conservativehome--2020-08-04--Rebecca Lowe: CNN’s “individuals with a cervix” Tweet, and why denying the realities of biological s

Rebecca Lowe: CNN’s “individuals with a cervix” Tweet, and why denying the realities of biological sex is so harmful

I ’ m going to assume you saw three things on Twitter this weekend .
But don ’ t worry , I ’ ll go through them briefly , now , and I ’ ll explain my annoying Twitter-centricity , below .
The first of these things was a tweet by CNN , saying : “ Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25 and continue through age 65 ” .
The second thing was a range of people replying to CNN ’ s tweet with variations on the theme of , “ Cervix-havers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the third thing was a less wide-ranging set of people responding to these “ Women !
” tweets , with claims that the people who wrote them were transphobic .
Now , to anyone who doesn ’ t follow this stuff , it must sound a bit “ inside baseball ” .
And , yes , I know there ’ ll be comments below this column telling me : “ The world is bigger than Twitter !
” , and “ Get a life !
” .
But the point is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women !
” , followed by “ Transphobe !
” – is becoming common .
And so is the thing that instigated it .
Organisations like CNN know full well what they ’ re doing when they say things like “ individuals with cervixes ” .
Indeed , in our fortnightly Radical column , we ’ ve written many times about the powerful lobby pushing the agenda that leads to wording like CNN ’ s .
As we ’ ve documented , this lobby has captured our institutions – local authorities , schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so on .
And commercial organisations have proven keen to extract financial gain from what ’ s become a raging culture war .
( I don ’ t use terms like “ culture war ” lightly , but it ’ s hard not to see all this in that way . )
Now , one obvious response to this weekend ’ s problem – as various sensible-seeming people have pointed out – is that organisations like CNN could simply refer to “ women and other cervix-havers ” .
Or , “ women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s where the crux of the matter lies .
The main reason that accusations of “ Transphobe !
” are levelled at the people who shout “ Women !
” , is that the accusers believe – counter to scientific acceptance – that not all cervix-havers are women .
* This is not , generally , however , because those who shout “ Transphobe !
” believe that someone born a man can have a cervix .
Rather , it ’ s because they believe that being a “ man ” or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but rather by the way in which someone “ identifies ” .
So , they shout “ Transphobe !
” largely because there are some natal women who identify as men , but who haven ’ t had their reproductive systems removed to meet their desire to present themselves as men .
And these transmen , the “ Transphobe !
” shouters believe , are not covered by the term “ women ” , because -regardless of their extant cervix , or any biological fact – they are now “ men ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people who shout “ Transphobe !
” wouldn ’ t like the solution on which CNN write “ women and transmen ” .
And this is , surely , because such a phrase would work to emphasise an essential difference between people who are natal members of a sex set , and those who identify into it .
And what the “ Transphobe !
” people want is to elide these two things .
In other words , if “ transwomen are women ” , and “ transmen are men ” -as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrase “ women and transmen ” is problematic , because the “ full ” reduction of this would , of course , be “ women and men ” .
Now , the solution on which CNN write “ women and transmen ” would , also – I believe – not go down too well with many of the people who shout “ Women !
” .
( I should confirm at this point that I am one of those people , albeit one who prefers calm , reasoned argument to shouting , wherever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people who shout “ Women !
” see the CNN tweet as a particular kind of intentional political act – a sexist one .
This kind of tweet , in other words , serves purposefully to help to write women out of the picture , in an insidious way .
So , we appear to have reached stalemate : people shouting across each other on the internet , with no hope for mid-ground pragmatic solutions .
Or , do we ?
Well , aside from my concerns about what all this means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girls , as I ’ ve set out here , before – I ’ m also worried by the lack of concern for transpeople that is shown by those who shout “ Transphobe !
” , whenever anyone refers to the realities of biological sex .
I wonder whether , potentially , this worry could help us – or , at least , those of us entering these discussions from a shared position of good will – to find a point of agreement .
The point here , surely , is that shouting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Women !
” can not really be in transpeople ’ s interests .
This is not only because unfair accusations of prejudice help nobody : they dilute focus on real instances of prejudice , and also make people scared to enter into necessary discussion .
But it is also because transpeople ’ s needs can not be fully met if , as a society , we pretend there is no such thing as biological sex .
Rather , if we recognise , as we must , that transpeople have some particular needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natal members of the biological sex with which those transpeople identify , then it can not be that “ transwomen are women ” – if “ women ” is to mean what it needs to mean .
These needs include some transwomen ’ s need for testicular cancer treatment and some transmen ’ s need for cervical smears .
On top of this , specific trans needs also include support against trans-specific prejudice , which differs from misogyny and misandry , from which many transpeople also suffer .
Now , meeting all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awareness of the realities of biological sex – and that requires words , so we can discuss these things .
Using the words “ woman ” and “ man ” for these purposes is simply reflective of the development of the English language .
Yes , we could begin to use other words for these purposes .
Instead of “ woman ” , for instance , we could use “ female-person ” , or “ womxn ” , or “ shwoman ” , or “ abc ” .
But we would come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a place in which this particular word would refer to what it is to be a natal member of one particular biological sex .
Using “ woman ” to mean a natal member of one particular biological sex is , therefore , exclusionary .
But it is not exclusionary for hateful reasons ; it is not a value judgement .
It is a functional term , and it is required for the meeting of sex-specific needs .
These needs go beyond healthcare .
They also relate to sex-specific concerns around bodily privacy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act .
They relate to matters of fairness , too .
And if we have no relevant words , then – as with healthcare concerns – people will miss out on what they need .
In other words , if you deny the realities of biological sex , in order to be kind – and I am certain that the majority of the people who are committed to the mantra “ transwomen are women ” are committed to it because they think that it is kind , and good – then you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect .
*Of course , to state that “ all cervix-havers are women ” is not the same as to state that “ all women have cervixes ” ( women who ’ ve had total hysterectomies , for instance ) .

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. She is co-founder of Radical.
I’m going to assume you saw three things on Twitter this weekend. But don’t worry, I’ll go through them briefly, now, and I’ll explain my annoying Twitter-centricity, below.
The first of these things was a tweet by CNN, saying: “Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25 and continue through age 65”. The second thing was a range of people replying to CNN’s tweet with variations on the theme of, “Cervix-havers?! You mean women!”. And the third thing was a less wide-ranging set of people responding to these “Women!” tweets, with claims that the people who wrote them were transphobic.
Now, to anyone who doesn’t follow this stuff, it must sound a bit “inside baseball”. And, yes, I know there’ll be comments below this column telling me: “The world is bigger than Twitter!”, and “Get a life!”. But the point is that this kind of exchange – “Women!”, followed by “Transphobe!” – is becoming common. And so is the thing that instigated it. Organisations like CNN know full well what they’re doing when they say things like “individuals with cervixes”.
Indeed, in our fortnightly Radical column, we’ve written many times about the powerful lobby pushing the agenda that leads to wording like CNN’s. As we’ve documented, this lobby has captured our institutions – local authorities, schools, medical providers, police forces, and so on. And commercial organisations have proven keen to extract financial gain from what’s become a raging culture war. (I don’t use terms like “culture war” lightly, but it’s hard not to see all this in that way.)
Now, one obvious response to this weekend’s problem – as various sensible-seeming people have pointed out – is that organisations like CNN could simply refer to “women and other cervix-havers”. Or, “women and transmen”. Because that’s where the crux of the matter lies. The main reason that accusations of “Transphobe!” are levelled at the people who shout “Women!”, is that the accusers believe – counter to scientific acceptance – that not all cervix-havers are women.*
This is not, generally, however, because those who shout “Transphobe!” believe that someone born a man can have a cervix. Rather, it’s because they believe that being a “man” or “woman” is not determined by biology, but rather by the way in which someone “identifies”.
So, they shout “Transphobe!” largely because there are some natal women who identify as men, but who haven’t had their reproductive systems removed to meet their desire to present themselves as men. And these transmen, the “Transphobe!” shouters believe, are not covered by the term “women”, because -regardless of their extant cervix, or any biological fact – they are now “men”.
Nonetheless, I imagine many of the people who shout “Transphobe!” wouldn’t like the solution on which CNN write “women and transmen”. And this is, surely, because such a phrase would work to emphasise an essential difference between people who are natal members of a sex set, and those who identify into it.
And what the “Transphobe!” people want is to elide these two things. In other words, if “transwomen are women”, and “transmen are men” -as their mantras go – then, the phrase “women and transmen” is problematic, because the “full” reduction of this would, of course, be “women and men”.
Now, the solution on which CNN write “women and transmen” would, also – I believe – not go down too well with many of the people who shout “Women!”. (I should confirm at this point that I am one of those people, albeit one who prefers calm, reasoned argument to shouting, wherever possible.)
And this is because the people who shout “Women!” see the CNN tweet as a particular kind of intentional political act – a sexist one. This kind of tweet, in other words, serves purposefully to help to write women out of the picture, in an insidious way.
So, we appear to have reached stalemate: people shouting across each other on the internet, with no hope for mid-ground pragmatic solutions. Or, do we?
Well, aside from my concerns about what all this means for women – and, particularly, girls, as I’ve set out here, before – I’m also worried by the lack of concern for transpeople that is shown by those who shout “Transphobe!”, whenever anyone refers to the realities of biological sex. I wonder whether, potentially, this worry could help us – or, at least, those of us entering these discussions from a shared position of good will – to find a point of agreement.
The point here, surely, is that shouting “Transphobe!” in response to “Women!” cannot really be in transpeople’s interests. This is not only because unfair accusations of prejudice help nobody: they dilute focus on real instances of prejudice, and also make people scared to enter into necessary discussion. But it is also because transpeople’s needs cannot be fully met if, as a society, we pretend there is no such thing as biological sex.
Rather, if we recognise, as we must, that transpeople have some particular needs that differ from the needs of the natal members of the biological sex with which those transpeople identify, then it cannot be that “transwomen are women” – if “women” is to mean what it needs to mean.
These needs include some transwomen’s need for testicular cancer treatment and some transmen’s need for cervical smears. On top of this, specific trans needs also include support against trans-specific prejudice, which differs from misogyny and misandry, from which many transpeople also suffer.
Now, meeting all of these particular needs requires widespread and formal awareness of the realities of biological sex – and that requires words, so we can discuss these things. Using the words “woman” and “man” for these purposes is simply reflective of the development of the English language.
Yes, we could begin to use other words for these purposes. Instead of “woman”, for instance, we could use “female-person”, or “womxn”, or “shwoman”, or “abc”. But we would come to the same place, and that is a place in which this particular word would refer to what it is to be a natal member of one particular biological sex.
Using “woman” to mean a natal member of one particular biological sex is, therefore, exclusionary. But it is not exclusionary for hateful reasons; it is not a value judgement. It is a functional term, and it is required for the meeting of sex-specific needs.
These needs go beyond healthcare. They also relate to sex-specific concerns around bodily privacy and security, as recognised in the Equality Act. They relate to matters of fairness, too. And if we have no relevant words, then – as with healthcare concerns – people will miss out on what they need.
In other words, if you deny the realities of biological sex, in order to be kind – and I am certain that the majority of the people who are committed to the mantra “transwomen are women” are committed to it because they think that it is kind, and good – then you will end up harming those people you seek to protect.
_______
*Of course, to state that “all cervix-havers are women” is not the same as to state that “all women have cervixes” (women who’ve had total hysterectomies, for instance).


conservativehome--2020-08-04--Judy Terry: Suffolk has shown has small charities can make a big difference in helping the vulnerabl

Judy Terry: Suffolk has shown has small charities can make a big difference in helping the vulnerable

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk .
One of 46 across the UK , Suffolk Community Foundation recently celebrated its 14th year , reporting record levels of income , grantmaking and endowment fund growth .
665 grants , with a combined value of £2.76m were awarded during 2018/19 , supporting essential services to help over 164,000 vulnerable and disadvantaged people across the county , including those suffering winter fuel poverty , with funds raised through its annual Surviving Winter Appeal campaign .
“ Unlike traditional grantmaking trusts and foundations , we develop lasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public bodies and trusts .
We worth together to ensure that areas of acute need are addressed compassionately , respectfully and sustainably .
Our priority is to reach those in most need by combining robust evidence with local service delivery .
“ Each year we have grown stronger , more effective and more ambitious to make Suffolk a better place to live for everyone , raising over £45 million since 2005.
” The website relaunched a year ago , now attracts 25,000 hits , “ enabling people to learn more about Hidden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donate , ” says Stephen Singleton , Chief Executive .
“ Although Suffolk is a very generous county , it is our mission to raise greater awareness of how local charities and community groups meet need at grassroots level .
“ Currently , almost 80 per cent of people ’ s donations go to the top three per cent of the largest national and international charities , instead of being focused locally .
By working with our professional advisors , businesses , families and individuals wishing to contribute to , or establish , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects with clear outcomes.
” With Social Care services under so much pressure , Stephen Singleton is especially proud of the innovative Sustainability & Transformation Partnership with North East Essex , bringing together both statutory and voluntary sectors to redesign and integrate primary , secondary physical and mental health as well as social care , with the creation of an Integrated Care System ( ICS ) .
As an ICS Board member , the Foundation plays a leading role through its Realising Ambitions fund , with volunteer panels allocating and distributing £1.2m in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and suicides , improve mental health and obesity , and reducing the impacts of poverty on health .
Other initiatives include the creation of Suffolk 100 members , and Community Champions , who directly support the Foundation and the Young Philanthropists , inspiring young people to raise money for their local communities , whilst developing key skills in research , negotiation , decision making and public speaking.
” “ Building positive futures for our young people is a constant focus , ” explains Stephen Singleton : “ The Youth Intervention Fund , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online safety , isolation and wellbeing , especially in rural locations , to ‘ up the anti ’ on resources to support young people whose lives and futures are in serious jeopardy .
“ With knife crime just one of the serious issues increasingly hitting the headlines , we ’ ve commissioned workshops across 32 primaries , and funded research in close consultation with 75 young people to address their concerns.
” Coming together with The Diocese , University of Suffolk and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this programme has identified the need to include young people in decisions , improve accessibility to services , and provide safe social spaces in consultation with them .
When the PCC pledged an initial £50,000 , a further £100,000 was quickly raised to deliver on expectations , and address challenges including antisocial behaviour and gang culture , drugs and alcohol addition , and County Lines .
“ During my term in office , I have seen at first hand some shocking and heart-wrenching situations involving our young people that are completely unbelievable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was vital to implementing solutions as a team , and I was delighted with the response to create the Youth Intervention Fund.
” In another success , 2018/19 saw nearly 500 people donating all or part of their Winter Fuel Payment to raise over £125,000 to heat over 800 households , as well as help with insulation improvements and energy tariffs .
“ We really broke new ground , and committed every penny to those vulnerable older people in genuine need , ” adds Mr. Singleton .
The annual Suffolk Action week in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in local wellbeing , reaching over 40,000 people , highlighting opportunities to volunteer at least once a month by joining one of the many organisations changing lives across the region .
One of the most popular annual events , deferred until next year , is Suffolk Dog Day , run entirely by volunteers , bringing together tens of thousands of dog lovers at the magnificent Helmingham Hall .
Since 2008 , it has raised over £500,000 , benefiting over 100,000 vulnerable people through 250 grants .
Importantly , it is a fun day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoying each other ’ s company , entertainment and food , as well as delighting in dogs ’ performance .
Recognising and rewarding all this effort is the aim of the annual High Sheriff ’ s Awards , inviting entries across seven categories .
“ We are very fortunate in Suffolk , to have so many people willing to devote their time and energy to helping others .
Cooking meals , driving people to the shops or doctors ’ appointments , digging a garden , organising a book club or children ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for so many people , but do all these things out of love , without expecting anything in return , so these Awards are a wonderful opportunity to say a simple ‘ thank you ’ , ” explains Mr. Singleton .
The strength of the Foundation ’ s relationship with the High Sheriff is evident as it welcomes George Vestey , as its new Chairman .
High Sheriff of Suffolk in 2018/19 , he praised his predecessor for his “ kindness , support and thoughtful leadership ” .
A significant act to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Matthew Hicks , Leader of Suffolk County Council ( SCC ) , acknowledges the considerable benefits of joint working with the Foundation and its army of volunteers and fundraisers : “ Suffolk is a wonderful place to live , but , like so many rural counties , it has its fair share of challenges to overcome .
“ These challenges include some people who may be living in rural isolation , facing loneliness and potential financial distress .
Too often these issues are handled by the individual , on their own in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health .
“ When I became Leader of SCC in May 2018 , I made clear my belief that no one individual organisation has all the answers to these challenges .
I believe that we must work together with partners across the county to find solutions and mitigations that work .
Through its sympathetic approach , the Foundation identifies a whole range of Hidden Needs across all age groups , which helps all of us to work in partnership to find the right solutions without invading anyone ’ s privacy .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephen Singleton and Matthew Hicks both agree that the current Covid-19 pandemic “ is an exceptional event that will have an impact on local charities and community groups .
We want to offer reassurance that we all stand together to address these challenges , focusing on the vital work of supporting the most vulnerable people across the county .
”

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk.
One of 46 across the UK, Suffolk Community Foundation recently celebrated its 14th year, reporting record levels of income, grantmaking and endowment fund growth.
665 grants, with a combined value of £2.76m were awarded during 2018/19, supporting essential services to help over 164,000 vulnerable and disadvantaged people across the county, including those suffering winter fuel poverty, with funds raised through its annual Surviving Winter Appeal campaign.
Retiring Chairman, James Buckle, a Trustee for nine years, explained:
“Unlike traditional grantmaking trusts and foundations, we develop lasting partnerships with individuals, families, businesses, public bodies and trusts. We worth together to ensure that areas of acute need are addressed compassionately, respectfully and sustainably. Our priority is to reach those in most need by combining robust evidence with local service delivery.
“Each year we have grown stronger, more effective and more ambitious to make Suffolk a better place to live for everyone, raising over £45 million since 2005.”
The website relaunched a year ago, now attracts 25,000 hits, “enabling people to learn more about Hidden Needs, apply for a grant or donate,” says Stephen Singleton, Chief Executive.
“Although Suffolk is a very generous county, it is our mission to raise greater awareness of how local charities and community groups meet need at grassroots level.
“Currently, almost 80 per cent of people’s donations go to the top three per cent of the largest national and international charities, instead of being focused locally. By working with our professional advisors, businesses, families and individuals wishing to contribute to, or establish, funds can tailor their generosity to specific projects with clear outcomes.”
With Social Care services under so much pressure, Stephen Singleton is especially proud of the innovative Sustainability & Transformation Partnership with North East Essex, bringing together both statutory and voluntary sectors to redesign and integrate primary, secondary physical and mental health as well as social care, with the creation of an Integrated Care System (ICS).
As an ICS Board member, the Foundation plays a leading role through its Realising Ambitions fund, with volunteer panels allocating and distributing £1.2m in the last year to address reducing loneliness and suicides, improve mental health and obesity, and reducing the impacts of poverty on health.
Other initiatives include the creation of Suffolk 100 members, and Community Champions, who directly support the Foundation and the Young Philanthropists, inspiring young people to raise money for their local communities, whilst developing key skills in research, negotiation, decision making and public speaking.”
“Building positive futures for our young people is a constant focus,” explains Stephen Singleton:
“The Youth Intervention Fund, for example, addresses issues as diverse as online safety, isolation and wellbeing, especially in rural locations, to ‘up the anti’ on resources to support young people whose lives and futures are in serious jeopardy.
“With knife crime just one of the serious issues increasingly hitting the headlines, we’ve commissioned workshops across 32 primaries, and funded research in close consultation with 75 young people to address their concerns.”
Coming together with The Diocese, University of Suffolk and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership, as well as the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC), this programme has identified the need to include young people in decisions, improve accessibility to services, and provide safe social spaces in consultation with them.
When the PCC pledged an initial £50,000, a further £100,000 was quickly raised to deliver on expectations, and address challenges including antisocial behaviour and gang culture, drugs and alcohol addition, and County Lines.
Tim Passmore, the PCC says:
“During my term in office, I have seen at first hand some shocking and heart-wrenching situations involving our young people that are completely unbelievable in 21st century Suffolk. The research was vital to implementing solutions as a team, and I was delighted with the response to create the Youth Intervention Fund.”
In another success, 2018/19 saw nearly 500 people donating all or part of their Winter Fuel Payment to raise over £125,000 to heat over 800 households, as well as help with insulation improvements and energy tariffs. “We really broke new ground, and committed every penny to those vulnerable older people in genuine need,” adds Mr. Singleton.
The annual Suffolk Action week in early autumn showcases the role volunteers play in local wellbeing, reaching over 40,000 people, highlighting opportunities to volunteer at least once a month by joining one of the many organisations changing lives across the region.
One of the most popular annual events, deferred until next year, is Suffolk Dog Day, run entirely by volunteers, bringing together tens of thousands of dog lovers at the magnificent Helmingham Hall. Since 2008, it has raised over £500,000, benefiting over 100,000 vulnerable people through 250 grants. Importantly, it is a fun day out for people of all ages, enjoying each other’s company, entertainment and food, as well as delighting in dogs’ performance.
Recognising and rewarding all this effort is the aim of the annual High Sheriff’s Awards, inviting entries across seven categories.
“We are very fortunate in Suffolk, to have so many people willing to devote their time and energy to helping others. Cooking meals, driving people to the shops or doctors’ appointments, digging a garden, organising a book club or children’s sporting event; they are a lifeline for so many people, but do all these things out of love, without expecting anything in return, so these Awards are a wonderful opportunity to say a simple ‘thank you’,” explains Mr. Singleton.
The strength of the Foundation’s relationship with the High Sheriff is evident as it welcomes George Vestey, as its new Chairman. High Sheriff of Suffolk in 2018/19, he praised his predecessor for his “kindness, support and thoughtful leadership”. A significant act to follow, for which he is well qualified.
Matthew Hicks, Leader of Suffolk County Council (SCC), acknowledges the considerable benefits of joint working with the Foundation and its army of volunteers and fundraisers:
“Suffolk is a wonderful place to live, but, like so many rural counties, it has its fair share of challenges to overcome.
“These challenges include some people who may be living in rural isolation, facing loneliness and potential financial distress. Too often these issues are handled by the individual, on their own in silence, leading to incidents of poor mental health.
“When I became Leader of SCC in May 2018, I made clear my belief that no one individual organisation has all the answers to these challenges. I believe that we must work together with partners across the county to find solutions and mitigations that work. Through its sympathetic approach, the Foundation identifies a whole range of Hidden Needs across all age groups, which helps all of us to work in partnership to find the right solutions without invading anyone’s privacy. They are a pleasure to work with.”
Stephen Singleton and Matthew Hicks both agree that the current Covid-19 pandemic “is an exceptional event that will have an impact on local charities and community groups. We want to offer reassurance that we all stand together to address these challenges, focusing on the vital work of supporting the most vulnerable people across the county.”


conservativehome--2020-08-05--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the CPS –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the CPS – 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 Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities is seeking a strong , strategic leader who will continue to develop the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) and set the Commission ’ s overall direction to reflect its crucial role as an equality body and National Human Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Equality Act 2006 that the Secretary of State should appoint a Chair to the Commission .
Although the Commission is an independent organisation , the Chair is accountable to the above sponsoring Minister .
You will develop and maintain high-value relationships with Ministers , influential partners , governments at home and abroad , opinion formers , industry and others , demonstrating judgment , integrity and resilience in the face of challenge.
” “ National Citizen Service ( NCS ) is a youth programme that runs across England and Northern Ireland .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ empower young people , building their confidence so they can go out there and achieve their dreams , no matter where they ’ re from or what their background is .
Our programme is managed and supported by NCS Trust , our central team who are constantly working to make sure we deliver the most impactful experience we can to as many young people as possible .
National Citizen Service is seeking three Trustees with experience and skills at a senior level in the following areas : experience and demonstrable senior leadership in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; human resources specialist with commercial experience and a particular focus on people strategy , culture and coaching high performance teams ( 1 Trustee ) ; [ and ] an education leader with strong links to schools and young people ( 1 Trustee ) .
” “ The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner role aims to promote police compliance with the rules on the collection and retention of DNA , fingerprints and surveillance cameras respectively .
The roles were created by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ( POFA ) , which set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DNA , fingerprints and the regulation of surveillance cameras .
We have decided to appoint a single person to both roles because of the confluence of existing and emerging regulatory issues around police use of automated facial recognition .
The post will cover the duties of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner , while the Government is considering reforms in this area.
” Home Office – Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities “ HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services ( HMICFRS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales , fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies .
It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends , challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement , and making performance information accessible .
The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales , and of all fire & rescue authorities in England ; providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and independent view of the quality of services in their local area.
” “ Joint Nature Conservation Committee ( JNCC ) Framework Document provides the legal , administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair .
As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership , direction and effectiveness of JNCC in line with strategies and plans agreed with Defra and the Devolved Administrations .
You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and vision for JNCC , setting strategic and operational direction , ensuring good governance and , together with the Joint Committee , holding the executive to account.
” “ Environmental Standards Scotland will be established , initially , on a non-statutory basis from January 2021 .
It will transition to a statutory , independent body over the course of 2021 .
The Board will initially comprise of the Chair and two other members .
Once Environmental Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation , further board appointments are expected .
Members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shape how the Board performs its role , including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor ; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation ; resolving these through agreement with public authorities , where possible ; and , highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.
” Time : 8-10 days per month initially , ~4 per month thereafter .
“ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate : Her Majesty ’ s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ( HMCPSI ) .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation , efficiency , and effectiveness of the public prosecutors ( the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) and the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO ) ) .
The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve , thereby strengthening the public ’ s trust in the prosecution process .
Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.
” “ The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole , sponsored by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Secretary of State for Education .
The Commissioner ’ s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England .
The legislative basis for the office of Children ’ s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004 .
This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder .
The legislation relating to the Children ’ s Commissioner is permissive , allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rights .
The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and , in general , can not conduct investigations into the case of an individual child .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Equality & Human Rights Commission – Chair
“The Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities is seeking a strong, strategic leader who will continue to develop the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and set the Commission’s overall direction to reflect its crucial role as an equality body and National Human Rights Institution. This appointment fulfils the requirement of the Equality Act 2006 that the Secretary of State should appoint a Chair to the Commission. Although the Commission is an independent organisation, the Chair is accountable to the above sponsoring Minister. You will develop and maintain high-value relationships with Ministers, influential partners, governments at home and abroad, opinion formers, industry and others, demonstrating judgment, integrity and resilience in the face of challenge.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 03 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport – National Citizen Service Trustees
“National Citizen Service (NCS) is a youth programme that runs across England and Northern Ireland. We exist to engage, unite and empower young people, building their confidence so they can go out there and achieve their dreams, no matter where they’re from or what their background is. Our programme is managed and supported by NCS Trust, our central team who are constantly working to make sure we deliver the most impactful experience we can to as many young people as possible. National Citizen Service is seeking three Trustees with experience and skills at a senior level in the following areas: experience and demonstrable senior leadership in the parliamentary/public sector (1 Trustee); human resources specialist with commercial experience and a particular focus on people strategy, culture and coaching high performance teams (1 Trustee); [and] an education leader with strong links to schools and young people (1 Trustee).”
Time: 5-10 days per year.
Remuneration: “Reasonable expenses”.
Closes: 09 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner
“The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner role aims to promote police compliance with the rules on the collection and retention of DNA, fingerprints and surveillance cameras respectively. The roles were created by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), which set out the regime for police use of DNA, fingerprints and the regulation of surveillance cameras. We have decided to appoint a single person to both roles because of the confluence of existing and emerging regulatory issues around police use of automated facial recognition. The post will cover the duties of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, while the Government is considering reforms in this area.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 09 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities
“HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales, fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies. It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends, challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement, and making performance information accessible. The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales, and of all fire & rescue authorities in England; providing the public with a clear, consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their local area.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £175,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Joint Nature Conservation Committee – Chair
“Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Framework Document provides the legal, administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair. As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership, direction and effectiveness of JNCC in line with strategies and plans agreed with Defra and the Devolved Administrations. You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee. You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC, setting strategic and operational direction, ensuring good governance and, together with the Joint Committee, holding the executive to account.”
Time: 2.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,059 per annum.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Environmental Standards Scotland – Chair/Members
“Environmental Standards Scotland will be established, initially, on a non-statutory basis from January 2021. It will transition to a statutory, independent body over the course of 2021. The Board will initially comprise of the Chair and two other members. Once Environmental Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation, further board appointments are expected. Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role, including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation; resolving these through agreement with public authorities, where possible; and, highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.”
Time: 8-10 days per month initially, ~4 per month thereafter.
Remuneration: £300/£200 per diem.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September


conservativehome--2020-08-05--A battle with teaching unions looks inevitable next month. Who will win?

Consensus might be in vanishingly short supply regarding the right response to the Coronavirus pandemic .
But giving priority to getting the schools fully reopened next month does have general approval .
Professor Chris Whitty , the Chief Medical Officer , is a lockdown hawk – arguing we have “ probably reached near the limit or the limits ” of opening up society .
But rather than suggesting that the schools should remain largely empty he suggests it is a matter of trade-offs .
Professor Graham Medley , another Government advisor , is thinking along the same lines .
Medley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a question of which do you trade-off against each other , and then that ’ s a matter of prioritising .
Do we think pubs are more important than schools ?
” Daniel Hannan feels “ it is a question , not just of proportionality – children do not , in normal circumstances , experience or pass on Covid symptoms – but of equity.
” He writes : “ Nothing has shocked me so much over the past four months as the gap between ambitious and unambitious schools .
Good state schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something close to a full timetable , with morning assemblies , online classes , music lessons , even sports days ( mediated through apps that record speed and distance ) .
Bad ones sent out desultory worksheets and , in some cases , wouldn ’ t mark them .
“ A survey by the Children ’ s Commissioner found that half of teenagers , and nearly 60 per cent of under-12s , got no online teaching at all last term .
The go-to excuse of failing schools – lack of resources – doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fields of Eton may be expansive and expensive but , during the lockdown , they were used only by the children of key workers whom the school had taken in .
Teaching online is cheap : it is a question of commitment , not money .
Yes , a few kids might lack access to screens ; but that is an argument for offering extra support , not for refusing online lessons to everyone else.
” The message from the Government on school reopenings has been robust .
While other measures to restore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the schools one has been unequivocal .
The implication is that even if we have discouraging statistics – or predictions such as the Lancet study suggesting a “ second wave ” – then the response will be to look for alternatives to keeping the nation ’ s children stuck at home .
The hitch is that the teaching unions are just are emphatic about wanting schools to be closed .
The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers ( the NASUWT ) is anxious not to be regarded as any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( the NEU ) .
Like all militants , they are well versed in making impossible demands , whilst going through the pretence of following reasonable procedure .
Thus , whatever precautions are put in place and however much the threat of Coronavirus recedes , they will come up with a declaration that returning to work would put the safety of their members at risk .
The risk assessment will be challenged as deficient – regardless of how meticulous it might be .
The timing of these objections will be as late as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be resolved .
In the awkward event that a demand they thought was impossible is met , they will quickly think of a new one .
One great prize for the unions would be to keep the schools closed for long enough to prevent SATS – the Statutory Assessment Tests – and the Progress 8 tests taking place .
These are important accountability measures for primary and secondary schools – which show if the children are actually learning anything .
What will help the unions is that the practicality of having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large majority of teachers back at work .
The classes need to be covered through the school day .
If only half the teachers are prepared to turn up , then it probably won ’ t be viable for the school to open .
The situation might be eased by some parents refusing to send their children back to school .
But this could hardly be counted on .
There is also the restriction on moving pupils from one “ bubble ” to another .
In any case , if many parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this can only be helpful to the unions and detrimental to the Government so far as winning over public opinion is concerned .
Suppose if the Government decided to take inspiration from how Ronald Reagan responded to a strike from air traffic controllers in 1981 ?
He told the strikers that if they did not return to work within 48 hours , they would lose their jobs and might not be re-hired .
There was some temporary disruption but the resulting control system emerged safer and more efficient .
In the context , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other workers ( including just about all others in the public sector ) who are required by their employer to return to their workplace must do so – unless they can establish to the satisfaction of some official entity , such as the Health and Safety Executive , that entering such premises would be a genuine hazard .
By not coming in to work , without a legally valid reason for remaining absent , they would have foreited their job .
For teachers , though , the idea of being sacked seems pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly employed by central Government – but by academy trusts or local authorities .
However , it would be possible for the Government to say to the school authorities that they are being funded to provide education .
If they are unwilling or unable to find enough teachers willing to carry this out , then their funding will cease .
The problem with this nuclear option is that to carry out the threat could involve closing schools – with the disruption lasting much longer .
So one can see how the teaching unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong position .
But they do risk overplaying their hands .
Most teachers did enter the profession with the motivation of teaching .
They do actually develop a concern for their pupils to learn .
It would be interesting to see some polling or focus groups from teachers but I suspect that if unions are too brazen in their intransigence they will alienate their members .
Time will also increase the number of parents who wish schools to be up and running .
Primary pupils in England in Reception , Year 1 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of June – and each week the number of pupils being sent in rose significantly .
Strike action would hardly be noticed if a school is empty anyway .
Even if the unions “ win ” – which I suppose would mean many schools staying closed for weeks with the teachers on full pay and facing no sanction but perhaps shuffling back into the classrooms at some stage in the New Year – that might be dangerous for them .
What if some parents mount a strike of their own ?
They might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opt for home schooling through to A-Levels .
This would cut the finance to schools – who are paid on a per pupil basis .
Clusters of parents might hire private tutors to teach ten or 12 children at a time .
What if such informal arrangements start next month , intending to be temporary , and then turn out to work rather better than regular schooling ?
The added attraction for those annoyed by schools pushing left-wing indoctrination would be obvious .
True , most parents would probably not resort to such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel considerable dismay .
A YouGov poll yesterday showed a big majority favouring full reopening after the summer holidays , “ as things currently stand ” .
Imagine the exasperation if there is long delay with apparent justification ?
The Government would be likely to respond with legal changes that diminish the power of the teaching unions – with heads given greater authority to hire and fire and negotiate pay and conditions on an individual basis .
The teaching unions may win the battle this autumn .
But then lose the war – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break their stranglehold .

Consensus might be in vanishingly short supply regarding the right response to the Coronavirus pandemic. But giving priority to getting the schools fully reopened next month does have general approval. Professor Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer, is a lockdown hawk – arguing we have “probably reached near the limit or the limits” of opening up society. But rather than suggesting that the schools should remain largely empty he suggests it is a matter of trade-offs. Professor Graham Medley, another Government advisor, is thinking along the same lines. Medley says:
“It might come down to a question of which do you trade-off against each other, and then that’s a matter of prioritising. Do we think pubs are more important than schools?”
Daniel Hannan feels “it is a question, not just of proportionality – children do not, in normal circumstances, experience or pass on Covid symptoms – but of equity.” He writes:
“Nothing has shocked me so much over the past four months as the gap between ambitious and unambitious schools. Good state schools, and most private schools, ran something close to a full timetable, with morning assemblies, online classes, music lessons, even sports days (mediated through apps that record speed and distance). Bad ones sent out desultory worksheets and, in some cases, wouldn’t mark them.
“A survey by the Children’s Commissioner found that half of teenagers, and nearly 60 per cent of under-12s, got no online teaching at all last term. The go-to excuse of failing schools – lack of resources – doesn’t work here. The playing fields of Eton may be expansive and expensive but, during the lockdown, they were used only by the children of key workers whom the school had taken in. Teaching online is cheap: it is a question of commitment, not money. Yes, a few kids might lack access to screens; but that is an argument for offering extra support, not for refusing online lessons to everyone else.”
The message from the Government on school reopenings has been robust. While other measures to restore normal life have been subject to caveats, the schools one has been unequivocal. The implication is that even if we have discouraging statistics – or predictions such as the Lancet study suggesting a “second wave” – then the response will be to look for alternatives to keeping the nation’s children stuck at home.
The hitch is that the teaching unions are just are emphatic about wanting schools to be closed. The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (the NASUWT) is anxious not to be regarded as any less militant that the National Education Union (the NEU). Like all militants, they are well versed in making impossible demands, whilst going through the pretence of following reasonable procedure. Thus, whatever precautions are put in place and however much the threat of Coronavirus recedes, they will come up with a declaration that returning to work would put the safety of their members at risk. The risk assessment will be challenged as deficient – regardless of how meticulous it might be. The timing of these objections will be as late as possible to make it harder for them to be resolved. In the awkward event that a demand they thought was impossible is met, they will quickly think of a new one.
One great prize for the unions would be to keep the schools closed for long enough to prevent SATS – the Statutory Assessment Tests – and the Progress 8 tests taking place. These are important accountability measures for primary and secondary schools – which show if the children are actually learning anything.
What will help the unions is that the practicality of having a school functioning is the necessity of having a large majority of teachers back at work. The classes need to be covered through the school day. If only half the teachers are prepared to turn up, then it probably won’t be viable for the school to open. The situation might be eased by some parents refusing to send their children back to school. But this could hardly be counted on. There is also the restriction on moving pupils from one “bubble” to another. In any case, if many parents are uneasy about schools functioning again, this can only be helpful to the unions and detrimental to the Government so far as winning over public opinion is concerned.
Suppose if the Government decided to take inspiration from how Ronald Reagan responded to a strike from air traffic controllers in 1981? He told the strikers that if they did not return to work within 48 hours, they would lose their jobs and might not be re-hired. There was some temporary disruption but the resulting control system emerged safer and more efficient.
In the context, a bold response would be justified. Other workers (including just about all others in the public sector) who are required by their employer to return to their workplace must do so – unless they can establish to the satisfaction of some official entity, such as the Health and Safety Executive, that entering such premises would be a genuine hazard. By not coming in to work, without a legally valid reason for remaining absent, they would have foreited their job.
For teachers, though, the idea of being sacked seems pretty farfetched. Furthermore, they are not directly employed by central Government – but by academy trusts or local authorities. However, it would be possible for the Government to say to the school authorities that they are being funded to provide education. If they are unwilling or unable to find enough teachers willing to carry this out, then their funding will cease. The problem with this nuclear option is that to carry out the threat could involve closing schools – with the disruption lasting much longer.
So one can see how the teaching unions might feel they are in a pretty strong position. But they do risk overplaying their hands. Most teachers did enter the profession with the motivation of teaching. They do actually develop a concern for their pupils to learn. It would be interesting to see some polling or focus groups from teachers but I suspect that if unions are too brazen in their intransigence they will alienate their members. Time will also increase the number of parents who wish schools to be up and running. Primary pupils in England in Reception, Year 1 and Year 6 went back at the start of June – and each week the number of pupils being sent in rose significantly. Strike action would hardly be noticed if a school is empty anyway.
Even if the unions “win” – which I suppose would mean many schools staying closed for weeks with the teachers on full pay and facing no sanction but perhaps shuffling back into the classrooms at some stage in the New Year – that might be dangerous for them. What if some parents mount a strike of their own? They might withdraw their child from school completely and opt for home schooling through to A-Levels. This would cut the finance to schools – who are paid on a per pupil basis. Clusters of parents might hire private tutors to teach ten or 12 children at a time. What if such informal arrangements start next month, intending to be temporary, and then turn out to work rather better than regular schooling? The added attraction for those annoyed by schools pushing left-wing indoctrination would be obvious.
True, most parents would probably not resort to such drastic action. But they might still feel considerable dismay. A YouGov poll yesterday showed a big majority favouring full reopening after the summer holidays, “as things currently stand”. Imagine the exasperation if there is long delay with apparent justification? The Government would be likely to respond with legal changes that diminish the power of the teaching unions – with heads given greater authority to hire and fire and negotiate pay and conditions on an individual basis.
The teaching unions may win the battle this autumn. But then lose the war – once long overdue action is taken to break their stranglehold.


conservativehome--2020-08-05--Daniel Hannan: Sweden settled in for the long haul, and now doesn’t need to worry about a second sur

Daniel Hannan: Sweden settled in for the long haul, and now doesn’t need to worry about a second surge

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
You know who isn ’ t worried about a second wave ?
Sweden .
Covid cases may be rising worldwide but , in that stolid , sensible monarchy , they are down nearly 90 per cent from peak .
“ I think to a great extent it ’ s been a success , ” says Anders Tegnell , the country ’ s chief epidemiologist .
“ We are now seeing rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthcare that has been working , there have been free beds at any given time , never any crowding in the hospitals , we have been able to keep schools open which we think is extremely important , and society fairly open.
” Uncomplicatedly good news , you might think .
Yet the overseas media coverage of Sweden is brutal .
Its fatality rate is endlessly compared to the lower rates in Norway and Finland ( never the higher rates in Italy or Britain ) .
Many commentators sound affronted , as though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed in most of the world .
The nature of their criticism is telling .
To condemn Sweden for its relatively high number of deaths per capita suggests a worrying inability , even after five months , to grasp what “ flattening the curve ” means .
In the absence of a cure or vaccine , an epidemic will end up reaching roughly the same number of people .
That number may differ from country to country for all sorts of possible reasons : age profile , weather , family living patterns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obesity , past exposure to different coronaviruses , differing levels of genetic immunity .
But it won ’ t be much affected by lockdown measures .
To put it at its simplest , flattening the curve doesn ’ t alter the area underneath the curve .
No country can immobilise its population indefinitely ; so all we are doing , in the absence of a medical breakthrough , is buying time .
The UK lockdown was intended to string things out while we built our capacity .
“ It ’ s vital to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said the PM in his televised address of March 23 .
“ Because that is the way we reduce the number of people needing hospital treatment at any one time , so we can protect the NHS ’ s ability to cope – and save more lives.
” Sweden judged that it could manage to keep its hospitals functioning with only relatively minor restrictions – and it was right .
With hindsight , it seems likely that the UK could have got away with a similar approach .
Not only did our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so did many of our existing hospital beds .
The expected tidal wave , mercifully , did not come – probably because the rate of infection , worldwide , turned out to be lower than was first feared .
No one should blame public health officials for erring on the side of caution .
Still , it ought to have been clear by late May that we could start easing restrictions .
We knew , by then , that the infection rate had peaked on our around March 18 – that is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But , alarmingly , liberty turns out to be more easily taken than restored .
The easing of the lockdown was achieved in the face of public opposition : British voters were global outliers in their backing for longer and stronger closures .
The media , never having internalised what flattening the curve meant , failed to distinguish between preventable deaths and deaths per se .
In March , according to the official minute , “ Sage was unanimous that measures seeking to completely suppress the spread of Covid-19 will cause a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can tell , it has never rescinded that view .
The question is not whether there will be some post-lockdown uptick in infection rates – releasing an entire population from house arrest is bound to lead to an increase in all sorts of medical problems , from common colds to car crashes .
The question , rather , is still the one we faced in March , namely can we be certain that our healthcare capacity will not be overwhelmed .
Given what we can see in Sweden – and , indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to isolate their teeming populations – it seems pretty clear that we can .
Yet the original rationale for the closures has somehow got lost .
Commentators now demand the “ defeat ” of the disease , and hold up league tables of fatality rates as if that were the only gauge by which to measure the performance of different countries .
Covid , like everything else , has been dragged into our culture wars , so that one side revels in excessive caution , ticking people off for the tiniest lockdown infractions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t work at all .
The case against the lockdown is not that it was useless , but that it was disproportionate and had served its purpose long before it was eased .
Confining an entire population is bound to have some impact on slowing a disease – any disease .
The question is how high a price we should be prepared to pay .
Sweden seems to have got it right .
It banned large meetings and urged people to stay home where possible .
But , beyond one or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to use their nous .
Because it judged coolly at the outset that there would be no immediate vaccine , it never got into the ridiculous position of being unable to restore normality in the absence of one .
It settled in for the long haul , understanding that the disease would be around for a while , and that acquired immunity would be part of the eventual solution .
The figures for Q2 growth are published later today .
Yes , Sweden will have suffered .
The distancing measures taken by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will have taken their toll .
Still , my guess – judging from retail figures , credit card activity , employment rates and other extant data – is that Sweden will comfortably have outperformed most European countries , as well as avoiding the costs of furlough schemes and massive borrowing .
It may turn out , when all is said and done , that the international variable was not the eventual death toll so much as the price exacted from the survivors .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
You know who isn’t worried about a second wave? Sweden. Covid cases may be rising worldwide but, in that stolid, sensible monarchy, they are down nearly 90 per cent from peak. “I think to a great extent it’s been a success,” says Anders Tegnell, the country’s chief epidemiologist. “We are now seeing rapidly falling cases, we have continuously had healthcare that has been working, there have been free beds at any given time, never any crowding in the hospitals, we have been able to keep schools open which we think is extremely important, and society fairly open.”
Uncomplicatedly good news, you might think. Yet the overseas media coverage of Sweden is brutal. Its fatality rate is endlessly compared to the lower rates in Norway and Finland (never the higher rates in Italy or Britain). Many commentators sound affronted, as though Sweden were deliberately mocking the harsher prohibitions imposed in most of the world.
The nature of their criticism is telling. To condemn Sweden for its relatively high number of deaths per capita suggests a worrying inability, even after five months, to grasp what “flattening the curve” means. In the absence of a cure or vaccine, an epidemic will end up reaching roughly the same number of people. That number may differ from country to country for all sorts of possible reasons: age profile, weather, family living patterns, openness to international travel, incidence of obesity, past exposure to different coronaviruses, differing levels of genetic immunity.
But it won’t be much affected by lockdown measures. To put it at its simplest, flattening the curve doesn’t alter the area underneath the curve. No country can immobilise its population indefinitely; so all we are doing, in the absence of a medical breakthrough, is buying time.
The UK lockdown was intended to string things out while we built our capacity. “It’s vital to slow the spread of the disease,” said the PM in his televised address of March 23. “Because that is the way we reduce the number of people needing hospital treatment at any one time, so we can protect the NHS’s ability to cope – and save more lives.”
Sweden judged that it could manage to keep its hospitals functioning with only relatively minor restrictions – and it was right. With hindsight, it seems likely that the UK could have got away with a similar approach. Not only did our Nightingale hospitals stand largely empty throughout; so did many of our existing hospital beds. The expected tidal wave, mercifully, did not come – probably because the rate of infection, worldwide, turned out to be lower than was first feared.
No one should blame public health officials for erring on the side of caution. Still, it ought to have been clear by late May that we could start easing restrictions. We knew, by then, that the infection rate had peaked on our around March 18 – that is, five days before the lockdown was imposed.
But, alarmingly, liberty turns out to be more easily taken than restored. The easing of the lockdown was achieved in the face of public opposition: British voters were global outliers in their backing for longer and stronger closures. The media, never having internalised what flattening the curve meant, failed to distinguish between preventable deaths and deaths per se.
In March, according to the official minute, “Sage was unanimous that measures seeking to completely suppress the spread of Covid-19 will cause a second peak.” As far as I can tell, it has never rescinded that view. The question is not whether there will be some post-lockdown uptick in infection rates – releasing an entire population from house arrest is bound to lead to an increase in all sorts of medical problems, from common colds to car crashes. The question, rather, is still the one we faced in March, namely can we be certain that our healthcare capacity will not be overwhelmed.
Given what we can see in Sweden – and, indeed, in developing nations which lack the capacity to isolate their teeming populations – it seems pretty clear that we can.
Yet the original rationale for the closures has somehow got lost. Commentators now demand the “defeat” of the disease, and hold up league tables of fatality rates as if that were the only gauge by which to measure the performance of different countries. Covid, like everything else, has been dragged into our culture wars, so that one side revels in excessive caution, ticking people off for the tiniest lockdown infractions, while the other argues that lockdowns don’t work at all.
The case against the lockdown is not that it was useless, but that it was disproportionate and had served its purpose long before it was eased. Confining an entire population is bound to have some impact on slowing a disease – any disease. The question is how high a price we should be prepared to pay.
Sweden seems to have got it right. It banned large meetings and urged people to stay home where possible. But, beyond one or two targeted closures, it broadly trusted people to use their nous. Because it judged coolly at the outset that there would be no immediate vaccine, it never got into the ridiculous position of being unable to restore normality in the absence of one. It settled in for the long haul, understanding that the disease would be around for a while, and that acquired immunity would be part of the eventual solution.
The figures for Q2 growth are published later today. Yes, Sweden will have suffered. The distancing measures taken by most Swedes, and the global downturn, will have taken their toll. Still, my guess – judging from retail figures, credit card activity, employment rates and other extant data – is that Sweden will comfortably have outperformed most European countries, as well as avoiding the costs of furlough schemes and massive borrowing.
It may turn out, when all is said and done, that the international variable was not the eventual death toll so much as the price exacted from the survivors.


conservativehome--2020-08-05--Ryan Bourne: “Levelling the playing field” is no argument for an online sales tax

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Some time soon , we ’ ll see more automation in the fast food sector .
Burger-making machines are real .
Franchises such as McDonald ’ s have rolled out self-ordering touchscreens .
It ’ s not difficult to imagine a world in which fast-food worker numbers collapse .
In the longer-term , when the technologies become widely affordable to businesses , cost reductions from these sorts of labour-saving investments will benefit consumers through lower prices .
Not every competitor chippie , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the transition , of course .
Some will struggle under what will then become the higher cost , labour-intensive model , finding their niche in the market .
Others may simply go out of business – unable to compete on price and without the ability to invest in the machinery .
Would this be a problem ?
Or is it simply an example of capitalism ’ s creative destruction ?
Imagine if the struggling companies and their employees demanded Parliament pass a “ burger automation tax ” under the premise of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies that took the plunge .
Think how dangerous supporters of consumer-led capitalism would consider it for popular price-reducing innovations to be held up as a problem .
Consider how bemused we ’ d be if the savings in labour costs were dubbed “ unfair competition , ” simply because not every company realised them .
Well , we are seeing an analogous argument capture policymaking today .
And , bizarrely , free-marketeers within the Conservative party are not really speaking out against the muddled thinking .
The UK government is kite-flying about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent , or taxing online deliveries to consumers .
One of the many justifications given for even considering these Luddite measures is to “ level the playing field ” between online retailers and the High Street , given the latter face business rates .
Here ’ s the problem : there already is a level playing field .
Just as all businesses face the same minimum wage laws , they also face the same overall tax regime .
This includes business rates – which is a tax on the rental value of commercial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those policy realities , businesses are free to decide how to operate and structure .
Innovative online sellers such as Amazon have simply adopted business models that repudiate the need for a high fixed‐cost physical presence in expensive inner‐city areas .
Operating from out-of-town warehouses is a cost-saving business decision akin to the potential automation in fast food .
To then suggest that online retailers not needing to rent high-value property is some distortion of competition that requires a corrective tax , as the Treasury reportedly believes , is just bizarre .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains why online sellers can provide low prices for consumers , enhancing their welfare .
The idea that adopting this model is some underhand advantage is as daft as saying that Amazon ’ s packaging costs are a disadvantage for it , requiring a “ packaging-equivalent tax ” on High Street stores ’ sales .
To echo the 19th century classical liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat , the bricks-and-mortar retailers using this level playing field argument are akin to candlemakers petitioning the Government about the sun flooding the market with cheap light .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business rates regime is an inappropriate tax on rental values or has distortionary impacts on commercial property use ( I agree , but think the impact overblown ) then , by all means , they should change the law faced by all .
If councils are worried about car parking charges ’ impact on high street retailers , then they are within their rights to adjust them .
But let ’ s not talk as if it ’ s unfair competition when firms , faced with a tax regime , innovate to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that consumers prefer .
For make no mistake , it is customers that will ultimately bear the costs of any new sales or delivery tax in the form of higher prices , especially those whose use of delivery is less responsive to price , such as in rural areas .
Of course , increasingly traditional retailers are themselves re-orienting to online , especially during Covid-19 .
Any cuts to business rates ( to the extent they are passed through by landlords ) might allow for some consumer price reductions to “ compete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if these same traditional retailers then face a new tax on their growing online sales anyway , the Government will have given with one hand and taken with another .
And which companies will suffer disproportionately from the new administrative burden of having to deal with an online sales tax , do you think ?
Will it be Amazon ?
Or is it more likely to be smaller companies navigating the online market for the first time ?
This whole debate highlights a broader gripe I ’ ve had with Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to understand the case for consumer-led markets , as extolled by Jeff Bezos in a US Congressional hearing last week .
They trusted customers to make choices in their own best interests .
Our revealed preferences were thought to represent us trying to maximise our wellbeing under the circumstances we face .
But increasingly MPs seem to think they know better .
Sure , customers might be flocking to online retail , especially during a deadly pandemic .
But what they really want , we are told , is a thriving High @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : MPs or your lying eyes ?
The idea that any business providing the same product must face the same tax and regulatory cost base to truly compete on a “ level playing field ” is easily dismissed .
Wind and nuclear power both produce electricity .
But if someone told you we needed a tax on wind power to make up for the safety costs of nuclear , you ’ d think they were utterly mad .
So what do we think is different about retail , after we ’ ve decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commercial property consumption ?
Now perhaps the Government ’ s real aim is not to “ levelling the playing field.
” Some say a tax on online deliveries would reduce congestion – a daft argument given a van delivering to 30-40 places would cause far less traffic congestion than everyone going to stores .
Some say that the Government simply needs the revenue – in which case £2 billion is a relative drop in the ocean .
Our communitarian friends , with their stale 1950s vision of High Street ’ s somehow engendering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any lever to try to preserve the town centres of yesteryear .
Yet those arguments are self-evidently absurd or futile in the face of ongoing trends .
The “ level playing field ” line is more dangerous precisely because it sounds as if it ’ s pro-competition .
If Conservatives really believe , however , that the role of Government is to correct for businesses finding ways to reduce their fixed costs , as if this were some unfair advantage , then they are further through the economic looking glass than I ’ @ @ @

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Some time soon, we’ll see more automation in the fast food sector. Burger-making machines are real. Franchises such as McDonald’s have rolled out self-ordering touchscreens. It’s not difficult to imagine a world in which fast-food worker numbers collapse. In the longer-term, when the technologies become widely affordable to businesses, cost reductions from these sorts of labour-saving investments will benefit consumers through lower prices.
Not every competitor chippie, kebab shop, or burger outlet will make the transition, of course. Some will struggle under what will then become the higher cost, labour-intensive model, finding their niche in the market. Others may simply go out of business – unable to compete on price and without the ability to invest in the machinery.
Would this be a problem? Or is it simply an example of capitalism’s creative destruction?
Imagine if the struggling companies and their employees demanded Parliament pass a “burger automation tax” under the premise of “levelling the playing field” with those companies that took the plunge. Think how dangerous supporters of consumer-led capitalism would consider it for popular price-reducing innovations to be held up as a problem. Consider how bemused we’d be if the savings in labour costs were dubbed “unfair competition,” simply because not every company realised them.
Well, we are seeing an analogous argument capture policymaking today. And, bizarrely, free-marketeers within the Conservative party are not really speaking out against the muddled thinking.
The UK government is kite-flying about an online sales tax of two per cent, or taxing online deliveries to consumers. One of the many justifications given for even considering these Luddite measures is to “level the playing field” between online retailers and the High Street, given the latter face business rates.
Here’s the problem: there already is a level playing field. Just as all businesses face the same minimum wage laws, they also face the same overall tax regime. This includes business rates – which is a tax on the rental value of commercial property, not sales.
Faced with those policy realities, businesses are free to decide how to operate and structure. Innovative online sellers such as Amazon have simply adopted business models that repudiate the need for a high fixed‐cost physical presence in expensive inner‐city areas.
Operating from out-of-town warehouses is a cost-saving business decision akin to the potential automation in fast food. To then suggest that online retailers not needing to rent high-value property is some distortion of competition that requires a corrective tax, as the Treasury reportedly believes, is just bizarre.
It’s this business decision that partially explains why online sellers can provide low prices for consumers, enhancing their welfare. The idea that adopting this model is some underhand advantage is as daft as saying that Amazon’s packaging costs are a disadvantage for it, requiring a “packaging-equivalent tax” on High Street stores’ sales.
To echo the 19th century classical liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat, the bricks-and-mortar retailers using this level playing field argument are akin to candlemakers petitioning the Government about the sun flooding the market with cheap light.
Now if the Government thinks that the current business rates regime is an inappropriate tax on rental values or has distortionary impacts on commercial property use (I agree, but think the impact overblown) then, by all means, they should change the law faced by all. If councils are worried about car parking charges’ impact on high street retailers, then they are within their rights to adjust them.
But let’s not talk as if it’s unfair competition when firms, faced with a tax regime, innovate to reduce costs to provide a service in a way that consumers prefer. For make no mistake, it is customers that will ultimately bear the costs of any new sales or delivery tax in the form of higher prices, especially those whose use of delivery is less responsive to price, such as in rural areas.
Of course, increasingly traditional retailers are themselves re-orienting to online, especially during Covid-19. Any cuts to business rates (to the extent they are passed through by landlords) might allow for some consumer price reductions to “compete” better with online firms for sales. But if these same traditional retailers then face a new tax on their growing online sales anyway, the Government will have given with one hand and taken with another.
And which companies will suffer disproportionately from the new administrative burden of having to deal with an online sales tax, do you think? Will it be Amazon? Or is it more likely to be smaller companies navigating the online market for the first time?
This whole debate highlights a broader gripe I’ve had with Conservative policy thinking for some time. Conservatives used to understand the case for consumer-led markets, as extolled by Jeff Bezos in a US Congressional hearing last week. They trusted customers to make choices in their own best interests. Our revealed preferences were thought to represent us trying to maximise our wellbeing under the circumstances we face.
But increasingly MPs seem to think they know better. Sure, customers might be flocking to online retail, especially during a deadly pandemic. But what they really want, we are told, is a thriving High Street. Who you gonna believe: MPs or your lying eyes?
The idea that any business providing the same product must face the same tax and regulatory cost base to truly compete on a “level playing field” is easily dismissed. Wind and nuclear power both produce electricity. But if someone told you we needed a tax on wind power to make up for the safety costs of nuclear, you’d think they were utterly mad. So what do we think is different about retail, after we’ve decided that it’s appropriate to tax commercial property consumption?
Now perhaps the Government’s real aim is not to “levelling the playing field.” Some say a tax on online deliveries would reduce congestion – a daft argument given a van delivering to 30-40 places would cause far less traffic congestion than everyone going to stores. Some say that the Government simply needs the revenue – in which case £2 billion is a relative drop in the ocean. Our communitarian friends, with their stale 1950s vision of High Street’s somehow engendering “community,” want to pull any lever to try to preserve the town centres of yesteryear.
Yet those arguments are self-evidently absurd or futile in the face of ongoing trends. The “level playing field” line is more dangerous precisely because it sounds as if it’s pro-competition. If Conservatives really believe, however, that the role of Government is to correct for businesses finding ways to reduce their fixed costs, as if this were some unfair advantage, then they are further through the economic looking glass than I’d realised.