conservativehome--2020-02-03--The Treasury fights back. How it plans to drive radical reform – and become “the Government’s intern

The Treasury fights back. How it plans to drive radical reform – and become “the Government’s internal think tank”

It was bad news for Sajid Javid when the Prime Minister pledged to keep him as Chancellor .
Not nearly as bad for him , you may counter , as if Johnson hadn ’ t .
But you take the point .
There is tension if not between the two men then at least between some in their camps .
( Dominic Cummings has been known to be just a little sharp about Javid . )
The Prime Minister ’ s commitment , made less than a month before the general election , succeeded in its purpose – namely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be replaced at the Treasury , if Johnson won big , by the coming man of the Government : his deputy , Rishi Sunak .
A view from the Treasury is that this choppy water has smoothed out .
It is keen to stress that the working relationship between two men is not only excellent , but a partnership on which much of the Government ’ s work is built .
And it has examples to hand .
But even more significantly , it portrays the Treasury not as a cowed department , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit and dominated by a resurgent Downing Street , but as the continuing powerhouse of government .
One insider tells ConservativeHome that the department will become nothing less than “ the Government ’ s internal think tank ” .
Let ’ s start with what should be uncontentious .
Sources claim that Javid won the internal debate over tax and spending with the aid of Isaac Levido – who stressed to Political Cabinet , pre-election , that the Tories could not simply mimic Labour , and display a Nick-Timothy era tolerance of public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an electoral choice .
And so to pre-election new fiscal rules ( the Tory manifesto lists two of them ) and a post-poll squeeze on current spending and the slaughter of “ sacred cows ” .
There is a new Cabinet public spending domestic delivery committee ; the Treasury has been empowered to go through departmental spending line by line , to ensure that spending plans are in line with Johnson ’ s priorities ; it and Number Ten are “ in 100 per cent agreement ” .
But what ’ s to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presenting the same old projects under brand new headings – linking them to the delivery of 50,000 more nurses ; 20,000 more police ; an Australian-style points-based immigration system ; net zero emissions by 2050 and investment in science ?
“ We have the numbers , ” the Treasury counters .
Which raises the question of how the effectiveness of all this extra cash will be monitored .
It is at this point that the conversation begins to get interesting – from a political point of view at least .
The inside view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three main reasons why the manifesto avoided public service reform .
First , the exigencies of Brexit gave Ministers little time to plan .
Second , the Conservatives didn ’ t plan for having so big a majority .
Third , Johnson was determined not to risk a 2017-style document .
But the Treasury has not given up on seeking to drive reform – even if that means Javid stepping on other Cabinet Minister ’ s toes .
Consider its drive to take ownership of the Government ’ s skills programme .
Late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chancellor “ will make them a central theme of his March Budget ” .
And his support for HS2 has been heavily briefed ( to the irritation of some in Downing Street ) .
The skills pitch contained a spoor ( talking of “ we have the numbers ” ) .
“ Treasury officials have been collating research on the drivers of regional disparities ” .
It is against this background that our source ’ s wish to turn the department into the Government ’ s internal think tank must be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a history of departmental predominance ; “ the numbers ” , and a tradition of driving radical reform when it wants to .
Which is does – at least under this Chancellor .
According to the pro-building Sun , he sees eye to eye with Downing Street on planning reform .
But there is more .
The department has a long interest in seeking to free up the demand side of childcare .
Sources speak sympathetically of Liz Truss ’ s quest to ease up on the ratio of childminders to children .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ To which we got the response : “ but she was right ” .
Then there is the police .
“ Does anyone really believe that policing in Scotland is worse now that it has a single force rather than eight ?
” , this site was told .
Maybe not .
However , merging forces in England and Wales would raise big questions , some structural ( such as the future of police commissioners ) .
There are others .
The manifesto doesn ’ t mention such reforms at all .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green Belt ” .
This would not be easy to square with building on bits of it .
Furthermore , pressure from Tory MPs has a way of frightening change off : consider the fate of fracking .
And to turn from the external to the internal : were the Treasury to work as the Government ’ s think tank – presumably with more SpAd experts working to that brief – what would become of Number Ten ’ s Policy Unit ?
It waxes and wanes depending partly on the strength of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its own leadership – and in both contexts it is currently in the ascendant .
Johnson has his near-landslide size majority , and the Unit is vigorously led .
Munira Mirza was a co-author of the manifesto and is a Downing Street force second only to Cummings – when it comes to intellectual drive and policy formation , at any rate .
The growth of Downing Street Ten as a driving force since the Blair era provides a context in which to see the Treasury ’ s ambitions .
The Theresa May-Philip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start .
David Cameron and George Osborne got on famously well ; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown famously badly .
Looking back to the pre-Blair era takes us to John Major and Ken Clarke .
Weak Prime Minister , strong Chancellor : not the template here .
Johnson ’ s majority positions him to be more like Margaret Thatcher , during her post-1983 landslide , when it comes to his relationship with his Chancellor .
She was dominant .
And at that point , the Exchange Rate Mechanism was not even a speck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , Javid is not really comparable to the man who became one of the most formidable of Britain ’ s post-war Chancellors .
Lawson was never a leadership contender .
Javid stood against Johnson and lost , though he ended up running a creditable campaign .
If Javid is identified with any cause – as Lawson was with tax reform – it is with infrastructure spending .
He pushed for £100 billion more of it when seconding Stephen Crabb ’ s Conservative leadership campaign in 2016 .
Now he is getting his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more weaponised a creature than in Major ’ s Day .
Whether it is signed up to the wider ambitions of some in the Treasury remains to be seen .

It was bad news for Sajid Javid when the Prime Minister pledged to keep him as Chancellor.
Not nearly as bad for him, you may counter, as if Johnson hadn’t. But you take the point. There is tension if not between the two men then at least between some in their camps. (Dominic Cummings has been known to be just a little sharp about Javid.)
The Prime Minister’s commitment, made less than a month before the general election, succeeded in its purpose – namely, to shut down speculation that Javid would be replaced at the Treasury, if Johnson won big, by the coming man of the Government: his deputy, Rishi Sunak.
A view from the Treasury is that this choppy water has smoothed out. It is keen to stress that the working relationship between two men is not only excellent, but a partnership on which much of the Government’s work is built. And it has examples to hand.
But even more significantly, it portrays the Treasury not as a cowed department, bamboozled by the voters’ endorsement of Brexit and dominated by a resurgent Downing Street, but as the continuing powerhouse of government.
One insider tells ConservativeHome that the department will become nothing less than “the Government’s internal think tank”.
Let’s start with what should be uncontentious. Sources claim that Javid won the internal debate over tax and spending with the aid of Isaac Levido – who stressed to Political Cabinet, pre-election, that the Tories could not simply mimic Labour, and display a Nick-Timothy era tolerance of public spending growth. They needed to frame an electoral choice.
And so to pre-election new fiscal rules (the Tory manifesto lists two of them) and a post-poll squeeze on current spending and the slaughter of “sacred cows”.
There is a new Cabinet public spending domestic delivery committee; the Treasury has been empowered to go through departmental spending line by line, to ensure that spending plans are in line with Johnson’s priorities; it and Number Ten are “in 100 per cent agreement”.
But what’s to stop the departmental Sir Humphreys from simply presenting the same old projects under brand new headings – linking them to the delivery of 50,000 more nurses; 20,000 more police; an Australian-style points-based immigration system; net zero emissions by 2050 and investment in science?
“We have the numbers,” the Treasury counters. Which raises the question of how the effectiveness of all this extra cash will be monitored. It is at this point that the conversation begins to get interesting – from a political point of view at least.
The inside view from the department is that there are three main reasons why the manifesto avoided public service reform. First, the exigencies of Brexit gave Ministers little time to plan. Second, the Conservatives didn’t plan for having so big a majority. Third, Johnson was determined not to risk a 2017-style document.
But the Treasury has not given up on seeking to drive reform – even if that means Javid stepping on other Cabinet Minister’s toes.
Consider its drive to take ownership of the Government’s skills programme. Late last week, it was reported that the Chancellor “will make them a central theme of his March Budget”. And his support for HS2 has been heavily briefed (to the irritation of some in Downing Street). The skills pitch contained a spoor (talking of “we have the numbers”). “Treasury officials have been collating research on the drivers of regional disparities”.
It is against this background that our source’s wish to turn the department into the Government’s internal think tank must be seen.
To the Treasury, it has a history of departmental predominance; “the numbers”, and a tradition of driving radical reform when it wants to. Which is does – at least under this Chancellor. According to the pro-building Sun, he sees eye to eye with Downing Street on planning reform.
But there is more. The department has a long interest in seeking to free up the demand side of childcare. Sources speak sympathetically of Liz Truss’s quest to ease up on the ratio of childminders to children. It failed, ConHome pointed out. To which we got the response: “but she was right”.
Then there is the police. “Does anyone really believe that policing in Scotland is worse now that it has a single force rather than eight?”, this site was told. Maybe not. However, merging forces in England and Wales would raise big questions, some structural (such as the future of police commissioners).
There are others. The manifesto doesn’t mention such reforms at all. Indeed, it promises to “enhance the Green Belt”. This would not be easy to square with building on bits of it. Furthermore, pressure from Tory MPs has a way of frightening change off: consider the fate of fracking.
And to turn from the external to the internal: were the Treasury to work as the Government’s think tank – presumably with more SpAd experts working to that brief – what would become of Number Ten’s Policy Unit?
It waxes and wanes depending partly on the strength of the Prime Minister, and partly on that of its own leadership – and in both contexts it is currently in the ascendant. Johnson has his near-landslide size majority, and the Unit is vigorously led. Munira Mirza was a co-author of the manifesto and is a Downing Street force second only to Cummings – when it comes to intellectual drive and policy formation, at any rate.
The growth of Downing Street Ten as a driving force since the Blair era provides a context in which to see the Treasury’s ambitions.
The Theresa May-Philip Hammond relationship went sour almost from the start. David Cameron and George Osborne got on famously well; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown famously badly. Looking back to the pre-Blair era takes us to John Major and Ken Clarke. Weak Prime Minister, strong Chancellor: not the template here.
Johnson’s majority positions him to be more like Margaret Thatcher, during her post-1983 landslide, when it comes to his relationship with his Chancellor. She was dominant. And at that point, the Exchange Rate Mechanism was not even a speck in Nigel Lawson’s eye.
However, Javid is not really comparable to the man who became one of the most formidable of Britain’s post-war Chancellors. Lawson was never a leadership contender. Javid stood against Johnson and lost, though he ended up running a creditable campaign.
If Javid is identified with any cause – as Lawson was with tax reform – it is with infrastructure spending. He pushed for £100 billion more of it when seconding Stephen Crabb’s Conservative leadership campaign in 2016. Now he is getting his way. But Number Ten is much more weaponised a creature than in Major’s Day. Whether it is signed up to the wider ambitions of some in the Treasury remains to be seen.


conservativehome--2020-02-03--Richard Holden: Labour – from a big party of people with small houses to a small party of people wit

Richard Holden: Labour – from a big party of people with small houses to a small party of people with big houses.

Every barrister in the country knows that to know your own case is to know very little ; it is the same in politics .
And that ’ s because politics , like law , ends up being a choice between competing and often complex versions of the truth .
For the public , law is relatively easy – a jury is asked to make a judgement about a specific event , or series of events , in the past .
Unfortunately , our democratic process requires something slightly larger , we ask the public to make a judgement not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what will be the best , overall , for years into the future .
Those of us on the Conservative benches , particularly in marginal seats , therefore hold at least a passing interest in the result of the Labour leadership election .
The truth is that whoever wins backed Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister , and they each have their individual weaknesses .
None is more problematic than another – but each will require a different style of engagement .
Now , I don ’ t care a jot Labour chooses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , it seems inescapably drawn to the man in the final , despite three of the four candidates being women .
What has become patently clear , in yet another leadership campaign , is that Labour ’ s rhetoric on equality seems to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance .
As one of the party ’ s MPs said to me the other day , when recounting what she ’ d heard from her local members : “ They tell me they want someone who ‘ looks the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by that – they want a man.
” In the best traditions of the New Labour era , Labour like women – particularly women from outside of the M25 , or from modest backgrounds – to be “ window dressing ” as Caroline Flint once put it .
With Keir Starmer now the front-runner , followed by Rebecca Long-Bailey , the debate has become , at least for the moment , a two-horse affair .
This race is occurring while Labour is in crisis and is trying to figure out what sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that answer was simple .
It was the party of the massed ranks of ( the majority ) of the trades union movement .
A big party of people from small houses , in the industrial midlands and North – people like my family from back in Mill Hill in Blackburn .
Today , Labour must choose whether it tacks back to those people with Rebecca Long-Bailey , or keeps on its present course to being , increasingly , a small party of people in big ( or at least expensive ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reactionary candidate .
React to Brexit – vote for Sir Keir .
React to Corbyn – vote for Sir Keir .
But , for Labour , I ’ m struggling to find what he is the answer to – bar a ‘ safety run to Sir Keir when in trouble .
The posh-ish white bloke who “ looks like a prime minister ” in the films : Hugh Grant , Michael Sheen .
The uncle who takes you to The Ivy brasserie in Cambridge , when he pops by to visit you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the MCR .
Blair Mark Two .
Middle Class comfort food for a tediously woke Islington upper-middle-class Labour membership .
Long-Bailey offers something different .
Despite clearly being the Corbynite choice , she at least tries to offer a positive vision .
I remember my grandmother , who later voted Conservative , telling me that she first remembers voting in 1964 and 1966 for Harold Wilson .
Her mind was swayed by her young children and thoughts of the future .
Long-Bailey ’ s “ Green Industrial Revolution ” has echoes of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended up winning Labour only its second-ever decent majority in 1966 .
She ’ s worked to offer a socialist alternative – the details of which I will doubtless disagree with – but , unlike Sir Keir , she ’ s more than the knight who said no to Brexit ( and ended up losing ) .
On Brexit , Boris Johnson dealt with Brexit in Conservative ranks , delivered unity and a united message .
For Labour , though , the issue has become a running sore – and if it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one for a long-time to come .
It ’ s clear under Sir Keir , Labour would be fighting a Remainer rear-guard action for years .
If Labour decides on Long-Bailey , we ’ ll know they ’ re ready to move on from Brexit and push a socialist agenda .
Any party that thinks the voters were wrong doesn ’ t deserve to win , and voters won ’ t let them .
What Labour think the answer to the question of ‘ what lost Labour the last election ’ was – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the answer to the leadership election .
If Brexit was the issue , vote for Long-Bailey .
If it was socialism itself , vote for Sir Keir .
Either way , it ’ s pretty clear Labour seem intent of fighting the last war next time , and that ’ s reassuring for Conservative MPs up and down the country .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
The Steel Club, Consett
Every barrister in the country knows that to know your own case is to know very little; it is the same in politics. And that’s because politics, like law, ends up being a choice between competing and often complex versions of the truth. For the public, law is relatively easy – a jury is asked to make a judgement about a specific event, or series of events, in the past.
Unfortunately, our democratic process requires something slightly larger, we ask the public to make a judgement not on what has happened but instead on what will be the best, overall, for years into the future.
Those of us on the Conservative benches, particularly in marginal seats, therefore hold at least a passing interest in the result of the Labour leadership election. The truth is that whoever wins backed Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister, and they each have their individual weaknesses. None is more problematic than another – but each will require a different style of engagement.
Now, I don’t care a jot Labour chooses a man or woman but, yet again, it seems inescapably drawn to the man in the final, despite three of the four candidates being women. What has become patently clear, in yet another leadership campaign, is that Labour’s rhetoric on equality seems to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
As one of the party’s MPs said to me the other day, when recounting what she’d heard from her local members: “They tell me they want someone who ‘looks the part.’ I know what they mean by that – they want a man.” In the best traditions of the New Labour era, Labour like women – particularly women from outside of the M25, or from modest backgrounds – to be “window dressing” as Caroline Flint once put it.
With Keir Starmer now the front-runner, followed by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the debate has become, at least for the moment, a two-horse affair.
This race is occurring while Labour is in crisis and is trying to figure out what sort of party it is. Many years ago, that answer was simple. It was the party of the massed ranks of (the majority) of the trades union movement. A big party of people from small houses, in the industrial midlands and North – people like my family from back in Mill Hill in Blackburn.
Today, Labour must choose whether it tacks back to those people with Rebecca Long-Bailey, or keeps on its present course to being, increasingly, a small party of people in big (or at least expensive) properties, Oddly, Sir Keir is the reactionary candidate. React to Brexit – vote for Sir Keir. React to Corbyn – vote for Sir Keir.
But, for Labour, I’m struggling to find what he is the answer to – bar a ‘safety run to Sir Keir when in trouble. The posh-ish white bloke who “looks like a prime minister” in the films: Hugh Grant, Michael Sheen. The uncle who takes you to The Ivy brasserie in Cambridge, when he pops by to visit you at university after giving a lecture in the MCR. Blair Mark Two. Middle Class comfort food for a tediously woke Islington upper-middle-class Labour membership.
Long-Bailey offers something different. Despite clearly being the Corbynite choice, she at least tries to offer a positive vision. I remember my grandmother, who later voted Conservative, telling me that she first remembers voting in 1964 and 1966 for Harold Wilson. Her mind was swayed by her young children and thoughts of the future.
Long-Bailey’s “Green Industrial Revolution” has echoes of that “White Heat of Technology” that ended up winning Labour only its second-ever decent majority in 1966. She’s worked to offer a socialist alternative – the details of which I will doubtless disagree with – but, unlike Sir Keir, she’s more than the knight who said no to Brexit (and ended up losing).
On Brexit, Boris Johnson dealt with Brexit in Conservative ranks, delivered unity and a united message. For Labour, though, the issue has become a running sore – and if it’s not dealt with it will be one for a long-time to come. It’s clear under Sir Keir, Labour would be fighting a Remainer rear-guard action for years. If Labour decides on Long-Bailey, we’ll know they’re ready to move on from Brexit and push a socialist agenda.
Any party that thinks the voters were wrong doesn’t deserve to win, and voters won’t let them. What Labour think the answer to the question of ‘what lost Labour the last election’ was – Brexit or socialism? – will be the answer to the leadership election. If Brexit was the issue, vote for Long-Bailey. If it was socialism itself, vote for Sir Keir. Either way, it’s pretty clear Labour seem intent of fighting the last war next time, and that’s reassuring for Conservative MPs up and down the country.


conservativehome--2020-02-03--Peter Craske: Libraries are booming in Bexley

Cllr Peter Craske is the Cabinet Member for Places on Bexley Council .
When the Post Office in one of our town centres , Crayford , closed down , we had an idea – let ’ s try and get it re-opened in the town ’ s library .
So we did .
In the first month of the Post Office opening , the number of items borrowed from the library increased by a staggering 21 per cent , a trend that has continued .
In Welling , the top floor of the library was just sitting there empty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Workary ” , a hub for small businesses and start-ups , renting out space to work from .
In both cases , the Council now generates an income that it didn ’ t have before , from the rent .
Like everyone else in Local Government , we ’ ve had to make big changes as a result of the financial situation that has affected us all , to libraries , as well as to other services .
But rather than rushing around panicking and , for example , just closing down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done , we set out a five year strategy for the service .
And here we are , five years later .
We have the same number of libraries , but it ’ s a service , which in the last year alone , has seen a four per cent increase in the number of visitors – and a five per cent increase in the number of items being borrowed .
We ’ re about to stage our third literary festival , which last year , welcomed 3,000 attendees to over 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now run by local community groups which have been so successful they have more members than when they were Council libraries .
It ’ s nearly four years since they launched and all of them are now firmly established at the heart of the communities they serve .
They put on a whole range of events , from cinema nights , to fitness classes , to events tackling loneliness .
They have coffee shops , serve afternoon teas , and stage open mic nights .
The one in my one ward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people for the switching on of the Christmas lights , with all sorts of events taking place during the day .
Bostall Community Library took off to such an extent that their group took over the running of another library – and they had the brilliant idea to become a place for parcels to be delivered to and collected from .
Success breeds success , and Council libraries have learned lots from community libraries – and community libraries have learned lots from council libraries .
We trialled the “ Libraries At Night ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being empty at night , we opened them up for live music or comedy nights .
In 2021 , Sidcup ’ s library will move from a building reaching the end of its life to share a new home with a new arthouse cinema – and with the cinema being open in the evening , so will the library .
And in Thamesmead , we ’ re building a new library with views that will look out across Southmere Lake .
Topping this off is the fact that 94 per cent of Bexley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as good or very good .
The reasons for this success are clear .
It ’ s built on the principle of taking a long term strategic view , looking ahead five years and beyond , constantly reviewing what you do and how and why you do it , modernising , being bold and innovative , and not being afraid to take risks .
To have such a high satisfaction rating for our libraries is not an accident .

Cllr Peter Craske is the Cabinet Member for Places on Bexley Council.
When the Post Office in one of our town centres, Crayford, closed down, we had an idea – let’s try and get it re-opened in the town’s library. So we did. In the first month of the Post Office opening, the number of items borrowed from the library increased by a staggering 21 per cent, a trend that has continued. In Welling, the top floor of the library was just sitting there empty. Now it is the home of “The Workary”, a hub for small businesses and start-ups, renting out space to work from.
In both cases, the Council now generates an income that it didn’t have before, from the rent. Like everyone else in Local Government, we’ve had to make big changes as a result of the financial situation that has affected us all, to libraries, as well as to other services. But rather than rushing around panicking and, for example, just closing down a few libraries, as some authorities have done, we set out a five year strategy for the service.
And here we are, five years later. We have the same number of libraries, but it’s a service, which in the last year alone, has seen a four per cent increase in the number of visitors – and a five per cent increase in the number of items being borrowed. We’re about to stage our third literary festival, which last year, welcomed 3,000 attendees to over 100 events.
Half of our 12 libraries are now run by local community groups which have been so successful they have more members than when they were Council libraries. It’s nearly four years since they launched and all of them are now firmly established at the heart of the communities they serve. They put on a whole range of events, from cinema nights, to fitness classes, to events tackling loneliness. They have coffee shops, serve afternoon teas, and stage open mic nights.
The one in my one ward, Blackfen Community Library, welcomed over 700 people for the switching on of the Christmas lights, with all sorts of events taking place during the day. Bostall Community Library took off to such an extent that their group took over the running of another library – and they had the brilliant idea to become a place for parcels to be delivered to and collected from.
Success breeds success, and Council libraries have learned lots from community libraries – and community libraries have learned lots from council libraries.
We trialled the “Libraries At Night” programme, so instead of the buildings being empty at night, we opened them up for live music or comedy nights.
In 2021, Sidcup’s library will move from a building reaching the end of its life to share a new home with a new arthouse cinema – and with the cinema being open in the evening, so will the library. And in Thamesmead, we’re building a new library with views that will look out across Southmere Lake.
Topping this off is the fact that 94 per cent of Bexley’s library users rate the service as good or very good.
The reasons for this success are clear. It’s built on the principle of taking a long term strategic view, looking ahead five years and beyond, constantly reviewing what you do and how and why you do it, modernising, being bold and innovative, and not being afraid to take risks.
To have such a high satisfaction rating for our libraries is not an accident.


conservativehome--2020-02-03--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibil

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility – and more

Seven years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
Since then , the figures have varied , and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts .
Nonetheless , it remains the case that , since it took office in 2010 , our Party has punched beneath its 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Northern Ireland Office ( NIO ) is seeking to appoint a Lead Non-Executive Director to its Management Board .
In addition to his/her responsibilities as a Board Member , the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department ’ s Audit and Risk Committee .
The successful candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office .
They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice , support , constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department ’ s work.
” “ The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee .
The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC ’ s work and is responsible for overseeing the operation and output of the Committee , in collaboration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date , the MAC has operated “ hands-on ” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat .
The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee , across the Secretariat and with government departments.
” “ Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year , after 10 years in post .
We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR ’ s staff .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outstanding communication skills and integrity .
Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity .
Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term .
There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms .
This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.
” “ The Treasure Valuation Committee provides independent advice to the Secretary of State for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport , on the fair market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wales and Northern Ireland , which museums wish to acquire .
Its membership comprises experts on the range of antiquities submitted for valuation , on museums and their collections , and on the law relating to antiquities .
In addition , the membership includes an individual drawn from those who represent the interests of finders.
” “ The Secretary of State , working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency , is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds .
Applicants will need to demonstrate they are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills , knowledge and expertise .
Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero , climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.
” “ The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership ( LEP ) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deliver our ambitious economic plans .
The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership , and through this latest round of appointments , have committed to achieve 50 % female representation on the LEP board in 2020 .
Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term , we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background , experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area ’ s economic success .
The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders , while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government .
We want you to have a voice , make a difference and give something back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the private sector ( Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website ) .
” Time : Minimum one day per week on average .
“ As Chair of the STRB , you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body ; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it ; where necessary challenging existing assumptions ; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB ; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees… ” “ The Office of the Children ’ s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work .
It is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loud voice and is highly respected .
The Children ’ s Commissioner ’ s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children ’ s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions .
The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals , with a wide breadth of experience , to join this Board , which meets quarterly in London .
Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children , particularly the most vulnerable , and be interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to offer a different perspective on her work .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Office – Lead Non-Executive Director
“The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) is seeking to appoint a Lead Non-Executive Director to its Management Board. In addition to his/her responsibilities as a Board Member, the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department’s Audit and Risk Committee. The successful candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2020. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office. They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice, support, constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department’s work.”
Time: Approx. 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £12,500 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 03 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Migration Advisory Committee – Chair
“The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee. The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC’s work and is responsible for overseeing the operation and output of the Committee, in collaboration with the Home Office Secretariat. To date, the MAC has operated “hands-on” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat. The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee, across the Secretariat and with government departments.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Budget Responsibility – Chair
“Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year, after 10 years in post. We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR’s staff. This is a high profile and influential role, requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity. Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity. Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term. There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms. This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.”
Time: Full- or part-time.
Remuneration: £158,762 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 17 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Treasure Valuation Committee – Chair
“The Treasure Valuation Committee provides independent advice to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on the fair market value of declared Treasure finds from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which museums wish to acquire. Its membership comprises experts on the range of antiquities submitted for valuation, on museums and their collections, and on the law relating to antiquities. In addition, the membership includes an individual drawn from those who represent the interests of finders.”
Time: Two days per month (“likely”).
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence.
Closes: 24 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Environment Agency – Board Member
“The Secretary of State, working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency, is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members. The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds. Applicants will need to demonstrate they are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills, knowledge and expertise. Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero, climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.”
Time: Four days per month.
Remuneration: £350 per diem, reasonable expenses.
Closes: 25 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans. The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership, and through this latest round of appointments, have committed to achieve 50% female representation on the LEP board in 2020. Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term, we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background, experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence expenses.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Solent Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area’s economic success. The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders, while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government. We want you to have a voice, make a difference and give something back to the region. The Chair must come from the private sector (Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website).”
Time: Minimum one day per week on average.
Remuneration: ‘Reasonable expenses’.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
School Teachers’ Review Body – Chair
“As Chair of the STRB, you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State. You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it; where necessary challenging existing assumptions; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees…”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 01 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Children’s Commissioner’s Office – Advisory Board Member
“The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work. It is a small organisation, but it has a loud voice and is highly respected. The Children’s Commissioner’s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children’s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions. The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals, with a wide breadth of experience, to join this Board, which meets quarterly in London. Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children, particularly the most vulnerable, and be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work.”
Time: 3-4 meetings per year.
Remuneration: Reasonable expenses.
Closes: 03 March


conservativehome--2020-02-02--WATCH: ECJ jurisdiction. Raab says “it’s not even a red line. This is not even on the table”

# Marr : What if the EU demand ECJ role in a future trade deal ?
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab @ @ @ @ @ not even a red line .
This is not on the table ” https : @ @

#Marr: What if the EU demand ECJ role in a future trade deal?
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab: “It’s not even a red line. This is not on the table”https://t.co/ukkyyYLfLf pic.twitter.com/ubRgWmvFpz
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 2, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-02--WATCH: The EU was portrayed in Britain as a bogeyman – Tusk

Donald Tusk says the EU was the `` bogeyman or a whipping boy '' in the British narrative , portrayed @ @ @ @ @ every failure '' https : //t.co/QlAsa0Cphi # Marr pic.twitter.com/lPZw1IAGQz

Donald Tusk says the EU was the "bogeyman or a whipping boy" in the British narrative, portrayed as being "responsible for every failure"https://t.co/QlAsa0Cphi #Marr pic.twitter.com/lPZw1IAGQz
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 2, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-02--WATCH: McDonnell on opportunities for the Left post-Brexit

# Marr : Are there opportunities for the Left post- # Brexit ?
Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell : “ @ @ @ @ @ for socialism inside the EUhttps : //t.co/onb5BAWTJi pic.twitter.com/qpVl44f8Nm

#Marr: Are there opportunities for the Left post-#Brexit?
Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell: “There were no restrictions” for socialism inside the EUhttps://t.co/onb5BAWTJi pic.twitter.com/qpVl44f8Nm
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 2, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-02--WATCH: Varadkar sticks to saying that Britain is “a small country”

UK ambassadors reportedly being told not to sit alongside their EU counterparts “ comes across as a bit petty ” @ @ @ @ @ # Marr https : //t.co/oHI3ueu6Eo pic.twitter.com/tFTroFJ8kn

UK ambassadors reportedly being told not to sit alongside their EU counterparts “comes across as a bit petty” says Irish PM Leo Varadkar#Marr https://t.co/oHI3ueu6Eo pic.twitter.com/tFTroFJ8kn
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 2, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-02--WATCH: “I’m not going to walk away,” says Farage

“ I ’ m not going to walk away ” Nigel Farage tells # Marr his # Brexit Party will @ @ @ @ @ insurance policy ” https : //t.co/PzJTYnbucf pic.twitter.com/HkLx6VWStl

“I’m not going to walk away”
Nigel Farage tells #Marr his #Brexit Party will still exist as an “insurance policy”https://t.co/PzJTYnbucf pic.twitter.com/HkLx6VWStl
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 2, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-02--WATCH: Foster – “It’s difficult to see” how there can not be checks between Great Britain and Northe

WATCH: Foster – “It’s difficult to see” how there can not be checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland

When Michel Barnier says there will be borders checks is he wrong ?
`` Yes , he is wrong if @ @ @ @ @ its commitments on its side both in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration '' @ @ @ @ @ Ridge

When Michel Barnier says there will be borders checks is he wrong?
"Yes, he is wrong if the EU lives up to its commitments on its side both in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration" says Dominic Raab. #Ridge
Follow live here: https://t.co/juvInelkti pic.twitter.com/Ab6eUYrwUg
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) February 2, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-03--Danny Kruger: “Leaving the EU is about more than Global Britain. It is a response to the call of hom

Danny Kruger: “Leaving the EU is about more than Global Britain. It is a response to the call of home.”

Danny Kruger is MP for Devizes and is a former Political Secretary to Boris Johnson .
I voted Leave in 2016 , and I am glad that we are leaving the EU on Friday .
The twenty-first century will reward countries that are nimble , agile and free , but Brexit is about more than Global Britain ; it is a response to the call of home .
It reflects people ’ s attachment to the places that are theirs .
Patriotism is rooted in places .
Our love of our country begins with love of our neighbourhoods .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live among , and we have a preference to be governed by people we know .
That impulse is not wrong ; it is right .
As we finally get Brexit done this week , it is right that we are considering how to strengthen local places , especially places far from London .
I wholeheartedly support the plans to invest in infrastructure to connect our cities and towns—the broadband and the transport links that will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK .
Just as important as economic infrastructure is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the institutions of all kinds where people gather to work together , to play together and to help each other .
I make my maiden speech in this debate because I spent 10 years as the chief executive of a project I founded with my wife Emma that works in prisons and with young people at risk .
It was the hardest job I have ever done , and I worked in some very tough places .
We often failed , but we were always close to the people we tried to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people as statistics or—a phrase I do not like—service users , we saw them as people whose lives had gone wrong and whose lives , but for the grace of God , could have been ours .
We are now trustees of that charity .
If I might make a plea to Ministers , it is for them to recognise the role of independent civil society organisations—charities and social enterprises—in the fight against crime and , indeed , against all the social evils we debate in this place .
Social problems demand social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course we need the police , the prison system and the probation service—we need them very badly , and we need them to be better—but , just as important , we need the social infrastructure that prevents crime , supports victims and rehabilitates criminals .
The Government have a great mission as we leave the EU and try to fashion a UK that is fit for the future .
This mission represents a challenge to some of the traditional views of both left and right .
The main actor in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maximise personal advantage , nor is it the central state enforcing uniformity from a Department in Whitehall ; the main actor in our story is the local community .
We need reform of the public sector to create services that are genuinely owned and cared for by local people .
We need reform of business so that directors are incentivised to think of people and the planet , as well as their quarterly profits .
And we need reform of politics itself to give power back to the people and to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
I finish on a more abstract issue , but it is one that we will find ourselves debating in many different forms in this Parliament .
It is the issue of identity , of who we are both as individuals and in relation to each other .
We traditionally had a sense of this : we are children of God , fallen but redeemed .
Capable of great wrong but capable of great virtue .
Even for those who did not believe in God , there was a sense that our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our liberties derive from the Christian idea of absolute human dignity .
Today those ideas are losing their purchase , so we are trying to find a new set of values to guide us , a new language of rights and wrongs , and a new idea of identity based not on our universal inner value or on our membership of a common culture but on our particular differences .
I state this as neutrally as I can , because I know that good people are trying hard to make a better world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are badly stained by violence and injustice , but I am not sure that we should so casually throw away the inheritance of our culture .
There is so much to be positive about .
I share the Prime Minister ’ s exuberant optimism about the future , but we need a set of values and beliefs to guide us .
As we advance at speed into a bewildering world in which we are forced to ask the most profound questions about the limits of autonomy and what it means to be human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about for the old ways and to seek wisdom in the old ideas that are , in my view , entirely timeless .
This article is an extract from the author ’ s maiden speech , which was delivered in the Commons last week .

Danny Kruger is MP for Devizes and is a former Political Secretary to Boris Johnson.
I voted Leave in 2016, and I am glad that we are leaving the EU on Friday. The twenty-first century will reward countries that are nimble, agile and free, but Brexit is about more than Global Britain; it is a response to the call of home. It reflects people’s attachment to the places that are theirs. Patriotism is rooted in places. Our love of our country begins with love of our neighbourhoods. Our first loyalties are to the people we live among, and we have a preference to be governed by people we know. That impulse is not wrong; it is right.
As we finally get Brexit done this week, it is right that we are considering how to strengthen local places, especially places far from London. I wholeheartedly support the plans to invest in infrastructure to connect our cities and towns—the broadband and the transport links that will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK.
Just as important as economic infrastructure is what we might call social infrastructure: the institutions of all kinds where people gather to work together, to play together and to help each other. I make my maiden speech in this debate because I spent 10 years as the chief executive of a project I founded with my wife Emma that works in prisons and with young people at risk.
It was the hardest job I have ever done, and I worked in some very tough places. We often failed, but we were always close to the people we tried to help. Never bureaucratic, and never treating people as statistics or—a phrase I do not like—service users, we saw them as people whose lives had gone wrong and whose lives, but for the grace of God, could have been ours.
We are now trustees of that charity. If I might make a plea to Ministers, it is for them to recognise the role of independent civil society organisations—charities and social enterprises—in the fight against crime and, indeed, against all the social evils we debate in this place.
Social problems demand social solutions, not just a state response. Of course we need the police, the prison system and the probation service—we need them very badly, and we need them to be better—but, just as important, we need the social infrastructure that prevents crime, supports victims and rehabilitates criminals.
The Government have a great mission as we leave the EU and try to fashion a UK that is fit for the future. This mission represents a challenge to some of the traditional views of both left and right. The main actor in our story is not the solitary individual seeking to maximise personal advantage, nor is it the central state enforcing uniformity from a Department in Whitehall; the main actor in our story is the local community.
We need reform of the public sector to create services that are genuinely owned and cared for by local people. We need reform of business so that directors are incentivised to think of people and the planet, as well as their quarterly profits. And we need reform of politics itself to give power back to the people and to make communities responsible for the decisions that affect them.
I finish on a more abstract issue, but it is one that we will find ourselves debating in many different forms in this Parliament. It is the issue of identity, of who we are both as individuals and in relation to each other. We traditionally had a sense of this: we are children of God, fallen but redeemed. Capable of great wrong but capable of great virtue. Even for those who did not believe in God, there was a sense that our country is rooted in Christianity and that our liberties derive from the Christian idea of absolute human dignity.
Today those ideas are losing their purchase, so we are trying to find a new set of values to guide us, a new language of rights and wrongs, and a new idea of identity based not on our universal inner value or on our membership of a common culture but on our particular differences.
I state this as neutrally as I can, because I know that good people are trying hard to make a better world and that Christianity and the western past are badly stained by violence and injustice, but I am not sure that we should so casually throw away the inheritance of our culture. There is so much to be positive about. I share the Prime Minister’s exuberant optimism about the future, but we need a set of values and beliefs to guide us.
As we advance at speed into a bewildering world in which we are forced to ask the most profound questions about the limits of autonomy and what it means to be human, we may have reason to look about for the old ways and to seek wisdom in the old ideas that are, in my view, entirely timeless.
This article is an extract from the author’s maiden speech, which was delivered in the Commons last week.


conservativehome--2020-02-04--James Frayne: Seven non-Leave players who helped to make Brexit happen

• Obama ’ s trip to the UK was going well .
He spoke as a friend and strategic partner .
But at a press conference with Cameron , in apparently unscripted comments , he uttered those words “ back of the queue ” – regarding Britain ’ s access to a potential trade deal .
Rightly or wrongly , the English just hate this sort of thing – they detest implied or explicit threats – and they responded accordingly .
Vote Leave are said to have been inundated with small donations after Obama ’ s pointless comment ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and the campaign got a much needed boost at an important time .
Said to have been encouraged by the British side , it was an act of stupidity .
• .
Osborne never wanted a referendum .
And you can ’ t have too many complaints about the principles of the so-called Project Fear campaign .
This is what campaigns do .
It was perfectly reasonable to make the case the UK would be poorer outside the EU .
But the suggestion that we would be in recession immediately after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly unclear as to what “ immediate ” meant – ultimately shredded the credibility of Remainers ’ claims about the impact of leaving without a deal .
It ’ d be unfair to say this was an Osborne unforced error , but there ’ s no doubt that the decision to ramp up fear had serious consequences after the vote .
• .
Whether you can pin its errors on a particular person , others will be better placed to judge .
But the decision to go after Darren Grimes , while not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massively strengthened eurosceptic determination at a time when the campaign was flailing .
Going after Grimes looked unfair , petty and hyper-aggressive .
Coming as it did with Gina Miller ’ s litigation , the Grimes case persuaded pro-Leave veterans that they had to get serious about things .
It turned what had become a disparate movement back into a more focused , harder-edged campaign .
It had been basically assuming that things would turn out fine until this point .
• .
The Irish PM ’ s endlessly confrontational approach looked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home who might peel off to other parties .
You can ’ t particularly blame a politician for that , although many in the UK media ignored this straightforward electoral reality – as if somehow Varadkar was a latter-day Kissinger .
Ireland ’ s current election polls suggest that his tactic didn ’ t work in the long-term , but his comments cut through to the British public .
As I note above in relation to Obama , the English can ’ t stand anything that looks like intimidation ( Varadkar ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve never heard anyone in groups raise this point ) .
He was arguably the person that most shifted the English electorate towards “ no deal ” .
• .
The Supreme Court ’ s decision to strike down prorogation completely changed the game on Brexit .
It made the country take Boris Johnson seriously as a politician for the first time , and it Leave voters unite behind him , killing off Farage ’ s Brexit Party in the process .
Conducting focus groups shortly after the decision , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Johnson ’ s Conservatives were serious about Brexit – and could therefore be trusted on it .
Lady Hale was the face of the decision and therefore carries most responsibility for the change in public attitudes .
She paved the way for the final act .
• .
The country was divided on Brexit and remains so .
Had there been a second referendum , it would surely have been close .
A number of Vote Leave veterans believe that a second referendum would have delivered a landslide on a “ People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubtful .
So when Jeremt Corbyn finally accepted the Conservative challenge and agreed to hold a general election , it offered the best possible path to exit .
All of a sudden , the Conservatives got to hold what was essentially a referendum on who should be Prime Minister – and it was supremely unlikely that the voters would chose Corbyn .
As conventional party politics took centre stage again , the country was more united than it had been in years – and the Government was able to claim it was getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @

David Cameron. There was no public pressure for a referendum before it was called. Yes, UKIP won significant but small shares of the vote in many constituencies in 2010 and 2015 which cost the Conservatives seats. But anyone speaking to these UKIP voters even briefly understood they were primarily driven by concerns over immigration – not Europe. Often, immigration and EU membership weren’t even linked in their minds. By promising a referendum, Cameron launched UKIP to the masses and put Europe on to the agenda in a way it had never been. This was a terrible unforced error. Compounding it, he then messed up the “deal” with the EU at the start of the campaign – failing to sufficiently change the non-contributory aspect of the welfare state for non-British nationals. This meant that the end result was always likely to be at least tight.
Barack Obama. Obama’s trip to the UK was going well. He spoke as a friend and strategic partner. But at a press conference with Cameron, in apparently unscripted comments, he uttered those words “back of the queue” – regarding Britain’s access to a potential trade deal. Rightly or wrongly, the English just hate this sort of thing – they detest implied or explicit threats – and they responded accordingly. Vote Leave are said to have been inundated with small donations after Obama’s pointless comment (which has been shown not to be true) and the campaign got a much needed boost at an important time. Said to have been encouraged by the British side, it was an act of stupidity.
George Osborne . Osborne never wanted a referendum. And you can’t have too many complaints about the principles of the so-called Project Fear campaign. This is what campaigns do. It was perfectly reasonable to make the case the UK would be poorer outside the EU. But the suggestion that we would be in recession immediately after a Leave vote – although, it was slightly unclear as to what “immediate” meant – ultimately shredded the credibility of Remainers’ claims about the impact of leaving without a deal. It’d be unfair to say this was an Osborne unforced error, but there’s no doubt that the decision to ramp up fear had serious consequences after the vote.
The Electoral Commission . Whether you can pin its errors on a particular person, others will be better placed to judge. But the decision to go after Darren Grimes, while not a major story for the public, massively strengthened eurosceptic determination at a time when the campaign was flailing. Going after Grimes looked unfair, petty and hyper-aggressive. Coming as it did with Gina Miller’s litigation, the Grimes case persuaded pro-Leave veterans that they had to get serious about things. It turned what had become a disparate movement back into a more focused, harder-edged campaign. It had been basically assuming that things would turn out fine until this point.
Leo Varadkar . The Irish PM’s endlessly confrontational approach looked to have been chiefly directed at voters at home who might peel off to other parties. You can’t particularly blame a politician for that, although many in the UK media ignored this straightforward electoral reality – as if somehow Varadkar was a latter-day Kissinger. Ireland’s current election polls suggest that his tactic didn’t work in the long-term, but his comments cut through to the British public. As I note above in relation to Obama, the English can’t stand anything that looks like intimidation (Varadkar’s Irishness is irrelevant on this. I’ve never heard anyone in groups raise this point). He was arguably the person that most shifted the English electorate towards “no deal”.
Lady Hale . The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down prorogation completely changed the game on Brexit. It made the country take Boris Johnson seriously as a politician for the first time, and it Leave voters unite behind him, killing off Farage’s Brexit Party in the process. Conducting focus groups shortly after the decision, it was extraordinary how prorogation really persuaded the public that Johnson’s Conservatives were serious about Brexit – and could therefore be trusted on it. Lady Hale was the face of the decision and therefore carries most responsibility for the change in public attitudes. She paved the way for the final act.


conservativehome--2020-02-04--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibil

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 Northern Ireland Office ( NIO ) is seeking to appoint a Lead Non-Executive Director to its Management Board .
In addition to his/her responsibilities as a Board Member , the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department ’ s Audit and Risk Committee .
The successful candidate will be expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office .
They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice , support , constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department ’ s work.
” “ The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee .
The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC ’ s work and is responsible for overseeing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in collaboration with the Home Office Secretariat .
To date , the MAC has operated “ hands-on ” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat .
The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee , across the Secretariat and with government departments.
” “ Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year , after 10 years in post .
We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a high profile and influential role , requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity .
Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity .
Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term .
There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms .
This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.
” “ The Treasure Valuation Committee provides independent advice to the Secretary of State for Digital , Culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair market value of declared Treasure finds from England , Wales and Northern Ireland , which museums wish to acquire .
Its membership comprises experts on the range of antiquities submitted for valuation , on museums and their collections , and on the law relating to antiquities .
In addition , the membership includes an individual drawn from those who represent the interests of finders.
” “ The Secretary of State , working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency , is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace outgoing members .
The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds .
Applicants will need to demonstrate they are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills , knowledge and expertise .
Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero , climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.
” “ The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership ( LEP ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans .
The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership , and through this latest round of appointments , have committed to achieve 50 % female representation on the LEP board in 2020 .
Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term , we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background , experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LEP on a local and national scale.
” “ The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area ’ s economic success .
The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders , while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government .
We want you to have a voice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the region .
The Chair must come from the private sector ( Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website ) .
” Time : Minimum one day per week on average .
“ As Chair of the STRB , you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body ; and for delivering high quality recommendations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State .
You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it ; where necessary challenging existing assumptions ; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB ; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees… ” “ The Office of the Children ’ s Commissioner is a dynamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a small organisation , but it has a loud voice and is highly respected .
The Children ’ s Commissioner ’ s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children ’ s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions .
The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals , with a wide breadth of experience , to join this Board , which meets quarterly in London .
Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work .
”


conservativehome--2020-02-04--“The shocking influence of lawyers on policy”

There is no connection between leaving the European Union and Sunday ’ s terror attack in Streatham .
But that is not how it will seem to some voters .
They were told that Brexit means taking back control .
Which they will believe means incarcerating terrorists permanently .
They will not take kindly to being told that this can ’ t be done because of our membership of the European Convention of Human Rights – and the obligations that flow from it .
Others will be more cynical .
They will remember that it was briefed , after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Boris Johnson would “ lock up terrorists and throw away the key ” .
The key was not disposed of in the case of Sudesh Amman .
It was turned in the lock and used to let him out halfway through his term , as the law required in his case .
He then stabbed three people last weekend .
Robert Buckland told the Commons yesterday that emergency legislation will be introduced to minimise the risk of a similar attack .
“ The underlying principle must be that offenders will no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released before the end of their sentence will be dependent on a risk assessment by the Parole Board , ” he said .
Which is all well and good .
But , first , such change won ’ t prevent terrorists from being released sooner or later .
Second , risk assessments can go wrong .
Finally , future sentences don ’ t cover present offenders .
Bill Cash raised that last point with the Justice Secretary , demanding that “ the legislation will be fully retrospective , notwithstanding article 7 of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buckland ’ s reply was non-commital .
One wonders what he made of the Number Ten source who said yesterday that responsibility for the Streatham attacks lies with “ terrible decisions made over past 15 years and the shocking influence of lawyers on policy ” [ our italics ] .
On the face of it , this is an astounding claim : after all , Cash himself , for example , is a lawyer .
It is not obvious that this hero of the Eurosceptic movement somehow shares the responsibility for terror attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue that the Stone MP raised yesterday , and that we highlighted at the start of this article .
After Brexit , Dominic Cummings once wrote , “ we ’ ll be coming for the ECHR referendum and we ’ ll win that by more than 52-48 ” : he is exactly where those angry voters are on taking back control .
The Conservative Manifesto addressed the issues concerned less vividly : indeed , it didn ’ t specifically address the ECHR at all .
It did however promise a Constitution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Human Rights Act , administrative law and judicial review .
Many eyes will be on it when the Government forms it and selects a Chairman .
Before then , there will doubtless be a legal tussle about whether Ministers can legislate restrospectively in relation to present terrorist prisoners in the way that Buckland promised yesterday .
That will suit Cummings and company just fine .
As this site wrote after the London Bridge assault , “ elected MPs , not ECHR judges , should have the final say – whether the matter in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or detention without trial .
Ultimately , the policy aim should be for a British Bill of Rights , which would be written…to strike a better balance , inter alia , between national security and civil liberties ” .
It will be said that longer incarceration is unnecessary : that better deradicalisation programmes , stricter monitoring and lie detector tests ( according to the Justice Secretary yesterday ) can do the trick .
They all have their part to play but none can guarantee public safety .
A final point may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader of the Labour Party is not only a lawyer but a former Director of Public Prosecutions – during “ the past 15 years ” , is he not ?

There is no connection between leaving the European Union and Sunday’s terror attack in Streatham. But that is not how it will seem to some voters. They were told that Brexit means taking back control. Which they will believe means incarcerating terrorists permanently. They will not take kindly to being told that this can’t be done because of our membership of the European Convention of Human Rights – and the obligations that flow from it.
Others will be more cynical. They will remember that it was briefed, after the London Bridge terror assault in November, that Boris Johnson would “lock up terrorists and throw away the key”. The key was not disposed of in the case of Sudesh Amman. It was turned in the lock and used to let him out halfway through his term, as the law required in his case. He then stabbed three people last weekend.
Robert Buckland told the Commons yesterday that emergency legislation will be introduced to minimise the risk of a similar attack. “The underlying principle must be that offenders will no longer be released early automatically and that anyone released before the end of their sentence will be dependent on a risk assessment by the Parole Board,” he said.
Which is all well and good. But, first, such change won’t prevent terrorists from being released sooner or later. Second, risk assessments can go wrong. Finally, future sentences don’t cover present offenders. Bill Cash raised that last point with the Justice Secretary, demanding that “the legislation will be fully retrospective, notwithstanding article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. Buckland’s reply was non-commital.
One wonders what he made of the Number Ten source who said yesterday that responsibility for the Streatham attacks lies with “terrible decisions made over past 15 years and the shocking influence of lawyers on policy” [our italics]. On the face of it, this is an astounding claim: after all, Cash himself, for example, is a lawyer. It is not obvious that this hero of the Eurosceptic movement somehow shares the responsibility for terror attacks.
But Downing Street is getting at the issue that the Stone MP raised yesterday, and that we highlighted at the start of this article. After Brexit, Dominic Cummings once wrote, “we’ll be coming for the ECHR referendum and we’ll win that by more than 52-48”: he is exactly where those angry voters are on taking back control. The Conservative Manifesto addressed the issues concerned less vividly: indeed, it didn’t specifically address the ECHR at all.
It did however promise a Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission to probe the Human Rights Act, administrative law and judicial review. Many eyes will be on it when the Government forms it and selects a Chairman. Before then, there will doubtless be a legal tussle about whether Ministers can legislate restrospectively in relation to present terrorist prisoners in the way that Buckland promised yesterday.
That will suit Cummings and company just fine. As this site wrote after the London Bridge assault, “elected MPs, not ECHR judges, should have the final say – whether the matter in question is votes for prisoners, say, or detention without trial. Ultimately, the policy aim should be for a British Bill of Rights, which would be written…to strike a better balance, inter alia, between national security and civil liberties”.
It will be said that longer incarceration is unnecessary: that better deradicalisation programmes, stricter monitoring and lie detector tests (according to the Justice Secretary yesterday) can do the trick. They all have their part to play but none can guarantee public safety. A final point may be worth making. The most likely next leader of the Labour Party is not only a lawyer but a former Director of Public Prosecutions – during “the past 15 years”, is he not?


conservativehome--2020-02-04--Toby Williams: London’s Mayoral election gives Conservatives the impetus to campaign in Labour terri

Toby Williams: London’s Mayoral election gives Conservatives the impetus to campaign in Labour territory

Toby Williams was the Conservative candidate for Mitcham and Morden at the last General Election .
He is standing for the London Assembly next year as a city-wide candidate .
Conventional wisdom dictates that London is something of an electoral anomaly .
This is to an extent correct ; recent elections have shown Labour support to be much more robust in the capital when compared to the rest of the country .
Take December ’ s General election as an example .
While support for Labour collapsed in most areas outside of the M25 , it stayed pretty firm in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ours – going backwards slightly in terms of vote share , but maintaining the same number of parliamentary seats .
But looking solely at the headline figures misses a more subtle and important trend in London which isn ’ t so at odds with the national picture .
We all know that the big story of the 2019 General Election was that Brexit-backing life-long Labour voters from working class communities came over to the Conservatives this time .
Contrary to what one may assume , London wasn ’ t immune from this trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much smaller scale and didn ’ t result in many seats changing hands .
Take the borough of Merton .
Merton is made up of two very different constituencies ; Conservative-held Wimbledon , which is extremely affluent in many parts and voted heavily Remain , and Labour-held Mitcham and Morden , which is far less wealthy , contains a number of working class communities , and is much more eurosceptic than its constituency neighbour .
As the candidate for Mitcham and Morden , I campaigned in both of these seats and was struck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this part of London mirrored what was happening at a national level .
It so often felt like it was working class voters in Mitcham and Morden who were angriest about the direction of Corbyn ’ s Labour Party – and passionate about putting an end to the Brexit saga .
The results in Merton reflected this to some extent ; we held Wimbledon with a reduced share of the vote , while improving our showing in Mitcham and Morden , achieving the biggest swing to the Conservatives since 1983 .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we would have held Wimbledon without the constituency ’ s brilliant sitting MP , Stephen Hammond .
Merton is in no way unique .
In the neighbouring borough of Croydon , we didn ’ t gain votes in the strong Conservative seat of Croydon South or Croydon Central – but we did in Croydon North , which is traditionally seen as rock-solid Labour territory .
In South West London , our vote share didn ’ t increase in the affluent constituencies of Richmond Park , Kingston , or Twickenham – but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Heston .
From Westminster and Dagenham , to Kensington and Barking , the story is the same : we lost votes in our affluent heartlands and gained support in some of Labour ’ s strongest areas .
Like the rest of the country , it is clear that the kaleidoscope is beginning to shift and the electoral map is starting to change .
What lessons can we learn from London ’ s election results ?
Here are three ideas .
London Conservatives often make the argument that to win in the capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socially liberal and internationalist .
This is , of course , correct ; there is no way that a Conservative Party which tacks to the right can win back seats like Putney and Battersea .
But this shouldn ’ t , and needn ’ t , come at the expense of also establishing a policy programme which appeals to the growing number of Brexit-backing voters in seats like Mitcham and Morden who are finding the Conservative Party increasingly electorally attractive .
Developing this broad-based appeal , which I ’ ve written more about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can win in London .
2 ) Preparing for the next General Election ( s ) Winning many of the Labour seats where we made advances might be unlikely next time , but that doesn ’ t mean that we shouldn ’ t maintain and build upon our support in these constituencies .
There is no reason why , with a bit of long-term thinking and hard work , we can ’ t take these seats at elections in the late 2020s or 2030s .
Political parties of all colours can be guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take the long view if we are going to capitalise on the advances we made in December .
3 ) Preparing for the GLA and Mayoral elections With its more proportional voting system , the GLA and mayoral elections present a great opportunity for us to speak to the new voters we attracted at the General Election .
After all , we need votes from all corners of our city in order to elect a healthy number of London-wide Assembly Members along with a fantastic new Conservative Mayor .
Rather than focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did hold a parliamentary seat , it is essential that we target resources in those Labour areas where we are beginning to pick up support and remain unafraid of speaking about the issues that really matter to people in those parts of our city .
Looking at the General Election headline figures is , of course , important , but examining the more subtle trends on a seat-by-seat basis is enormously valuable for the future .
The story of election night in London is more complex than the blue and red results map @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to adapt to these changing political circumstances .
Pragmatism , after all , is what we do best .

Toby Williams was the Conservative candidate for Mitcham and Morden at the last General Election. He is standing for the London Assembly next year as a city-wide candidate.
Conventional wisdom dictates that London is something of an electoral anomaly. This is to an extent correct; recent elections have shown Labour support to be much more robust in the capital when compared to the rest of the country.
Take December’s General election as an example. While support for Labour collapsed in most areas outside of the M25, it stayed pretty firm in our city with the party – like ours – going backwards slightly in terms of vote share, but maintaining the same number of parliamentary seats.
But looking solely at the headline figures misses a more subtle and important trend in London which isn’t so at odds with the national picture. We all know that the big story of the 2019 General Election was that Brexit-backing life-long Labour voters from working class communities came over to the Conservatives this time. Contrary to what one may assume, London wasn’t immune from this trend, even if it was on a much smaller scale and didn’t result in many seats changing hands.
Take the borough of Merton. Merton is made up of two very different constituencies; Conservative-held Wimbledon, which is extremely affluent in many parts and voted heavily Remain, and Labour-held Mitcham and Morden, which is far less wealthy, contains a number of working class communities, and is much more eurosceptic than its constituency neighbour.
As the candidate for Mitcham and Morden, I campaigned in both of these seats and was struck by how the feeling on the ground in this part of London mirrored what was happening at a national level. It so often felt like it was working class voters in Mitcham and Morden who were angriest about the direction of Corbyn’s Labour Party – and passionate about putting an end to the Brexit saga. The results in Merton reflected this to some extent; we held Wimbledon with a reduced share of the vote, while improving our showing in Mitcham and Morden, achieving the biggest swing to the Conservatives since 1983. As an aside, I don’t think we would have held Wimbledon without the constituency’s brilliant sitting MP, Stephen Hammond.
Merton is in no way unique. In the neighbouring borough of Croydon, we didn’t gain votes in the strong Conservative seat of Croydon South or Croydon Central – but we did in Croydon North, which is traditionally seen as rock-solid Labour territory. In South West London, our vote share didn’t increase in the affluent constituencies of Richmond Park, Kingston, or Twickenham – but we enjoyed a 3.8 percent boost in Feltham and Heston. From Westminster and Dagenham, to Kensington and Barking, the story is the same: we lost votes in our affluent heartlands and gained support in some of Labour’s strongest areas. Like the rest of the country, it is clear that the kaleidoscope is beginning to shift and the electoral map is starting to change.
What lessons can we learn from London’s election results? Here are three ideas.
1) Developing the right message
London Conservatives often make the argument that to win in the capital our party needs to be compassionate, socially liberal and internationalist. This is, of course, correct; there is no way that a Conservative Party which tacks to the right can win back seats like Putney and Battersea. But this shouldn’t, and needn’t, come at the expense of also establishing a policy programme which appeals to the growing number of Brexit-backing voters in seats like Mitcham and Morden who are finding the Conservative Party increasingly electorally attractive. Developing this broad-based appeal, which I’ve written more about here, is the only way we can win in London.
2) Preparing for the next General Election(s)
Winning many of the Labour seats where we made advances might be unlikely next time, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t maintain and build upon our support in these constituencies. There is no reason why, with a bit of long-term thinking and hard work, we can’t take these seats at elections in the late 2020s or 2030s. Political parties of all colours can be guilty of short termism, but we need to take the long view if we are going to capitalise on the advances we made in December.
3) Preparing for the GLA and Mayoral elections
With its more proportional voting system, the GLA and mayoral elections present a great opportunity for us to speak to the new voters we attracted at the General Election. After all, we need votes from all corners of our city in order to elect a healthy number of London-wide Assembly Members along with a fantastic new Conservative Mayor. Rather than focus disproportionately on areas where we hold or did hold a parliamentary seat, it is essential that we target resources in those Labour areas where we are beginning to pick up support and remain unafraid of speaking about the issues that really matter to people in those parts of our city.
Looking at the General Election headline figures is, of course, important, but examining the more subtle trends on a seat-by-seat basis is enormously valuable for the future. The story of election night in London is more complex than the blue and red results map suggests, and we Conservatives in London need to adapt to these changing political circumstances. Pragmatism, after all, is what we do best.


conservativehome--2020-03-30--The rights and wrongs of closing the borders

One of the running stories in the last week ’ s press has been an apparent stand-off between Priti Patel and Dominic Raab over the question of whether or not to ‘ close the borders ’ – i.e .
restrict non-essential travel and stopping flights from countries badly afflicted by Covid-19 .
It ’ s an issue which apparently divides the Cabinet , with the Daily Telegraph reporting that Patel was backed by Matt Hancock , the Health Secretary , and Raab by Rishi Sunak , the Chancellor , and Grant Shapps , the Transport Secretary .
For the moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come down firmly on the side of the Foreign Secretary .
Is this a case of Boris Johnson ’ s liberal instincts triumphing over the needs of the moment , as has been alleged about his early response to the pandemic ?
In truth , on this question – as on others – the Government is walking a tightrope between competing evidence and legitimate concerns .
On the scientific evidence , for example , its own medical experts currently say there is no case for a travel ban .
Yet other scientists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Science which has been highlighted by Migration Watch , suggest that travel restrictions imposed on Wuhan by the Chinese authorities did slow the spread of the disease : “ We find a 77 per cent reduction in cases imported from Mainland China to other countries as a result of the Wuhan travel ban in early February.
” Likewise , fears from the Home Office and Department of Health that ongoing ( even if much reduced ) travel will lead to a greater number of domestic cases must be balanced against the Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be based on feedback from diplomatic staff on the ground – that new restrictions could prompt retaliatory measures from some of the countries affected and hinder their efforts to rescue British citizens stranded overseas .
One theoretical alternative to banning flights would be on-arrival screening at airports , but there could be serious practical barriers to implementing this – not least of which is that it might increase the exposure of Border Force agents to infection at a time when the Government is already struggling to adequately supply front-line NHS staff with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack the experience to implement a rigorous and comprehensive on-entry testing system .
Such a policy has apparently not been the UK ’ s historical response to incoming travel from areas afflicted by previous outbreaks .
Without that experience of more targeted screening , instituting universal screening ( albeit of a much reduced volume of incoming travellers ) could pose a formidable challenge .
Ministers may also be wary about heaping even more pressure on airlines at a time when many are already clamouring for Government support , as well as putting more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrangements by closing commercial avenues home for Britons abroad .
There is clearly no easy answer .
Yet whilst the leaking of Home Secretary ’ s position to the press might have angered Number Ten , what is shows us is the Cabinet system working as it should .
Both Patel and Raab , speaking as they do for powerful departments with different institutional priorities , ought to be arguing hard for their preferred approaches .
It is ultimately for the Prime Minister to choose which set of considerations weighs the heavier – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will fly .

One of the running stories in the last week’s press has been an apparent stand-off between Priti Patel and Dominic Raab over the question of whether or not to ‘close the borders’ – i.e. restrict non-essential travel and stopping flights from countries badly afflicted by Covid-19.
It’s an issue which apparently divides the Cabinet, with the Daily Telegraph reporting that Patel was backed by Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, and Raab by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, and Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary.
For the moment, the Prime Minister appears to have come down firmly on the side of the Foreign Secretary. Is this a case of Boris Johnson’s liberal instincts triumphing over the needs of the moment, as has been alleged about his early response to the pandemic?
In truth, on this question – as on others – the Government is walking a tightrope between competing evidence and legitimate concerns. On the scientific evidence, for example, its own medical experts currently say there is no case for a travel ban.
Yet other scientists, such as the authors of this article in Science which has been highlighted by Migration Watch, suggest that travel restrictions imposed on Wuhan by the Chinese authorities did slow the spread of the disease: “We find a 77 per cent reduction in cases imported from Mainland China to other countries as a result of the Wuhan travel ban in early February.”
Likewise, fears from the Home Office and Department of Health that ongoing (even if much reduced) travel will lead to a greater number of domestic cases must be balanced against the Foreign Office’s clear concern – which will be based on feedback from diplomatic staff on the ground – that new restrictions could prompt retaliatory measures from some of the countries affected and hinder their efforts to rescue British citizens stranded overseas.
One theoretical alternative to banning flights would be on-arrival screening at airports, but there could be serious practical barriers to implementing this – not least of which is that it might increase the exposure of Border Force agents to infection at a time when the Government is already struggling to adequately supply front-line NHS staff with protective equipment.
Furthermore, staff might lack the experience to implement a rigorous and comprehensive on-entry testing system. Such a policy has apparently not been the UK’s historical response to incoming travel from areas afflicted by previous outbreaks. Without that experience of more targeted screening, instituting universal screening (albeit of a much reduced volume of incoming travellers) could pose a formidable challenge.
Ministers may also be wary about heaping even more pressure on airlines at a time when many are already clamouring for Government support, as well as putting more stress on the FCO’s special arrangements by closing commercial avenues home for Britons abroad.
There is clearly no easy answer. Yet whilst the leaking of Home Secretary’s position to the press might have angered Number Ten, what is shows us is the Cabinet system working as it should. Both Patel and Raab, speaking as they do for powerful departments with different institutional priorities, ought to be arguing hard for their preferred approaches. It is ultimately for the Prime Minister to choose which set of considerations weighs the heavier – and for the moment, the planes will fly.