills .
Our digital bootcamp , now backed by a further £1.5 million of funding , provides twenty-first century skills for thousands of people .
Launched in September , the free to all ‘ School of Code ’ bootcamp is full-time and takes a learner from novice to software developer in just 16 weeks – before helping them find their first role in tech .
In a similar way , we are determined to ensure local people have the skills to benefit from jobs created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commonwealth Games .
We have set up our “ Construction Gateway ” which is training people to build the transport infrastructure and homes needed for our region ’ s future .
The Gateway provides recognised qualifications and work experience to join the construction workforce as we Build Back Better .
One of the most notable successes of the West Midlands ’ skills resurgence has been apprenticeships .
Here , we use unspent apprenticeship levy from big businesses like HSBC , Lloyds Bank and Enterprise Car Hire to fund apprentices at smaller businesses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ levy disappearing back to London it stays in the West Midlands , growing businesses and helping them ‘ skill up ’ local people .
Young people are among the hardest hit by the economic effects of Covid-19 , which is why we are also launching six youth hubs , working with the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to link employment and training services to make sure they target young people .
In just a few weeks , the first job placements for 16 to 24 year olds under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kickstart , and our hubs , can provide direct and tangible help , providing work and teaching skills .
Of course , to deliver these skills , we need a properly equipped higher and further education sector .
While our colleges have been backed by guaranteed funding throughout the pandemic , we have also pressed ahead with developments like the Institute of Technology in Dudley and Wolverhampton ’ s National Brownfield Institute .
Funding of almost £12 million will start to rejuvenate our existing college buildings too – but this represents only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £1.5 billion capital investment announced by Gavin Williamson in March .
I will be lobbying to ensure the West Midlands gets its share of this vital funding .
While our colleges work brilliantly together – and have been at their responsive best throughout the pandemic – the West Midlands is also lucky to have a remarkable higher education sector .
Behind almost every economic success story lies one of our universities , which lead the way in all kinds of emerging sectors , from electric vehicles to life sciences .
They will play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we invest in the bricks and mortar of training and education , we are also embracing the lessons of lockdown – and the growing importance of online learning .
We ’ ve teamed up with provider Coursera to offer 3,800 online courses , offering top class skills and qualifications to anyone who is unemployed , recently made redundant or furloughed .
The West Midlands Combined Authority has owned the devolved Adult Education Budget , ensuring every pound delivers more qualifications that employers actually want .
Now we need to see more of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can do .
These are just some of the ideas that helped turn the West Midlands from the worst qualified area in the UK to the nation ’ s fastest-growing regional economy .
When I was 18 , this was a place that talented young adults often felt they needed to leave to realise their potential .
Now , well qualified individuals want to move here .
We are proof that better skills drive economic success .
Our focus , right now , must be on driving down the infection rate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our economic recovery , we must show we are the party of opportunity , and provide people with the skills needed to rebuild our economic fortunes .

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands, and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.
Covid-19 has hit the West Midlands hard. Livelihoods and life chances have been impacted by a pandemic that stopped our economy in its tracks – but we are determined to do what we can locally to get people back into work. Improving the skills of our people will be vital if we are to fill the new jobs we create.
The Conservatives have always been the party of opportunity – encouraging ambition and social mobility. We must return to that guiding principle and drive a revolution in skills and training to rebuild our economy.
I was encouraged last week when the Prime Minister put skills front and centre of the Government’s agenda, with a commitment to provide free courses for those without A-level or equivalent qualification. This commitment came alongside a package of other measures, including expanding the “digital bootcamp” concept pioneered here.
In the West Midlands, we know how improving skills can help build a strong economy. Before the pandemic struck, our economy was growing faster than any other part of the UK other than London. We had record jobs numbers and were setting records for housebuilding and productivity.
A significant part of this economic success was down to improving skill levels. Much work has been done to turn around a skills gap that, in 2007, branded us the worst qualified UK region. Back then, a fifth of young people here left school with no qualifications at all.
When I became Mayor of the West Midlands, this was an unacceptable situation I was determined to put right. As the work of the Social Mobility Commission has shown, an individual’s skills determine their long-term social mobility. What’s more, poor skill levels can lock families into disadvantage for generations. As someone who grew up here, this issue gnawed at me. I have tried to provide business-like leadership to tackle the problem head-on and deliver real results.
Our seven member boroughs of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton have worked together to address the skills issues we faced. While we still face challenges, the improvement has been marked.
By last year, more than 50 per cent of local people were qualified at level three. In the Black Country, where the gap had been the most pronounced, more residents are now educated to degree level or above than ever before. The percentage of people with no qualification continues to reduce.
As we work to create new opportunities and jobs in the wake of the pandemic, the UK must take a similar approach. Because as the economy resets, those new jobs will emerge – and they will often have new requirements in terms of skills.
Our digital bootcamp, now backed by a further £1.5 million of funding, provides twenty-first century skills for thousands of people. Launched in September, the free to all ‘School of Code’ bootcamp is full-time and takes a learner from novice to software developer in just 16 weeks – before helping them find their first role in tech.
In a similar way, we are determined to ensure local people have the skills to benefit from jobs created by major investments like HS2 and the Commonwealth Games. We have set up our “Construction Gateway” which is training people to build the transport infrastructure and homes needed for our region’s future. The Gateway provides recognised qualifications and work experience to join the construction workforce as we Build Back Better.
One of the most notable successes of the West Midlands’ skills resurgence has been apprenticeships. Here, we use unspent apprenticeship levy from big businesses like HSBC, Lloyds Bank and Enterprise Car Hire to fund apprentices at smaller businesses. This unique arrangement means instead of unspent levy disappearing back to London it stays in the West Midlands, growing businesses and helping them ‘skill up’ local people.
Young people are among the hardest hit by the economic effects of Covid-19, which is why we are also launching six youth hubs, working with the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to link employment and training services to make sure they target young people. In just a few weeks, the first job placements for 16 to 24 year olds under the Kickstart Scheme are likely to begin. Kickstart, and our hubs, can provide direct and tangible help, providing work and teaching skills.
Of course, to deliver these skills, we need a properly equipped higher and further education sector. While our colleges have been backed by guaranteed funding throughout the pandemic, we have also pressed ahead with developments like the Institute of Technology in Dudley and Wolverhampton’s National Brownfield Institute.
Funding of almost £12 million will start to rejuvenate our existing college buildings too – but this represents only the first down payment of the five-year £1.5 billion capital investment announced by Gavin Williamson in March. I will be lobbying to ensure the West Midlands gets its share of this vital funding.
While our colleges work brilliantly together – and have been at their responsive best throughout the pandemic – the West Midlands is also lucky to have a remarkable higher education sector. Behind almost every economic success story lies one of our universities, which lead the way in all kinds of emerging sectors, from electric vehicles to life sciences. They will play their part too.
And, as we invest in the bricks and mortar of training and education, we are also embracing the lessons of lockdown – and the growing importance of online learning. We’ve teamed up with provider Coursera to offer 3,800 online courses, offering top class skills and qualifications to anyone who is unemployed, recently made redundant or furloughed.
The West Midlands Combined Authority has owned the devolved Adult Education Budget, ensuring every pound delivers more qualifications that employers actually want. Now we need to see more of these funds devolved. We have shown what we can do.
These are just some of the ideas that helped turn the West Midlands from the worst qualified area in the UK to the nation’s fastest-growing regional economy. When I was 18, this was a place that talented young adults often felt they needed to leave to realise their potential. Now, well qualified individuals want to move here. We are proof that better skills drive economic success.
Our focus, right now, must be on driving down the infection rate to defeat Covid-19. But as we plot our economic recovery, we must show we are the party of opportunity, and provide people with the skills needed to rebuild our economic fortunes.


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Hugh Osmond: Why care homes, schools and workplaces –  and not Eat Out to Help Out – have boosted th

Hugh Osmond: Why care homes, schools and workplaces –  and not Eat Out to Help Out – have boosted the resurgence of the virus

It is an indictment of the state of statistical rigour and numeracy in politics that a recent article by Ryan Bourne on this site about the wisdom of the Eat Out to Help Out scheme is gaining traction in some circles , without critical examination .
The thesis of the article is largely based upon one single chart produced in a recent Public Health England surveillance report , reproduced below , which shows events and activities reported by people testing positive , in the 2-7 days prior to symptom onset .
As we can see , a lot of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous two to seven days , from which Bourne concludes that restaurants are a likely source of infection .
While a superficially attractive explanation , my O-level maths teacher would certainly have ejected me from the class for making this deduction without supporting evidence .
So , before jumping to conclusions , here are a few important questions : 1 .
Given we know that approximately 50p out of every £1 spent on food in the UK is now spent eating out , is it surprising that 12,734 people out of 45,087 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous two to seven days ?
Does this fact therefore convey any information at all about where infection occurred ?
2 .
Would this chart look any different for all the people who didn ’ t test positive that week ?
Or indeed from a cross section of the population of similar age and social profile to those who were tested ?
3 .
Does this chart just represent a list of what you would expect a group of 45,000 people to remember doing in a week ?
Without troubling the statisticians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no to both parts of ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) and a very likely yes to ( 3 ) .
Which it makes it pretty much game over without further analysis .
But the article then goes on to make an even more egregious assertion .
Faced with a chart showing that very few named contacts occurred in restaurants , it asserts : “ But this is misleading .
People don ’ t know strangers in restaurants to give them as named contacts.
” I confess I read this twice wondering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , we all know that restaurants are entirely full of people sitting on their own or randomly at tables with people they don ’ t know the names of .
No , we don ’ t – I have been in the restaurant industry for more than 35 years , and can safely say I am confident that most people who visit restaurants sit at tables with people whose names they know – certainly by the end of the meal if not at the start .
In fact , I would hazard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you sit in a restaurant with people whose names you don ’ t know than you live in a house with unknown guests .
I am prepared to accept that , in a busy nightclub or stand up drinking pub , people get very close to strangers in poorly ventilated settings .
But , in a sit-down restaurant with well-spaced tables and Covid-secure measures in place , I find the idea of mass infection by strangers from the table next door , facing the opposite direction , pretty hard to swallow .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the chart below : Allegedly , this shows that incidents in restaurants grew significantly as a result of Eat Out to Help Out in weeks 32-35 .
( restaurants are the tiny purple bar ) .
But if restaurants are a big source of infections , surely the big event would have been when they all reopened on July 4th ?
Or was the virus waiting to take advantage of Sunak ’ s special offer ?
After all EOHO added only maybe 10-20 per cent to sales , so one would expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand industry reopening of pubs and restaurants on July 4th , followed by a small further blip up from week 32 .
So , if restaurants are the problem , why can we barely even see the purple bar on the chart in the weeks following the grand reopening on 4th July ?
No , all this actually shows is that , until restaurants reopened on July 4th , there were unsurprisingly no incidents in restaurants at all , and that , since reopening , a tiny percentage ( three per cent – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown ) of incidents have been reported there .
“ Significance ” is entirely absent , as can be seen by comparing fluctuations in restaurant incidents with fluctuations in “ other ” .
And why the fall in incidents in week 34 , bang in the middle of EOHO , when you would expect to see the biggest effect ?
And why would these rise the week after EOHO ended and fall back in the following two weeks ?
In other words , total nonsense .
By contrast , as expected , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it shows in terms of significance ) is that infections increased massively in care homes , educational settings and the workplace .
Reprinted from the same report below of Acute Respiratory Incidents : • 772 new ARI incidents have been reported in week 38 ( Figure 19 ) .
• 195 incidents were from care homes where 134 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 • 36 incidents were from hospitals where 31 had at least one linked case that tested posi- tive for SARS-CoV-2 and 1 tested positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educational settings where 222 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 • Six incidents were from prisons where 4 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 .
• 124 incidents were from workplace settings where 102 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 .
• 22 incidents were from food outlet/restaurant settings where 17 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 .
• 48 incidents were from the other settings category where 22 had at least one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hmmm .
22 reported incidents in all food outlets and restaurants across the entire UK , out of 772 incidents in total ; compared to 195 in care homes , 341 in schools and 124 in the work place .
I mean , it ’ s obvious restaurants are a major source of infections according to the Government ’ s own report isn ’ t it ?
No .
Actually , it shows that yet again , the major source of infections , and where they are by far the most dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mathematical terms I could tell you that the statistical support for Bourne ’ s article ’ s hypothesis is zero .
But that would be wrong : in fact , the statistical evidence points very strongly in entirely different directions .
Surprisingly to all of us in hospitality , there was absolutely no sign whatsoever of a rise in community infections following the reopening of pubs and restaurants on July the 4th ; in fact , community infection rates continued to fall .
I can not explain this , but that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the sudden jump in Week 37 is worst in care homes , then in educational settings and at work .
Evidentially , this points the finger away from restaurants and instead at these other locations .
In other words , the data included with the article prove almost precisely the opposite to what was being suggested .
Finally ( and it is not really necessary ) I would mention actual transmission studies ( as compared to theoretical contact tracing ) , most of which were conducted outside the UK , and which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritative .
These indicate that secondary attack rates sitting a metre apart in a restaurant are around two to three per cent , compared to seven to 15 per cent ( still low ) in a household and potentially 60 per cent plus in a care home , hospital , ship or prison .
Although I do not have hard evidence for my next statement , I would suggest that , with social distancing and other Covid measures in place , this 1/50 chance of passing an infection on in a restaurant is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the other data suggesting that restaurants are not a common setting for infections .
In summary , the evidence and data all point the other way .

Hugh Osmond is an entrepreneur.
It is an indictment of the state of statistical rigour and numeracy in politics that a recent article by Ryan Bourne on this site about the wisdom of the Eat Out to Help Out scheme is gaining traction in some circles, without critical examination.
The thesis of the article is largely based upon one single chart produced in a recent Public Health England surveillance report, reproduced below, which shows events and activities reported by people testing positive, in the 2-7 days prior to symptom onset.
As we can see, a lot of people report that they had eaten out in the previous two to seven days, from which Bourne concludes that restaurants are a likely source of infection.
While a superficially attractive explanation, my O-level maths teacher would certainly have ejected me from the class for making this deduction without supporting evidence. So, before jumping to conclusions, here are a few important questions:
1. Given we know that approximately 50p out of every £1 spent on food in the UK is now spent eating out, is it surprising that 12,734 people out of 45,087 remembered going to a restaurant in the previous two to seven days? Does this fact therefore convey any information at all about where infection occurred?
2. Would this chart look any different for all the people who didn’t test positive that week? Or indeed from a cross section of the population of similar age and social profile to those who were tested?
3. Does this chart just represent a list of what you would expect a group of 45,000 people to remember doing in a week?
Without troubling the statisticians, I think we can answer a likely no to both parts of (1) and (2) and a very likely yes to (3). Which it makes it pretty much game over without further analysis.
But the article then goes on to make an even more egregious assertion. Faced with a chart showing that very few named contacts occurred in restaurants, it asserts: “But this is misleading. People don’t know strangers in restaurants to give them as named contacts.”
I confess I read this twice wondering if it was a joke. After all, we all know that restaurants are entirely full of people sitting on their own or randomly at tables with people they don’t know the names of. No, we don’t – I have been in the restaurant industry for more than 35 years, and can safely say I am confident that most people who visit restaurants sit at tables with people whose names they know – certainly by the end of the meal if not at the start. In fact, I would hazard that it is no more likely that you sit in a restaurant with people whose names you don’t know than you live in a house with unknown guests.
I am prepared to accept that, in a busy nightclub or stand up drinking pub, people get very close to strangers in poorly ventilated settings. But, in a sit-down restaurant with well-spaced tables and Covid-secure measures in place, I find the idea of mass infection by strangers from the table next door, facing the opposite direction, pretty hard to swallow.
The article gets worse as it next turns to the chart below:
Allegedly, this shows that incidents in restaurants grew significantly as a result of Eat Out to Help Out in weeks 32-35. (restaurants are the tiny purple bar). But if restaurants are a big source of infections, surely the big event would have been when they all reopened on July 4th? Or was the virus waiting to take advantage of Sunak’s special offer? After all EOHO added only maybe 10-20 per cent to sales, so one would expect to see the big surge after the grand industry reopening of pubs and restaurants on July 4th, followed by a small further blip up from week 32.
So, if restaurants are the problem, why can we barely even see the purple bar on the chart in the weeks following the grand reopening on 4th July?
No, all this actually shows is that, until restaurants reopened on July 4th, there were unsurprisingly no incidents in restaurants at all, and that, since reopening, a tiny percentage (three per cent – one in 30 – in the week shown) of incidents have been reported there.
“Significance” is entirely absent, as can be seen by comparing fluctuations in restaurant incidents with fluctuations in “other”. And why the fall in incidents in week 34, bang in the middle of EOHO, when you would expect to see the biggest effect? And why would these rise the week after EOHO ended and fall back in the following two weeks? In other words, total nonsense.
By contrast, as expected, what the chart actually shows (and all it shows in terms of significance) is that infections increased massively in care homes, educational settings and the workplace. Reprinted from the same report below of Acute Respiratory Incidents:
772 new ARI incidents have been reported in week 38 (Figure 19).
195 incidents were from care homes where 134 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2
36 incidents were from hospitals where 31 had at least one linked case that tested posi- tive for SARS-CoV-2 and 1 tested positive for rhinovirus
341 incidents were from educational settings where 222 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2
Six incidents were from prisons where 4 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
124 incidents were from workplace settings where 102 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
22 incidents were from food outlet/restaurant settings where 17 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
48 incidents were from the other settings category where 22 had at least one linked case that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
Hmmm. 22 reported incidents in all food outlets and restaurants across the entire UK, out of 772 incidents in total; compared to 195 in care homes, 341 in schools and 124 in the work place. I mean, it’s obvious restaurants are a major source of infections according to the Government’s own report isn’t it? No. Actually, it shows that yet again, the major source of infections, and where they are by far the most dangerous, is in care homes.
In mathematical terms I could tell you that the statistical support for Bourne’s article’s hypothesis is zero. But that would be wrong: in fact, the statistical evidence points very strongly in entirely different directions.
Surprisingly to all of us in hospitality, there was absolutely no sign whatsoever of a rise in community infections following the reopening of pubs and restaurants on July the 4th; in fact, community infection rates continued to fall. I cannot explain this, but that’s what the data suggests. By contrast, the sudden jump in Week 37 is worst in care homes, then in educational settings and at work. Evidentially, this points the finger away from restaurants and instead at these other locations.
In other words, the data included with the article prove almost precisely the opposite to what was being suggested.
Finally (and it is not really necessary) I would mention actual transmission studies (as compared to theoretical contact tracing), most of which were conducted outside the UK, and which I don’t pretend are completely authoritative.
These indicate that secondary attack rates sitting a metre apart in a restaurant are around two to three per cent, compared to seven to 15 per cent (still low) in a household and potentially 60 per cent plus in a care home, hospital, ship or prison.
Although I do not have hard evidence for my next statement, I would suggest that, with social distancing and other Covid measures in place, this 1/50 chance of passing an infection on in a restaurant is now very much lower, further supporting all the other data suggesting that restaurants are not a common setting for infections.
In summary, the evidence and data all point the other way.


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Coal Authority – 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 .
“ The Independent Office for Police Conduct ( IOPC ) investigates the most serious and sensitive incidents and allegations involving the police in England and Wales .
It also oversees the police complaints system , and sets the standards by which the police handle complaints .
The IOPC carries out hundreds of investigations into incidents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These include investigations into : deaths or serious injuries during or following police custody ; police shootings ; allegations of use of excessive force .
The IOPC is seeking up to six non-executive board members , including one Senior Independent Director .
The responsibilities of the non-executive members will include ensuring robust governance and financial management of the organisation ; setting and promoting the strategic aims and values of the IOPC ; providing support , advice and constructive challenge to the Director General in the carrying out of his/her functions ; and monitoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the efficient and effective running of the IOPC.
” “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Annual Report.
” “ As we approach life outside of the EU , Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity .
As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry .
The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ) , and the precious resources within it , is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of great change , the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish , working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.
” “ Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation ?
Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations ?
Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rail link with services connecting Oxford , Milton Keynes , Bedford and Cambridge and places in between .
The East West Railway Company ( EWR Co ) was set up as a company in 2017 , and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018 .
It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line , providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.
” “ The role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes ; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrate in their application all of the following : strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas .
The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.
” “ Formed in 2009 , and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body ( NDPB ) since 2012 , the RPC ’ s role is to provide Government with external , independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures .
It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals , and by doing so , helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” “ The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various sub-committees ) , the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass ’ affairs , and that Cafcass ’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State .
The Board is specifically responsible for : establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State ; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets , and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks ; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with ; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department , and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds… ”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigates the most serious and sensitive incidents and allegations involving the police in England and Wales. It also oversees the police complaints system, and sets the standards by which the police handle complaints. The IOPC carries out hundreds of investigations into incidents and allegations involving the police each year. These include investigations into: deaths or serious injuries during or following police custody; police shootings; allegations of use of excessive force. The IOPC is seeking up to six non-executive board members, including one Senior Independent Director. The responsibilities of the non-executive members will include ensuring robust governance and financial management of the organisation; setting and promoting the strategic aims and values of the IOPC; providing support, advice and constructive challenge to the Director General in the carrying out of his/her functions; and monitoring and reviewing organisational performance and contributing to the efficient and effective running of the IOPC.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Sea Fish Industry Authority – Chair
“As we approach life outside of the EU, Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity. As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry. The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the precious resources within it, is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers. Given this period of great change, the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish, working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 16 October
– – – – – – – – – –
East West Railway Company – Chair
“Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation? Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations? Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry, delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge and places in between. The East West Railway Company (EWR Co) was set up as a company in 2017, and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018. It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line, providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities, as well as reducing journey times, congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.”
Time: 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Policy Committee – Chair
“Formed in 2009, and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) since 2012, the RPC’s role is to provide Government with external, independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures. It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals, and by doing so, helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department’s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members, who provide robust and objective advice to government, parliament, and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – Chair
“The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board (including its various sub-committees), the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass’ affairs, and that Cafcass’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State. The Board is specifically responsible for: establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds…”
Time: 80 days per annum.
Remuneration: £400 per diem.
Closes: 03 November


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Johnson believes faith in the nation can unite lifelong Tories and traditional Labour supporters

Before Boris Johnson delivered his conference speech , Rachel Sylvester suggested , in her column in The Times , that he It is true that the Prime Minister is , as often happens to holders of that office , less popular than he used to be .
But the idea that he was lucky not to be performing in front of a live audience is preposterous .
His difficulties spring not only from the often inadequate response by the authorities to Covid-19 , but from the impossibility , during the pandemic , of engaging with live audiences .
Johnson is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party who has taken the enormous trouble needed to master the art of the conference speech .
For year after year on these occasions , he would for an hour or two steal his party leader ’ s thunder , by showing he knew better than David Cameron or Theresa May how to make Conservatives feel good about being Conservative .
This year , one can not judge how his oratory went down in the hall .
He spoke , however , in much the same manner as he would have employed if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live audience : “ I have read a lot of nonsense recently , about how my own bout of Covid has somehow robbed me of my mojo .
And of course this is self-evident drivel , the kind of seditious propaganda that you would expect from people who don ’ t want this government to succeed , who wanted to stop us delivering Brexit and all our other manifesto pledges – and I can tell you that no power on earth was and is going to do that – and I could refute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any way they want : arm-wrestle , leg-wrestle , Cumberland wrestle , sprint-off , you name it.
” This is designed not only to convince those ready to be convinced , but also to infuriate those ready to be infuriated .
“ Drivel ” and “ seditious propaganda ” are deliberately insulting ways to describe all those high-minded columns by Sylvester and other distinguished pundits who devote their intellects to the task of demonstrating that Johnson is a scoundrel .
That he has the effrontery to accuse them of “ sedition ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just confirms his unfitness for office , a truth which will shortly become so obvious and embarrassing that Conservative MPs will bundle him out of power .
One day this forecast will turn out to be true , but meanwhile this kind of commentary runs the risk of underestimating the Prime Minister ’ s chances of success .
As Tom McTague observes in The Atlantic , again and again Johnson has been written off , and again and again he has survived and in due course prospered .
Nor does the failure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commentariat ask what his ideology is , and point out , after making their investigations , that he does not have one .
This is true , but what they fail to see is that this is in many ways a strength .
He has not strapped himself , or had himself strapped by others , into an ideological straitjacket .
He is a Tory pragmatist , interested in what works in practice , not what looks good on paper .
Pragmatism is an unexciting virtue , but Johnson has a gift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it would from some other speaker : One has only to imagine , with a shudder , how dreary the green energy proposals would have sounded in the mouth of any other party leader .
Johnson confirmed with this speech that he stands in the tradition of Benjamin Disraeli .
Here is Robin Harris , in The Conservatives : A History , explaining at the end of his two chapters on Disraeli what mattered most to that statesman : “ As Salisbury said in the Lords in tribute to his old chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect , though never to like : ‘ Zeal for the greatness of England was the passion of his life.
’ When the mythology is stripped away – the overwritten novels , the overwrought expressions , the mysterious allusions , all later wrapped up in the hugely successful and highly eccentric trappings of the Primrose League – that simple core remains .
‘ The greatness of England ’ ( by which Disraeli meant Britain , but never thought it necessary to explain ) is his decisive contribution to the idea which the Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , down through the decades , it has wanted others to have of it.
” And here is Johnson at the end of his speech : “ That is the Britain we can build – in its way , and with all due respect to everywhere else , the greatest place on earth ; indeed that is the country and the society we are in the process of building .
“ And I know that it seems tough now , when we are tackling the indignities and cruelty and absurdity of the disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure of the greatness of this country that we are simply not going to let it hold us back or slow us down , and we are certainly not going to let it get us down , not for a moment , because even in the darkest moments we can see the bright future ahead , and we can see how to build it , and we are going to build it together.
” Here , ignored by superior commentators , is the faith in the nation which Johnson believes can unite lifelong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted Conservative for the first time last December .

Before Boris Johnson delivered his conference speech, Rachel Sylvester suggested, in her column in The Times, that he
“is fortunate to be speaking on a video link rather than in person because he might have received a less rapturous reception than normal.”
It is true that the Prime Minister is, as often happens to holders of that office, less popular than he used to be. But the idea that he was lucky not to be performing in front of a live audience is preposterous.
His difficulties spring not only from the often inadequate response by the authorities to Covid-19, but from the impossibility, during the pandemic, of engaging with live audiences.
Johnson is one of the few speakers in any party who has taken the enormous trouble needed to master the art of the conference speech. For year after year on these occasions, he would for an hour or two steal his party leader’s thunder, by showing he knew better than David Cameron or Theresa May how to make Conservatives feel good about being Conservative.
This year, one cannot judge how his oratory went down in the hall. He spoke, however, in much the same manner as he would have employed if he had been in front of a live audience:
“I have read a lot of nonsense recently, about how my own bout of Covid has somehow robbed me of my mojo. And of course this is self-evident drivel, the kind of seditious propaganda that you would expect from people who don’t want this government to succeed, who wanted to stop us delivering Brexit and all our other manifesto pledges – and I can tell you that no power on earth was and is going to do that – and I could refute these critics of my athletic abilities in any way they want: arm-wrestle, leg-wrestle, Cumberland wrestle, sprint-off, you name it.”
This is designed not only to convince those ready to be convinced, but also to infuriate those ready to be infuriated.
“Drivel” and “seditious propaganda” are deliberately insulting ways to describe all those high-minded columns by Sylvester and other distinguished pundits who devote their intellects to the task of demonstrating that Johnson is a scoundrel.
That he has the effrontery to accuse them of “sedition”, as if he were a monarch, just confirms his unfitness for office, a truth which will shortly become so obvious and embarrassing that Conservative MPs will bundle him out of power.
One day this forecast will turn out to be true, but meanwhile this kind of commentary runs the risk of underestimating the Prime Minister’s chances of success. As Tom McTague observes in The Atlantic, again and again Johnson has been written off, and again and again he has survived and in due course prospered.
Nor does the failure to understand Johnson end there. Members of the commentariat ask what his ideology is, and point out, after making their investigations, that he does not have one.
This is true, but what they fail to see is that this is in many ways a strength. He has not strapped himself, or had himself strapped by others, into an ideological straitjacket.
He is a Tory pragmatist, interested in what works in practice, not what looks good on paper.
Pragmatism is an unexciting virtue, but Johnson has a gift for making dull stuff sound more attractive than it would from some other speaker:
“It was offshore wind that puffed the sails of Drake and Raleigh and Nelson, and propelled this country to commercial greatness.”
One has only to imagine, with a shudder, how dreary the green energy proposals would have sounded in the mouth of any other party leader.
Johnson confirmed with this speech that he stands in the tradition of Benjamin Disraeli. Here is Robin Harris, in The Conservatives: A History, explaining at the end of his two chapters on Disraeli what mattered most to that statesman:
“As Salisbury said in the Lords in tribute to his old chief – a man he increasingly grew to respect, though never to like: ‘Zeal for the greatness of England was the passion of his life.’ When the mythology is stripped away – the overwritten novels, the overwrought expressions, the mysterious allusions, all later wrapped up in the hugely successful and highly eccentric trappings of the Primrose League – that simple core remains. ‘The greatness of England’ (by which Disraeli meant Britain, but never thought it necessary to explain) is his decisive contribution to the idea which the Conservative Party has of itself, and which, down through the decades, it has wanted others to have of it.”
And here is Johnson at the end of his speech:
“That is the Britain we can build – in its way, and with all due respect to everywhere else, the greatest place on earth; indeed that is the country and the society we are in the process of building. “And I know that it seems tough now, when we are tackling the indignities and cruelty and absurdity of the disease, but I believe it is a measure of the greatness of this country that we are simply not going to let it hold us back or slow us down, and we are certainly not going to let it get us down, not for a moment, because even in the darkest moments we can see the bright future ahead, and we can see how to build it, and we are going to build it together.”
Here, ignored by superior commentators, is the faith in the nation which Johnson believes can unite lifelong Conservatives with the traditional Labour supporters who voted Conservative for the first time last December.


conservativehome--2020-10-07--The twelve Conservative MPs who voted yesterday evening against the rule of six

Christopher Chope and Craig Macinklay were tellers in the No lobby .
That ’ s the seven who voted against @ @ @ @ @ Bone , Davies , Hollobone , McVey , Swayne , Walker and Wragg – plus @ @ @ @ @ Chairman of the 1922 Executive Committee .
The Daily Telegraph reports that a vote on @ @ @ @ @ pubs or restaurants has been delayed until next week , “ after dozens of Conservatives @ @ @ @ @ refused to publicly back the measure ” .
These are early shots in the developing @ @ @ @ @ restrictions , which will carry on gaining volume and verocity if these and the Government @ @ @ @ @ system fail to deliver .

They were –
Peter Bone.
Graham Brady.
Philip Davies.
Richard Drax.
Philip Hollobone.
Esther McVey.
Merriman, Huw.
Henry Smith.
Desmond Swayne.
Robert Syms.
Charles Walker.
William Wragg.
Christopher Chope and Craig Macinklay were tellers in the No lobby.
That’s the seven who voted against renewing the Coronavirus Act – Bone, Davies, Hollobone, McVey, Swayne, Walker and Wragg – plus five newcomers, including the Chairman of the 1922 Executive Committee.
The Daily Telegraph reports that a vote on the 10pm closing time in pubs or restaurants has been delayed until next week, “after dozens of Conservatives threatened to rebel and Labour refused to publicly back the measure”.
These are early shots in the developing Tory backbench campaign against the restrictions, which will carry on gaining volume and verocity if these and the Government’s test and track system fail to deliver.


conservativehome--2020-10-07--Darren Grimes: The frustration, bafflement and despair that the lockdown is forcing on my family and

Darren Grimes: The frustration, bafflement and despair that the lockdown is forcing on my family and friends in the North-East

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK .
I feel the need , somewhat depressingly , to preface this piece by saying that I am no denier of Covid-19 .
I do not believe that it is some grand conspiracy involving billionaire philanthropists such as Bill Gates , or lizard men ; like most others , I got on board with the original nationwide lockdown until we could build up healthcare resilience , mask wearing and social distancing .
I believ thate deaths from this virus matter .
I just don ’ t believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other deaths .
As three eminent epidemiologists that advocate a different approach have said elsewhere , our current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health , such as : It ’ s that last part which struck me the most .
Each generation of my family in the North-East ( I grew up in Consett , County Durham ) is now united in their opposition to the current restrictions .
For a moment , it looked as though my 86-year-old nana was ready to take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was closing again .
My mother works in higher education , and doesn ’ t know if she ’ s coming and going most days .
My two younger siblings are left feeling a sense of hopeless and despair that I am not ashamed to admit brings me close to tears .
And for what ?
We ’ ve seen that some of the biggest spikes in cases are in places with some of our countries biggest universities , such as Exeter , Nottingham , Manchester and , of course , Newcastle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem was coming , and could have prepared for the eventuality of students heading to the North East for the next academic year ?
The unspoken tragedy for my friends , at a time when we hear so much about white privilege , is that it is the working class and younger members of society , regardless of skin colour , that are carrying the heaviest burden of our response to Covid-19 .
So it ’ s the North East ’ s young people that will suffer as a consequence of this whack-a-mole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of whom has just started a degree in Newcastle , supported the Conservatives last year , in their first election in which they were entitled to vote .
Both of them are exactly what the levelling-up agenda should be about .
But they ’ re current both unemployed – with he youngest receiving precious little in-person teaching as part of his first year at university .
So this lockdown strategy reminds us just how out-of-touch policymakers are when it comes to the North East .
We hear a lot about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homogenous mass .
The North East itself covers a huge area – from densely populated industrial parts to sparsely populated ones containing more sheep than people .
The North East is much more than Newcastle , Sunderland and Gateshead .
Yet the lockdown measures that have been put in place don ’ t currently reflect this and feel really unfair to some .
Under the rumoured “ three-tier ” system to simplify lockdown rules in England , the country would see just three sets of rules and restrictions .
Tier one would apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per 100,000 population , meaning they ’ d have to stick to national restrictions .
And tier three would apply to areas with high rates , and so would see full lockdowns imposed .
Under this scenario , my County Durham family would see the rules that apply to them relaxed .
Many of my friends and family tell me that they ’ re at their wits ’ end .
In June , I went back home for the funeral of my youngest aunt , and the family were , naturally , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from London for it , and asked that I keep away from my grandmother .
My grandmother , true to herself , was having absolutely none of it , and fumed at the idea that her agency should be stripped from her , and that she be unable to hug her grandson at such a time .
At the funeral itself , my mother sat with my hurting grandmother and refused to sit away from her : it was the right thing to do for both of us .
A video of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t allowed to happen has gone viral online .
For many this highlights the cruelty in our rules which say that it ’ s fine to sit next to your elderly mother on public transport , but not at a funeral .
These deeply human tragedies highlight the perniciousness and inconsistencies .
I ’ ve had conversations with several older friends and family members , of a similar age to a certain American President , who make clear thatm whilst they reckon they ’ re in decent enough nick to survive the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re too terrified to leave the house fearing that they ’ ll get some new rule or regulation wrong .
They fear a bankrupting fine or , worse , that one of their neighbours that has taken it upon themselves to become the town prefect .
Voters in the North East just want to know if they ’ re coming or going .
They want rules that are proportionate for the threat that we face and they don ’ t want to see , whatever the risk that they may or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life chances of their nearest and dearest destroyed in the most disproportionate way possible .
I ’ m afraid , Boris Johnson , that the promise of a few wind turbines by 2030 simply won ’ t soften the hammer blow to the life chances of our region ’ s young .

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK.
I feel the need, somewhat depressingly, to preface this piece by saying that I am no denier of Covid-19. I do not believe that it is some grand conspiracy involving billionaire philanthropists such as Bill Gates, or lizard men; like most others, I got on board with the original nationwide lockdown until we could build up healthcare resilience, mask wearing and social distancing.
I believ thate deaths from this virus matter. I just don’t believe they matter more, or less, than any other deaths. As three eminent epidemiologists that advocate a different approach have said elsewhere, our current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health, such as:
“Lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.”
It’s that last part which struck me the most. Each generation of my family in the North-East (I grew up in Consett, County Durham) is now united in their opposition to the current restrictions. For a moment, it looked as though my 86-year-old nana was ready to take a pitchfork to Westminster upon hearing that bingo was closing again. My mother works in higher education, and doesn’t know if she’s coming and going most days. My two younger siblings are left feeling a sense of hopeless and despair that I am not ashamed to admit brings me close to tears.
And for what? We’ve seen that some of the biggest spikes in cases are in places with some of our countries biggest universities, such as Exeter, Nottingham, Manchester and, of course, Newcastle. But surely the Government knew that this problem was coming, and could have prepared for the eventuality of students heading to the North East for the next academic year?
The unspoken tragedy for my friends, at a time when we hear so much about white privilege, is that it is the working class and younger members of society, regardless of skin colour, that are carrying the heaviest burden of our response to Covid-19. So it’s the North East’s young people that will suffer as a consequence of this whack-a-mole lockdown strategy.
Both of my siblings, one of whom has just started a degree in Newcastle, supported the Conservatives last year, in their first election in which they were entitled to vote. Both of them are exactly what the levelling-up agenda should be about. But they’re current both unemployed – with he youngest receiving precious little in-person teaching as part of his first year at university. So this lockdown strategy reminds us just how out-of-touch policymakers are when it comes to the North East.
We hear a lot about the Red Wall as though it were one homogenous mass. The North East itself covers a huge area – from densely populated industrial parts to sparsely populated ones containing more sheep than people. The North East is much more than Newcastle, Sunderland and Gateshead. Yet the lockdown measures that have been put in place don’t currently reflect this and feel really unfair to some.
Under the rumoured “three-tier” system to simplify lockdown rules in England, the country would see just three sets of rules and restrictions. Tier one would apply to areas with fewer than 100 cases per 100,000 population, meaning they’d have to stick to national restrictions. And tier three would apply to areas with high rates, and so would see full lockdowns imposed. Under this scenario, my County Durham family would see the rules that apply to them relaxed.
Many of my friends and family tell me that they’re at their wits’ end. In June, I went back home for the funeral of my youngest aunt, and the family were, naturally, a bit cautious that I was travelling up from London for it, and asked that I keep away from my grandmother.
My grandmother, true to herself, was having absolutely none of it, and fumed at the idea that her agency should be stripped from her, and that she be unable to hug her grandson at such a time. At the funeral itself, my mother sat with my hurting grandmother and refused to sit away from her: it was the right thing to do for both of us.
A video of a similar scene in which this wasn’t allowed to happen has gone viral online. For many this highlights the cruelty in our rules which say that it’s fine to sit next to your elderly mother on public transport, but not at a funeral. These deeply human tragedies highlight the perniciousness and inconsistencies.
I’ve had conversations with several older friends and family members, of a similar age to a certain American President, who make clear thatm whilst they reckon they’re in decent enough nick to survive the virus as our understanding of it grows, they’re too terrified to leave the house fearing that they’ll get some new rule or regulation wrong. They fear a bankrupting fine or, worse, that one of their neighbours that has taken it upon themselves to become the town prefect.
Voters in the North East just want to know if they’re coming or going. They want rules that are proportionate for the threat that we face and they don’t want to see, whatever the risk that they may or may not pose, the livelihoods and life chances of their nearest and dearest destroyed in the most disproportionate way possible.
I’m afraid, Boris Johnson, that the promise of a few wind turbines by 2030 simply won’t soften the hammer blow to the life chances of our region’s young.