conservativehome--2020-02-16--The Prime Minister’s Bridges and Circuses.  Why Sunak’s duty is to rein in Johnson’s instincts.

Today ’ s papers pick up ConservativeHome ’ s enquiry last week about new council tax bands .
We drew on David Cameron ’ s memoirs in pointing to this potential alternative to a Mansion Tax , which has reportedly been mulled by the Government during this run-up to next month ’ s budget .
The former Prime Minister wrote that the idea of such bands for more expensive properties “ has merit…there is a strong argument that in the UK they are under-taxed ” .
Our probe was given legs by the former Chancellor with whom Cameron once worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latter tweeted in response to our article that he thinks new bands of this type would be “ a sensible tax reform ” .
( Interestingly , he and Cameron gave different figures for the change they once considered .
Osborne said he wanted “ two new council tax bands for homes worth over £5 million and £10 million ” .
Cameron ’ s account refers to £2.5 million and £5 million – presumably a consequence of the Liberal Democrats pushing for a threshold nearer that of own their original Mansion Tax plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson and Sajid Javid united in eventually backing off a Mansion Tax next month – or so it is claimed today – and new council tax bands too .
But that last if not the first will be back on the table sooner or later : The institutional Treasury believes that “ the best way to tax property is to bring in new council tax bands ” .
All the mergers in the world between its top team and Number Ten ’ s won ’ t prevent the idea being pushed again and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One is about the proposal itself .
The second is a broader one about what Conservatives should tax .
The third is an even bigger one – about how much they should tax .
First , the plan .
It is very hard to see how it could be implemented without a revaluation .
These are perilous .
They lead inevitably to changes in the value of one property being compared to that of another .
The media projects hard cases and strange anomalies .
Voters seethe .
It is sometimes forgotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll tax was the row over a revaluation in Scotland .
The second consideration leans in other direction .
“ What should Tories tax ?
” this site asked in a 2018 series – for , after all , they must tax something , at least in a modern country in which the state provides public services .
And the classic doctrine is that it is better to tax property than income , if one has to tax either at all .
Cameron has a point when he suggests that it is inequitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million at the same rate .
The third raises profound questions about Conservative policy in general and this Government in particular .
Let ’ s imagine for the sake of the argument that new bands are eventually introduced .
Should they be a part of a tax hike ?
Or should such a rise in a property tax be balanced out by a cut in income tax ?
Or even exceeded by it ?
What should a Tory Government be trying to do ?
Our answer is uncompromising .
Government can not tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservatives their way to success .
Taxes are too high.- at their highest level since the 1940s , according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies .
So tax rises should be outpaced by tax cuts – at all levels .
But these must broadly march in step with spending cuts ; that ’ s to say , with reductions in the rate of growth of public spending .
And it is here that Johnson and Javid clearly ran into difficulties , which were a contributor to the latter ’ s resignation last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister ’ s instinct is to spend more , and his then Chancellor ’ s was to spend less ( comparatively speaking ) .
Johnson wants more nurses , police , surgery appointments and “ millions more invested every week in science , schools , apprenticeships and infrastructure ” , to pick out items and words from the Conservative Manifesto .
So does Javid .
But he would stress the three words in the manifesto immediately after those just quoted : “ while controlling debt ” .
The former Chancellor won the internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over whether or not to use those words to frame an electoral and political choice .
The fruit of this was the manifesto ’ s two fiscal rules : “ public sector net investment will not average more than 3 per cent of GDP , and that if debt interest reaches 6 per cent of revenue , we will reassess our plans to keep debt under control ” .
The Sunday Times claims today that last week “ the Prime Minister explicitly asked his Chancellor to look at how he might tear up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , junk the fiscal rules .
Some in Downing Street ’ s political circle certainly want to do so .
This takes us to the heart of the issue , which is of more import even than the resignation of a Chancellor .
What is this Conservative Government for ?
Is its purpose to tax better-off voters in its south-eastern base in order to fund less well-off ones in its new northerly seats ?
Should Surrey South-West fund North West Durham ?
And Tory Blue Heartlands stump up for the Red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the Cummings ’ Circle wants ?
Or should government ’ s instinct to tax be curbed by the only ultimate realistic means : spending control – which is also the only practicable means of delivering tax cuts ?
But if it is to provide this , what will become of Johnson ’ s urge for bread and circuses – or rather , thinking of his urge to build one between Scotland and Northern Ireland , bridges and circuses ?
One conclusion is inescapable .
If there are to be significant tax cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would underpin them , those Blue Heartlands will have to take a hit .
The readers of the Daily Telegraph may not howl because they ’ ve been stung by a Mansion Tax , but rather because they ’ ve been hit by social reform .
Because sustainable spending discipline means curbs on the third of it that goes on health and pensions .
Whatever your take on fiscal rules , either in principle or in practice , Javid was right to stand up for spending discipline .
The question is whether a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 can now deliver it .
Rishi Sunak ’ s energies will be bent on his Budget , which is due in less than a month .
It ’ s a challenge set within a wider one – namely , to “ level up ” Britain rather than level it down .
To bring better infrastructure , joined-up transport , more skills and higher wages to the recession-prone country outside the greater south-east .
But without provoking the “ terror and slaughter ” of the Gods of the Copybook Headings .

Today’s papers pick up ConservativeHome’s enquiry last week about new council tax bands. We drew on David Cameron’s memoirs in pointing to this potential alternative to a Mansion Tax, which has reportedly been mulled by the Government during this run-up to next month’s budget.
The former Prime Minister wrote that the idea of such bands for more expensive properties “has merit…there is a strong argument that in the UK they are under-taxed”. Our probe was given legs by the former Chancellor with whom Cameron once worked so seamlessly – George Osborne.
The latter tweeted in response to our article that he thinks new bands of this type would be “a sensible tax reform”. (Interestingly, he and Cameron gave different figures for the change they once considered. Osborne said he wanted “two new council tax bands for homes worth over £5 million and £10 million”. Cameron’s account refers to £2.5 million and £5 million – presumably a consequence of the Liberal Democrats pushing for a threshold nearer that of own their original Mansion Tax plan.)
At any rate, Boris Johnson and Sajid Javid united in eventually backing off a Mansion Tax next month – or so it is claimed today – and new council tax bands too. But that last if not the first will be back on the table sooner or later: The institutional Treasury believes that “the best way to tax property is to bring in new council tax bands”. All the mergers in the world between its top team and Number Ten’s won’t prevent the idea being pushed again and again.
This raises three main questions. One is about the proposal itself. The second is a broader one about what Conservatives should tax. The third is an even bigger one – about how much they should tax.
First, the plan. It is very hard to see how it could be implemented without a revaluation. These are perilous. They lead inevitably to changes in the value of one property being compared to that of another. The media projects hard cases and strange anomalies. Voters seethe. It is sometimes forgotten that one of the reasons for the poll tax was the row over a revaluation in Scotland.
The second consideration leans in other direction. “What should Tories tax?” this site asked in a 2018 series – for, after all, they must tax something, at least in a modern country in which the state provides public services. And the classic doctrine is that it is better to tax property than income, if one has to tax either at all. Cameron has a point when he suggests that it is inequitable to treat houses worth £500,000 and £5 million at the same rate.
The third raises profound questions about Conservative policy in general and this Government in particular. Let’s imagine for the sake of the argument that new bands are eventually introduced. Should they be a part of a tax hike? Or should such a rise in a property tax be balanced out by a cut in income tax? Or even exceeded by it? What should a Tory Government be trying to do?
Our answer is uncompromising. Government cannot tax its way to prosperity, nor the Conservatives their way to success. Taxes are too high.- at their highest level since the 1940s, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
So tax rises should be outpaced by tax cuts – at all levels. But these must broadly march in step with spending cuts; that’s to say, with reductions in the rate of growth of public spending. And it is here that Johnson and Javid clearly ran into difficulties, which were a contributor to the latter’s resignation last week. In a nutshell, the Prime Minister’s instinct is to spend more, and his then Chancellor’s was to spend less (comparatively speaking).
Johnson wants more nurses, police, surgery appointments and “millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure”, to pick out items and words from the Conservative Manifesto. So does Javid. But he would stress the three words in the manifesto immediately after those just quoted: “while controlling debt”. The former Chancellor won the internal debate within the Tory top team pre-election over whether or not to use those words to frame an electoral and political choice.
The fruit of this was the manifesto’s two fiscal rules: “public sector net investment will not average more than 3 per cent of GDP, and that if debt interest reaches 6 per cent of revenue, we will reassess our plans to keep debt under control”.
The Sunday Times claims today that last week “the Prime Minister explicitly asked his Chancellor to look at how he might tear up the restraints on spending” – in other words, junk the fiscal rules. Some in Downing Street’s political circle certainly want to do so.
This takes us to the heart of the issue, which is of more import even than the resignation of a Chancellor. What is this Conservative Government for? Is its purpose to tax better-off voters in its south-eastern base in order to fund less well-off ones in its new northerly seats? Should Surrey South-West fund North West Durham? And Tory Blue Heartlands stump up for the Red Wall – in some parodistic version of what the Cummings’ Circle wants?
Or should government’s instinct to tax be curbed by the only ultimate realistic means: spending control – which is also the only practicable means of delivering tax cuts? But if it is to provide this, what will become of Johnson’s urge for bread and circuses – or rather, thinking of his urge to build one between Scotland and Northern Ireland, bridges and circuses?
One conclusion is inescapable. If there are to be significant tax cuts, together with the spending discipline that would underpin them, those Blue Heartlands will have to take a hit. The readers of the Daily Telegraph may not howl because they’ve been stung by a Mansion Tax, but rather because they’ve been hit by social reform. Because sustainable spending discipline means curbs on the third of it that goes on health and pensions.
Whatever your take on fiscal rules, either in principle or in practice, Javid was right to stand up for spending discipline. The question is whether a Number 11 than dovetails better with Number 10 can now deliver it. Rishi Sunak’s energies will be bent on his Budget, which is due in less than a month.
It’s a challenge set within a wider one – namely, to “level up” Britain rather than level it down. To bring better infrastructure, joined-up transport, more skills and higher wages to the recession-prone country outside the greater south-east. But without provoking the “terror and slaughter” of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.


conservativehome--2020-02-15--Our reshuffle predictions. What we got right and what we didn’t.

We were thinking of her pugnacious ConHome piece on judicial power , much circulated after she was indeed appointed the @ @

We were thinking of her pugnacious ConHome piece on judicial power , much circulated after she was indeed appointed the next day


conservativehome--2020-02-15--Latest ministerial appointments: Badenoch, Ford, Malthouse, and Whittingdale amongst those taking up

Latest ministerial appointments: Badenoch, Ford, Malthouse, and Whittingdale amongst those taking up new posts

Last night , the Prime Minister rounded off his reshuffle and put the finishing touches on the Government .
We followed most of this process in our live blog , but listed below are the final appointments which were announced yesterday evening , divided between each House and between whether the individual as stayed in an old role or gained a new one .
One interesting note is that Johnson has resisted the temptation to do too much tinkering with the whips , leaving most in-post .
This is a welcome development : we wrote during Theresa May ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had eroded the efficacy of the whips ’ office by over-circulating its personnel .
John Whittingdale ’ s return to government as a minister at DCMS – the very department at which he was previously Secretary of State – is also strongly suggestive that Johnson is determined to drive-through BBC reform .
• Vicky Ford MP as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Education • Alex Chalk MP as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice and as an Assistant Government Whip • Kemi Badenoch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Minister for Equalities ) in the Department for International Trade , in addition to her appointment as Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury .
• John Whittingdale OBE MP as a Minister of State in the Department for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport • Kit Malthouse MP as a Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice , in addition to his appointment as a Minister of State in the Home Office • Chris Philp MP as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice , in addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of State in the Ministry of Justice • Julia Lopez MP as a Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office • Baroness Berridge to be Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State ( Minister for Women ) in the Department for International Trade , in addition to her appointment as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education and Baroness in Waiting ( Government Whip ) • Viscount Younger of Leckie to be a Lord in Waiting ( Government Whip ) • Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE as a Baroness in Waiting • Lord Parkinson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Waiting • Victoria Atkins MP remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Home Office • Matt Warman MP remains a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport • Rt Hon Lord Keen of Elie QC remains HM Advocate General for Scotland and Ministry of Justice spokesperson for the Lords • Rt Hon Lord Ashton of Hyde remains Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms ( Lords Chief Whip ) • Earl of Courtown remains Captain of The Queen ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guard ( Deputy Chief Whip ) • Baroness Williams of Trafford remains as a Minister of State in the Home Office

Last night, the Prime Minister rounded off his reshuffle and put the finishing touches on the Government. We followed most of this process in our live blog, but listed below are the final appointments which were announced yesterday evening, divided between each House and between whether the individual as stayed in an old role or gained a new one.
One interesting note is that Johnson has resisted the temptation to do too much tinkering with the whips, leaving most in-post. This is a welcome development: we wrote during Theresa May’s premiership how both she and David Cameron had eroded the efficacy of the whips’ office by over-circulating its personnel.
John Whittingdale’s return to government as a minister at DCMS – the very department at which he was previously Secretary of State – is also strongly suggestive that Johnson is determined to drive-through BBC reform.
Appointments (Commons):
Vicky Ford MP as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Education
Alex Chalk MP as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice and as an Assistant Government Whip
Kemi Badenoch MP as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Equalities) in the Department for International Trade, in addition to her appointment as Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.
John Whittingdale OBE MP as a Minister of State in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Kit Malthouse MP as a Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice, in addition to his appointment as a Minister of State in the Home Office
Chris Philp MP as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice, in addition to his appointment as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice
James Morris MP as a Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury)
Julia Lopez MP as a Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office
Michael Tomlinson MP as a Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury)
Eddie Hughes MP as an Assistant Government Whip
Appointments (Lords):
Baroness Berridge to be Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Women) in the Department for International Trade, in addition to her appointment as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Education and Baroness in Waiting (Government Whip)
Viscount Younger of Leckie to be a Lord in Waiting (Government Whip)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook OBE as a Baroness in Waiting
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay as a Lord in Waiting
Retentions (Commons):
Victoria Atkins MP remains as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Home Office
Matt Warman MP remains a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Rt Hon Michael Ellis QC MP remains Solicitor General
Mike Freer MP remains Comptroller of HM Household and a Government Whip
Rebecca Harris MP remains as a Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury)·
Iain Stewart MP remains as a Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury)
David Rutley MP remains as a Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury)
Maggie Throup MP remains as a Government Whip (Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury)
Leo Docherty MP remains as an Assistant Government Whip
Tom Pursglove MP remains as an Assistant Government Whip
Maria Caulfield MP remains as an Assistant Government Whip
Retentions (Lords):


conservativehome--2020-02-15--A victory for free speech. But clear legal safeguards are still needed.

Thank goodness for Mr Justice Julian Knowles .
A judgement he delivered yesterday was a powerful defence of freedom of expression , which is expected to have significant implications .
Harry Miller , a 53-year-old man from Lincoln , had challenged the Hate Crime Operational Guidance of the College of Policing – the professional body which delivers training for all officers in England and Wales .
Miller , himself a former police officer , had tweeted : “ I was assigned mammal at birth , but my orientation is fish .
Don ’ t mis-species me.
” A complaint was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a visit from Humberside Police .
Though no crime was committed , a “ hate incident ” was recorded .
“ There was not a shred of evidence that the Claimant was at risk of committing a criminal offence .
The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated .
To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom .
In this country we have never had a Cheka , a Gestapo or a Stasi .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evidence was presented to show that the underlying issue about gender identity is vigorously debated .
Professor Kathleen Stock , Professor of Philosophy at Sussex University , stated : “ In my work , among other things I argue that there ’ s nothing wrong , either theoretically , linguistically , empirically , or politically , with the once-familiar idea that a woman is , definitionally , an adult human female .
I also argue that the subjective notion of ‘ gender identity ’ is ill-conceived intrinsically , and a fortiori as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In light of these and other views , I am intellectually ‘ gender-critical ’ ; that is , critical of the influential societal role of sex-based stereotypes , generally , including the role of stereotypes in informing the dogmatic and , in my view , false assertion that – quite literally – ‘ trans women are women ’ .
I am clear throughout my work that trans people are deserving of all human rights and dignity.
” Knowles quoted John Stuart Mill who wrote the treatise , On Liberty , which said : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were of one opinion , and only one person were of the contrary opinion , mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person , than he , if he had the power , would be justified in silencing mankind.
” “ To be clear : there should be a very bright line between speech which we as a society see as offensive , disgraceful , awful , hurtful – and speech which is punished by criminal law .
As tempting as it is to lock up the people who offend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally a good idea and police are not good judges of where that line should be , if it is left vague.
” But can we rely on the judges either ?
Knowles is clearly a passionate believer in free speech .
What if the matter had been left to another judge with a different view ?
Knowles declared that the police response in this case was unlawful .
He did not say its guidance itself is unlawful .
That guidance defines a hate incident as “ any non-crime incident which is perceived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender ” .
Until the law is changed , that “ chilling effect ” on free speech will continue .
Anyone can report anything as a “ hate incident ” – just notifying the police of their “ perception ” .
Then if the police decide to record it as such – and a judge upholds them as doing so – this would seem to be a matter of discretion .
Free speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than that .
Gavin Williamson , the Education Secretary , is to be commended for seeking to protect open discussion in our colleges – but the threat goes much wider than academia .
It follows that reform of the judiciary remains an imperative – an area where the attention of the Policy Exchange is welcome .
Pretty drastic change is also needed to the Crown Prosecution Service .
That makes the appointment this week of Suella Braverman as the Attorney General an encouraging sign .
Last month she wrote on this site : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and judges applied it .
But today , our courts exercise a form of political power .
Questions that fell hitherto exclusively within the prerogative of elected Ministers have yielded to judicial activism : foreign policy , conduct of our armed forces abroad , application of international treaties and , of course , the decision to prorogue Parliament .
Judicial review has exploded since the 1960s so that even the most intricate relations between the state and individual can be questioned by judges.
” So when we have all finished cheering Mr Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work to do .
There must be public confidence that our legal system upholds freedom and democracy – rather than undermining that precious inheritance .
To achieve that will be a huge challenge .

Thank goodness for Mr Justice Julian Knowles. A judgement he delivered yesterday was a powerful defence of freedom of expression, which is expected to have significant implications.
Harry Miller, a 53-year-old man from Lincoln, had challenged the Hate Crime Operational Guidance of the College of Policing – the professional body which delivers training for all officers in England and Wales. Miller, himself a former police officer, had tweeted:
“I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me.”
A complaint was made of “transphobia” which resulted in a visit from Humberside Police. Though no crime was committed, a “hate incident” was recorded.
Knowles said:
“There was not a shred of evidence that the Claimant was at risk of committing a criminal offence. The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”
Evidence was presented to show that the underlying issue about gender identity is vigorously debated. Professor Kathleen Stock, Professor of Philosophy at Sussex University, stated:
“In my work, among other things I argue that there’s nothing wrong, either theoretically, linguistically, empirically, or politically, with the once-familiar idea that a woman is, definitionally, an adult human female. I also argue that the subjective notion of ‘gender identity’ is ill-conceived intrinsically, and a fortiori as a potential object of law or policy. In light of these and other views, I am intellectually ‘gender-critical’; that is, critical of the influential societal role of sex-based stereotypes, generally, including the role of stereotypes in informing the dogmatic and, in my view, false assertion that – quite literally – ‘trans women are women’. I am clear throughout my work that trans people are deserving of all human rights and dignity.”
Knowles quoted John Stuart Mill who wrote the treatise, On Liberty, which said:
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister, tweeted:
“To be clear: there should be a very bright line between speech which we as a society see as offensive, disgraceful, awful, hurtful – and speech which is punished by criminal law. As tempting as it is to lock up the people who offend and upset us it’s not generally a good idea and police are not good judges of where that line should be, if it is left vague.”
But can we rely on the judges either? Knowles is clearly a passionate believer in free speech. What if the matter had been left to another judge with a different view? Knowles declared that the police response in this case was unlawful. He did not say its guidance itself is unlawful. That guidance defines a hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”. Until the law is changed, that “chilling effect” on free speech will continue. Anyone can report anything as a “hate incident” – just notifying the police of their “perception”. Then if the police decide to record it as such – and a judge upholds them as doing so – this would seem to be a matter of discretion. Free speech should surely have a more secure basis than that. Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, is to be commended for seeking to protect open discussion in our colleges – but the threat goes much wider than academia.
It follows that reform of the judiciary remains an imperative – an area where the attention of the Policy Exchange is welcome. Pretty drastic change is also needed to the Crown Prosecution Service.
That makes the appointment this week of Suella Braverman as the Attorney General an encouraging sign. Last month she wrote on this site:
“Traditionally, Parliament made the law and judges applied it. But today, our courts exercise a form of political power. Questions that fell hitherto exclusively within the prerogative of elected Ministers have yielded to judicial activism: foreign policy, conduct of our armed forces abroad, application of international treaties and, of course, the decision to prorogue Parliament. Judicial review has exploded since the 1960s so that even the most intricate relations between the state and individual can be questioned by judges.”
So when we have all finished cheering Mr Justice Knowles, there is a lot of work to do. There must be public confidence that our legal system upholds freedom and democracy – rather than undermining that precious inheritance. To achieve that will be a huge challenge.


conservativehome--2020-02-15--David Gauke: Javid, Smith, Cox. Three fine Ministers fired – so that Number Ten could take back even

David Gauke: Javid, Smith, Cox. Three fine Ministers fired – so that Number Ten could take back even more control.

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
It is sometimes said of a reshuffle that it lacks coherence ; that there is no pattern to the various Ministerial appointments ; that , to quote Churchill , ‘ there is no theme to this pudding ’ .
Such a charge can not be laid against this week ’ s announcements .
There is a theme – and it is a familiar one .
“ Take back control ” .
Or , perhaps it would be better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control ” .
Three departures illustrate the nature of the reshuffle – Sajid Javid , Julian Smith and Geoffrey Cox .
I worked closely with all three at various stages of our careers and had my differences with each of them on occasions , but I like and respect all three .
Much of the news coverage has rightly focused on the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer .
In truth , he was constructively dismissed .
As Sajid rightly said , no ‘ self-respecting minister ’ would accept the conditions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to dismiss his Special Advisers .
Given the briefing from sources within Number 10 about him being a Chancellor In Name Only ( ‘ CHINO ’ ) , this was surely a humiliation too far .
Sajid was bound to walk , even if some in Number 10 thought otherwise .
A good man pushed too far .
His resignation did , at least , distract attention from the criticism of the dismissal of Julian Smith .
Julian had , in a few short months , impressed all sides in his understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established trusting relationships with all the key players and demonstrated an inexhaustible capacity for hard work .
Following the British general election , he recognised that both the DUP and Sinn Fein were under pressure to compromise .
He seized that opportunity with courage and imagination and forced through a deal that restored the Northern Ireland Assembly .
It was briefed in advance of the reshuffle that he faced dismissal because he had blindsided Number 10 as to the provisions of the agreement in respect of investigations into British soldiers .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept fully in the loop .
It is possible that the Government has been taken aback by backbench objections to this aspect of the deal , but that does not justify hanging the Secretary of State out to dry .
And if that is the reason , what now for the deal that restored Stormont ?
Jeopardizing the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland would be reckless in the extreme .
The more likely explanation is that Julian had been too outspoken last year about the consequences of a No Deal Brexit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very , very bad ’ for Northern Ireland .
Although this was a statement of the bleeding obvious , this went further than any other Cabinet minister had done .
Perhaps taking his responsibilities seriously and wanting to avoid something very bad happening to Northern Ireland contributed to his subsequent triumph in restoring Stormont .
Anyway , he had to go .
At least his replacement – Brandon Lewis – deserves promotion .
The third significant departure is Geoffrey Cox .
Geoffrey emerged as a political star in 2018 when he became a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s warm-up act .
We worked closely on justice matters , although I always felt somewhat like a junior solicitor instructing senior counsel .
However , he was a generous and considerate colleague whose contributions at the Cabinet table were eloquent and influential .
A criticism that was made of Geoffrey was that he was a lawyer first and politician second .
I suspect he would plead guilty to the charge .
He would always refuse to put at risk his legal reputation in the interests of political expediency .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown more flexibility in his legal advice , the second meaningful vote on Theresa May ’ s Brexit deal may have succeeded .
Geoffrey was aware of what was at stake , but the greatest imperative was to state accurately the law as he saw it .
Maybe that doesn ’ t make him a team player – but the Attorney-General should not be just another member of the team .
The credibility that comes with Geoffrey ’ s experience has helped calm concerns about the Government ’ s intentions as to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legitimate debate about how the law has extended into areas that best belong to Parliament and the Executive .
However , there is a concern that the Government is seeking vengeance on a troublesome judiciary .
I have tended to think those concerns were overblown , that nothing too foolish would happen because neither the Attorney-General nor the Lord Chancellor would put up with any nonsense .
A lot rests on Robert Buckland ’ s shoulders now .
This brings me back to the theme of this reshuffle – indeed the theme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment , that you are Prime Minister ( or , perhaps , more to the point , the Prime Minister ’ s chief adviser ) .
You worry that you are not as powerful as you would like .
There are lots you want to do , but there are all these impediments .
You managed to deal with a few already ( Parliament ?
Not a problem with an 80 seat majority ; EU rules ?
Done ; The media ?
Just ignore them ) .
What is left ?
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a machine in Number 10 .
The answer ?
Commandeer the Treasury .
This deals with the second problem – the most powerful government department , which has a tendency to stand in the way of Prime Ministers doing what they want on the tiresome grounds of affordability and value-for-money .
Third , Cabinet might kick-off – so get rid of the potential troublemakers even if ( or should that be , ‘ especially if ’ ) they have a reputation for being good Ministers .
Fourth , the courts .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but make sure that the judiciary doesn ’ t have any cheerleaders round the Cabinet table .
At one level , I can not help admiring the ambition and execution .
Politics is about acquiring and using power and , when it comes to acquiring power , the Johnson/Cummings axis is formidable .
Most successful politicians seek to increase their power ; it is not a shameful objective .
Control is well and truly being taken back ( although I am sceptical that the Treasury really will be neutered ) .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power is concentrated in Number 10 likely to result in that power being well used ?
Bothersome though the reasons why some apparently bright idea can not be pursued might be ( “ we can ’ t afford it ” , “ the law doesn ’ t allow it ” , “ we won ’ t get it past Parliament ” , “ the Cabinet won ’ t put up with it ” ) , the process of government should test robustly any proposal .
After this reshuffle , these processes are likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world where policy decisions may have complex and far-reaching consequences , dismantling the checks and balances that exist within our governmental system runs the risk of bad policy being pursued .
And with power being concentrated , so will responsibility .
Number 10 will have no one else to blame .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
It is sometimes said of a reshuffle that it lacks coherence; that there is no pattern to the various Ministerial appointments; that, to quote Churchill, ‘there is no theme to this pudding’. Such a charge cannot be laid against this week’s announcements.
There is a theme – and it is a familiar one. “Take back control”. Or, perhaps it would be better put as “take back even more control”.
Three departures illustrate the nature of the reshuffle – Sajid Javid, Julian Smith and Geoffrey Cox. I worked closely with all three at various stages of our careers and had my differences with each of them on occasions, but I like and respect all three.
Much of the news coverage has rightly focused on the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In truth, he was constructively dismissed. As Sajid rightly said, no ‘self-respecting minister’ would accept the conditions that the Prime Minister attempted to impose upon him to dismiss his Special Advisers.
Given the briefing from sources within Number 10 about him being a Chancellor In Name Only (‘CHINO’), this was surely a humiliation too far. Sajid was bound to walk, even if some in Number 10 thought otherwise. A good man pushed too far.
His resignation did, at least, distract attention from the criticism of the dismissal of Julian Smith. Julian had, in a few short months, impressed all sides in his understanding of the complexities of Northern Ireland, established trusting relationships with all the key players and demonstrated an inexhaustible capacity for hard work. Following the British general election, he recognised that both the DUP and Sinn Fein were under pressure to compromise. He seized that opportunity with courage and imagination and forced through a deal that restored the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It was briefed in advance of the reshuffle that he faced dismissal because he had blindsided Number 10 as to the provisions of the agreement in respect of investigations into British soldiers. However, the evidence suggests that Number 10 was kept fully in the loop.
It is possible that the Government has been taken aback by backbench objections to this aspect of the deal, but that does not justify hanging the Secretary of State out to dry. And if that is the reason, what now for the deal that restored Stormont? Jeopardizing the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland would be reckless in the extreme.
The more likely explanation is that Julian had been too outspoken last year about the consequences of a No Deal Brexit. He described it as being ‘very, very bad’ for Northern Ireland. Although this was a statement of the bleeding obvious, this went further than any other Cabinet minister had done. Perhaps taking his responsibilities seriously and wanting to avoid something very bad happening to Northern Ireland contributed to his subsequent triumph in restoring Stormont.
Anyway, he had to go. At least his replacement – Brandon Lewis – deserves promotion.
The third significant departure is Geoffrey Cox. Geoffrey emerged as a political star in 2018 when he became a high profile Attorney-General and the Prime Minister’s warm-up act. We worked closely on justice matters, although I always felt somewhat like a junior solicitor instructing senior counsel. However, he was a generous and considerate colleague whose contributions at the Cabinet table were eloquent and influential.
A criticism that was made of Geoffrey was that he was a lawyer first and politician second. I suspect he would plead guilty to the charge. He would always refuse to put at risk his legal reputation in the interests of political expediency.
There are plenty who believe that, had he shown more flexibility in his legal advice, the second meaningful vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal may have succeeded. Geoffrey was aware of what was at stake, but the greatest imperative was to state accurately the law as he saw it. Maybe that doesn’t make him a team player – but the Attorney-General should not be just another member of the team.
The credibility that comes with Geoffrey’s experience has helped calm concerns about the Government’s intentions as to the independence of the judiciary. There is a legitimate debate about how the law has extended into areas that best belong to Parliament and the Executive.
However, there is a concern that the Government is seeking vengeance on a troublesome judiciary. I have tended to think those concerns were overblown, that nothing too foolish would happen because neither the Attorney-General nor the Lord Chancellor would put up with any nonsense. A lot rests on Robert Buckland’s shoulders now.
This brings me back to the theme of this reshuffle – indeed the theme of this Government. Imagine, for a moment, that you are Prime Minister (or, perhaps, more to the point, the Prime Minister’s chief adviser). You worry that you are not as powerful as you would like. There are lots you want to do, but there are all these impediments. You managed to deal with a few already (Parliament? Not a problem with an 80 seat majority; EU rules? Done; The media? Just ignore them). What is left?
First, you don’t have much of a machine in Number 10. The answer? Commandeer the Treasury. This deals with the second problem – the most powerful government department, which has a tendency to stand in the way of Prime Ministers doing what they want on the tiresome grounds of affordability and value-for-money.
Third, Cabinet might kick-off – so get rid of the potential troublemakers even if (or should that be, ‘especially if’) they have a reputation for being good Ministers.
Fourth, the courts. Not quite sure how to do that yet, but make sure that the judiciary doesn’t have any cheerleaders round the Cabinet table.
At one level, I cannot help admiring the ambition and execution. Politics is about acquiring and using power and, when it comes to acquiring power, the Johnson/Cummings axis is formidable. Most successful politicians seek to increase their power; it is not a shameful objective. Control is well and truly being taken back (although I am sceptical that the Treasury really will be neutered).
But is a system of government whereby all power is concentrated in Number 10 likely to result in that power being well used? Bothersome though the reasons why some apparently bright idea cannot be pursued might be (“we can’t afford it”, “the law doesn’t allow it”, “we won’t get it past Parliament”, “the Cabinet won’t put up with it”), the process of government should test robustly any proposal. After this reshuffle, these processes are likely to be less robust.
In a world where policy decisions may have complex and far-reaching consequences, dismantling the checks and balances that exist within our governmental system runs the risk of bad policy being pursued. And with power being concentrated, so will responsibility. Number 10 will have no one else to blame.


conservativehome--2020-02-17--Whacking the BBC.  Change is coming – whether the Corporation likes it or not.

“ We are having a consultation and we will whack it , ” a scarcely-disguised Downing Street source has said of the licence fee .
One would think from the reaction that Boris Johnson was about to spring change on a static BBC .
But the choice facing the corporation isn ’ t between change or no change , but between one kind of change or another .
There is an eight week consultation into decriminalising the fee .
The negotiations on its level which the source referred to begin later this year .
The licence fee may not continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current Charter period ends .
The background is straightforward .
On the one hand , the BBC remains a dominant source of news , with 58 per cent of consumers using BBC one last year .
On the other , that share is sliding over time .
The year before last , it was 62 per cent .
This is mirrored by wider trends , including this arresting one : children in their early teens are more likely to recognise the YouTube and Netflix brands than the BBC .
“ I do worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from reform , the licence fee will come to be seen by increasing numbers of voters as an unjust tax – a modern version of Charles I ’ s Ship Money , ” Julian Knight wrote on this site recently .
But the question of the fee ’ s future is secondary .
The primary one is : do we need public service broadcasting at all and , if we do , should the BBC be part of it ?
In principle , our answer is an unhesitating Yes .
We live amidst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BBC offers a common forum for them .
It offers a means of drawing people of bewilderingly different views and backgrounds together .
The Queen ’ s Christmas Broadcast , the Armistice Anniversary , Gavin & Stacey , The Hollow Crown , Andrew Neil , Strictly Come Dancing , the F.A.Cup Final .
Not all of these come on the BBC alone , but they show the best of the corporation .
However , a growing problem is whether the BBC at its best now outweighs in practice the BBC at its worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is a twin problem .
The first is bias .
The second is duplication .
Both challenge its Charter ’ s commitment to “ impartial , high-quality and distinctive output ” .
On news bias , the problem is not party political .
It is , rather , political in a wider sense : the EU referendum ’ s aftermath has shown BBC news up as being too London-centric , too southern , too middle class , too Remainy , too University-educated – and , broadly speaking , too Woke .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this site identified one howler last week : the claim that Sinn Fein is not a populist party .
On wider bias , this worldview seeps , more pervasively , into comedy and drama .
That said , the phenomenon reaches much wider than the corporation .
Geoff Norcott is making a living out of being one of the very few identifiable right-of-centre comedians .
Interestingly , the BBC itself acknowledges the problem .
Read Tony Hall ’ s New Year speech to its staff , and you will unearth what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s own preoccupations – getting out of London ; gaining a global reach .
The diversity section of his talk has all the usual cliches : gender representation , BAME , people with disabilities .
What about white working class non-graduates ?
But hang on a moment .
Is Hall really saying and doing anything that the Government itself is not doing , with its 50 per cent target for women Ministers in lower ranks ?
This website , come to think of it , is by and large white , male , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reminder that a mass of the BBC ’ s critics scarcely operate with Olympian detachment .
They are commercial rivals – their own dog in the fight .
On duplication , that remarkly Dominic Cummings-style source has a point .
Should the BBC really be providing services , at the point of a licence fee gun , that the commercial sector can provide – such as 61 radio stations ?
At any rate , roll together declining audiences , the licence fee , duplication and what we read as bewilderment about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporation has a big problem .
Knight , who we quoted earlier , is now Chairman of the DCMS Select Committee , and that article critical of the BBC was part of his campaigning platform for the post .
Oliver Dowden is a mobile techocrat who meets Johnson ’ s ministerial selection criteria : loyal , competent , discreet .
John Whittingdale , who has come back to support the new Culture Secretary , has held the post himself and knows the subject backwards .
Ministers will be tempted to decriminalise the licence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring the BBC to its senses .
We read the corporation ’ s governance and management as being fearful , confused and struggling to keep up with the pace of technological and cultural change .
Watching them flounder and writhe is a bit like watching the scene in Spartacus where two fat patricians are forced to fight each other , gladiator-style .
So a strategy of less money alone is unlikely to work .
The BBC ’ s governing powers would simply cut the wrong stuff .
What might work better is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always hankered after a review of the Charter and funding via the tax system .
For after all , a Royal Charter of any kind and commerical funding of any sort don ’ t sit easily together , since the link between what is paid for and what ’ s provided wouldn ’ t work .
And a poll tax-type system is a lot less fair than one based on ability to pay .
That ’ s the principle we use to fund , say , schools and hospitals .
Not everyone uses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that tax funding would leave the BBC at the mercy of , say , a Corbyn-style government has force .
Through the mists that lead into the future , one can perhaps dimly perceive a big Charter overhaul , a lower but non-decriminalised licence fee , and much of what Number Ten wants .
Namely : fewer BBC TV stations , a reduced number of radio services , a scaled-back website , more spent on the World Service , a bigger presence for the Corporation outside London .
In other words , less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will leave a solid core of public service broadcasting with the BBC at its heart .
It could be that a revolt by Conservative backbenchers would stop Johnson , Cummings , or anyone else in Downing Street from “ whacking ” the BBC .
But if the Corporation doesn ’ t embrace radical change , a bigger beast than government will force it : techological development and consumer habits .

“We are having a consultation and we will whack it,” a scarcely-disguised Downing Street source has said of the licence fee. One would think from the reaction that Boris Johnson was about to spring change on a static BBC.
But the choice facing the corporation isn’t between change or no change, but between one kind of change or another. There is an eight week consultation into decriminalising the fee. The negotiations on its level which the source referred to begin later this year. The licence fee may not continue at all after 2027, when the current Charter period ends.
The background is straightforward. On the one hand, the BBC remains a dominant source of news, with 58 per cent of consumers using BBC one last year. On the other, that share is sliding over time. The year before last, it was 62 per cent.
This is mirrored by wider trends, including this arresting one: children in their early teens are more likely to recognise the YouTube and Netflix brands than the BBC.
“I do worry that if we once again back away from reform, the licence fee will come to be seen by increasing numbers of voters as an unjust tax – a modern version of Charles I’s Ship Money,” Julian Knight wrote on this site recently.
But the question of the fee’s future is secondary. The primary one is: do we need public service broadcasting at all and, if we do, should the BBC be part of it?
In principle, our answer is an unhesitating Yes. We live amidst a babel of voices, and the BBC offers a common forum for them. It offers a means of drawing people of bewilderingly different views and backgrounds together.
The Queen’s Christmas Broadcast, the Armistice Anniversary, Gavin & Stacey, The Hollow Crown, Andrew Neil, Strictly Come Dancing, the F.A.Cup Final.
Not all of these come on the BBC alone, but they show the best of the corporation. However, a growing problem is whether the BBC at its best now outweighs in practice the BBC at its worst – or at its most common.
There is a twin problem. The first is bias. The second is duplication. Both challenge its Charter’s commitment to “impartial, high-quality and distinctive output”.
On news bias, the problem is not party political. It is, rather, political in a wider sense: the EU referendum’s aftermath has shown BBC news up as being too London-centric, too southern, too middle class, too Remainy, too University-educated – and, broadly speaking, too Woke.
To swoop from the general on the particular, this site identified one howler last week: the claim that Sinn Fein is not a populist party.
On wider bias, this worldview seeps, more pervasively, into comedy and drama. That said, the phenomenon reaches much wider than the corporation. Geoff Norcott is making a living out of being one of the very few identifiable right-of-centre comedians.
Interestingly, the BBC itself acknowledges the problem. Read Tony Hall’s New Year speech to its staff, and you will unearth what is almost a parody of the Government’s own preoccupations – getting out of London; gaining a global reach.
The diversity section of his talk has all the usual cliches: gender representation, BAME, people with disabilities. What about white working class non-graduates?
But hang on a moment. Is Hall really saying and doing anything that the Government itself is not doing, with its 50 per cent target for women Ministers in lower ranks? This website, come to think of it, is by and large white, male, middle-class and London-based.
Which may be a reminder that a mass of the BBC’s critics scarcely operate with Olympian detachment. They are commercial rivals – their own dog in the fight.
On duplication, that remarkly Dominic Cummings-style source has a point. Should the BBC really be providing services, at the point of a licence fee gun, that the commercial sector can provide – such as 61 radio stations?
At any rate, roll together declining audiences, the licence fee, duplication and what we read as bewilderment about what “impartiality” means in 2020…and the corporation has a big problem.
Knight, who we quoted earlier, is now Chairman of the DCMS Select Committee, and that article critical of the BBC was part of his campaigning platform for the post. Oliver Dowden is a mobile techocrat who meets Johnson’s ministerial selection criteria: loyal, competent, discreet.
John Whittingdale, who has come back to support the new Culture Secretary, has held the post himself and knows the subject backwards.
Ministers will be tempted to decriminalise the licence fee and watch a shortage of money bring the BBC to its senses. We read the corporation’s governance and management as being fearful, confused and struggling to keep up with the pace of technological and cultural change.
Watching them flounder and writhe is a bit like watching the scene in Spartacus where two fat patricians are forced to fight each other, gladiator-style.
So a strategy of less money alone is unlikely to work. The BBC’s governing powers would simply cut the wrong stuff. What might work better is to stick to first principles. We have always hankered after a review of the Charter and funding via the tax system.
For after all, a Royal Charter of any kind and commerical funding of any sort don’t sit easily together, since the link between what is paid for and what’s provided wouldn’t work.
And a poll tax-type system is a lot less fair than one based on ability to pay. That’s the principle we use to fund, say, schools and hospitals. Not everyone uses these, either. But the argument that tax funding would leave the BBC at the mercy of, say, a Corbyn-style government has force.
Through the mists that lead into the future, one can perhaps dimly perceive a big Charter overhaul, a lower but non-decriminalised licence fee, and much of what Number Ten wants.
Namely: fewer BBC TV stations, a reduced number of radio services, a scaled-back website, more spent on the World Service, a bigger presence for the Corporation outside London. In other words, less money plus the right reform – change that will leave a solid core of public service broadcasting with the BBC at its heart.
It could be that a revolt by Conservative backbenchers would stop Johnson, Cummings, or anyone else in Downing Street from “whacking” the BBC. But if the Corporation doesn’t embrace radical change, a bigger beast than government will force it: techological development and consumer habits.


conservativehome--2020-02-17--Richard Holden: Five ideas for the new Chancellor’s Budget

The famous Omnishambles Budget was a result of one key flaw – not being open enough to float ideas with Parliamentary colleagues and test the water .
The pasty tax .
The caravan tax .
The hairdresser tax – I could go on .
The public will forgive you doing your best in an impossible situation , but they won ’ t forgive you cocking it up when it comes to public finances .
The replacement of the Sajid Javid with Rishi Sunak was undoubtedly the stand-out moment of last week ’ s reshuffle .
I was in the meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chief Secretary to the Treasury , went through the Education budget in the last spending round , and it ’ s clear to me that Rishi will be a formidable intellect in Number 11 who , despite his age and relatively few years in Parliament , will have no trouble getting to grips with the top job at the Treasury .
There are doubtless major issues at stake about fiscal rules , the direction of the country and how we ‘ level up ’ spending across the country to help ensure that opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every corner of the UK .
But Chancellors also have many smaller levers at their disposal – which signal their personality , their understanding of the party in Parliament , and their intent .
It ’ s vital that in these small measures the Chancellor ‘ gets it right ’ next month .
So I ’ ve got five small suggestions for the forthcoming Budget .
None would cost the earth , but would knock some of those “ barnacles off the boat ” , and provide a small flurry of positive headlines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established , providing beer less expensively than public houses and in direct competition with clubs affiliated to the Labour Party .
The ability to get an inexpensive pint in convivial surroundings is seen internationally as one of the hallmarks of Britain .
With the craft beer renaissance in recent years , a couple of small but significant moves in this area would be well received , especially by the huge memberships of CAMRA in the country and by the APPG on Beer in Parliament .
Britain faces some of the highest beer taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freeze would be welcome , but at a cost of about £85 million , a penny off a pint of beer and cider would go down a treat .
Furthermore , small beer producers currently pay half the duty rate if they produce under 60,000 hectolitres a year ( about a million pints ) , but if they produce anything over that they pay full duty on the whole amount .
A staggered scheme that removed this cliff edge wouldn ’ t be impossible , and would be welcomed by craft breweries across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme costs the Treasury around £60 million a year .
It wouldn ’ t take much to provide a non-cliff edge that would also allow the expansion of small breweries and enhanced competition in the broader market .
For about £100 million , the new Chancellor would be the toast of the town .
Nothing grinds people ’ s gears more than charity chief executives preaching while pocketing massive pay cheques themselves .
All Government appointments that earn more than the Prime Minister must be approved by Number 10 .
Extending this principle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of highlighting those with excessive executive pay , especially in the international aid sector .
This small change would cost nothing , but throw in some much-needed transparency , and ensure that people aren ’ t taking the mickey out of donors .
For a change in the procurement rules , the Chancellor could be the champion of transparency .
Ok , this is particularly personal for me .
North West Durham is one of the biggest motorhome producers in the UK and we also have some beautiful countryside where people drive them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two .
In September last year , Vehicle Excise Duty and road tax on new motorhomes went up a lot ( as EU Regulation 2018/1832 was gold plated , treating them like cars in the British tax system ) meaning that now , during the first five years of buying a new motorhome , you pay over £5,000 in tax rather than about £1,200 .
New motorhome ( which start from around £42,000 ) sales are down 10 per cent as a result .
This is damaging domestic tourism , and the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this counterproductive measure would save jobs and , in the end , would probably be net positive for the Exchequer , although the initial cost would be around £25 million .
So for an initial hit , the Chancellor could avoid being the man who doubled down on the second ‘ caravan tax ’ – show he ’ s in touch with the aspirations of “ Blue Wall ” voters , and save jobs in both UK manufacturing and domestic tourism .
This was developed by left-wing social workers in Hackney – not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d expect from me .
However , this programme saves lives , helps end abuse , and it also saves taxpayers lots of cash .
It came about when social workers noticed women ( often with a combination of the ‘ toxic trio ’ of domestic abuse , substance abuse and mental health problems ) having child after child that was then being taken into care .
What Pause provides is an intervention after a woman has had her second child taken into care – helping her take control of her own fertility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a job , and building her back up from what I can only imagine is the most soul-destroying of situations .
Crucially , the programme is voluntary and part of it is offering women , usually for the first time , long-term contraception so they can break the cycle of pregnancy and then having a child removed .
For people in this group who are not on Pause , conception rates are high , roughly a third ( with a large number of the conceptions being terminated ) .
When on Pause , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thus allowing women , often in the most difficult of circumstances , the ability to start to regain control of their lives , get a job and start to become independent .
To roll this programme out nationally would cost £20 million .
Initial studies of the programme have shown that payback in terms of saved court time , costs of putting children in care , etc is about 18 months – a rate of return usually only “ delivered ” by Ponzi schemes .
And the Government would know it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rolled out nationally .
For the Chancellor to show he ’ ll take good ideas from anywhere and empower the most vulnerable women , often for the first time in their lives , this is a tiny cost with a massive payback in every way .
This one ’ s simple and can get easy headlines .
Local authorities are slashing public toilets across the country .
One of the biggest reasons is that local councils pay business rates on them .
That ’ s right .
They ’ re not currently exempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interest as the Co-Chair of the Local Democracy APPG ( the voice for town and parish councils ) .
For our high streets , tourism areas and our ageing population , the ability to have a loo nearby is important and we don ’ t want to see more lost .
Relieving councils of business rates on loos would require primary legislation .
The move was proposed before but got lost in the wash up last year .
At a cost of £8 million a year , which goes directly to local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small cost/big win for the Chancellor .
So for under £150 million , the Chancellor could please : Every beer & cider drinker ; social worker ; charity donor ; town and parish councillor ; motorhome manufacturer , retailer and owner ; caravan site owner , and public toilet user in Britain .
In my humble opinion , if there is a bit of slack to play with , the new Chancellor could do worse pick up some of these ideas .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
Crinnions, Lanchester
The famous Omnishambles Budget was a result of one key flaw – not being open enough to float ideas with Parliamentary colleagues and test the water. The pasty tax. The caravan tax. The hairdresser tax – I could go on. The public will forgive you doing your best in an impossible situation, but they won’t forgive you cocking it up when it comes to public finances.
The replacement of the Sajid Javid with Rishi Sunak was undoubtedly the stand-out moment of last week’s reshuffle. I was in the meeting when Gavin Williamson and Rishi, then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, went through the Education budget in the last spending round, and it’s clear to me that Rishi will be a formidable intellect in Number 11 who, despite his age and relatively few years in Parliament, will have no trouble getting to grips with the top job at the Treasury.
There are doubtless major issues at stake about fiscal rules, the direction of the country and how we ‘level up’ spending across the country to help ensure that opportunity (and thereby productivity improvements) reach every corner of the UK.
But Chancellors also have many smaller levers at their disposal – which signal their personality, their understanding of the party in Parliament, and their intent. It’s vital that in these small measures the Chancellor ‘gets it right’ next month.
So I’ve got five small suggestions for the forthcoming Budget. None would cost the earth, but would knock some of those “barnacles off the boat”, and provide a small flurry of positive headlines:
Beer & Cider.
In 1894, Conservative Clubs were established, providing beer less expensively than public houses and in direct competition with clubs affiliated to the Labour Party.
The ability to get an inexpensive pint in convivial surroundings is seen internationally as one of the hallmarks of Britain. With the craft beer renaissance in recent years, a couple of small but significant moves in this area would be well received, especially by the huge memberships of CAMRA in the country and by the APPG on Beer in Parliament.
Britain faces some of the highest beer taxes in the world outside Scandinavia. A freeze would be welcome, but at a cost of about £85 million, a penny off a pint of beer and cider would go down a treat.
Furthermore, small beer producers currently pay half the duty rate if they produce under 60,000 hectolitres a year (about a million pints), but if they produce anything over that they pay full duty on the whole amount.
A staggered scheme that removed this cliff edge wouldn’t be impossible, and would be welcomed by craft breweries across the land. The current half-price duty scheme costs the Treasury around £60 million a year. It wouldn’t take much to provide a non-cliff edge that would also allow the expansion of small breweries and enhanced competition in the broader market.
For about £100 million, the new Chancellor would be the toast of the town.
Charities
Nothing grinds people’s gears more than charity chief executives preaching while pocketing massive pay cheques themselves.
All Government appointments that earn more than the Prime Minister must be approved by Number 10. Extending this principle to charities would be a helpful way of highlighting those with excessive executive pay, especially in the international aid sector. This small change would cost nothing, but throw in some much-needed transparency, and ensure that people aren’t taking the mickey out of donors.
For a change in the procurement rules, the Chancellor could be the champion of transparency.
Motorhomes
Ok, this is particularly personal for me. North West Durham is one of the biggest motorhome producers in the UK and we also have some beautiful countryside where people drive them to park up for a week or two.
In September last year, Vehicle Excise Duty and road tax on new motorhomes went up a lot (as EU Regulation 2018/1832 was gold plated, treating them like cars in the British tax system) meaning that now, during the first five years of buying a new motorhome, you pay over £5,000 in tax rather than about £1,200. New motorhome (which start from around £42,000) sales are down 10 per cent as a result.
This is damaging domestic tourism, and the environment by pushing people on planes. Reversing this counterproductive measure would save jobs and, in the end, would probably be net positive for the Exchequer, although the initial cost would be around £25 million.
So for an initial hit, the Chancellor could avoid being the man who doubled down on the second ‘caravan tax’ – show he’s in touch with the aspirations of “Blue Wall” voters, and save jobs in both UK manufacturing and domestic tourism.
Pause programme
This was developed by left-wing social workers in Hackney – not the opening of a sentence you’d expect from me. However, this programme saves lives, helps end abuse, and it also saves taxpayers lots of cash.
It came about when social workers noticed women (often with a combination of the ‘toxic trio’ of domestic abuse, substance abuse and mental health problems) having child after child that was then being taken into care.
What Pause provides is an intervention after a woman has had her second child taken into care – helping her take control of her own fertility and helping her seek other services and a job, and building her back up from what I can only imagine is the most soul-destroying of situations.
Crucially, the programme is voluntary and part of it is offering women, usually for the first time, long-term contraception so they can break the cycle of pregnancy and then having a child removed.
For people in this group who are not on Pause, conception rates are high, roughly a third (with a large number of the conceptions being terminated). When on Pause, it drops by 90 per cent plus. Thus allowing women, often in the most difficult of circumstances, the ability to start to regain control of their lives, get a job and start to become independent.
To roll this programme out nationally would cost £20 million. Initial studies of the programme have shown that payback in terms of saved court time, costs of putting children in care, etc is about 18 months – a rate of return usually only “delivered” by Ponzi schemes. And the Government would know it’s working within a year were it rolled out nationally.
For the Chancellor to show he’ll take good ideas from anywhere and empower the most vulnerable women, often for the first time in their lives, this is a tiny cost with a massive payback in every way.
Toilet Tax
This one’s simple and can get easy headlines. Local authorities are slashing public toilets across the country. One of the biggest reasons is that local councils pay business rates on them. That’s right. They’re not currently exempt. It is madness.
I declare an interest as the Co-Chair of the Local Democracy APPG (the voice for town and parish councils). For our high streets, tourism areas and our ageing population, the ability to have a loo nearby is important and we don’t want to see more lost.
Relieving councils of business rates on loos would require primary legislation. The move was proposed before but got lost in the wash up last year. At a cost of £8 million a year, which goes directly to local government in most cases, this is a small cost/big win for the Chancellor.
So for under £150 million, the Chancellor could please:
Every beer & cider drinker; social worker; charity donor; town and parish councillor; motorhome manufacturer, retailer and owner; caravan site owner, and public toilet user in Britain. In my humble opinion, if there is a bit of slack to play with, the new Chancellor could do worse pick up some of these ideas.


conservativehome--2020-02-17--Robert Ward and Alan Burns: Councils that declare a “climate emergency” engage in scaremongering, no

Robert Ward and Alan Burns: Councils that declare a “climate emergency” engage in scaremongering, not practical action

Cllr Robert Ward represents Selsdon and Addington Village Ward on Croydon Council .
Alan Burns has been involved in climate change issues since 2004 .
He is active in his local Conservative Association in Chipping Barnet .
Climate change is the most important issue facing the world .
It requires action , but it must be the right action .
We need clear thinking , leadership , and to carry the public with us .
The last thing we need is muddled logic or the destructive ideas of the more extreme lobby groups .
Clarity is hindered by ‘ climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the earth warming ?
Do we understand why ?
What might be the consequences of different policy options ?
What should the UK do ?
Too many discussions fail to separate these issues , prompting passionate but futile argument , and damaging the critical element of carrying the public with us .
Let ’ s not do that .
Let ’ s also rely on the science , where the consensus is the earth is warming , mainly due to the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide generated by human activity .
Other explanations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antithesis of science to deny challenge .
Equally , it ’ s foolish to deny the consensus .
We should allow the possibility that the consensus might be wrong , but act on the basis it is not , refining our actions as knowledge improves .
Sticking with the science , the UK is responsible for around one per cent of global carbon emissions .
By contrast , China generates 28 per cent , the U.S. 15 per cent .
What they do matters much more than what the UK does .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last ten years is lift millions out of poverty , but in doing so , India ’ s CO2 emissions have grown by 69 per cent and China ’ s by 28 per cent .
They have chosen economic growth to benefit their citizens over constraining emissions .
This is unlikely to change soon .
Russia generates its foreign currency from oil and gas .
It might even benefit from a degree or two of temperature rise , so has little incentive to reduce emissions .
Add these three countries to limited federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most world emissions are by countries where radical action is unlikely .
We must deal with the world as it is , not how we would like it to be .
Given that context , the UK could decide to act only in concert with the big players , which as we have seen might be little ; or take extreme unilateral action whose impact would be tiny and costs high , or an option in between .
Under the Conservatives , the UK has chosen a leadership role : lobbying for global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and making good progress against them .
UK CO2 emissions have fallen by 30 per cent over the last ten years .
In contrast , Germany have reduced theirs by only ten per cent .
Their emissions are now not far off double the UK .
Should we do more ?
Here the Climate Assembly UK commissioned by six House of Commons Select Committees might help .
This group , selected to have a range of opinions on climate change , has been tasked with assessing how the UK will reach its 2050 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough choices .
It will be a useful indicator of the appetite of the British public for taking a more radical approach , provided it is well briefed and well facilitated .
The danger is that it is hi-jacked to give a democratic veneer to those extreme lobby groups .
We shall see .
And what of local authorities ?
In Croydon the Labour-led Council have declared a climate emergency .
They occasionally tack on “ and ecological ” for good measure .
This has been followed up with a Citizens ’ Assembly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Crisis Commission , for which the far-left New Economics Foundation has been drafted in .
In contrast to the Climate Assembly UK , representatives on the Croydon Citizens ’ Assembly are being selected to be representative “ across wards , and across groups that share protected characteristics ” ; no bad thing in itself , but diversity of characteristic , rather than of opinion .
The Terms of Reference read as an ideas solicitation exercise rather than to confront difficult compromises , so avoiding the tough questions .
Meanwhile the Council builds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove mature trees .
This has the feel of a more expensive version of a previous Croydon quango : the chaotic , costly , and useless , Fairness Commission .
The recipe is simple : a noble title with which it is hard to argue , a controlled membership with far-left guidance , conclusions to be invoked or ignored as and when convenient .
This is Labour ’ s usual playbook – find a problem , develop an apocalyptic narrative , and use it as air cover for ineffective , far-left solutions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the weather to climate change , with dire predictions of imminent Armageddon .
The young especially are being convinced that the end is nigh .
Combatting that narrative is a challenge .
Climate change is complicated and scare stories are easy , but if we are to do what needs to be done for the UK to play an effective part , then combat the narrative we must .

Cllr Robert Ward represents Selsdon and Addington Village Ward on Croydon Council. Alan Burns has been involved in climate change issues since 2004. He is active in his local Conservative Association in Chipping Barnet.
Climate change is the most important issue facing the world. It requires action, but it must be the right action. We need clear thinking, leadership, and to carry the public with us. The last thing we need is muddled logic or the destructive ideas of the more extreme lobby groups.
Clarity is hindered by ‘climate change’ conflating several questions: Is the earth warming? Do we understand why? What might be the consequences of different policy options? What should the UK do? Too many discussions fail to separate these issues, prompting passionate but futile argument, and damaging the critical element of carrying the public with us. Let’s not do that.
Let’s also rely on the science, where the consensus is the earth is warming, mainly due to the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide generated by human activity. Other explanations are not impossible, it is the antithesis of science to deny challenge. Equally, it’s foolish to deny the consensus. We should allow the possibility that the consensus might be wrong, but act on the basis it is not, refining our actions as knowledge improves.
Sticking with the science, the UK is responsible for around one per cent of global carbon emissions. By contrast, China generates 28 per cent, the U.S. 15 per cent. What they do matters much more than what the UK does.
What India and China have done in the last ten years is lift millions out of poverty, but in doing so, India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 69 per cent and China’s by 28 per cent. They have chosen economic growth to benefit their citizens over constraining emissions. This is unlikely to change soon.
Russia generates its foreign currency from oil and gas. It might even benefit from a degree or two of temperature rise, so has little incentive to reduce emissions. Add these three countries to limited federal action in Trump’s America and most world emissions are by countries where radical action is unlikely. We must deal with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be.
Given that context, the UK could decide to act only in concert with the big players, which as we have seen might be little; or take extreme unilateral action whose impact would be tiny and costs high, or an option in between. Under the Conservatives, the UK has chosen a leadership role: lobbying for global action whilst setting realistic targets for ourselves and making good progress against them. UK CO2 emissions have fallen by 30 per cent over the last ten years. In contrast, Germany have reduced theirs by only ten per cent. Their emissions are now not far off double the UK.
Should we do more? Here the Climate Assembly UK commissioned by six House of Commons Select Committees might help. This group, selected to have a range of opinions on climate change, has been tasked with assessing how the UK will reach its 2050 net zero emissions target. That demands tough choices. It will be a useful indicator of the appetite of the British public for taking a more radical approach, provided it is well briefed and well facilitated. The danger is that it is hi-jacked to give a democratic veneer to those extreme lobby groups. We shall see.
And what of local authorities? In Croydon the Labour-led Council have declared a climate emergency. They occasionally tack on “and ecological” for good measure. This has been followed up with a Citizens’ Assembly. There are also plans for a Climate Crisis Commission, for which the far-left New Economics Foundation has been drafted in.
In contrast to the Climate Assembly UK, representatives on the Croydon Citizens’ Assembly are being selected to be representative “across wards, and across groups that share protected characteristics”; no bad thing in itself, but diversity of characteristic, rather than of opinion. The Terms of Reference read as an ideas solicitation exercise rather than to confront difficult compromises, so avoiding the tough questions. Meanwhile the Council builds on green spaces and permits developments that remove mature trees.
This has the feel of a more expensive version of a previous Croydon quango: the chaotic, costly, and useless, Fairness Commission. The recipe is simple: a noble title with which it is hard to argue, a controlled membership with far-left guidance, conclusions to be invoked or ignored as and when convenient.
This is Labour’s usual playbook – find a problem, develop an apocalyptic narrative, and use it as air cover for ineffective, far-left solutions. The current media narrative links every wrinkle in the weather to climate change, with dire predictions of imminent Armageddon. The young especially are being convinced that the end is nigh.
Combatting that narrative is a challenge. Climate change is complicated and scare stories are easy, but if we are to do what needs to be done for the UK to play an effective part, then combat the narrative we must.


conservativehome--2020-02-17--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct A

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 value of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 members .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 new LEP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 the STRB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 small organisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer a different perspective on her work.
” “ We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors ( NEDs ) with substantial experience of leading complex , delivery focused organisations , to support the Home Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office .
They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department ’ s work through a fresh , independent , and external @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.
” “ The Office for Nuclear Regulation ( ONR ) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK .
Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect , trust and confidence .
ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) who have principal responsibility for governance , finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strategy ( BEIS ) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director ( NED ) to the ONR Board.
” “ This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services , leading a sizeable and complex organisation .
There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role .
Under Andrew Bailey , the FCA has formulated a transformation programme , to equip the organisation for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers ; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified ; [ and ] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal , and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
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: 20 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
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Non-Executive Directors
“We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) with substantial experience of leading complex, delivery focused organisations, to support the Home Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office. They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department’s work through a fresh, independent, and external perspective. You will work closely with ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.”
Time: “3 years”.
Remuneration: £15,000.
Closes: 08 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Nuclear Regulation – Security Non-Executive Director
“The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK. Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect, trust and confidence. ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) who have principal responsibility for governance, finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director (NED) to the ONR Board.”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 plus expenses.
Closes: 22 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Conduct Authority – Chief Executive
“This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services, leading a sizeable and complex organisation. There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role. Under Andrew Bailey, the FCA has formulated a transformation programme, to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development: a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified; [and] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal, and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Competitive.
Closes: 27 March