conservativehome--2020-02-17--A brief history of Fiscal Rules

A brief history of Fiscal Rules

“ Annual income twenty pounds , annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six , result happiness .
Annual income twenty pounds , annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six , result misery.
” Unfortunately , Micawber relaxed his Fiscal Rule and instead proceeded on the basis that “ something will turn up ” to avoid misfortune .
He ended up in a debtors prison before going to Australia for a fresh start .
British Governments have also shown a temptation to ditch financial constraints .
Harold Macmillan said : “ The real truth is that both a brake and an accelerator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their use is a matter of judgment but their purpose must remain – to go forward safely .
Or in economic terms , expansion in a balanced economy.
” Thus we had the era of stop-go .
A temporary stimulus before an election in one Budget .
Then the brakes slammed on in the next one forced by the Government running out of our money .
The stop-go policy made it hard for British industry to make investment decisions , to modernise machinery and increase productivity .
How could there be any confidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the economy so erratic ?
Then we had Harold Wilson and the pound being devalued .
Next , there was Ted Heath and the Barber Boom .
Then we had Jim Callaghan and Denis Healey going “ cap in hand ” to the IMF .
Only when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 , did we see some kind of discipline restored to the public finances .
For all the talk of cuts , there was an increase in public spending during her premiership .
But it was kept under control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules ” was not used .
It was at an affordable , manageable level .
While Macmillan compared the public finances to a car , Thatcher compared them to a household budget : “ When I was in Government before we did all our expenditure in what was called real terms , you know what I mean , you forgot all about inflation and you said we are entitled to so many schools , so many teachers , so many school meals , so many school books , etc.
, regardless of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So you did all of it in what was called volume terms and sometimes you could say , “ Well look , if we ’ re going to have this amount of increase in pay we shan ’ t be able to have those number of books or buildings.
” And they said , “ Oh , don ’ t be so absurd , that doesn ’ t come in the Treasury calculations , we do it in volume terms , ” and I was getting very unhappy then and I said well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home , “ I can have three tons of coal , I can have twenty joints of sirloin a week , I can have so many clothes , regardless of the cost of those things.
” You say , “ I have got so much to spend and I have to have accordingly so much on food , so much on clothes , so much on holidays.
” “ Now it ’ s only just in the last two years that we have gone from that volume expenditure regardless of cost to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is going to be the amount of cash you ’ re going to have this year and we can tell you for the next four years .
We can tell you the amount we ’ ve built in for increase in pay , the amount we ’ ve built in for increase in inflation but because we ’ re pulling down the amount of inflation you ’ re not going to get full compensation for everything .
We want inflation down.
” Now we ’ ve moved to that .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , astonishing about this , this is the way every household has to budget , this is the way every business has to budget .
But this is the way the Treasury never budgeted until now and this of course is much better control of public spending.
” Of course , some sneered at this comparison with a family budget as being terribly unsophisticated .
Between 1979 and 1990 our National Debt fell , as a percentage of GDP from 44.5 per cent to 26.6 per cent .
Instead of the Public Sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to talking about the Public Sector Debt Repayment ( PSDR ) .
But during the John Major and Ken Clarke era , public borrowing returned with a vengeance .
Each year generous spending limits would be set – then even those would be cheerfully broken .
By 1997 our National Debt was back up to 42 per cent .
But if anybody was worried about the Tories being profligate , would it not stand to reason that a Labour Government would be still more spendthrift ?
It was to provide reassurance ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this point that New Labour started fiscal rules .
In his Budget speech in 1997 our new Chancellor of the Exchequer , Gordon Brown announced : “ My first rule—the golden rule—ensures that over the economic cycle the Government will borrow only to invest , and that current spending will be met from taxation .
My second rule is that , as a proportion of national income , public debt will be held at a prudent and stable level over the economic cycle .
To implement those rules , I am announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those rules and that plan will ensure an historic break from the short-termism and expediency that have characterised the recent fiscal policies of our country.
” The second rule came to be known as “ the sustainable investment rule ” .
It was set out in the Code for Fiscal Stability which was approved by the House of Commons in December 1998 .
It stated that public sector net debt as a proportion of GDP “ will be held over the economic cycle at a stable and prudent level.
” This meant that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt will be maintained below 40 per cent of GDP over the current economic cycle.
” I suppose the “ sustainable investment rule ” is not quite as catchy as the “ golden rule ” .
But older readers might recall references to “ prudence with a purpose ” or “ no return to boom and bust ” .
Brown would always give himself some wriggle room with these rules .
Would it be all right if “ other things were not equal ” ?
Who is to decide how long the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the last financial year of the Labour Government the state ran a deficit of £155 billion .
National Debt rose to 65 per cent of GDP .
Brown presided over it zooming past a trillion pounds .
One might have concluded at this point that “ fiscal rules ” didn ’ t seem to amount to much .
But new versions have been offered .
George Osborne became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2010 .
He offered us his “ fiscal mandate ” .
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility was established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In his Budget speech in 2010 , Osborne declared : “ The formal mandate we set is that the structural current deficit should be in balance in the final year of the five-year forecast period , which is 2015-16 in this Budget .
This mandate is structural , to give us flexibility to respond to external shocks ; current , to protect the most productive public investment ; and credible , because the OBR , not the Chancellor , will decide on the output gap .
In order to place our fiscal credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplemented by a fixed target for debt , which in this Parliament is to ensure that debt is falling as a percentage share of GDP by 2015-16 .
I can confirm that , on the basis of the measures to be announced in this Budget , the judgment of the OBR , which we published today , is that we are on track to meet those goals .
Indeed , I can tell the House that , because we have taken a cautious approach , we are set to meet them one year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it another way , we are on track to have debt falling and a balanced structural current budget by the end of this Parliament.
” Yadder , yadder , yadder .
National Debt in 2015 was 83.7 per cent of GDP , up from 82.1 per cent the year before .
Of course , we are still waiting for a balanced budget .
Though I suppose he gave himself a bit of Brownesque obfuscation .
Who is to decide which bits of the deficit are “ structural ” ?
By 2015 , surely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these pompously worded undertakings meant nothing ?
But Osborne decided the answer was to come up with new fiscal rule .
These were embodied in a Fiscal Charter .
In normal times , once a headline surplus has been achieved , the Treasury ’ s mandate for fiscal policy is : • • a target for a surplus on public sector net borrowing in each subsequent year .
For the period outside normal times from 2015-16 , the Treasury ’ s mandate for fiscal policy is : • • a target for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the end of 2019-20 .
For this period until 2019-20 , the Treasury ’ s mandate for fiscal policy is supplemented by : • • a target for public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP to be falling in each year.
” By the next year , Philip Hammond was the Chancellor of the Exchequer .
He announced : “ In view of the uncertainty facing the economy , and in the face of slower growth forecasts , we no longer seek to deliver a surplus in 2019-20.
” Disappointing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were getting some new fiscal rules : “ Today I am publishing a new draft charter for budget responsibility with three fiscal rules : first , that the public finances should be returned to balance as early as possible in the next Parliament and , in the interim , cyclically adjusted borrowing should be below 2 % by the end of this Parliament ; secondly , that public sector net debt as a share of GDP must be falling by the end of this Parliament ; and , thirdly , that welfare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Government and monitored by the OBR .
In the absence of an effective framework , the welfare bill in our country spiralled out of control , with spending on working-age benefits trebling in real terms between 1980 and 2010 .
As a result of the action that we have taken since 2010 , that spending has now stabilised.
” But then Sajid Javid became Chancellor last year and he told us that the rules were to be replaced again : “ I ’ m announcing new fiscal rules that if elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity to invest in our future and our public services but without squandering the hard work of the British people .
“ Like anyone who budgets whether it ’ s a household or small business or large business , I know that we must keep track of what we ’ re spending , and what we bring in .
“ We can ’ t run an overdraft forever on day-to-day spending , so I can confirm that our first rule will be to have a balanced current budget .
What we spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Now , while we must retain spending if we want growth to continue and get stronger in the future , then we need to invest in it .
Taking the opportunity offered by those historically low borrowing rates.
” “ Investment in long-term projects like road and rail will not exceed 3 % of GDP.
” That brings us up to date – and fevered speculation that Rishi Sunak might well have something to say about fiscal rules in the Budget next month .
Does it really make any difference ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ having a goal in life .
It could be worse .
While in cash terms the National Debt keeps piling up , there has been some very modest progress in recent years with it falling as a percentage of GDP .
It was 85.7 per cent in 2015 .
It is 84.0 per cent now .
But a lack of seriousness about sticking to the specific limits that are announced just invites ridicule .
For the last 30 years , when it comes to the public finances , the diet always starts tomorrow @

Wilkins Micawber told David Copperfield:
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
Unfortunately, Micawber relaxed his Fiscal Rule and instead proceeded on the basis that “something will turn up” to avoid misfortune. He ended up in a debtors prison before going to Australia for a fresh start.
British Governments have also shown a temptation to ditch financial constraints. Harold Macmillan said:
“The real truth is that both a brake and an accelerator are essential for a motor car. Their use is a matter of judgment but their purpose must remain – to go forward safely. Or in economic terms, expansion in a balanced economy.”
Thus we had the era of stop-go. A temporary stimulus before an election in one Budget. Then the brakes slammed on in the next one forced by the Government running out of our money. The stop-go policy made it hard for British industry to make investment decisions, to modernise machinery and increase productivity. How could there be any confidence in getting a return on such investment with the economy so erratic?
Then we had Harold Wilson and the pound being devalued. Next, there was Ted Heath and the Barber Boom. Then we had Jim Callaghan and Denis Healey going “cap in hand” to the IMF.
Only when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979, did we see some kind of discipline restored to the public finances. For all the talk of cuts, there was an increase in public spending during her premiership. But it was kept under control, even if the phrase “fiscal rules” was not used. It was at an affordable, manageable level. While Macmillan compared the public finances to a car, Thatcher compared them to a household budget:
“When I was in Government before we did all our expenditure in what was called real terms, you know what I mean, you forgot all about inflation and you said we are entitled to so many schools, so many teachers, so many school meals, so many school books, etc., regardless of the price when it comes to it. So you did all of it in what was called volume terms and sometimes you could say, “Well look, if we’re going to have this amount of increase in pay we shan’t be able to have those number of books or buildings.” And they said, “Oh, don’t be so absurd, that doesn’t come in the Treasury calculations, we do it in volume terms,” and I was getting very unhappy then and I said well no-one in their sane senses says at home, “I can have three tons of coal, I can have twenty joints of sirloin a week, I can have so many clothes, regardless of the cost of those things.” You say, “I have got so much to spend and I have to have accordingly so much on food, so much on clothes, so much on holidays.”
“Now it’s only just in the last two years that we have gone from that volume expenditure regardless of cost to, say, “Look each department, this is going to be the amount of cash you’re going to have this year and we can tell you for the next four years. We can tell you the amount we’ve built in for increase in pay, the amount we’ve built in for increase in inflation but because we’re pulling down the amount of inflation you’re not going to get full compensation for everything. We want inflation down.” Now we’ve moved to that. There’s nothing, ought to be nothing, astonishing about this, this is the way every household has to budget, this is the way every business has to budget. But this is the way the Treasury never budgeted until now and this of course is much better control of public spending.”
Of course, some sneered at this comparison with a family budget as being terribly unsophisticated. Between 1979 and 1990 our National Debt fell, as a percentage of GDP from 44.5 per cent to 26.6 per cent. Instead of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) we got used to talking about the Public Sector Debt Repayment (PSDR). But during the John Major and Ken Clarke era, public borrowing returned with a vengeance. Each year generous spending limits would be set – then even those would be cheerfully broken. By 1997 our National Debt was back up to 42 per cent.
But if anybody was worried about the Tories being profligate, would it not stand to reason that a Labour Government would be still more spendthrift? It was to provide reassurance (to the voters and the markets) on this point that New Labour started fiscal rules. In his Budget speech in 1997 our new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown announced:
“My first rule—the golden rule—ensures that over the economic cycle the Government will borrow only to invest, and that current spending will be met from taxation. My second rule is that, as a proportion of national income, public debt will be held at a prudent and stable level over the economic cycle. To implement those rules, I am announcing today a five-year deficit reduction plan. Those rules and that plan will ensure an historic break from the short-termism and expediency that have characterised the recent fiscal policies of our country.”
The second rule came to be known as “the sustainable investment rule”. It was set out in the Code for Fiscal Stability which was approved by the House of Commons in December 1998. It stated that public sector net debt as a proportion of GDP “will be held over the economic cycle at a stable and prudent level.” This meant that “other things being equal, net debt will be maintained below 40 per cent of GDP over the current economic cycle.” I suppose the “sustainable investment rule” is not quite as catchy as the “golden rule”. But older readers might recall references to “prudence with a purpose” or “no return to boom and bust”. Brown would always give himself some wriggle room with these rules. Would it be all right if “other things were not equal”? Who is to decide how long the “economic cycle” is? In 2009/10, the last financial year of the Labour Government the state ran a deficit of £155 billion. National Debt rose to 65 per cent of GDP. Brown presided over it zooming past a trillion pounds.
One might have concluded at this point that “fiscal rules” didn’t seem to amount to much. But new versions have been offered.
George Osborne became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2010. He offered us his “fiscal mandate”. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility was established to keep track of his progress. In his Budget speech in 2010, Osborne declared:
“The formal mandate we set is that the structural current deficit should be in balance in the final year of the five-year forecast period, which is 2015-16 in this Budget. This mandate is structural, to give us flexibility to respond to external shocks; current, to protect the most productive public investment; and credible, because the OBR, not the Chancellor, will decide on the output gap. In order to place our fiscal credibility beyond doubt, this mandate will be supplemented by a fixed target for debt, which in this Parliament is to ensure that debt is falling as a percentage share of GDP by 2015-16. I can confirm that, on the basis of the measures to be announced in this Budget, the judgment of the OBR, which we published today, is that we are on track to meet those goals. Indeed, I can tell the House that, because we have taken a cautious approach, we are set to meet them one year earlier, in 2014-15. To put it another way, we are on track to have debt falling and a balanced structural current budget by the end of this Parliament.”
Yadder, yadder, yadder. National Debt in 2015 was 83.7 per cent of GDP, up from 82.1 per cent the year before. Of course, we are still waiting for a balanced budget. Though I suppose he gave himself a bit of Brownesque obfuscation. Who is to decide which bits of the deficit are “structural”?
By 2015, surely it would be obvious to all, that these pompously worded undertakings meant nothing? But Osborne decided the answer was to come up with new fiscal rule. These were embodied in a Fiscal Charter.
“Mandate for fiscal policy
In normal times, once a headline surplus has been achieved, the Treasury’s mandate for fiscal policy is:
a target for a surplus on public sector net borrowing in each subsequent year.
For the period outside normal times from 2015-16, the Treasury’s mandate for fiscal policy is:
a target for a surplus on public sector net borrowing by the end of 2019-20.
For this period until 2019-20, the Treasury’s mandate for fiscal policy is supplemented by:
a target for public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP to be falling in each year.”
By the next year, Philip Hammond was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He announced:
“In view of the uncertainty facing the economy, and in the face of slower growth forecasts, we no longer seek to deliver a surplus in 2019-20.”
Disappointing. But the good news was that we were getting some new fiscal rules:
“Today I am publishing a new draft charter for budget responsibility with three fiscal rules: first, that the public finances should be returned to balance as early as possible in the next Parliament and, in the interim, cyclically adjusted borrowing should be below 2% by the end of this Parliament; secondly, that public sector net debt as a share of GDP must be falling by the end of this Parliament; and, thirdly, that welfare spending must be within a cap set by the Government and monitored by the OBR. In the absence of an effective framework, the welfare bill in our country spiralled out of control, with spending on working-age benefits trebling in real terms between 1980 and 2010. As a result of the action that we have taken since 2010, that spending has now stabilised.”
But then Sajid Javid became Chancellor last year and he told us that the rules were to be replaced again:
“I’m announcing new fiscal rules that if elected will allow us to take advantage of the opportunity to invest in our future and our public services but without squandering the hard work of the British people.
“Like anyone who budgets whether it’s a household or small business or large business, I know that we must keep track of what we’re spending, and what we bring in.
“We can’t run an overdraft forever on day-to-day spending, so I can confirm that our first rule will be to have a balanced current budget. What we spend cannot exceed what we bring in.”
“Now, while we must retain spending if we want growth to continue and get stronger in the future, then we need to invest in it. Taking the opportunity offered by those historically low borrowing rates.”
“Investment in long-term projects like road and rail will not exceed 3% of GDP.”
That brings us up to date – and fevered speculation that Rishi Sunak might well have something to say about fiscal rules in the Budget next month. Does it really make any difference? There is something to be said for having a goal in life.
It could be worse. While in cash terms the National Debt keeps piling up, there has been some very modest progress in recent years with it falling as a percentage of GDP. It was 85.7 per cent in 2015. It is 84.0 per cent now.
But a lack of seriousness about sticking to the specific limits that are announced just invites ridicule. For the last 30 years, when it comes to the public finances, the diet always starts tomorrow.


conservativehome--2020-02-17--Beneath the headlines, there’s a case for this having been a continuity reshuffle

The coverage of last week ’ s reshuffle and its aftermath has been dominated , quite understandably , by the dramatic departure of Sajid Javid from the Government .
Yet whilst this development , and the questions raised about what motivates it and what it signifies about the Prime Minister ’ s attitude towards power and government , there is a danger of it casting a shadow over our understanding of the reshuffle as a whole .
In fact the Prime Minister has offered much greater continuity than one might assume from a casual glance at the headlines .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Much of the cabinet already has experience of sitting around the table .
Only three full members – Anne-Marie Trevelyan , Amanda Milling and George Eustice – and Suella Braverman , the new attorney general who attends cabinet , have not been around the table before.
” The other side of this coin is that the list of departures is also relatively short .
When it comes to Secretaries of State it comprises Andrea Leadsom , Nicky Morgan , Julian Smith , and Theresa Villiers .
Geoffrey Cox , who as Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ big beasts ’ , such as they are .
We find the same thing at the lower level .
As we noted in our final round-up of the reshuffle , Boris Johnson has avoided the temptation to reshuffle the Whips ’ Office .
This is a welcome change in approach towards as institution whose efficacy has been undermined in recent years by his predecessors ’ penchant for cycling MPs in and out of it too rapidly .
Several veteran ministers have also been left in place .
Our editor noted last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Schools Minister , and the scope of what this veterancy has allowed him to achieve .
But alongside him we might group Greg Hands , who remains at International Trade ( and has written for us on the subject many times ) ; John Glen , who still holds the post of Economic Secretary to the Treasury he first took up in January 2018 ; and John Whittingdale , who has rejoined the Department for Digital , Culture , Media , and Sport where he previously served as Secretary of State .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of the changes that did occur , and not just at Number 11 .
Esther McVey ’ s departure has rightly put the spotlight on the extraordinary turnover of Housing Ministers since the Conservatives first took office in 2010 , and replacing Cox with Suella Braverman sends an important signal about the Government ’ s intentions regarding the constitutional role of the courts , which she recently wrote about on this site .
But a reshuffle may contain multitudes , and the case for taking a continuity view of this one is @ @ @ @ @ @

The coverage of last week’s reshuffle and its aftermath has been dominated, quite understandably, by the dramatic departure of Sajid Javid from the Government.
Yet whilst this development, and the questions raised about what motivates it and what it signifies about the Prime Minister’s attitude towards power and government, there is a danger of it casting a shadow over our understanding of the reshuffle as a whole.
In fact the Prime Minister has offered much greater continuity than one might assume from a casual glance at the headlines. As the Institute for Government points out:
“Much of the cabinet already has experience of sitting around the table. Only three full members – Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Amanda Milling and George Eustice – and Suella Braverman, the new attorney general who attends cabinet, have not been around the table before.”
The other side of this coin is that the list of departures is also relatively short. When it comes to Secretaries of State it comprises Andrea Leadsom, Nicky Morgan, Julian Smith, and Theresa Villiers. Geoffrey Cox, who as Attorney General attended Cabinet, rounds out the ‘big beasts’, such as they are.
We find the same thing at the lower level. As we noted in our final round-up of the reshuffle, Boris Johnson has avoided the temptation to reshuffle the Whips’ Office. This is a welcome change in approach towards as institution whose efficacy has been undermined in recent years by his predecessors’ penchant for cycling MPs in and out of it too rapidly.
Several veteran ministers have also been left in place. Our editor noted last week the increasingly extraordinary tenure of Nick Gibb as Schools Minister, and the scope of what this veterancy has allowed him to achieve. But alongside him we might group Greg Hands, who remains at International Trade (and has written for us on the subject many times); John Glen, who still holds the post of Economic Secretary to the Treasury he first took up in January 2018; and John Whittingdale, who has rejoined the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport where he previously served as Secretary of State.
None of this is to diminish the importance of the changes that did occur, and not just at Number 11. Esther McVey’s departure has rightly put the spotlight on the extraordinary turnover of Housing Ministers since the Conservatives first took office in 2010, and replacing Cox with Suella Braverman sends an important signal about the Government’s intentions regarding the constitutional role of the courts, which she recently wrote about on this site.
But a reshuffle may contain multitudes, and the case for taking a continuity view of this one is stronger than it initially appears.


conservativehome--2020-02-18--James Frayne: The BBC’s growing problem isn’t public hostility. It’s apathy. Fewer people see the po

James Frayne: The BBC’s growing problem isn’t public hostility. It’s apathy. Fewer people see the point of it.

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
My first focus group was in Watford in 2000 .
In those days , virtually every other group seemed to take place there .
Partly because it was seen as a bellwether seat .
But also because it was the nearest vaguely normal place to London that could be reached in an evening .
In those days , people were stuffed full of sandwiches and crisps , beer and wine – unlike now when it ’ s generally more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to begin with the same ice-breaker : tell us where you get your news from .
The news question provoked a bunch of different answers , depending on the make-up of the group or its location .
Older people read the Daily Mail , working class people read The Sun or sometimes the The Daily Mirror , middle class people read The Times or The Daily Telegraph – and yes teachers read The Guardian .
Most people in the Midlands and North read a local paper .
But everyone – almost without exception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news bulletins for their daily news .
And most supplemented this by dipping into other BBC news sources such as Today , Newsnight or On the Record ( the main Sunday interview show , as it then was ) .
For the English , the BBC was ubiquitous .
Over the years that followed , I was often asked to test public trust in the corporation – usually for campaigns that complained bitterly about the BBC ’ s attitudes towards their cause – on everything from Europe to economic policy .
These campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about BBC bias .
They never did ; people almost always said they trusted BBC News in absolute terms , and relatively far more than most political parties and campaigns .
Trying to make people question BBC News ’ values and motives was a pointless exercise .
It was always hard to say , but the trust the public had in BBC News seemed partly to derive from their wider trust and affection for the BBC as a whole .
When you asked people what they thought was so good about the BBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programmes , local programmes ( including news ) and the fact that there were no ads .
Some would talk about the blockbuster shows like Only Fools & Horses .
The BBC was interwoven through the lives of ordinary working class and lower middle class life .
Broadly speaking , in my experience , I ’ d say this was the reality consistently until a couple of years ago .
Now , when you ask where people get their news from , it ’ s almost always Facebook and other social media channels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an array of sites ( by no means usually the BBC ) .
Hardly anyone says they make time to watch the main BBC1 news bulletins , and fewer and fewer people say they watch or listen to the main news analysis shows .
Furthermore , when you ask people about the shows they watch , they generally reply with an answer about the platform , not the shows themselves .
So , they ’ ll say “ Netflix ” or “ Amazon Prime ” or whatever .
They never say they “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did even a decade ago .
Again , in my experience , I have not found that trust has fallen per se – although post the referendum and two brutal election campaigns , there is now a larger minority of people who moan about “ BBC bias ” .
But “ trust ” has become become less relevant people as the BBC has become less relevant .
By that I mean that they don ’ t view trust as a negating factor in their views on the decreasing relevance of the institution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ BBC has : it could always fall back on the trust argument , even as it was getting a kicking from usually right-leaning activists about its output .
Now , trust doesn ’ t cut it because , increasingly , people are saying “ so what ?
” They ’ re increasingly saying “ so what ?
” about everything regarding the BBC .
When so many people are forking out for Netflix , Amazon Prime , Apple TV , Sky and other niche content on their phones and tablets , more people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) are starting to view the BBC as “ just another service ” that ’ s competing for their attention .
In my experience , this is particularly true amongst younger audiences – they just don ’ t see the point of it , and they don ’ t even share the nostalgia to “ better times ” .
This is my experience from the focus groups , but what of the polling ?
The polling bears this out to a significant extent .
My agency Public First polled directly on the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist , which got a bit of attention at Christmas .
It showed a clear majority overall favouring its abolition – by 74 per cent to 14 per cent overall – and this was true across all the key demographics .
And the poll also showed that people favour decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee .
But it also showed that people were unsure about how the BBC should be funded in the future .
Younger people were quite positive about the idea of the BBC being funded like Netflix , through subscriptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More people liked the idea , they said , of the BBC being funded commercially , like ITV .
Interestingly , the poll also showed that more people disagreed that the BBC was “ neutral ” , than agreed with it .
Either way , the lesson is clear : very few people support the status quo .
The BBC ’ s perfectly reasonable pushback to this poll was that it didn ’ t give sufficient context – that it didn ’ t present enough alternatives , essentially .
Their view is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are confronted with the alternatives or with the prospect of no BBC at all .
We had never intended this to be any sort of detailed look at public attitudes to the BBC ; we ran it because one of our staff was being interviewed about the future of the BBC , and we wanted to have something to say about it .
But the problem with the BBC ’ s pushback is that it almost acknowledges that the status quo is , at best , just the least worst option .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make them entirely irrelevant .
So what does all this mean for Number Ten ’ s future combat with the BBC ?
My sense is that the BBC is extremely vulnerable to massive change if Downing Street simply and narrowly questions whether its relevance to people ’ s lives justifies the licence fee .
This is where people are .
On the other hand , if Number Ten tries to turn change into an ideological battle , it would leave most people cold but probably light up metropolitan lefties in ways that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the BBC .
As I note above , the it was interwoven in the lives of the English working class and lower middle class .
This is no longer true – practically or culturally – and the Corporation will struggle to mobilise these people .
All the BBC has probably got left is the hope that at some point the public will view this Government as “ just another set of politicians ” who mess everything up .
And of course the Corporation should seek to mobilise metropolitan lefties who aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s thinking .
You have to start somewhere .

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
My first focus group was in Watford in 2000. In those days, virtually every other group seemed to take place there. Partly because it was seen as a bellwether seat. But also because it was the nearest vaguely normal place to London that could be reached in an evening.
In those days, people were stuffed full of sandwiches and crisps, beer and wine – unlike now when it’s generally more austere. And every focus group tended to begin with the same ice-breaker: tell us where you get your news from.
The news question provoked a bunch of different answers, depending on the make-up of the group or its location. Older people read the Daily Mail, working class people read The Sun or sometimes the The Daily Mirror, middle class people read The Times or The Daily Telegraph – and yes teachers read The Guardian. Most people in the Midlands and North read a local paper.
But everyone – almost without exception – relied primarily on the BBC1 nightly news bulletins for their daily news. And most supplemented this by dipping into other BBC news sources such as Today, Newsnight or On the Record (the main Sunday interview show, as it then was). For the English, the BBC was ubiquitous.
Over the years that followed, I was often asked to test public trust in the corporation – usually for campaigns that complained bitterly about the BBC’s attitudes towards their cause – on everything from Europe to economic policy. These campaigns hoped that people would share their concerns about BBC bias.
They never did; people almost always said they trusted BBC News in absolute terms, and relatively far more than most political parties and campaigns. Trying to make people question BBC News’ values and motives was a pointless exercise.
It was always hard to say, but the trust the public had in BBC News seemed partly to derive from their wider trust and affection for the BBC as a whole. When you asked people what they thought was so good about the BBC, they generally said wildlife and factual programmes, local programmes (including news) and the fact that there were no ads. Some would talk about the blockbuster shows like Only Fools & Horses. The BBC was interwoven through the lives of ordinary working class and lower middle class life.
Broadly speaking, in my experience, I’d say this was the reality consistently until a couple of years ago. Now, when you ask where people get their news from, it’s almost always Facebook and other social media channels – in turn, directing them to an array of sites (by no means usually the BBC).
Hardly anyone says they make time to watch the main BBC1 news bulletins, and fewer and fewer people say they watch or listen to the main news analysis shows. Furthermore, when you ask people about the shows they watch, they generally reply with an answer about the platform, not the shows themselves. So, they’ll say “Netflix” or “Amazon Prime” or whatever. They never say they “put the telly on” like they did even a decade ago.
Again, in my experience, I have not found that trust has fallen per se – although post the referendum and two brutal election campaigns, there is now a larger minority of people who moan about “BBC bias”. But “trust” has become become less relevant people as the BBC has become less relevant.
By that I mean that they don’t view trust as a negating factor in their views on the decreasing relevance of the institution. This is the big problem that the BBC has: it could always fall back on the trust argument, even as it was getting a kicking from usually right-leaning activists about its output. Now, trust doesn’t cut it because, increasingly, people are saying “so what?”
They’re increasingly saying “so what?” about everything regarding the BBC. When so many people are forking out for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, Sky and other niche content on their phones and tablets, more people (but not all, see below) are starting to view the BBC as “just another service” that’s competing for their attention. In my experience, this is particularly true amongst younger audiences – they just don’t see the point of it, and they don’t even share the nostalgia to “better times”.
This is my experience from the focus groups, but what of the polling? The polling bears this out to a significant extent. My agency Public First polled directly on the question as to whether the licence fee should exist, which got a bit of attention at Christmas.
It showed a clear majority overall favouring its abolition – by 74 per cent to 14 per cent overall – and this was true across all the key demographics. And the poll also showed that people favour decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee.
But it also showed that people were unsure about how the BBC should be funded in the future. Younger people were quite positive about the idea of the BBC being funded like Netflix, through subscriptions, but older people were hostile. More people liked the idea, they said, of the BBC being funded commercially, like ITV. Interestingly, the poll also showed that more people disagreed that the BBC was “neutral”, than agreed with it. Either way, the lesson is clear: very few people support the status quo.
The BBC’s perfectly reasonable pushback to this poll was that it didn’t give sufficient context – that it didn’t present enough alternatives, essentially. Their view is that the BBC always looks better when people are confronted with the alternatives or with the prospect of no BBC at all.
We had never intended this to be any sort of detailed look at public attitudes to the BBC; we ran it because one of our staff was being interviewed about the future of the BBC, and we wanted to have something to say about it. But the problem with the BBC’s pushback is that it almost acknowledges that the status quo is, at best, just the least worst option. They seem to be waiting for the future to make them entirely irrelevant.
So what does all this mean for Number Ten’s future combat with the BBC? My sense is that the BBC is extremely vulnerable to massive change if Downing Street simply and narrowly questions whether its relevance to people’s lives justifies the licence fee. This is where people are. On the other hand, if Number Ten tries to turn change into an ideological battle, it would leave most people cold but probably light up metropolitan lefties in ways that would be problematic.
Which takes us back to the BBC. As I note above, the it was interwoven in the lives of the English working class and lower middle class. This is no longer true – practically or culturally – and the Corporation will struggle to mobilise these people.
All the BBC has probably got left is the hope that at some point the public will view this Government as “just another set of politicians” who mess everything up. And of course the Corporation should seek to mobilise metropolitan lefties who aren’t terribly influential in Number Ten’s thinking. You have to start somewhere.


conservativehome--2020-02-18--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


conservativehome--2020-02-18--Beware the Eye of Johnson

Beware the Eye of Johnson

“ When the Eye of Sauron is off the Whitehall machine , things stop working , ” The Sun was told last week by a senior Downing Street figure .
Whoever this person may be , he certainly knows his onions .
And his Tolkien .
Like many metaphors , it works on different levels .
At one , the Eye is an expression of the will of Sauron , the demonic villain of the tale , to pin down places and people before devouring them .
At another , it is a symbol of the mangled bureaucracy of dysfunctional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an echo of the military headquarters and staff officers of the First World War , in which Tolkien served .
“ The Eye was busy elsewhere , ” one character tells another , at a point in the story .
“ They couldn ’ t get Lugbúrz to pay attention for a good while , I ’ m told.
” “ Lugbúrz ” is Sauron ’ s command and control centre .
Gollum puts it most plainly : “ His Eye is all round , but it attends more to some places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t see everything all at once , not yet.
” As that Downing Street figure spotted , it is also a brilliant symbol of how modern British government works .
Number Ten has got bigger , in relation to the rest of Whitehall , over the past 20 years .
Tony Blair began the trend in earnest : introducing a new Delivery Unit to keep departments up to speed ; giving Alastair Campbell the power to instruct civil servants , bringing in more fixers and operators to Downing Street .
If the core @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eye , this is one that was gazing further afield .
The tendency has waxed and waned .
David Cameron abolished the unit , only later to re-form it .
The powers of the centre reached a terrifying climax under Theresa May Mark One , as this site calls it , when Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill dominated Number Ten .
They were Lugbúrz on steroids , as it were .
The power of the centre shrivelled under May Mark Two , as her majority and authority dwindled to nothing .
Under Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a vengeance – sometimes literally .
The bloody head of Julian Smith , currently pronged on a spike above the door to Number Ten , is evidence of Johnson ’ s long memory , his capacity to nurse a grudge and , later , deliver his revenge cold .
He has a sunnier side .
But it may not be for nothing that he has described his favourite film scene as “ the multiple retribution killings at the end ” of The Godfather .
Amidst these tensions , Dominic Cummings is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately dispensable .
If the wrong adviser is appointed , or the BBC is over-briefed against , the Prime Minister can distance himself from his ruthless SpAd – just as he does this morning .
Cummings fulfils the lightning-rod function legendarily reserved for the Tsar ’ s evil counsellors .
The cry goes up : “ If only Stalin knew !
” Yes , the current Eye in Downing Street is Johnson ’ s , not Cummings ’ .
But , like the officialdom of the Great War , the more it strains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes “ blind almost to all else that is moving ” .
To be sure , modern government needs a strong centre .
And the growth in the Eye ’ s ambitions , over the last 20 years or so , is a response to changing landscape .
Government is busier than ever .
There is more moving out there to keep a watch on .
So it is tempting , for example , to merge Numbers 10 and 11 – at the top , anyway .
To make the Eye see further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sort them quicker .
Hence the decision to get Johnson and Rishi Sunak ’ s top teams working together .
Such accumulating centrism sits oddly with the dominant fashion for devolution , elected mayors , police commissioners , local enterprise partnerships , and the rest of the alphabet soup of English local government .
Downing Street would say that there ’ s no contradiction , and maybe it ’ s right .
Certainly , the Eye has limited use for potential rivals .
Cabinet Ministers have usually been chosen partly because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the media .
This Government still needs some people at the top table of that type : Michael Gove , Brandon Lewis , Sunak himself .
But the sum of the reshuffle suggests that Number Ten thinks that they are less important than before .
And that what matters more is competence , loyalty and discipline – i.e : not showboating in the media .
If the papers and TV are losing out to YouTube and Facebook , why bother with those awkward interviews on The Today Programme or Newsnight when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Andrew Neil ?
If what happens on the floor of the Commons is less testing , because Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve and David Gauke and others have gone , does being deft at the despatch box really matter so much ?
We believe that it does .
But understand why the Prime Minister , Cummings and others might think that they have their opponents where they want them , at least for a while .
So Beware the Eye of Johnson .
Nonetheless , it is worth remembering the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accumulates at the centre , Ministers shrink in size , the Andrew Sabiskys of this world can swiftly be dispensed with , and the BBC may or may not be overhauled ( which should and must happen ) .
The Eye couldn ’ t see everywhere .
Two small opponents slipped beneath the radar , and finished it off a stroke .

“When the Eye of Sauron is off the Whitehall machine, things stop working,” The Sun was told last week by a senior Downing Street figure. Whoever this person may be, he certainly knows his onions. And his Tolkien.
Like many metaphors, it works on different levels. At one, the Eye is an expression of the will of Sauron, the demonic villain of the tale, to pin down places and people before devouring them. At another, it is a symbol of the mangled bureaucracy of dysfunctional states. Or armies. There may be an echo of the military headquarters and staff officers of the First World War, in which Tolkien served.
“The Eye was busy elsewhere,” one character tells another, at a point in the story. “They couldn’t get Lugbúrz to pay attention for a good while, I’m told.” “Lugbúrz” is Sauron’s command and control centre. Gollum puts it most plainly: “His Eye is all round, but it attends more to some places than to others. He can’t see everything all at once, not yet.”
As that Downing Street figure spotted, it is also a brilliant symbol of how modern British government works.
Number Ten has got bigger, in relation to the rest of Whitehall, over the past 20 years. Tony Blair began the trend in earnest: introducing a new Delivery Unit to keep departments up to speed; giving Alastair Campbell the power to instruct civil servants, bringing in more fixers and operators to Downing Street.
If the core of government is like Sauron’s Eye, this is one that was gazing further afield.
The tendency has waxed and waned. David Cameron abolished the unit, only later to re-form it. The powers of the centre reached a terrifying climax under Theresa May Mark One, as this site calls it, when Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill dominated Number Ten.
They were Lugbúrz on steroids, as it were.
The power of the centre shrivelled under May Mark Two, as her majority and authority dwindled to nothing. Under Johnson and his landslide, it is back with a vengeance – sometimes literally. The bloody head of Julian Smith, currently pronged on a spike above the door to Number Ten, is evidence of Johnson’s long memory, his capacity to nurse a grudge and, later, deliver his revenge cold.
He has a sunnier side. But it may not be for nothing that he has described his favourite film scene as “the multiple retribution killings at the end” of The Godfather. Amidst these tensions, Dominic Cummings is a useful agent. He is hugely influential…and ultimately dispensable. If the wrong adviser is appointed, or the BBC is over-briefed against, the Prime Minister can distance himself from his ruthless SpAd – just as he does this morning.
Cummings fulfils the lightning-rod function legendarily reserved for the Tsar’s evil counsellors. The cry goes up: “If only Stalin knew!”
Yes, the current Eye in Downing Street is Johnson’s, not Cummings’. But, like the officialdom of the Great War, the more it strains, the less it sees. It becomes “blind almost to all else that is moving”.
To be sure, modern government needs a strong centre. And the growth in the Eye’s ambitions, over the last 20 years or so, is a response to changing landscape. Government is busier than ever. There is more moving out there to keep a watch on.
So it is tempting, for example, to merge Numbers 10 and 11 – at the top, anyway. To make the Eye see further, faster. To fix on problems and sort them quicker. Hence the decision to get Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s top teams working together.
Such accumulating centrism sits oddly with the dominant fashion for devolution, elected mayors, police commissioners, local enterprise partnerships, and the rest of the alphabet soup of English local government. Downing Street would say that there’s no contradiction, and maybe it’s right.
Certainly, the Eye has limited use for potential rivals. Cabinet Ministers have usually been chosen partly because they will be effective in the Commons and on the media. This Government still needs some people at the top table of that type: Michael Gove, Brandon Lewis, Sunak himself.
But the sum of the reshuffle suggests that Number Ten thinks that they are less important than before. And that what matters more is competence, loyalty and discipline – i.e: not showboating in the media. If the papers and TV are losing out to YouTube and Facebook, why bother with those awkward interviews on The Today Programme or Newsnight when you can reach voters directly? Why worry about Andrew Neil?
If what happens on the floor of the Commons is less testing, because Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve and David Gauke and others have gone, does being deft at the despatch box really matter so much? We believe that it does. But understand why the Prime Minister, Cummings and others might think that they have their opponents where they want them, at least for a while.
So Beware the Eye of Johnson. Nonetheless, it is worth remembering the end of Tolkien’s story, as power accumulates at the centre, Ministers shrink in size, the Andrew Sabiskys of this world can swiftly be dispensed with, and the BBC may or may not be overhauled (which should and must happen). The Eye couldn’t see everywhere. Two small opponents slipped beneath the radar, and finished it off a stroke.