conservativehome--2020-12-04--Iain Dale: Let’s hear it for the private sector and hear less about a bigger state

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
“ Let ’ s hear it for the private sector ” .
Seven words you hear very rarely nowadays .
The current narrative is that the state can and should provide us with everything – even to the extent of providing breakfast and lunch for Scottish schoolchildren .
It ’ s not just the state taking over the role of parenting .
It is increasingly involving itself in aspects of our lives which only a few years ago we would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the measures taken to halt the spread of Coronavirus , but in order for the rest of the population to buy into them , they have to seem reasonable .
Dare I say the Welsh government ’ s decision to ban alcohol from being served in pubs and restaurants at all times of the day is a measure that is completely unreasonable ?
Quite how having a glass of wine with your lunch in a restaurant makes you more likely to spread Coronavirous or contract it yourself only Mark Drakeford knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition of Calvinism , but even so… Without the private sector , many of our most recent medical advances would have been made .
John McDonnell wanted to have a state-run pharmaceutical industry .
We will never know how it would have been able to do what private sector drug companies are doing in terms of inventing Covid vaccines .
It ’ s certainly true that the private sector is often the worst advert for itself , given some of its more vocal adherents are not exactly an example to the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s human nature for you .
The greed exhibited by too many of our highly paid executives does little to restore people ’ s faith .
Yet this week there has been a move by Tesco which rather restores one ’ s faith in big conglomerates .
It is to return more than half a billion pounds they received in business rates relief to the Treasury .
I just hope that this is redistributed to very hard-pressed local councils .
Morrisons quickly followed suit , and I suspect the rest of the big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grudgingly do so too .
Saisnbury ’ s say they won ’ t ( at the time of writing ) , but it ’ s difficult to justify huge payouts in dividends if a similar amount is being received in business support from the Government in one form or another .
Talking of people who give the private sector a bad name , let ’ s have a word about Sir Philip Green .
I was the Jeremy Vine TV show on Wednesday talking about the demise of his Arcadia group and Debenhams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hutson , who seriously suggested that it was up to the Government to bail them out , and it was all the Government ’ s fault anyway because of Covid .
Seriously .
She clearly hasn ’ t been reading the business pages of the newspapers over the last three years .
Had she done so , she ’ d have been aware that the demise of these businesses had been predicted for a long time .
While Covid has no doubt hastened their fall , there ’ s little doubt they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online shopping in the way that their competitors have , and have suffered the consequences .
If I ’ m honest , I have a teency bit of sympathy for them in , that ten years ago , would I have imagined that I too would be buying clothes , suits and shoes on the internet ?
No .
But I do .
To think the Government should become the employer of last resort is the economics of the mad house .
Yes , I feel incredibly sorry for anyone who loses their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the rescue of Top Shop or Debenhams , then why didn ’ t it for BHS or Woolworths ?
Or countless other businesses .
Ah , they say , but the banks were bailed out , so what ’ s different about shops ?
Well , everything .
It doesn ’ t take a genius to work out the consequences for the economy if the banks had all been allowed to collapse like dominos .
That is not true of the retail sector .
Business is all about strategy and risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong risk , and you become another corporate casualty .
That ’ s what Sir Philip Green has done , and it is sadly his staff and customers who are suffering the consequences .
And , all the while , he sits on his £100 million Monaco-based yacht and gets through the remaining £900 million of his personal fortune .
While there is no legal way he can be forced to compensate any of his employees , surely anyone with even a small heart would make some sort of effort to alleviate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose their employment ?
I ’ m not holding my breath , though .
He ’ s not that sort of man , as was clear from the evidence he gave to a select committee not that long ago .
A more repulsive human being I have rarely seen .
Back in 1997 , I did something mad and opened a specialist political bookshop in Westminster called Politico ’ s .
It soon established itself as a meeting place and event venue , too .
Seven years later I closed it , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combination of the advent of Amazon , a huge rent increase by our landlords , the Crown Prosecution Service and the congestion charge .
But I sold the online business a couple of years later .
This week , I have resurrected the name and the online shop at http : //www.politicos.co.uk .
The intention is for it to become a one stop shop for all sorts of political items and ephemera , not just books .
I hope that ConHome readers will be regular customers .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
“Let’s hear it for the private sector”. Seven words you hear very rarely nowadays. The current narrative is that the state can and should provide us with everything – even to the extent of providing breakfast and lunch for Scottish schoolchildren.
It’s not just the state taking over the role of parenting. It is increasingly involving itself in aspects of our lives which only a few years ago we would have been horrified by.
I totally back many of the measures taken to halt the spread of Coronavirus, but in order for the rest of the population to buy into them, they have to seem reasonable.
Dare I say the Welsh government’s decision to ban alcohol from being served in pubs and restaurants at all times of the day is a measure that is completely unreasonable? Quite how having a glass of wine with your lunch in a restaurant makes you more likely to spread Coronavirous or contract it yourself only Mark Drakeford knows. I know Wales has a proud tradition of Calvinism, but even so…
Without the private sector, many of our most recent medical advances would have been made. John McDonnell wanted to have a state-run pharmaceutical industry. We will never know how it would have been able to do what private sector drug companies are doing in terms of inventing Covid vaccines.
It’s certainly true that the private sector is often the worst advert for itself, given some of its more vocal adherents are not exactly an example to the rest of society, but I guess that’s human nature for you. The greed exhibited by too many of our highly paid executives does little to restore people’s faith.
Yet this week there has been a move by Tesco which rather restores one’s faith in big conglomerates. It is to return more than half a billion pounds they received in business rates relief to the Treasury.
I just hope that this is redistributed to very hard-pressed local councils. Morrisons quickly followed suit, and I suspect the rest of the big supermarkets will, in the end, grudgingly do so too.
Saisnbury’s say they won’t (at the time of writing), but it’s difficult to justify huge payouts in dividends if a similar amount is being received in business support from the Government in one form or another.
– – – – – – – – – –
Talking of people who give the private sector a bad name, let’s have a word about Sir Philip Green. I was the Jeremy Vine TV show on Wednesday talking about the demise of his Arcadia group and Debenhams, along with another guest, Becca Hutson, who seriously suggested that it was up to the Government to bail them out, and it was all the Government’s fault anyway because of Covid.
Seriously. She clearly hasn’t been reading the business pages of the newspapers over the last three years. Had she done so, she’d have been aware that the demise of these businesses had been predicted for a long time. While Covid has no doubt hastened their fall, there’s little doubt they were doomed anyway. Neither business had embraced online shopping in the way that their competitors have, and have suffered the consequences.
If I’m honest, I have a teency bit of sympathy for them in, that ten years ago, would I have imagined that I too would be buying clothes, suits and shoes on the internet? No. But I do.
To think the Government should become the employer of last resort is the economics of the mad house. Yes, I feel incredibly sorry for anyone who loses their job, but if the state comes to the rescue of Top Shop or Debenhams, then why didn’t it for BHS or Woolworths? Or countless other businesses.
Ah, they say, but the banks were bailed out, so what’s different about shops? Well, everything. It doesn’t take a genius to work out the consequences for the economy if the banks had all been allowed to collapse like dominos. That is not true of the retail sector. Business is all about strategy and risk. Get the strategy wrong and take the wrong risk, and you become another corporate casualty.
That’s what Sir Philip Green has done, and it is sadly his staff and customers who are suffering the consequences. And, all the while, he sits on his £100 million Monaco-based yacht and gets through the remaining £900 million of his personal fortune.
While there is no legal way he can be forced to compensate any of his employees, surely anyone with even a small heart would make some sort of effort to alleviate the misery of those who are about to lose their employment? I’m not holding my breath, though. He’s not that sort of man, as was clear from the evidence he gave to a select committee not that long ago. A more repulsive human being I have rarely seen.
– – – – – – – – – –
Back in 1997, I did something mad and opened a specialist political bookshop in Westminster called Politico’s. It soon established itself as a meeting place and event venue, too.
Seven years later I closed it, and took it online, due to a combination of the advent of Amazon, a huge rent increase by our landlords, the Crown Prosecution Service and the congestion charge. But I sold the online business a couple of years later.
This week, I have resurrected the name and the online shop at http://www.politicos.co.uk. The intention is for it to become a one stop shop for all sorts of political items and ephemera, not just books. I hope that ConHome readers will be regular customers.


conservativehome--2020-12-04--John Macdonald: High streets. The time has come for more freedom to turn retail into housing

John Macdonald is the Head of Government Affairs at the Adam Smith Institute .
Robert Jenrick is right .
We should not give up on the high street .
But when formerly hegemonic brands like Arcadia , Debenhams , and Topshop are collapsing , it is clear that the vision of it as an expanding retail hub is no longer viable .
Even before the pandemic , high streets were in decline , with falling rents and in many cases , excessive retail capacity .
The trend towards online sales and automated delivery has whittled away its appeal .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population of the UK has had to shift shopping habits further online .
We should be under no illusions as to the scale of the crisis at the heart of our towns .
Another 18,000 high street units could be left vacant this year , nearly double last year ’ s figures .
These are not likely to improve in the very near term , particularly as Government support schemes start winding down around March .
It is in times like these that the impulse to do something , to make a grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the high street is part of Britain ’ s identity , and the Conservatives will not want to be seen letting it fall to ruin .
In the short term , relaxing rules around opening hours will be a welcome reprieve in inhospitable trading conditions .
But a barrage of big interventions would be misjudged .
As Jenrick says , the rules , for as long as they have existed , have become more complex , more burdensome , costly and complicated .
They have held back high streets , forcing them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only exist as yesterday ’ s retail and entertainment destined to compete against the rapid rise of today ’ s online sales and streaming services .
If the high street is to survive , it must be free to remould itself around our changing needs and wants .
Unfortunately , the National Planning Policy Framework , in its current form , stands in the way .
In effect , its guidance encourages local plans to restrict ‘ town centre uses ’ , to make them more competitive by preventing retail development outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the high street .
While retail still has its place , it can not alone provide a strong offering to residents and visitors .
Trying to maintain its presence on the high street through artificial advantage is clearly no longer viable ; the collapse of Debenham ’ s alone will leave behind an empty 14 million square feet on the high street .
Rather than allowing town centres to become mausoleums of empty retail units , Permitted Development Rights should be extended , facilitating the rapid repurposing of commercial into residential real estate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be allowed to continue to charge business rates to prevent significant revenue losses , although there is certainly a case for lowering them once relief ends next year .
Coupled with fast tracking this , the removal of the requirement to designate primary shopping areas must be removed to allow mixed-use development .
This would entail the end of Article 4 Directions , which in principle are for protecting the character of an area , but in practice have often been used ( particularly in London boroughs ) to strangle development .
High @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way they need to remain viable .
This could also have the added benefit of increasing safety and security in town centres .
Given that retail dominated spaces are inactive at night , they can become hotspots for crime .
With a greater residential presence comes more natural surveillance and a reduction in crime .
The future of town centres could be a return to being lived-in spaces .
To conservatives , I understand altering the rules underpinning the fabric of a beloved part of our culture is bound to raise a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be that way .
With the implementation of a design code , and the replacement of Article 4 Directions with simple , broad minimal requirements for external facade , noise and parking .
This is also not to say the high street must completely and utterly transform itself to survive .
For example , waiving the licence fee for a new pub that sets up on the site of a previous licence holding establishment could help preserve that vital staple .
Setting up a battle between the great British high street and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expedient for the Tories , but it would miss the point .
There is no need for a grand narrative of a struggle between the warm and familiar against the cold and new .
As sentimental as we might be about the high street , trying to cling on to it with intervention and regulation will only see it slip further away .
Liberalising laws , simplifying regulations , and removing outdated restrictions , will retain the essence of the high street while freeing it from the shackles of a bygone era .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more residential space , so be it .

John Macdonald is the Head of Government Affairs at the Adam Smith Institute.
Robert Jenrick is right. We should not give up on the high street. But when formerly hegemonic brands like Arcadia, Debenhams, and Topshop are collapsing, it is clear that the vision of it as an expanding retail hub is no longer viable. Even before the pandemic, high streets were in decline, with falling rents and in many cases, excessive retail capacity. The trend towards online sales and automated delivery has whittled away its appeal. This is likely to accelerate given the entire population of the UK has had to shift shopping habits further online.
We should be under no illusions as to the scale of the crisis at the heart of our towns. Another 18,000 high street units could be left vacant this year, nearly double last year’s figures. These are not likely to improve in the very near term, particularly as Government support schemes start winding down around March. It is in times like these that the impulse to do something, to make a grand intervention becomes strong. After all, the high street is part of Britain’s identity, and the Conservatives will not want to be seen letting it fall to ruin.
In the short term, relaxing rules around opening hours will be a welcome reprieve in inhospitable trading conditions. But a barrage of big interventions would be misjudged. As Jenrick says, the rules, for as long as they have existed, have become more complex, more burdensome, costly and complicated. They have held back high streets, forcing them to conform to the misguided idea that they can only exist as yesterday’s retail and entertainment destined to compete against the rapid rise of today’s online sales and streaming services. If the high street is to survive, it must be free to remould itself around our changing needs and wants.
Unfortunately, the National Planning Policy Framework, in its current form, stands in the way. In effect, its guidance encourages local plans to restrict ‘town centre uses’, to make them more competitive by preventing retail development outside the ‘primary shopping area’ of the high street. While retail still has its place, it cannot alone provide a strong offering to residents and visitors. Trying to maintain its presence on the high street through artificial advantage is clearly no longer viable; the collapse of Debenham’s alone will leave behind an empty 14 million square feet on the high street.
Rather than allowing town centres to become mausoleums of empty retail units, Permitted Development Rights should be extended, facilitating the rapid repurposing of commercial into residential real estate. Where this occurs, councils should be allowed to continue to charge business rates to prevent significant revenue losses, although there is certainly a case for lowering them once relief ends next year.
Coupled with fast tracking this, the removal of the requirement to designate primary shopping areas must be removed to allow mixed-use development. This would entail the end of Article 4 Directions, which in principle are for protecting the character of an area, but in practice have often been used (particularly in London boroughs) to strangle development. High streets will be free to develop in the way they need to remain viable. This could also have the added benefit of increasing safety and security in town centres. Given that retail dominated spaces are inactive at night, they can become hotspots for crime. With a greater residential presence comes more natural surveillance and a reduction in crime. The future of town centres could be a return to being lived-in spaces.
To conservatives, I understand altering the rules underpinning the fabric of a beloved part of our culture is bound to raise a few hairs. But it needn’t be that way. With the implementation of a design code, and the replacement of Article 4 Directions with simple, broad minimal requirements for external facade, noise and parking. This is also not to say the high street must completely and utterly transform itself to survive. For example, waiving the licence fee for a new pub that sets up on the site of a previous licence holding establishment could help preserve that vital staple.
Setting up a battle between the great British high street and large, multinational corporations could be politically expedient for the Tories, but it would miss the point. There is no need for a grand narrative of a struggle between the warm and familiar against the cold and new. As sentimental as we might be about the high street, trying to cling on to it with intervention and regulation will only see it slip further away. Liberalising laws, simplifying regulations, and removing outdated restrictions, will retain the essence of the high street while freeing it from the shackles of a bygone era. If this means a smaller retail presence and more residential space, so be it.


conservativehome--2020-12-04--More fence-sitting from Starmer as Labour MPs challenge deportation flight

This week , the Home Office ’ s plan to deport 50 convicted criminals to Jamaica for violent , sexual or drug offences was disrupted after a campaign by Labour MPs .
Two days before the flight was scheduled to take off , Clive Lewis wrote to Priti Patel to demand she “ cancel the planned deportation of up to 50 Black British residents ” adding that deportations “ epitomise the Government ’ s continued ‘ Hostile Environment ’ agenda ” , and that “ [ t ] ackling institutionalised racism starts one step at a time.
” Nearly 70 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter , including Diane Abbott , Jeremy Corbyn , Rebecca Long-Bailey , John McDonnell Lloyd Russell-Moyle , and celebrities such as Naomi Campbell and Thandie Newton wrote to airlines asking them not to carry out the Home Office ’ s orders .
After a series of legal challenges , 30 criminals were taken off the flight , including a rapist and a London murderer .
Where was Keir Starmer in all this ?
Many noticed that he was not one of the signatories on the letter , nor was his deputy Angela Rayner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s intervention ( which , ironically , challenged a policy set by the last Labour government ) .
But he has done nothing to indicate an opinion either way .
Perhaps he thinks , like the Covid tiers , he can abstain his way out of the matter .
The incident raises questions about Starmer ’ s leadership , not least because of the degree of influence opposition backbenchers now have over Home Office policy .
It is unusual for them to write these sorts of letters without the backing of shadow cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not sign .
So who is in charge ?
Labour ’ s National Executive Committee even appeared to tell Starmer and Rayner off for not signing the letter , writing : “ we are alarmed that there has been no comment from you both in response to the deportation flight scheduled for 2nd December… we request that you make a decisive and compassionate intervention.
” In his Labour Party Conference speech , Starmer famously promised “ This is a party under new leadership ” .
He was keen to project the sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Labour together , though recent events are yet more evidence of how difficult that goal is , with Corbyn and McDonnell calling the shots elsewhere .
The bigger question , of course , is what this means for Starmer ’ s future policies .
Many will remember him promising at his party ’ s conference “ never again will Labour go into an election not being trust on national security ” .
But his refusal to comment , let alone act , on a matter involving murderers , rapists and violent criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Part of the reason Starmer is reportedly quiet on some issues is down to advice from Joe Biden ’ s campaign team , which has instructed him not to get involved in “ culture war issues ” .
But this mindset seems to have gradually extended to all manner of political policy .
Often people think Starmer is calculated in his political moves , but too much fence sitting does not a Prime Minister make .

This week, the Home Office’s plan to deport 50 convicted criminals to Jamaica for violent, sexual or drug offences was disrupted after a campaign by Labour MPs.
Two days before the flight was scheduled to take off, Clive Lewis wrote to Priti Patel to demand she “cancel the planned deportation of up to 50 Black British residents” adding that deportations “epitomise the Government’s continued ‘Hostile Environment’ agenda”, and that “[t]ackling institutionalised racism starts one step at a time.”
Nearly 70 mostly Labour MPs signed Lewis’s letter, including Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Rebecca Long-Bailey, John McDonnell Lloyd Russell-Moyle, and celebrities such as Naomi Campbell and Thandie Newton wrote to airlines asking them not to carry out the Home Office’s orders. After a series of legal challenges, 30 criminals were taken off the flight, including a rapist and a London murderer.
Where was Keir Starmer in all this? Many noticed that he was not one of the signatories on the letter, nor was his deputy Angela Rayner, suggesting they disapprove of Lewis’s intervention (which, ironically, challenged a policy set by the last Labour government). But he has done nothing to indicate an opinion either way. Perhaps he thinks, like the Covid tiers, he can abstain his way out of the matter.
The incident raises questions about Starmer’s leadership, not least because of the degree of influence opposition backbenchers now have over Home Office policy. It is unusual for them to write these sorts of letters without the backing of shadow cabinet ministers. Notably, 12 other frontbenchers did not sign. So who is in charge?
Labour’s National Executive Committee even appeared to tell Starmer and Rayner off for not signing the letter, writing: “we are alarmed that there has been no comment from you both in response to the deportation flight scheduled for 2nd December… we request that you make a decisive and compassionate intervention.”
In his Labour Party Conference speech, Starmer famously promised “This is a party under new leadership”. He was keen to project the sense that he would bring the various factions of Labour together, though recent events are yet more evidence of how difficult that goal is, with Corbyn and McDonnell calling the shots elsewhere.
The bigger question, of course, is what this means for Starmer’s future policies. Many will remember him promising at his party’s conference “never again will Labour go into an election not being trust on national security”. But his refusal to comment, let alone act, on a matter involving murderers, rapists and violent criminals is hardly going to reassure many voters.
Part of the reason Starmer is reportedly quiet on some issues is down to advice from Joe Biden’s campaign team, which has instructed him not to get involved in “culture war issues”. But this mindset seems to have gradually extended to all manner of political policy. Often people think Starmer is calculated in his political moves, but too much fence sitting does not a Prime Minister make.


conservativehome--2020-12-04--Does the UK really have the political will or state capacity to hit Johnson’s ‘ambitious’ Net Zero t

Does the UK really have the political will or state capacity to hit Johnson’s ‘ambitious’ Net Zero targets?

This morning ’ s papers feature the latest developments in the Prime Minister ’ s green reset .
Today , the headline is his pledge to reduce British carbon emissions by 68 per cent by 2030 .
As the FT notes , hitting this target will “ will require restructuring a significant portion of the economy ” .
Making half of all cars on the road electric by the end of the decade , as the Daily Telegraph reports , would be just the start .
So far , there hasn ’ t been much pushback against this “ ambitious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not surprising , since we are still at the stage where the Government is doling out cash .
Visions of the ‘ green industrial revolution ‘ can dance safely before MPs ’ eyes .
But there are reasons to expect that this won ’ t last .
Not because of any widespread disagreement on the underlying science , but because it will require a lot of long-term infrastructure development of the sort that the United Kingdom has become increasingly bad at .
The goal for widespread electric cars , to pick just one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national network of charging points on a par with the existing one for petrol stations .
This is probably doable , but would you bet on a nation that just ‘ rolled back ’ its plans to deliver a national high-speed broadband network ?
According to the National Audit Office ’ s new report on Net Zero , delivering it in the time now set down in law “ will require wide-ranging changes across society and the economy at a pace which leaves little room for delay ” .
Yet as Rachel Wolf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site : “ Our economy and lives are built off copious amounts of affordable energy .
It is the main reason we were able to escape the destitution of the past .
A life unimaginable to even the elite in the Eighteenth Century is now accessible to nearly all .
Therefore , any successful programme to reduce emissions must understand that people will not go backwards .
Policies must work within the grain of people ’ s lives – not rewire them.
” If the Government ( or the next one ) doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to choose between brute-forcing its way towards Net Zero through policies such as pricing the low-paid out of international travel or eating meat ( goodbye levelling up ) , it needs to lay the foundations for a smooth and efficient transition to greener systems which are just as effective as the current ones – and to do so at the very moment it has just used up much of its fiscal wriggle-room fighting Covid-19 .
Others have pointed out how badly the pandemic has exposed the decay of British state capacity .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis to know that British politicians are deeply averse to making important long-term infrastructure decisions when there is any pain involved .
We haven ’ t found the will to expand Heathrow , or Felixtowe , and are only limping towards an incomplete high-speed railway .
Nobody expects the Prime Minister ’ s mooted Irish Sea Bridge to get built , and MPs continue to mutiny against any attempt to solve the housing crisis by actually building enough houses .
Would you bet on such a political culture seeing through ( let alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wide-ranging changes across society and the economy at a pace which leaves little room for delay ” ?

This morning’s papers feature the latest developments in the Prime Minister’s green reset. Today, the headline is his pledge to reduce British carbon emissions by 68 per cent by 2030.
As the FT notes, hitting this target will “will require restructuring a significant portion of the economy”. Making half of all cars on the road electric by the end of the decade, as the Daily Telegraph reports, would be just the start.
So far, there hasn’t been much pushback against this “ambitious new target”. This is perhaps not surprising, since we are still at the stage where the Government is doling out cash. Visions of the ‘green industrial revolution‘ can dance safely before MPs’ eyes.
But there are reasons to expect that this won’t last. Not because of any widespread disagreement on the underlying science, but because it will require a lot of long-term infrastructure development of the sort that the United Kingdom has become increasingly bad at.
The goal for widespread electric cars, to pick just one example, would mean installing a comprehensive national network of charging points on a par with the existing one for petrol stations. This is probably doable, but would you bet on a nation that just ‘rolled back’ its plans to deliver a national high-speed broadband network?
According to the National Audit Office’s new report on Net Zero, delivering it in the time now set down in law “will require wide-ranging changes across society and the economy at a pace which leaves little room for delay”. Yet as Rachel Wolf noted in a recent piece for this site:
“Our economy and lives are built off copious amounts of affordable energy. It is the main reason we were able to escape the destitution of the past. A life unimaginable to even the elite in the Eighteenth Century is now accessible to nearly all. Therefore, any successful programme to reduce emissions must understand that people will not go backwards. Policies must work within the grain of people’s lives – not rewire them.”
If the Government (or the next one) doesn’t want to end up having to choose between brute-forcing its way towards Net Zero through policies such as pricing the low-paid out of international travel or eating meat (goodbye levelling up), it needs to lay the foundations for a smooth and efficient transition to greener systems which are just as effective as the current ones – and to do so at the very moment it has just used up much of its fiscal wriggle-room fighting Covid-19.
Others have pointed out how badly the pandemic has exposed the decay of British state capacity. But it didn’t take a global crisis to know that British politicians are deeply averse to making important long-term infrastructure decisions when there is any pain involved. We haven’t found the will to expand Heathrow, or Felixtowe, and are only limping towards an incomplete high-speed railway. Nobody expects the Prime Minister’s mooted Irish Sea Bridge to get built, and MPs continue to mutiny against any attempt to solve the housing crisis by actually building enough houses.
Would you bet on such a political culture seeing through (let alone successfully) an attempt to deliver “wide-ranging changes across society and the economy at a pace which leaves little room for delay”?


conservativehome--2020-12-04--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Schools Adjudicator – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Steering Board ’ s role is to : advise on external drivers , strategic direction and development of targets , within the framework of the UK Space Agency ’ s objectives , BEIS and wider Government objectives ; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer ; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance , including process of setting of targets and performance against them ; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency ’ s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk ; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners.
” “ As an FE Adviser , you will work as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deputy FE Commissioners and other Advisers .
FE Advisers are generally either finance or curriculum and quality specialists and we are looking for candidates from both backgrounds to help grow our team .
In this exciting and demanding role you will support colleges through carrying out Diagnostic Assessments , designed to help them to improve the quality of education for learners , strengthen financial resilience , improve the quality of leadership and reduce the risk of interventions… You will work as an integrated part of the Department for Education ( DfE ) ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the context of the ESFA case management approach .
As such you will work closely with teams within ESFA , as well as the wider DfE and Ofsted.
” Time : Up to 200 days per annum .
“ The Panel Chair will provide strategic direction and oversight for the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales .
Developing and maintaining a close relationship with the Minister and key members of the Welsh agricultural sector is a crucial part of the Chair ’ s role .
The Panel Chair need not be an expert in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she must have senior level experience in the private , public or voluntary sector .
The Panel Chair will have the following strategic leadership responsibilities : lead the formulation of the Panel ’ s strategy and business plans , monitoring in-year performance and examining change proposals with rigour to maintain delivery ; ensure issues are brought forward in a timely manner for effective resolution ; ensure that the Panel ’ s decisions are informed and fair , taking proper account of guidance provided by the Welsh Ministers and Welsh Government officials… ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science and Technology ( CST ) is the Government ’ s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments .
It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions , and in building a robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser ( GCSA ) .
” “ The Sports Grounds Safety Authority ( SGSA ) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body , The Football Licensing Authority .
The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sports grounds safety .
The three core functions of the SGSA are : to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and Wales to allow them to permit spectators to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification ; provide strategic support for sports grounds , governing bodies and others , both in the UK and internationally ; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance , particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds ( Green Guide ) .
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
“ This Government is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly .
The Regulator plays a key role in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework , and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper .
This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation , leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a challenging task for a new Chair of the regulator .
The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more challenging times , whilst ensuring that going forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor ( and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers ) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board .
The OPA Board Chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a personal role in advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA .
The Chair is responsible for : providing advice to the Sponsor and wider MOD on OPA ’ s strategic direction , objectives and risks , business performance and governance arrangements ; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance , delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management ; ensuring that the Board is effective , including assessing the performance of the Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on areas of development , typically through an annual board effectiveness review ; and when considering re-appointments… ” “ The Pensions Regulator ( TPR ) is the public body that protects workplace pensions in the UK .
TPR works with employers and those running pension schemes so that people can save safely for their retirement .
TPR aims to be a strong , visible regulator that builds people ’ s confidence in pensions .
TPR is a public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) .
It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brighton .
TPR works closely with the Financial Conduct Authority , which regulates personal pension schemes , and with other public bodies .
TPR is responsible for : protecting people ’ s savings in workplace pensions ; improving the way that workplace pension schemes are run ; reducing the risk of pension schemes ending up in the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) ; making sure employers balance the needs of their defined benefit pension scheme with growing their business ; making sure employers enrol their staff into a pension scheme and pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automatic enrolment ’ ) .
” “ Applications are encouraged from all sections of the community to help ensure that the Sport England board is representative of the diverse society it serves .
Sport England is a government-funded Non-Departmental Public Body and National Lottery distributor .
It is responsible for supporting , growing and advocating for grassroots sport and physical activity in England in line with its statutory objectives as set out in its Royal Charter .
Its vision is to ensure that everyone , regardless of their age , background or level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sport and physical activity and it takes its strategic lead from the government ’ s sport and physical activity strategy Sporting Future : A New Strategy for an Active Nation .
The Chair will be responsible for overseeing the final stages of implementation of Sport England ’ s current Towards an Active Nation strategy ( 2017-2021 ) , and the final stages of development and roll-out of its new strategy for 2021-2025 , in close collaboration with the Deputy Chair , Chief Executive , and Executive Team.
” Time : Up to 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Financial Reporting Council ( FRC ) is to promote transparency and integrity in business .
These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs , create prosperity and generate economic growth .
The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries .
The FRC also sets standards for accounting , auditing and actuarial work .
As the UK ’ s independent regulator and Competent Authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action where necessary , to promote the quality of corporate reporting and audit .
It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.
” “ UK Shared Business Services Ltd ( UK SBS ) is a non-profit making company limited by shares .
It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money .
The Company provides HR & Payroll , Finance , Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business , Energy & Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and other public sector clients .
It is recognised by the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting , interesting and challenging time for UK SBS ; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation , delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age.
” “ With rapid progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Highways England are modernising and transforming the strategic road network .
They need to demonstrate that they can meet the government ’ s commitment to zero carbon and within its committed timescales .
They also need to exploit the full potential of the digital revolution , both in their delivery , and in communications with road users and stakeholders .
That is why HE are now delivering £27.4 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025 to improve the road network ( RIS2 ) .
This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You would be joining Highways England at an exciting time , with the opportunity to help shape the future of the organisation and ensure its continued success .
This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for the immediate supply chain , technology and workplace transformation Highways England faces.
” Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee “ The FPC is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability .
The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ Schools Adjudicators are office holders appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to make decisions about a range of matters relating to publicly funded schools in England .
They are statutory office holders appointed under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 .
The main function of the Schools Adjudicators is to rule on objections to and referrals about determined school admission arrangements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involves establishing whether or not arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions and if they do not conform , in what respect they do not conform… There are currently ten Schools Adjudicators , including the Chief Schools Adjudicator .
They are appointed for their ability to act impartially , independently and objectively .
Their role is to look afresh at all cases referred to them and consider each case on its merits in the light of the legislation , the Statutory Guidance for Decision Makers on Statutory Proposals and the School Admissions @ @ @

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Space Agency – Non-Executive Members/Audit Chair
“The Steering Board’s role is to: advise on external drivers, strategic direction and development of targets, within the framework of the UK Space Agency’s objectives, BEIS and wider Government objectives; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance, including process of setting of targets and performance against them; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency’s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 20/22 days per annum.
Remuneration: £8,000/10,000 per annum honorarium.
Closes: 02 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Further Education Commissioner’s Team – Adviser
“As an FE Adviser, you will work as part of a team with the FE Commissioner, Deputy FE Commissioners and other Advisers. FE Advisers are generally either finance or curriculum and quality specialists and we are looking for candidates from both backgrounds to help grow our team. In this exciting and demanding role you will support colleges through carrying out Diagnostic Assessments, designed to help them to improve the quality of education for learners, strengthen financial resilience, improve the quality of leadership and reduce the risk of interventions… You will work as an integrated part of the Department for Education (DfE)’s overall approach to intervention, within the context of the ESFA case management approach. As such you will work closely with teams within ESFA, as well as the wider DfE and Ofsted.”
Time: Up to 200 days per annum.
Remuneration: £600 per diem.
Closes: 02 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Agricultural Advisory Panel (Wales) – Chair
“The Panel Chair will provide strategic direction and oversight for the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales. Developing and maintaining a close relationship with the Minister and key members of the Welsh agricultural sector is a crucial part of the Chair’s role. The Panel Chair need not be an expert in the field of agriculture, he or she must have senior level experience in the private, public or voluntary sector. The Panel Chair will have the following strategic leadership responsibilities: lead the formulation of the Panel’s strategy and business plans, monitoring in-year performance and examining change proposals with rigour to maintain delivery; ensure issues are brought forward in a timely manner for effective resolution; ensure that the Panel’s decisions are informed and fair, taking proper account of guidance provided by the Welsh Ministers and Welsh Government officials…”
Time: Minimum 12 days per annum.
Remuneration: £300 per diem plus reasonable expenses.
Closes: 04 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 06 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Sports Grounds Safety Authority – Chair
“The Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body, The Football Licensing Authority. The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government’s independent advisor on sports grounds safety. The three core functions of the SGSA are: to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and Wales to allow them to permit spectators to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification; provide strategic support for sports grounds, governing bodies and others, both in the UK and internationally; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance, particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (Green Guide).”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £36,260 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 08 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulator of Social Housing – Chair
“This Government is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly. The Regulator plays a key role in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework, and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper. This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation, leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector. All of this is likely to provide a challenging task for a new Chair of the regulator. The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more challenging times, whilst ensuring that going forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £65,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 13 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Oil & Pipeline Agency – Chair
“The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor (and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board. The OPA Board Chair sets the Board’s agenda and has a personal role in advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA. The Chair is responsible for: providing advice to the Sponsor and wider MOD on OPA’s strategic direction, objectives and risks, business performance and governance arrangements; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance, delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management; ensuring that the Board is effective, including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs, and making recommendations on areas of development, typically through an annual board effectiveness review; and when considering re-appointments…”
Time: 30 days per week.
Remuneration: £27,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pension Agency – Chair
“The Pensions Regulator (TPR) is the public body that protects workplace pensions in the UK. TPR works with employers and those running pension schemes so that people can save safely for their retirement. TPR aims to be a strong, visible regulator that builds people’s confidence in pensions. TPR is a public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It has around 750 staff and is based in Brighton. TPR works closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates personal pension schemes, and with other public bodies. TPR is responsible for: protecting people’s savings in workplace pensions; improving the way that workplace pension schemes are run; reducing the risk of pension schemes ending up in the Pension Protection Fund (PPF); making sure employers balance the needs of their defined benefit pension scheme with growing their business; making sure employers enrol their staff into a pension scheme and pay money into it (known as ‘automatic enrolment’).”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £73,840 per annum.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Sport England – Chair
“Applications are encouraged from all sections of the community to help ensure that the Sport England board is representative of the diverse society it serves. Sport England is a government-funded Non-Departmental Public Body and National Lottery distributor. It is responsible for supporting, growing and advocating for grassroots sport and physical activity in England in line with its statutory objectives as set out in its Royal Charter. Its vision is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their age, background or level of ability feels able to engage in sport and physical activity and it takes its strategic lead from the government’s sport and physical activity strategy Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation. The Chair will be responsible for overseeing the final stages of implementation of Sport England’s current Towards an Active Nation strategy (2017-2021), and the final stages of development and roll-out of its new strategy for 2021-2025, in close collaboration with the Deputy Chair, Chief Executive, and Executive Team.”
Time: Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum.
Closes: 21 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Reporting Council – Chair
“The mission of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is to promote transparency and integrity in business. These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs, create prosperity and generate economic growth. The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries. The FRC also sets standards for accounting, auditing and actuarial work. As the UK’s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors, and takes action where necessary, to promote the quality of corporate reporting and audit. It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.”
Time: 1.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Shared Business Services Ltd – Chair
“UK Shared Business Services Ltd (UK SBS) is a non-profit making company limited by shares. It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money. The Company provides HR & Payroll, Finance, Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and other public sector clients. It is recognised by the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting, interesting and challenging time for UK SBS; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation, delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age.”
Time: Max 36 days per annum.
Remuneration: £575 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Highways England – Chair
“With rapid progress in the development of new technologies, Highways England are modernising and transforming the strategic road network. They need to demonstrate that they can meet the government’s commitment to zero carbon and within its committed timescales. They also need to exploit the full potential of the digital revolution, both in their delivery, and in communications with road users and stakeholders. That is why HE are now delivering £27.4 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025 to improve the road network (RIS2). This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps England moving. You would be joining Highways England at an exciting time, with the opportunity to help shape the future of the organisation and ensure its continued success. This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for the immediate supply chain, technology and workplace transformation Highways England faces.”
Time: 24/27 days per annum
Remuneration: £25,000 per annum/plus £3,000 for chairing.
Closes: 08 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 11 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Schools Adjudicator
“Schools Adjudicators are office holders appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to make decisions about a range of matters relating to publicly funded schools in England. They are statutory office holders appointed under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The main function of the Schools Adjudicators is to rule on objections to and referrals about determined school admission arrangements of all state funded schools; this involves establishing whether or not arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions and if they do not conform, in what respect they do not conform… There are currently ten Schools Adjudicators, including the Chief Schools Adjudicator. They are appointed for their ability to act impartially, independently and objectively. Their role is to look afresh at all cases referred to them and consider each case on its merits in the light of the legislation, the Statutory Guidance for Decision Makers on Statutory Proposals and the School Admissions Code.”
Time: Part-time.
Remuneration: £355 per diem/£58 per hour.
Closes: 29 January


conservativehome--2020-12-05--Don’t stereotype anti-vaxxers. They might not be who you think.

This week has been a jubilant one for the UK , with news that the Pfizer/ BioNTech vaccine has been approved .
Ministers are no doubt delighted that their decision to buy 350 million doses of different vaccines finally seems to be paying off .
But one group that is causing them less cheer is “ anti-vaxxers ” .
There are concerns that they could derail Jonathan Van-Tam ’ s train to normality , with the Labour Party calling for ministers to clamp down on anti-vaccination fake news .
Reading the newspapers you could be forgiven for thinking we were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government and an army of conspiracy theorists , no doubt fuelled by all the coverage of anti-lockdown protests in central London .
But the reality is more complicated than that… The first thing to say is that , judging by polling figures , there aren ’ t actually that many people who would point blank refuse a vaccine .
According to one YouGov poll , for instance , only 21 per cent of people said that they were “ unlikely ” to take the Covid vaccine ( 11 per cent “ very unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlikely ” . )
Furthermore , the 21 per cent were mostly people who wanted more information .
10 per cent wanted to see if the vaccine is safe , and three per cent felt that they were low risk for the virus , and didn ’ t need a vaccine .
Only two per cent were opposed to vaccines generally .
To put this in context , 67 of the public are “ likely ” to take the vaccine , with 12 per cent saying they don ’ t know .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely ” people are to take the vaccine is “ perceived vulnerability ” , which goes up with age .
Over 65 year olds are the most “ likely ” group to want the vaccine , with 81 per cent of them putting this answer .
The percentage putting “ likely ” declines as age does , but the majority of 25-49 year olds and adults under the age of 25 ( 58 and 63 per cent respectively ) still put “ likely ” .
In short , any ideas that “ anti-vaxxers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 68 ) or Piers Corbyn ( 73 ) are misconceived .
It ’ s younger groups that need more information , but it ’ s not “ anti-vax ” sentiment the Government needs to tackle , but anxiety .
This has been a major finding from Opinium , the strategic insight agency .
As Chris Curtis , its Senior Research Manager tells me , “ There isn ’ t much sign that the Coronavirus conspiracy theories spreading on certain parts of the internet are getting much cut through , with few saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a much wider group that have more general apprehensions surrounding the vaccine , particularly regarding the side effects.
” Opinium has conducted fascinating research into this area .
It looked at 2,000 people , alongside their current voting intention , to find out their views on the vaccine .
One question was “ If a vaccine was available and the government recommended that people like you took it , how likely to unlikely would you be to take the vaccine ?
” Here are the responses : • Some other party : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remainers and 70 per cent of Leavers said “ likely ” .
In terms of people who replied “ unlikely ” , the top outcome was “ some other party ” at 55 per cent followed by the SNP at 32 per cent .
Opinium also asked how worried , if at all , respondents were that a vaccine won ’ t be safe .
• Some other party : 62 per cent 47 per cent of Remainers were worried compared to 50 per cent of Leavers .
In terms of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top outcome was Greens at 57 per cent , followed by Conservatives at 50 per cent .
When Opinium asked respondents how worried they were that a vaccine won ’ t be effective , they gave these answers : • Some other party : 52 per cent 47 per cent of Remainers and 45 per cent of Leavers were worried .
Opinium also asked respondents how worried they were that a vaccine might have side effects : • Some other party : 65 per cent There are lots of things you could say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irregardless of voting invention , the majority of respondents were worried about side effects .
Second , SNP and Plaid Cymru consistently appear some of the most worried about the vaccine ’ s efficacy and side effects ( although it ’ s worth pointing out that Plaid Cymru scores second highest for likelihood of taking it ) .
What does this mean for the devolved administrations and a vaccine information campaign ?
It ’ s also worth noting that “ some other party ” ranks high for having concerns about the vaccine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not fall under the other parties ?
And how does the Government reach out to them ?
Interestingly , Green voters are often at the more “ chilled ” end of the spectrum .
The other parties seem to group together quite a lot , and Leavers and Remainers often have small differences between how they vote ( reminiscent of 2016 ’ s referendum ) .
Another interesting area to explore is the gender of some of the recipients , with Opinium finding 64 per cent of women compared to 51 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects .
Speaking about the overall findings of the research , Curtis says : “ The government will need to work hard to alleviate fears [ among women and young people ] if they want to ensure there is a high uptake of the vaccine.
” So perhaps we need to move our language about “ anti-vaxxers ” to “ vaccine apprehension ” .
It is not so much hardline attitudes , but anxiety that the Government needs to tackle .
It ’ s interesting to note a YouGov poll this week showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want Matt Hancock to take the vaccine on TV , and some of this must surely reflect the need for more reassurance .
That ’ s why the media has to be careful about how they frame the issue , and not fall into the habit of labelling everyone with worries as an “ anti-vaxxer ” .
Labour , too , could spend more time discussing the vaccine , as opposed to how to quash misinformation , which people could see as undermining the ability to ask questions .
By all indications , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vaccines – it ’ s boosting confidence that ’ s the next step .

This week has been a jubilant one for the UK, with news that the Pfizer/ BioNTech vaccine has been approved. Ministers are no doubt delighted that their decision to buy 350 million doses of different vaccines finally seems to be paying off.
But one group that is causing them less cheer is “anti-vaxxers”. There are concerns that they could derail Jonathan Van-Tam’s train to normality, with the Labour Party calling for ministers to clamp down on anti-vaccination fake news.
Reading the newspapers you could be forgiven for thinking we were in for an epic battle between the Government and an army of conspiracy theorists, no doubt fuelled by all the coverage of anti-lockdown protests in central London. But the reality is more complicated than that…
The first thing to say is that, judging by polling figures, there aren’t actually that many people who would point blank refuse a vaccine. According to one YouGov poll, for instance, only 21 per cent of people said that they were “unlikely” to take the Covid vaccine (11 per cent “very unlikely” and 10 per cent “fairly unlikely”.)
Furthermore, the 21 per cent were mostly people who wanted more information. 10 per cent wanted to see if the vaccine is safe, and three per cent felt that they were low risk for the virus, and didn’t need a vaccine. Only two per cent were opposed to vaccines generally.
To put this in context, 67 of the public are “likely” to take the vaccine, with 12 per cent saying they don’t know.
One of the biggest predictors of how “likely” people are to take the vaccine is “perceived vulnerability”, which goes up with age. Over 65 year olds are the most “likely” group to want the vaccine, with 81 per cent of them putting this answer.
The percentage putting “likely” declines as age does, but the majority of 25-49 year olds and adults under the age of 25 (58 and 63 per cent respectively) still put “likely”.
In short, any ideas that “anti-vaxxers” will predominantly look like David Icke (68) or Piers Corbyn (73) are misconceived. It’s younger groups that need more information, but it’s not “anti-vax” sentiment the Government needs to tackle, but anxiety.
This has been a major finding from Opinium, the strategic insight agency. As Chris Curtis, its Senior Research Manager tells me, “There isn’t much sign that the Coronavirus conspiracy theories spreading on certain parts of the internet are getting much cut through, with few saying they believe them. However, there is a much wider group that have more general apprehensions surrounding the vaccine, particularly regarding the side effects.”
Opinium has conducted fascinating research into this area. It looked at 2,000 people, alongside their current voting intention, to find out their views on the vaccine.
One question was “If a vaccine was available and the government recommended that people like you took it, how likely to unlikely would you be to take the vaccine?”
Here are the responses:
Likely:
Conservative: 80 per cent
Plaid Cymru: 79 per cent
Liberal Democrat: 75 per cent
Labour: 73 per cent
Green: 64 per cent
SNP: 60 per cent
UKIP: 58 per cent
Some other party: 35 per cent
73 per cent of Remainers and 70 per cent of Leavers said “likely”.
In terms of people who replied “unlikely”, the top outcome was “some other party” at 55 per cent followed by the SNP at 32 per cent.
Opinium also asked how worried, if at all, respondents were that a vaccine won’t be safe.
Worried:
Plaid Cymru: 70 per cent
SNP: 62 per cent
Some other party: 62 per cent
UKIP: 55 per cent
Labour: 49 per cent
Liberal Democrat: 49 per cent
Conservative: 44 per cent
Green: 41 per cent
47 per cent of Remainers were worried compared to 50 per cent of Leavers.
In terms of people who replied “not worried”, the top outcome was Greens at 57 per cent, followed by Conservatives at 50 per cent.
When Opinium asked respondents how worried they were that a vaccine won’t be effective, they gave these answers:
Worried:
Plaid Cymru: 72 per cent
SNP: 72 per cent
Some other party: 52 per cent
Labour: 46 per cent
UKIP: 46 per cent
Liberal Democrat: 45 per cent
Conservative: 43 per cent
Green: 41 per cent
47 per cent of Remainers and 45 per cent of Leavers were worried.
Opinium also asked respondents how worried they were that a vaccine might have side effects:
Worried:
SNP: 73 per cent
Plaid Cymru: 70 per cent
UKIP: 66 per cent
Some other party: 65 per cent
Labour: 53 per cent
Liberal Democrat: 53 per cent
Green: 53 per cent
Conservative: 52 per cent
There are lots of things you could say about the data.
For starters, irregardless of voting invention, the majority of respondents were worried about side effects.
Second, SNP and Plaid Cymru consistently appear some of the most worried about the vaccine’s efficacy and side effects (although it’s worth pointing out that Plaid Cymru scores second highest for likelihood of taking it). What does this mean for the devolved administrations and a vaccine information campaign?
It’s also worth noting that “some other party” ranks high for having concerns about the vaccine. Who are these voters, if they do not fall under the other parties? And how does the Government reach out to them?
Interestingly, Green voters are often at the more “chilled” end of the spectrum. The other parties seem to group together quite a lot, and Leavers and Remainers often have small differences between how they vote (reminiscent of 2016’s referendum).
Another interesting area to explore is the gender of some of the recipients, with Opinium finding 64 per cent of women compared to 51 per cent of men have concerns about side effects. Speaking about the overall findings of the research, Curtis says: “The government will need to work hard to alleviate fears [among women and young people] if they want to ensure there is a high uptake of the vaccine.”
So perhaps we need to move our language about “anti-vaxxers” to “vaccine apprehension”. It is not so much hardline attitudes, but anxiety that the Government needs to tackle.
It’s interesting to note a YouGov poll this week showing that 66 per cent of the public want Matt Hancock to take the vaccine on TV, and some of this must surely reflect the need for more reassurance.
That’s why the media has to be careful about how they frame the issue, and not fall into the habit of labelling everyone with worries as an “anti-vaxxer”. Labour, too, could spend more time discussing the vaccine, as opposed to how to quash misinformation, which people could see as undermining the ability to ask questions. By all indications, the majority of the public are open to vaccines – it’s boosting confidence that’s the next step.


conservativehome--2020-12-05--David Gauke: How the Conservatives are morphing from a party of power to a party of protest

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
Harold Wilson sought to make the Labour Party the natural party of Government , but failed .
Years later , Tony Blair sought to fulfil the same ambition and – with the three successive general election victories – came closer to success .
Yet just over eight years after he stood down , the Labour Party elected Jeremy Corbyn as its leader .
As Blair pointed out about himself , he had been ‘ the person in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ on the placard ’ whereas ‘ Jeremy is the guy with the placard , he ’ s the guy holding it .
One ’ s the politics of power and the other ’ s the politics of protest.
’ Labour has never quite escaped the politics of protest .
In part , this is a product of its history .
The Labour Party was formed to represent the interests of trade unions and their members .
It exists to represent one section of society , not to govern all of society .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a party of the Left , it has tended to attract dreamers and idealists who value ideological purity and the clean conscience available to those who do not have to take responsibility .
It has always been a party for the placard-holders .
The Conservative Party , in contrast , exists for the purpose of being in power .
One way or another , it has been in office for 67 of the last 100 years and , as such , can claim to be the natural party of government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and retaining power but also a party changed by the experience of power .
Its reputation as the party of government has helped it reassure small ‘ c ’ conservative voters ; the greater Ministerial experience attained by Conservative politicians has given the party greater credibility in contrast to its opponents ; a track record in Government also demonstrates a willingness to make tough decisions – such as the economic reforms of the 1980s or 2010s – which helps win the public ’ s respect , if not its affection .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been seen as not just the party of government , but the party of the establishment .
When social mores change , it can look outdated and the defenders of privilege , as it did in the 1940s , ‘ 60s and ‘ 90s .
And given that to govern is to choose , some of its choices will displease .
Policy decisions involve trade-offs , sometimes very difficult ones .
In government , one can not escape that .
There are certain attributes necessary for a party to acquire and retain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , it has to obtain power .
But it must also demonstrate and value administrative competence ; it must be able to live in the world as it is , not as it would like it to be ; it must be willing to take tough decisions on the basis of a realistic understanding of the consequences ; it must recognise that what brings immediate popularity does not always translate into long term electoral success ; it must apply its principles in a manner that appreciates the practical implications in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a party that feels much more comfortable – in Tony Blair ’ s phrase – with the politics of power , not the politics of protest .
How comfortable is the Conservative Party now with the politics of power ?
It is tempting to answer this question by focusing on Boris Johnson .
He was elected as leader of the party not on the basis of his record as a successful administrator ( most Conservative MPs , including many who voted for him , would have said that his Ministerial record was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , but as the candidate who could marginalise Nigel Farage and reunite the Leave coalition .
This proved to be a correct assessment , at least for the moment .
But Johnson ’ s approach to Brexit has long been to ignore the hard questions – the trade-offs between sovereignty and market access or the Northern Ireland border – with a ‘ have your cake and eat it ’ optimism and mutually contradictory promises .
At the time of writing , he is in the uncomfortable position of having to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either way , at least some of his promises are broken .
If , after months of hesitation , he goes for a deal – and I hope he does – he will face the fury of sovereignty purists who have never come to terms with the reality that free trade deals necessarily involve some constraints on what a country can do .
The Prime Minister also faces a challenge to his authority on Covid-19 .
The crisis has been testing for him , and he has looked ill-suited to the challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflects the realities in front of him .
It suggests that he has looked at the evidence and concluded that if you go too far in loosening restrictions , the virus very quickly spreads .
This would not only cause many deaths but also damage the economy because of voluntary changes in behaviour .
It is hard to imagine any of his predecessors reaching a different conclusion in the circumstances .
In this sense , Johnson is acting like a conventional Prime Minister .
Conservative MPs , however , are not giving him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some cases , there are legitimate constituency concerns but in other cases , the laudable desire to protect individual liberty has resulted in a willingness to engage in wishful thinking .
Some have fallen for a succession of optimistic but wrong predictions – ‘ the virus is burning itself ’ , ‘ the new cases are just false positives ’ , ‘ higher cases won ’ t necessarily mean higher deaths ’ , ‘ lockdowns do not work ’ – that get discredited before moving on to the next argument .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the changing nature of being an MP .
Members of Parliament are increasingly seen as local champions first and foremost .
They are more inclined to organise themselves into ‘ Research Groups ’ that act as parties within parties , content to define themselves by contrasting themselves against the Government rather than as being part of the Government .
It is less about being part of a team that seeks to govern the country but more about representing particular viewpoint or constituency .
It is less about solving problem ; more about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change in attitude that makes it harder to accept compromise , to recognise trade-offs , to temper principle with practicality .
We have seen this for years in the context of our relationship with Europe ; we have seen it increasingly in recent months in the context of Covid restrictions .
I suspect we may more of this when it comes to tackling the public finances .
The Conservative Party has become less disciplined and more comfortable with the politics of protest .
In some respects , Boris Johnson is a natural leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and controversialist ; an insurgent rather than an administrator – but it would be wrong to ascribe the change in the party to him .
He is a symptom not the cause , reflecting changing attitudes amongst MPs , party members and many of its supporters .
It may still have an appetite to be in office , but the Conservative Party no longer has the temperament of a natural party of government .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
Harold Wilson sought to make the Labour Party the natural party of Government, but failed. Years later, Tony Blair sought to fulfil the same ambition and – with the three successive general election victories – came closer to success.
Yet just over eight years after he stood down, the Labour Party elected Jeremy Corbyn as its leader. As Blair pointed out about himself, he had been ‘the person in power taking difficult decisions’ whose face was ‘on the placard’ whereas ‘Jeremy is the guy with the placard, he’s the guy holding it. One’s the politics of power and the other’s the politics of protest.’
Labour has never quite escaped the politics of protest. In part, this is a product of its history. The Labour Party was formed to represent the interests of trade unions and their members. It exists to represent one section of society, not to govern all of society.
There is also a question of temperament. As a party of the Left, it has tended to attract dreamers and idealists who value ideological purity and the clean conscience available to those who do not have to take responsibility. It has always been a party for the placard-holders.
The Conservative Party, in contrast, exists for the purpose of being in power. One way or another, it has been in office for 67 of the last 100 years and, as such, can claim to be the natural party of government. It is a party capable of obtaining and retaining power but also a party changed by the experience of power.
Its reputation as the party of government has helped it reassure small ‘c’ conservative voters; the greater Ministerial experience attained by Conservative politicians has given the party greater credibility in contrast to its opponents; a track record in Government also demonstrates a willingness to make tough decisions – such as the economic reforms of the 1980s or 2010s – which helps win the public’s respect, if not its affection.
There are disadvantages, too. The Conservative Party has been seen as not just the party of government ,but the party of the establishment. When social mores change, it can look outdated and the defenders of privilege, as it did in the 1940s, ‘60s and ‘90s. And given that to govern is to choose, some of its choices will displease. Policy decisions involve trade-offs, sometimes very difficult ones. In government, one cannot escape that.
There are certain attributes necessary for a party to acquire and retain a reputation as natural party of government. Of course, it has to obtain power. But it must also demonstrate and value administrative competence; it must be able to live in the world as it is, not as it would like it to be; it must be willing to take tough decisions on the basis of a realistic understanding of the consequences; it must recognise that what brings immediate popularity does not always translate into long term electoral success; it must apply its principles in a manner that appreciates the practical implications in changing circumstances. Fundamentally, it should be a party that feels much more comfortable – in Tony Blair’s phrase – with the politics of power, not the politics of protest.
How comfortable is the Conservative Party now with the politics of power? It is tempting to answer this question by focusing on Boris Johnson. He was elected as leader of the party not on the basis of his record as a successful administrator (most Conservative MPs, including many who voted for him, would have said that his Ministerial record was the least distinguished of all the contenders), but as the candidate who could marginalise Nigel Farage and reunite the Leave coalition.
This proved to be a correct assessment, at least for the moment. But Johnson’s approach to Brexit has long been to ignore the hard questions – the trade-offs between sovereignty and market access or the Northern Ireland border – with a ‘have your cake and eat it’ optimism and mutually contradictory promises.
At the time of writing, he is in the uncomfortable position of having to make a choice on a deal that will mean, either way, at least some of his promises are broken. If, after months of hesitation, he goes for a deal – and I hope he does – he will face the fury of sovereignty purists who have never come to terms with the reality that free trade deals necessarily involve some constraints on what a country can do.
The Prime Minister also faces a challenge to his authority on Covid-19. The crisis has been testing for him, and he has looked ill-suited to the challenge. But his relative caution on restrictions reflects the realities in front of him. It suggests that he has looked at the evidence and concluded that if you go too far in loosening restrictions, the virus very quickly spreads. This would not only cause many deaths but also damage the economy because of voluntary changes in behaviour. It is hard to imagine any of his predecessors reaching a different conclusion in the circumstances. In this sense, Johnson is acting like a conventional Prime Minister.
Conservative MPs, however, are not giving him the benefit of the doubt. In some cases, there are legitimate constituency concerns but in other cases, the laudable desire to protect individual liberty has resulted in a willingness to engage in wishful thinking.
Some have fallen for a succession of optimistic but wrong predictions – ‘the virus is burning itself’, ‘the new cases are just false positives’, ‘higher cases won’t necessarily mean higher deaths’, ‘lockdowns do not work’ – that get discredited before moving on to the next argument.
This is partly ideological. It is also partly about the changing nature of being an MP. Members of Parliament are increasingly seen as local champions first and foremost. They are more inclined to organise themselves into ‘Research Groups’ that act as parties within parties, content to define themselves by contrasting themselves against the Government rather than as being part of the Government.
It is less about being part of a team that seeks to govern the country but more about representing particular viewpoint or constituency. It is less about solving problem; more about taking a stand. It is a change in attitude that makes it harder to accept compromise, to recognise trade-offs, to temper principle with practicality. We have seen this for years in the context of our relationship with Europe; we have seen it increasingly in recent months in the context of Covid restrictions. I suspect we may more of this when it comes to tackling the public finances.
The Conservative Party has become less disciplined and more comfortable with the politics of protest. In some respects, Boris Johnson is a natural leader for such a party – a columnist and controversialist; an insurgent rather than an administrator – but it would be wrong to ascribe the change in the party to him. He is a symptom not the cause, reflecting changing attitudes amongst MPs, party members and many of its supporters. It may still have an appetite to be in office, but the Conservative Party no longer has the temperament of a natural party of government.


conservativehome--2020-12-06--WATCH: Eustice – the EU’s demands on fishing are “not consistent with international law”

The EU 's proposal to the UK on fishing is `` quite ludicrous '' and `` not consistent with international @ @ @ @ @ George Eustice .
He says the UK wo n't give `` guaranteed access in perpetuity @ @ @ @ @ Ridge https : //t.co/Y7JlOUGQ4W pic.twitter.com/eHFkWWAdbl

The EU's proposal to the UK on fishing is "quite ludicrous" and "not consistent with international law" says Environment Secretary George Eustice.
He says the UK won't give "guaranteed access in perpetuity" to UK waters.#Ridge https://t.co/Y7JlOUGQ4W pic.twitter.com/eHFkWWAdbl
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) December 6, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-06--WATCH: Will Labour back a Johnson Brexit trade deal or not? Thomas-Symonds kicks for touch.

If @ NickTorfaen says leaving the EU without a deal would be `` catastrophic '' surely Labour will vote for @ @ @ @ @ '' It 's the responsible thing to actually consider the deal that is agreed '' @ @ @ @ @ # Ridge https : //t.co/Y7JlOUGQ4W pic.twitter.com/SXcFCpd4O6

If @NickTorfaen says leaving the EU without a deal would be "catastrophic" surely Labour will vote for a deal? @SophyRidgeSky
"It's the responsible thing to actually consider the deal that is agreed" says the Shadow Home Secretary.#Ridge https://t.co/Y7JlOUGQ4W pic.twitter.com/SXcFCpd4O6
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) December 6, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-06--WATCH: If it’s Sunday, it must be Brown – making the case for devolution. Again.

Former PM Gordon Brown says Boris Johnson 's comments on devolution show he `` is completely out of touch '' @ @ @ @ @ of governing has got to change if we 're going to meet the needs of @ @ @ @ @ the country'.
# Ridge https : //t.co/7d85kNDhUM pic.twitter.com/U8HbO5mDgt

Former PM Gordon Brown says Boris Johnson's comments on devolution show he "is completely out of touch" and adds 'the British way of governing has got to change if we're going to meet the needs of people in all parts of the country'.#Ridge https://t.co/7d85kNDhUM pic.twitter.com/U8HbO5mDgt
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) December 6, 2020