conservativehome--2020-08-01--David Gauke: Without a proper state aid regime, the UK is unlikely to reach a deal with Brussels

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
Within the next three months , Boris Johnson is going to have to make the decision that will define his premiership and determine the future of British politics – especially the Conservative Party – for a generation .
And the subject matter of this momentous decision ?
The previously obscure issue of the regulatory regime constraining the ability of the Government to provide taxpayer support for private sector companies .
In other words , state aid .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let me set out a little context .
My last two columns ( here and here ) have made the case that there is an electoral logic that points towards the Conservative Party moving in a leftwards direction economically but in a rightwards direction when it comes to social issues or , to put it more precisely , issues of national identity .
Politics appears to be realigning as the biggest dividing line ceases to be about economic class or ideology but in relation to cultural issues .
The consequences of such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unambiguously placing itself on one side or the other – is an uncomfortable one for those Conservatives with a desire for intellectual consistency .
At least since Margaret Thatcher ’ s premiership , the Conservative orthodoxy has been in favour of sound money and free trade .
That is not to say that the State had been banished from making any kind of intervention in the economy – no recent government could accurately be described as laissez faire – but that any such intervention would be made carefully , recognising that the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather good way of allocating resources .
As for cultural issues , the Conservative Party has been a broad church consisting of social conservatives and social liberals , tub-thumping patriots and committed internationalists .
Generally , we rubbed along alright .
These Conservative traditions were abandoned in 2019 , resulting in the Prime Minister ’ s electoral triumph in December when he won previously safe Labour seats .
He did so by promising an economic policy that involved more spending and greater government intervention .
He also promised to deliver Brexit at whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospectus that appealed to patriotic/English nationalist working class voters .
This brings us to the UK/EU negotiations over a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement .
Contrary to promises of an oven-ready deal , discussions have not yet made a lot of progress .
There are two sticking points .
The first is fish .
This is a matter of economic irrelevance ( our fishing industry contributes less to GDP than Harrods ) but of disproportionate political importance .
As one can make a similar point about the EU , it would be an extraordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wider deal being reached .
The more substantive issue relates to the level playing field provisions .
These are the EU ’ s requirements that the UK will not engage in “ unfair competition ” by undercutting the EU ’ s social and environmental legislation , nor provide anti-competitive subsidies .
The UK Government ’ s response to these demands has been to argue that this is an outrageous attempt to fetter the actions of a newly-independent nation .
Given that ( 1 ) free trade agreements inevitably involve accepting some restrictions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own rules and ( 2 ) the UK accepted the principle of level playing field provisions in October ’ s Political Declaration , the EU is less than impressed by the argument .
The particular focus of the dispute has been state aid .
At one level , this is surprising .
The UK has traditionally eschewed state aid spending , seeing it as market-distorting and a wasteful use of taxpayers ’ money .
We spend less of it than the French and Germans and , as EU members , consistently argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditionally been a touchstone issue for Eurosceptics .
From my days in the ERG , I recall plenty of conversations about how the EU imposed regulatory burdens on businesses , prevented trade deals with rising economies like China and resulted in too much power in the hands of the unelected ( oh , happy innocent days ) .
Restrictions on bailing out private sector companies were not so much of problem for us Thatcherites .
This issue could have easily been de-escalated if we had put in place our own , independent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Competition and Markets Authority .
Such a regime is probably necessary ( albeit not sufficient ) in order to reach a compromise with the EU on this topic .
Instead , we have refused to set out our own domestic regime and there is much talk of how we can use our new freedoms as ex-members of the EU to support our own companies , like the rather odd acquisition earlier this month of a £400 million shareholding in a failed satellite company .
According to the Financial Times , Dominic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a “ minimal , light-touch ” state aid regime , believing that once you have left the EU “ you should just do whatever you want ” .
This brings me back to the nature of the Conservative victory last year and , in particular , the new supporters .
If the Government ’ s focus is appealing to nationalists who favour an interventionist state , it would want the ability to back national champions or other businesses in favoured locations .
And if you are temperamentally inclined to think that any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever you want ” ( whether by the EU , Parliament or the legal system ) is an affront to democracy , then you will be all the more the likely to resist a robust and independent regime .
There are , however , consequences .
First , it is very hard to see how the EU will agree to a deal if the UK does not have a proper state aid regime .
I wrote in February how there may be a political case for not getting a deal ( any deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some parts of the economy will suffer as a consequence of leaving the Single Market , better to collapse the talks and blame the EU for the consequences ) and that argument still applies .
But , as a consequence of the handling of Covid-19 , the Government is more vulnerable to the charge of incompetence .
In addition , a no deal Brexit would be a gift to the SNP , thus weakening the Union yet further .
Second , even putting aside the EU dimension , there are very good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state aid regime .
The Treasury will be arguing the case .
Both as a finance ministry ( ensuring that taxpayers ’ money is spent wisely ) and as an economics ministry ( wanting resources to be allocated productively in order to maximise economic growth ) , it institutionally hates state aid .
Presumably , the Chancellor of the Exchequer , well-regarded by his officials , will have similar views and will be making the case forcefully .
At least , he should be .
It will be for the Prime Minister to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Brexit ( “ you do whatever you want ” ) , embrace the new political alignment and splash the cash in order to play to the Red Wall voters .
Or keep open the possibility of a deal , look after the interests of taxpayers and maintain some kind of consistency with economic orthodoxy .
Whichever way he goes , it will be a hugely consequential and revealing decision .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
Within the next three months, Boris Johnson is going to have to make the decision that will define his premiership and determine the future of British politics – especially the Conservative Party – for a generation. And the subject matter of this momentous decision? The previously obscure issue of the regulatory regime constraining the ability of the Government to provide taxpayer support for private sector companies. In other words, state aid.
Before turning to the issue in hand, let me set out a little context. My last two columns (here and here) have made the case that there is an electoral logic that points towards the Conservative Party moving in a leftwards direction economically but in a rightwards direction when it comes to social issues or, to put it more precisely, issues of national identity. Politics appears to be realigning as the biggest dividing line ceases to be about economic class or ideology but in relation to cultural issues.
The consequences of such a dividing line – and the Conservative Party unambiguously placing itself on one side or the other – is an uncomfortable one for those Conservatives with a desire for intellectual consistency.
At least since Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, the Conservative orthodoxy has been in favour of sound money and free trade. That is not to say that the State had been banished from making any kind of intervention in the economy – no recent government could accurately be described as laissez faire – but that any such intervention would be made carefully, recognising that the market was, by and large, a rather good way of allocating resources.
As for cultural issues, the Conservative Party has been a broad church consisting of social conservatives and social liberals, tub-thumping patriots and committed internationalists. Generally, we rubbed along alright.
These Conservative traditions were abandoned in 2019, resulting in the Prime Minister’s electoral triumph in December when he won previously safe Labour seats. He did so by promising an economic policy that involved more spending and greater government intervention. He also promised to deliver Brexit at whatever cost. It was an uncompromisingly Leave prospectus that appealed to patriotic/English nationalist working class voters.
This brings us to the UK/EU negotiations over a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. Contrary to promises of an oven-ready deal, discussions have not yet made a lot of progress. There are two sticking points. The first is fish. This is a matter of economic irrelevance (our fishing industry contributes less to GDP than Harrods) but of disproportionate political importance. As one can make a similar point about the EU, it would be an extraordinary failure for this matter to prevent a wider deal being reached.
The more substantive issue relates to the level playing field provisions. These are the EU’s requirements that the UK will not engage in “unfair competition” by undercutting the EU’s social and environmental legislation, nor provide anti-competitive subsidies.
The UK Government’s response to these demands has been to argue that this is an outrageous attempt to fetter the actions of a newly-independent nation. Given that (1) free trade agreements inevitably involve accepting some restrictions on a country’s ability to determine its own rules and (2) the UK accepted the principle of level playing field provisions in October’s Political Declaration, the EU is less than impressed by the argument.
The particular focus of the dispute has been state aid. At one level, this is surprising. The UK has traditionally eschewed state aid spending, seeing it as market-distorting and a wasteful use of taxpayers’ money. We spend less of it than the French and Germans and, as EU members, consistently argued against its use.
Nor has it traditionally been a touchstone issue for Eurosceptics. From my days in the ERG, I recall plenty of conversations about how the EU imposed regulatory burdens on businesses, prevented trade deals with rising economies like China and resulted in too much power in the hands of the unelected (oh, happy innocent days). Restrictions on bailing out private sector companies were not so much of problem for us Thatcherites.
This issue could have easily been de-escalated if we had put in place our own, independent and robust state aid regime, perhaps enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority. Such a regime is probably necessary (albeit not sufficient) in order to reach a compromise with the EU on this topic.
Instead, we have refused to set out our own domestic regime and there is much talk of how we can use our new freedoms as ex-members of the EU to support our own companies, like the rather odd acquisition earlier this month of a £400 million shareholding in a failed satellite company.
According to the Financial Times, Dominic Cummings is digging in against anything other than a “minimal, light-touch” state aid regime, believing that once you have left the EU “you should just do whatever you want”.
This brings me back to the nature of the Conservative victory last year and, in particular, the new supporters. If the Government’s focus is appealing to nationalists who favour an interventionist state, it would want the ability to back national champions or other businesses in favoured locations.
And if you are temperamentally inclined to think that any constraint on your ability to “do whatever you want” (whether by the EU, Parliament or the legal system) is an affront to democracy, then you will be all the more the likely to resist a robust and independent regime.
There are, however, consequences. First, it is very hard to see how the EU will agree to a deal if the UK does not have a proper state aid regime. I wrote in February how there may be a political case for not getting a deal (any deal will be very thin in any event, some parts of the economy will suffer as a consequence of leaving the Single Market, better to collapse the talks and blame the EU for the consequences) and that argument still applies.
But, as a consequence of the handling of Covid-19, the Government is more vulnerable to the charge of incompetence. In addition, a no deal Brexit would be a gift to the SNP, thus weakening the Union yet further.
Second, even putting aside the EU dimension, there are very good arguments for having in place a robust state aid regime. The Treasury will be arguing the case. Both as a finance ministry (ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely) and as an economics ministry (wanting resources to be allocated productively in order to maximise economic growth), it institutionally hates state aid. Presumably, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, well-regarded by his officials, will have similar views and will be making the case forcefully. At least, he should be.
It will be for the Prime Minister to decide. Go for the purist view of Brexit (“you do whatever you want”), embrace the new political alignment and splash the cash in order to play to the Red Wall voters. Or keep open the possibility of a deal, look after the interests of taxpayers and maintain some kind of consistency with economic orthodoxy. Whichever way he goes, it will be a hugely consequential and revealing decision.


conservativehome--2020-08-02--Neave. Berry. Gow. Three Tory MPs murdered by the IRA – an apologist for which Johnson has just sent

Neave. Berry. Gow. Three Tory MPs murdered by the IRA – an apologist for which Johnson has just sent to the Lords

When next the Prime Minister takes to the despatch box , he may if he has a few moments cast his eyes around the edge of the House of Commons .
If he does , he may note that some of the decorative shields around walls have been painted in .
These are tributes to Members of Parliament who have been killed whilst serving in that role .
With pre-emptive apologies for butchering the proper heraldic terminology , three of them in particular should weigh on his conscience .
Of these , one sports a black cross and five golden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a crown .
This represents Airey Neave , Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary and Conservative MP for Abingdon .
Murdered by the IRA in 1979 .
The next has a field of red and gold stripes , on which is displayed a white triangle containing three black birds .
This represents Sir Anthony Berry , Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate .
Murdered by the IRA in 1984 .
Finally , the third features a simple blue field , on which is displayed a golden monogram of the letters IREG , in a laurel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPS to the Prime Minister and Conservative MP for Eastbourne .
Murdered by the IRA in 1990 .
These memorials invite us to reflect .
On the individuals the commemorate .
On the causes they served .
On why their careers ended with a painted shield in the House of Commons , rather than retirement .
Especially today , when a Conservative Government has elevated to the peerage a woman who believes that the people who killed Neave , Berry , and Gow were right .
Claire Fox is no stranger to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlined on Twitter .
It already received plenty of coverage when she stood to become a Brexit Party MEP for Warrington , despite her defence of the 1993 IRA bombing in the town which killed two people – one of them the 12-year-old son of a fellow Brexit Party activist .
The arguments are the same .
Fox does not support republican terrorism post-1998 .
But she believes it was justified before 1998 .
That these MPs , and the IRA ’ s many other victims , were legitimate targets .
She believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an extent , that ’ s right .
It is a nasty but inescapable reality of any peace process that it involves a certain amount of letting go .
Fox is an engaging speaker , energetic activist , and a popular figure on the libertarian right .
She runs a successful think-tank , was returned to the European Parliament , and enjoys a high media profile .
But there ought , surely , to be some limits , if not to Fox ’ s ambitions for public life then at least to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to facilitate it .
The limits of justifiable rapprochement do not extend to a seat in the House of Lords .
There is a strange symmetry to the fact that the only other ‘ Non-affiliated ’ political peerage has gone to Charles Moore , Thatcher ’ s great biographer and one of the most anti-IRA journalists in Britain .
How he feels about this pairing is anyone ’ s guess , but it symbolises – in a more visceral way than Boris Johnson ’ s u-turn over the Irish Backstop – just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between today ’ s Party , or at least its leadership , and that which fought the IRA to the table between 1979 and 1997 .
Airey Neave .
Anthony Berry .
Ian Gow .
Three elected Conservatives who paid the ultimate price for our Party ’ s commitment to defending the United Kingdom , and Northern Ireland ’ s place in it , from republican terrorism .
If there is any good to come from this appointment , let it be that it prompts us to remember their sacrifice and their cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller man today than before , it is because he stands in the shadows of giants .

When next the Prime Minister takes to the despatch box, he may if he has a few moments cast his eyes around the edge of the House of Commons. If he does, he may note that some of the decorative shields around walls have been painted in.
These are tributes to Members of Parliament who have been killed whilst serving in that role. With pre-emptive apologies for butchering the proper heraldic terminology, three of them in particular should weigh on his conscience.
Of these, one sports a black cross and five golden fleurs-de-lys on a white field, topped with a crown. This represents Airey Neave, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary and Conservative MP for Abingdon. Murdered by the INLA in 1979.
The next has a field of red and gold stripes, on which is displayed a white triangle containing three black birds. This represents Sir Anthony Berry, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate. Murdered by the IRA in 1984.
Finally, the third features a simple blue field, on which is displayed a golden monogram of the letters IREG, in a laurel wreath. This represents Ian Gow, PPS to the Prime Minister and Conservative MP for Eastbourne. Murdered by the IRA in 1990.
(Depending on how you assess the relationship between the parties at the time of his assassination, we might also count the shield of Robert Bradford, Unionist MP for South Belfast. Murdered by the IRA in 1981.)
These memorials invite us to reflect. On the individuals the commemorate. On the causes they served. On why their careers ended with a painted shield in the House of Commons, rather than retirement. Especially today, when a Conservative Government has elevated to the peerage a woman who believes that the people who killed Neave, Berry, and Gow were right.
Claire Fox is no stranger to this controversy, which Sunder Katwala has thoughtfully outlined on Twitter. It already received plenty of coverage when she stood to become a Brexit Party MEP for Warrington, despite her defence of the 1993 IRA bombing in the town which killed two people – one of them the 12-year-old son of a fellow Brexit Party activist.
The arguments are the same. Fox does not support republican terrorism post-1998. But she believes it was justified before 1998. That these MPs, and the republicans’ many other victims, were legitimate targets.
She believes this belongs in the past. And to an extent, that’s right. It is a nasty but inescapable reality of any peace process that it involves a certain amount of letting go. Fox is an engaging speaker, energetic activist, and a popular figure on the libertarian right. She runs a successful think-tank, was returned to the European Parliament, and enjoys a high media profile.
But there ought, surely, to be some limits, if not to Fox’s ambitions for public life then at least to a Conservative Prime Minister’s willingness to facilitate it. The limits of justifiable rapprochement do not extend to a seat in the House of Lords.
There is a strange symmetry to the fact that the only other ‘Non-affiliated’ political peerage has gone to Charles Moore, Thatcher’s great biographer and one of the most anti-IRA journalists in Britain. How he feels about this pairing is anyone’s guess, but it symbolises – in a more visceral way than Boris Johnson’s u-turn over the Irish Backstop – just how much of a gulf there really is between today’s Party, or at least its leadership, and that which fought the IRA to the table between 1979 and 1997.
Airey Neave. Anthony Berry. Ian Gow. Three elected Conservatives who paid the ultimate price for our Party’s commitment to defending the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland’s place in it, from republican terrorism. If there is any good to come from this appointment, let it be that it prompts us to remember their sacrifice and their cause.
If the Prime Minister looks a smaller man today than before, it is because he stands in the shadows of giants.


conservativehome--2020-08-03--Howard Flight: Parkinson’s Law revisited

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury .
An old friend of mine sent me a very interesting article on Parkinson ’ s Law Today .
The theoretical law of the 1950s has changed to a mathematical equation describing the rate at which bureaucracies expand over time .
Two different case studies of our times are financial regulators and the NHS .
The numbers employed in both territories continue to grow way beyond any practical justification .
There are some fascinating facts supporting the arguments .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in decline , the Colonial Office had its greatest number of staff who were folded into the Foreign Office , due to a lack of colonies to administer !
Such contrarian growth is explained by two key factors – officials want to multiply subordinates , not rivals ; and officials make work for each other .
The number of people employed in a bureaucracy tends to rise by between five and seven per cent a year .
That was irrespective of any variation in the amount of work – if any – to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule about the efficiency of Administrative Council .
He defined a coefficient of inefficiency with the number of members as the main determining variable .
This is an attempt to define the size at which a committee or other decision-making Body will become wholly inefficient , if not useless .
In Parkinson ’ s Law , “ The Pursuit of Progress ” , a chapter is devoted to the basic question of what Parkinson called Comitology – how committees , government candidates , and other such Bodies are created and eventually grow irrelevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as such .
Interestingly the world Comitology has recently been invented independently by the EU for a different non-humorous meaning .
Empirical evidence is extracted from historical and contemporary government candidates .
Most frequently the minimal size of a States ’ most powerful and prestigious Body is five members .
From English history , Parkinson notes a number of bodys that lost power as they grew .
The First Cabinet was the Council of the Crown , now the House of Lords which grew from a handful to 29 , and then to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had lost most of its power .
A new Body in 1257 numbering fewer than 10 ; it grew to 172 members and ceased to meet .
The third incarnation was the Privy Council , initially numbering less than 10 members but rising to 47 in 1679 .
In 1715 the Privy Council lost power to the Cabinet Council with eight members , rising to 20 by 1725 .
Around 1740 the Cabinet Council was superseded by an inner group called the Cabinet , initially with five members .
In the 1950s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
From 1939 until the 1950 ’ s there was an effort to save the Cabinet as an institution .
Membership had been fluctuating from a high of 23 down to 18 in 1954 .
Parkinson proposed a detailed mathematical expression for the coefficient of inefficiency , featuring many possible influences .
In 2008 an attempt was made to verify empirically the proposed model .
Parkinson thought that membership exceeding around 20 makes a committee manifestly inefficient .
Less certain is the optimal number of members which is somewhere between three and 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual discussions may dilute the power of the leader .
Common sense suggests eight may be the optimum number , but this is not supported by observations .
No contemporary Government in Parkinson ’ s data set had eight members and only the unfortunate Charles 1st had a committee of State of that size .
This territory should merit regular measurement , reviews , and analysis .
It is painfully clear to citizens that when organisations become too big , they also become inefficient and vulnerable .
Increases in NHS staff have accounted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector jobs – numbers now stand at 1.75 million , 32 per cent of all public sector jobs and five per cent of all jobs in the UK .
It is surely self-evident to conclude that a monolithic approach to providing and managing healthcare makes no sense and invites bad experience and outturn .
Logically the unit size should be broken down to leadership teams of under 20 with sufficient staff numbers to operate the range of services provided by each particular hospital .
Staff could be lent to and borrowed by particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should probably be to the relevant local authority , Cabinet or constituency MPs .
Civil Service jobs hit a record low in 2016 but have been increasing again recently .
Currently , they stand at 460,000 .
There are nearly four times as many people working in the NHS as there are in the Civil Service .
This is the territory which the Chancellor needs to research and examine in detail .
It is probable that Civil Service numbers could be reduced by 60,000 to 400,000 with anybody scarcely noticing .
This should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
The NHS is a more difficult proposition as a result of the support it has achieved for dealing honourably with COVID-19 patients .
My view is that restructuring into manageable sized units is the key to better and greater efficiency and that in time it too could effect cost savings of £50m pa .

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
An old friend of mine sent me a very interesting article on Parkinson’s Law Today. The theoretical law of the 1950s has changed to a mathematical equation describing the rate at which bureaucracies expand over time. Two different case studies of our times are financial regulators and the NHS. The numbers employed in both territories continue to grow way beyond any practical justification.
There are some fascinating facts supporting the arguments. At a time when the British Empire was in decline, the Colonial Office had its greatest number of staff who were folded into the Foreign Office, due to a lack of colonies to administer! Such contrarian growth is explained by two key factors – officials want to multiply subordinates, not rivals; and officials make work for each other. The number of people employed in a bureaucracy tends to rise by between five and seven per cent a year. That was irrespective of any variation in the amount of work – if any – to be done.
Parkinson also proposed a rule about the efficiency of Administrative Council. He defined a coefficient of inefficiency with the number of members as the main determining variable. This is an attempt to define the size at which a committee or other decision-making Body will become wholly inefficient, if not useless. In Parkinson’s Law, “The Pursuit of Progress”, a chapter is devoted to the basic question of what Parkinson called Comitology – how committees, government candidates, and other such Bodies are created and eventually grow irrelevant, if they are not initially designated as such. Interestingly the world Comitology has recently been invented independently by the EU for a different non-humorous meaning. Empirical evidence is extracted from historical and contemporary government candidates. Most frequently the minimal size of a States’ most powerful and prestigious Body is five members.
From English history, Parkinson notes a number of bodys that lost power as they grew.
The First Cabinet was the Council of the Crown, now the House of Lords which grew from a handful to 29, and then to 50 by 1600 by which time it had lost most of its power. A new Body in 1257 numbering fewer than 10; it grew to 172 members and ceased to meet. The third incarnation was the Privy Council, initially numbering less than 10 members but rising to 47 in 1679. In 1715 the Privy Council lost power to the Cabinet Council with eight members, rising to 20 by 1725. Around 1740 the Cabinet Council was superseded by an inner group called the Cabinet, initially with five members. In the 1950s the Cabinet was still the official governing Body. From 1939 until the 1950’s there was an effort to save the Cabinet as an institution. Membership had been fluctuating from a high of 23 down to 18 in 1954.
Parkinson proposed a detailed mathematical expression for the coefficient of inefficiency, featuring many possible influences. In 2008 an attempt was made to verify empirically the proposed model. Parkinson thought that membership exceeding around 20 makes a committee manifestly inefficient. Less certain is the optimal number of members which is somewhere between three and 20. For a group of 20, individual discussions may dilute the power of the leader. Common sense suggests eight may be the optimum number, but this is not supported by observations. No contemporary Government in Parkinson’s data set had eight members and only the unfortunate Charles 1st had a committee of State of that size.
This territory should merit regular measurement, reviews, and analysis. It is painfully clear to citizens that when organisations become too big, they also become inefficient and vulnerable.
Increases in NHS staff have accounted for nearly all the increase in public sector jobs – numbers now stand at 1.75 million, 32 per cent of all public sector jobs and five per cent of all jobs in the UK. It is surely self-evident to conclude that a monolithic approach to providing and managing healthcare makes no sense and invites bad experience and outturn. Logically the unit size should be broken down to leadership teams of under 20 with sufficient staff numbers to operate the range of services provided by each particular hospital. Staff could be lent to and borrowed by particular hospitals as and when required. Accountability should probably be to the relevant local authority, Cabinet or constituency MPs.
Civil Service jobs hit a record low in 2016 but have been increasing again recently. Currently, they stand at 460,000. There are nearly four times as many people working in the NHS as there are in the Civil Service.
This is the territory which the Chancellor needs to research and examine in detail. It is probable that Civil Service numbers could be reduced by 60,000 to 400,000 with anybody scarcely noticing. This should save of the order £500 million a year. The NHS is a more difficult proposition as a result of the support it has achieved for dealing honourably with COVID-19 patients. My view is that restructuring into manageable sized units is the key to better and greater efficiency and that in time it too could effect cost savings of £50m pa.


conservativehome--2020-08-03--Our survey. Johnson’s approval ratings for managing Covid-19 slip further for the third month runnin

Our survey. Johnson’s approval ratings for managing Covid-19 slip further for the third month running.

The results of our July survey indicate that approval ratings for the Prime Minister have fallen yet again – with just under 60 per cent of respondents ( out of 1,169 ) saying that Boris Johnson has dealt with Covid-19 well , and 56.80 per cent saying that the Government as a whole has dealt with Covid-19 well .
To put this in context , in March of this year , 92 per cent of ConservativeHome panel members said that they believed Johnson and the Government had dealt with Covid-19 well .
Johnson ’ s rating then slipped to 84 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent for the Government ) and fell even further in June to 72 per cent ( 71 per cent for the Government ) .
When quizzed in July about the Prime Minister ’ s performance , over 30 per cent of our respondents said he had dealt with Coronavirus badly ( 21 per cent of respondents selected this in June ) , and 9.58 per cent didn ’ t know .
Rishi Sunak , too , has suffered a fall in ratings – though this has been much less drastic than the figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panelists were asked in March if they supported the Chancellor ’ s economic plans in response to the virus , 92 per cent said yes – that figure now stands at just over 80.98 per cent , with 13.71 per cent saying that they do not support his economic plans , and 5.31 per cent answering “ don ’ t know ” .
In regards to Johnson , what could the reasons be for this fall ?
Retaining popularity in a pandemic is , of course , not easy for any leader .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his recent policies on obesity .
As I wrote a week ago for our site , the new measures – which include banning adverts for high fat , salt or sugar products on TV and online before 9pm , calorie labelling in restaurants , cafes and takeaways , as well as ending the promotion of “ buy one get one free meals ” – risked pleasing no one .
Those who are pro-intervention say the moves do not go far enough , and on the other side of the spectrum , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state intervening in their dietary choices , not least because they previously believed Johnson was a “ libertarian ” on things like sin taxes .
This concern about state intervention is not limited to obesity , though .
Indeed , as I wrote in the aforementioned article , “ Coronavirus , in general , has challenged what people expected from the Conservatives ; there have been huge levels of spending and , with the public now forced to wear face masks in shops , many voters will need assurances of a return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the fact that the Government is reportedly considering asking over 50s to stay home and shield .
Perhaps it is the case that people want the Government to be more hawkish at this point in the crisis – and that is what will improve the ratings .
Not least because they will soon have to tackle school reopenings – a battle over which the unions arguably won previously , and businesses are also struggling to get things off the ground .
One cafe owner recently told me that he couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had still furloughed many staff .
“ We need the Government to be stricter ” , were his words .
While not a Conservative panel member , perhaps this view – that Johnson needs to be tougher on getting the economy back to normal , instead of monitoring snacks – is not so far away from our respondents ’ sentiments .

The results of our July survey indicate that approval ratings for the Prime Minister have fallen yet again – with just under 60 per cent of respondents (out of 1,169) saying that Boris Johnson has dealt with Covid-19 well, and 56.80 per cent saying that the Government as a whole has dealt with Covid-19 well.
To put this in context, in March of this year, 92 per cent of ConservativeHome panel members said that they believed Johnson and the Government had dealt with Covid-19 well. Johnson’s rating then slipped to 84 per cent in April (82 per cent for the Government) and fell even further in June to 72 per cent (71 per cent for the Government).
When quizzed in July about the Prime Minister’s performance, over 30 per cent of our respondents said he had dealt with Coronavirus badly (21 per cent of respondents selected this in June), and 9.58 per cent didn’t know.
Rishi Sunak, too, has suffered a fall in ratings – though this has been much less drastic than the figures for the Prime Minister.
When ConservativeHome panelists were asked in March if they supported the Chancellor’s economic plans in response to the virus, 92 per cent said yes – that figure now stands at just over 80.98 per cent, with 13.71 per cent saying that they do not support his economic plans, and 5.31 per cent answering “don’t know”.
In regards to Johnson, what could the reasons be for this fall? Retaining popularity in a pandemic is, of course, not easy for any leader. But some of this is surely due to his recent policies on obesity. As I wrote a week ago for our site, the new measures – which include banning adverts for high fat, salt or sugar products on TV and online before 9pm, calorie labelling in restaurants, cafes and takeaways, as well as ending the promotion of “buy one get one free meals” – risked pleasing no one.
Those who are pro-intervention say the moves do not go far enough, and on the other side of the spectrum, many Conservatives will be feeling concerned about the state intervening in their dietary choices, not least because they previously believed Johnson was a “libertarian” on things like sin taxes.
This concern about state intervention is not limited to obesity, though. Indeed, as I wrote in the aforementioned article, “Coronavirus, in general, has challenged what people expected from the Conservatives; there have been huge levels of spending and, with the public now forced to wear face masks in shops, many voters will need assurances of a return to a small state.”
There’s also the fact that the Government is reportedly considering asking over 50s to stay home and shield. Perhaps it is the case that people want the Government to be more hawkish at this point in the crisis – and that is what will improve the ratings.
Not least because they will soon have to tackle school reopenings – a battle over which the unions arguably won previously, and businesses are also struggling to get things off the ground. One cafe owner recently told me that he couldn’t get enough supplies, as delivery companies had still furloughed many staff.
“We need the Government to be stricter”, were his words. While not a Conservative panel member, perhaps this view – that Johnson needs to be tougher on getting the economy back to normal, instead of monitoring snacks – is not so far away from our respondents’ sentiments.


conservativehome--2020-08-03--Richard Holden: Across the “Blue Wall”, there’s little sign Starmer’s approach to the crisis has cut

Richard Holden: Across the “Blue Wall”, there’s little sign Starmer’s approach to the crisis has cut through

The Green , Billy Row , County Durham .
Nothing brings you back down to reality like properly being out and about in the towns and villages of North West Durham .
People don ’ t hesitate to politely let you know their opinions , which I conveyed – again politely – to Amanda Milling , the Party Chairman .
Since lockdown eased , Amanda has sensibly been out and about across the “ Blue Wall ” and popped by to formally open my new office , before meeting some local members and constituents in Consett .
It was only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat of Cannock Chase .
Part of the original “ Red ” to “ Blue Wall ” swing seats from 2010. it ’ s now held with 68.3 per cent of the vote for the Conservatives and a majority of almost 20,000 .
Something to aspire to and we are nothing if not the part of aspiration .
Lockdown has changed a few things and there is , understandably , concern about the future due to Coronavirus .
While the caravan parks are full and people are holidaying in the towns and villages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for my local businesses and companies that rely on international travel .
From travel agents , through airlines , to aircraft manufacturers , all have been hit hard .
How the next few months are managed is really going to set the course for the next few years .
But to date , the management of the economic impact of the crisis is seen as sound .
A testament to that is that one first name has joined that very short list of “ household name ” politicians alongside “ Boris ” locally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very much seen as someone who has worked hand-in-glove with the Prime Minister and done all he can to help steady the ship , in a credible way , at a very difficult time .
One of the things that really doesn ’ t appear to have changed though the antipathy of local people towards the London ( and on a local level City of Durham ) centric Labour machine .
It ’ s quite clear that Keir Starmer , too , certainly hasn ’ t really cut through in any positive meaningful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been aided by the missteps of the Labour-run County Council who , at the heart of the pandemic in late March , voted to put a new 3,000 sq ft roof terrace on top of their proposed new monstrous carbuncle of a County Hall on a floodplain in the centre of Durham city .
At a national level , Labour ’ s lawyerly approach to the crisis hasn ’ t helped it either .
If your job is on the line – as quite a few are in my community – Starmer ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much/too little , too fast/too slow ” with lashings of hindsight-driven drivel isn ’ t winning you over .
No-one wants to know that , like any good barrister , you can argue the counter argument .
They want to know you get the economic reality of what ’ s going on and are instructing your local councillors where they ’ re in place to do something about it .
From those snatched chats over coffee or a pint in the pubs of North West Durham , it ’ s clear to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really challenge the basic economic arguments of the far-Left , Labour have still further to fall .
This is Starmer ’ s real challenge : he ’ s dumped Corbyn , but can he – does he even want to – dump Corbynomics ?
Within three months of taking office following the death of John Smith , Blair had told the Labour Party Conference he was going to change Clause 4 and within a matter of months at a special conference in April 1995 he did just that .
Aside from managing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boot her out of the Shadow Cabinet , Starmer ’ s first four months in office have been barely a tremor on the political Richter scale .
If I were Starmer at this moment I ’ d be recognising that I have one shot at this and boldly lay down the policy tracks in order to concentrate on next year ’ s elections in Scotland , Wales , London , The Midlands and the English counties .
From the attempted coup in 2017 and brutality of the internal wars currently taking place , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for knifing its leaders if they look like an electoral liability .
Starmer needs to show that Labour can win big in its remaining heartlands of London and Wales and show that he ’ s there , challenging the SNP in Scotland and winning over county councils across England – creating a real base for the future .
For us Conservatives the challenge is different .
We can ’ t control what Starmer will or won ’ t do – any more than we can really predict or determine when we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus .
It ’ s about proving that we not only culturally understand the “ Blue Wall ” , but grasp their economic needs and aspirations too .
The massive support that taxpayers have provided via the Government has not gone unnoticed by the man and woman in The Green at Billy Row and has cut through to constituents .
For the future it ’ s a mixture of delivering on policies both big – like the commitments on levelling-up – but also smaller policies , like ensuring that community services are maintained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little easier , and cheaper .
Often that ’ s through ensuring fairness where the market fails or is skewed .
From getting housing built on brown field sites that have been squabbled over for decades , to the cash machine on the green at Billy Row .
It might take some ingenuity at times , but we ’ ll need to keep highlighting to people that we ’ re on their side in their community economically , as well as culturally , to keep the trajectory away from Labour and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Blue Wall .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
The Green, Billy Row, County Durham. Nothing brings you back down to reality like properly being out and about in the towns and villages of North West Durham. People don’t hesitate to politely let you know their opinions, which I conveyed – again politely – to Amanda Milling, the Party Chairman.
Since lockdown eased, Amanda has sensibly been out and about across the “Blue Wall” and popped by to formally open my new office, before meeting some local members and constituents in Consett. It was only in 2010 that the Conservatives gained her seat of Cannock Chase. Part of the original “Red” to “Blue Wall” swing seats from 2010. it’s now held with 68.3 per cent of the vote for the Conservatives and a majority of almost 20,000. Something to aspire to and we are nothing if not the part of aspiration.
Lockdown has changed a few things and there is, understandably, concern about the future due to Coronavirus. While the caravan parks are full and people are holidaying in the towns and villages of Weardale, the reverse is true for my local businesses and companies that rely on international travel. From travel agents, through airlines, to aircraft manufacturers, all have been hit hard. How the next few months are managed is really going to set the course for the next few years.
But to date, the management of the economic impact of the crisis is seen as sound. A testament to that is that one first name has joined that very short list of “household name” politicians alongside “Boris” locally and that is “Rishi” – very much seen as someone who has worked hand-in-glove with the Prime Minister and done all he can to help steady the ship, in a credible way, at a very difficult time.
One of the things that really doesn’t appear to have changed though the antipathy of local people towards the London (and on a local level City of Durham) centric Labour machine. It’s quite clear that Keir Starmer, too, certainly hasn’t really cut through in any positive meaningful way here.
This hasn’t been aided by the missteps of the Labour-run County Council who, at the heart of the pandemic in late March, voted to put a new 3,000 sq ft roof terrace on top of their proposed new monstrous carbuncle of a County Hall on a floodplain in the centre of Durham city.
At a national level, Labour’s lawyerly approach to the crisis hasn’t helped it either. If your job is on the line – as quite a few are in my community – Starmer’s “Goldilocks Politics” of “too much/too little, too fast/too slow” with lashings of hindsight-driven drivel isn’t winning you over.
No-one wants to know that, like any good barrister, you can argue the counter argument. They want to know you get the economic reality of what’s going on and are instructing your local councillors where they’re in place to do something about it.
From those snatched chats over coffee or a pint in the pubs of North West Durham, it’s clear to me that without showing a desire to really challenge the basic economic arguments of the far-Left, Labour have still further to fall. This is Starmer’s real challenge: he’s dumped Corbyn, but can he – does he even want to – dump Corbynomics?
Within three months of taking office following the death of John Smith, Blair had told the Labour Party Conference he was going to change Clause 4 and within a matter of months at a special conference in April 1995 he did just that.
Aside from managing to knife his opponent for the job and boot her out of the Shadow Cabinet, Starmer’s first four months in office have been barely a tremor on the political Richter scale.
If I were Starmer at this moment I’d be recognising that I have one shot at this and boldly lay down the policy tracks in order to concentrate on next year’s elections in Scotland, Wales, London, The Midlands and the English counties.
From the attempted coup in 2017 and brutality of the internal wars currently taking place, it’s clear that Labour is up for knifing its leaders if they look like an electoral liability.
Starmer needs to show that Labour can win big in its remaining heartlands of London and Wales and show that he’s there, challenging the SNP in Scotland and winning over county councils across England – creating a real base for the future.
For us Conservatives the challenge is different. We can’t control what Starmer will or won’t do – any more than we can really predict or determine when we’ll finally be rid of the damned Coronavirus.
It’s about proving that we not only culturally understand the “Blue Wall”, but grasp their economic needs and aspirations too. The massive support that taxpayers have provided via the Government has not gone unnoticed by the man and woman in The Green at Billy Row and has cut through to constituents.
For the future it’s a mixture of delivering on policies both big – like the commitments on levelling-up – but also smaller policies, like ensuring that community services are maintained and lives, where possible, made a little easier, and cheaper.
Often that’s through ensuring fairness where the market fails or is skewed. From getting housing built on brown field sites that have been squabbled over for decades, to the cash machine on the green at Billy Row.
It might take some ingenuity at times, but we’ll need to keep highlighting to people that we’re on their side in their community economically, as well as culturally, to keep the trajectory away from Labour and to the Conservatives on course as we build the Blue Wall.


conservativehome--2020-08-03--John Myers: A good design code is crucial to make new housing popular with local communities

John Myers is co-founder of YIMBY Alliance and London YIMBY , and campaigns to end the housing crisis with the support of local people .
Robert Jenrick , the radical and ambitious Housing Secretary , has just announced two new ‘ permitted development ’ rights so that owners can add up to two floors to post-1948 houses and post-1948 freestanding blocks of flats , without planning permission .
Both have numerous restrictions .
Bungalows can only add a single floor .
For upward extensions of houses , councils have to sign off on privacy , sunlight , and the appearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that from September there will be no restriction on switching between using a building as a shop , restaurant , café , creche , daycare , or for financial or professional services , light industry , or indoor sport .
Pubs and hot food takeaways will still need permission for change of use , as will community halls and small shops selling essentials if there ’ s no other nearby .
All of this is just a hint of what is to come in the September White Paper on planning reform .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shops will become restaurants or offices .
Some more housing will be built .
Some flats will be added above existing blocks .
Many large families stuck with too few bedrooms would be grateful for more .
Some houses will get subdivided into maisonettes to create more homes .
A few penthouse owners will complain , if their lease doesn ’ t guarantee them the top floor .
Some might sue their solicitor for not telling them it didn ’ t .
Some next door neighbours will complain if the council does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or their sudden inability to sunbathe nude in it .
Some atrocities of the 1950s and 1970s will get extended upwards .
The legislation requires that the new materials should resemble the existing house in appearance .
The neighbours might wish the existing materials had been buried in an unmarked grave and replaced with something attractive .
Another slight issue is that once you have extended an ugly two-storey house to become an ugly four-storey house , it is often uneconomic to knock it down and replace it with a beautiful pair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental improvement of the planning system can not come too soon , or we may get permanently locked into many square miles of bad land use .
And the residents of conservation areas can breathe easy – unless they wanted more living space – because they are excluded from these permitted development rights .
I ’ d guess the government wants to see the results before letting these rights loose in conservation areas , if it ever will .
Of course , if you let unpleasant things happen except in conservation areas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly get the message and apply to become conservation areas themselves .
Then you end up with even fewer new homes .
Conservation areas are the most damning admission that the normal planning system is totally incapable of ensuring that new development improves places , rather than harming them .
Instead , wealthier areas get a second layer of control , to prevent most of the crud that the normal system would allow .
If you do not trust your new reform enough for it to apply in conservation areas , how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better places ?
Hopefully the government has also considered that restaurants cause greater fire risk than other uses in the ‘ shop and other ’ category .
It might be better at least to require consent for restaurant use from the owners of any properties directly above .
They could sell if they are unhappy , but friction from taxes like stamp duty mean society might still end up worse off overall from some of these new restaurant kitchens .
Perhaps the government didn ’ t require consent from flats above on advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute for ‘ permitted development rights ’ doesn ’ t clearly allow it .
The trailed ‘ consultation ’ of neighbours about upward extension disappeared from the new rights too , probably for the same reason .
So far as I can see , even if the local community picks a design code in their neighbourhood plan , the planners are under no obligation to follow it when approving the upward extension .
Everything is still to play for in the new White Paper .
It will probably move towards a kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister ’ s Housing Adviser , Jack Airey .
More certainty is long overdue .
But the four trillion pound question is whether they can fix participation and the benefits of new development so that residents actually welcome it , or whether we will remain stuck with a system where successive governments have to impose more housing against local wishes , and invariably fail to produce anything like the needed amount of the right quality in the right places .
The most powerful force in politics is the pleasure of homeowners in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more cherished and more valuable .
The only way to fix housing is to let that force pull in the direction you want .
Ministers who try to push against it will , like so many of their predecessors , generate a short-term but unpopular boost in housing that ultimately fails .

John Myers is co-founder of YIMBY Alliance and London YIMBY, and campaigns to end the housing crisis with the support of local people.
Robert Jenrick, the radical and ambitious Housing Secretary, has just announced two new ‘permitted development’ rights so that owners can add up to two floors to post-1948 houses and post-1948 freestanding blocks of flats, without planning permission.
Both have numerous restrictions. Bungalows can only add a single floor. For upward extensions of houses, councils have to sign off on privacy, sunlight, and the appearance of the front.
He also announced that from September there will be no restriction on switching between using a building as a shop, restaurant, café, creche, daycare, or for financial or professional services, light industry, or indoor sport. Pubs and hot food takeaways will still need permission for change of use, as will community halls and small shops selling essentials if there’s no other nearby.
All of this is just a hint of what is to come in the September White Paper on planning reform.
How much impact will this have? Some shops will become restaurants or offices. Some more housing will be built. Some flats will be added above existing blocks. Many large families stuck with too few bedrooms would be grateful for more. Some houses will get subdivided into maisonettes to create more homes.
A few penthouse owners will complain, if their lease doesn’t guarantee them the top floor. Some might sue their solicitor for not telling them it didn’t.
Some next door neighbours will complain if the council does not care about overshadowing of their garden, or their sudden inability to sunbathe nude in it.
Some atrocities of the 1950s and 1970s will get extended upwards. The legislation requires that the new materials should resemble the existing house in appearance. The neighbours might wish the existing materials had been buried in an unmarked grave and replaced with something attractive.
Another slight issue is that once you have extended an ugly two-storey house to become an ugly four-storey house, it is often uneconomic to knock it down and replace it with a beautiful pair of terraces or a mansion block. More fundamental improvement of the planning system cannot come too soon, or we may get permanently locked into many square miles of bad land use.
And the residents of conservation areas can breathe easy – unless they wanted more living space – because they are excluded from these permitted development rights. I’d guess the government wants to see the results before letting these rights loose in conservation areas, if it ever will. Of course, if you let unpleasant things happen except in conservation areas, residents not living in conservation areas will rapidly get the message and apply to become conservation areas themselves. Then you end up with even fewer new homes.
Conservation areas are the most damning admission that the normal planning system is totally incapable of ensuring that new development improves places, rather than harming them. Instead, wealthier areas get a second layer of control, to prevent most of the crud that the normal system would allow.
If you do not trust your new reform enough for it to apply in conservation areas, how much do you really trust it to ensure better places?
Hopefully the government has also considered that restaurants cause greater fire risk than other uses in the ‘shop and other’ category. It might be better at least to require consent for restaurant use from the owners of any properties directly above. They could sell if they are unhappy, but friction from taxes like stamp duty mean society might still end up worse off overall from some of these new restaurant kitchens. Perhaps the government didn’t require consent from flats above on advice from its lawyers, because the enabling statute for ‘permitted development rights’ doesn’t clearly allow it.
The trailed ‘consultation’ of neighbours about upward extension disappeared from the new rights too, probably for the same reason. So far as I can see, even if the local community picks a design code in their neighbourhood plan, the planners are under no obligation to follow it when approving the upward extension.
Everything is still to play for in the new White Paper. It will probably move towards a kind of ‘zoning regime’ recommended by the Prime Minister’s Housing Adviser, Jack Airey. More certainty is long overdue.
But the four trillion pound question is whether they can fix participation and the benefits of new development so that residents actually welcome it, or whether we will remain stuck with a system where successive governments have to impose more housing against local wishes, and invariably fail to produce anything like the needed amount of the right quality in the right places.
The most powerful force in politics is the pleasure of homeowners in seeing their home and their area become more cherished and more valuable. The only way to fix housing is to let that force pull in the direction you want. Ministers who try to push against it will, like so many of their predecessors, generate a short-term but unpopular boost in housing that ultimately fails.


conservativehome--2020-08-03--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 Chair of the College of Policing is appointed by the Home Secretary to ensure the long-term success of the College .
Together with the College Board of Directors , the Chair ( who must not have a background in operational policing ) will set the College ’ s strategic direction and aims against budgets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College Chief Executive and team of Executive Directors with the necessary leadership , support and monitoring that will help them to meet the College and Home Secretary ’ s goals .
The College plays a critical role in helping to increase the diversity within the police to reflect the communities they serve.
” “ 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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” “ National Citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) .
” “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” Home Office – Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .
“ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , 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--2020-08-04--Lack of viewpoint diversity at universities threatens us all

Yesterday , research Policy Exchange confirmed what many people have worried about for years : a growing intolerance towards different political opinions at universities .
Its report , titled Academic Freedom in the UK , showed the extent to which viewpoint diversity is under threat at these institutions .
Researchers examined one of the largest representative samples of UK-based academics in recent years and found that only 54 per cent of them would feel comfortable sitting next to a Leave supporter at lunch , with a third seeking to avoid hiring Leavers in the first place .
Researchers also estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those reviewing a grant bid would mark it lower if it took a right-wing perspective ” .
In general , grants were found to attract the strongest levels of discrimination .
In summarising their report , the authors wrote that : “ Hostile or just uncomfortable attitudes signal to those subject to such discrimination that they should conceal their views and narrow their research questions to conform to prevailing norms ” .
In other words , academics are starting to self-censor in order to get by .
Much of this reinforces a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who wrote about the difficulties of trying to succeed in academia should one not subscribe to socialist politics .
He regretted that people like him were “ unwelcome in the vast majority of political science departments in this country.
” The research also reinforces my own feature for The Telegraph last year , in which I spoke to undergraduates about their experiences at universities .
“ I have lost a couple of really good friendships as soon as they found out I ’ m Tory ” , one 19-year-old told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and threatened ” after protesting university strikes on campus .
The UK – and indeed the US – has reached a deeply troubling state of affairs in regards to ideological insularity on campus .
And something has to change .
Fundamentally , it ’ s a contradiction of universities ’ whole raison d ’ être for them to suppress and demonise diverse viewpoints .
How is anyone meant to write or think anything interesting when only one worldview counts ?
The woke one , as it is called .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British reliance on international students .
Why would anyone want to study here when this problem exists ?
The research will be particularly dispiriting to the general public as a measure of how much the culture wars have escalated – and how much worse it could get .
Some have always claimed that this battle is exaggerated , but the fact that an academic would shun a sarnie with another – simply because they want to leave an economic union – is a terrible indictment on society .
And it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banning speakers , and even clapping ( because it ’ s not “ inclusive ” ) to replace it with jazz hands , and so forth .
Some of this is in part due to the growth of arts degrees and others which teach youngsters to see the world through the sociological lens – as a series of systems stacked against them , that they must then dismantle .
Yes , the Conservatives got a fantastic majority last year , and many took this as a pushback woke ideology , which was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and Starmer ’ s hasn ’ t been particularly better , mind you ) .
But these victories can seem immaterial when its proponents have made great strides in our academic institutions – and elsewhere .
Over lockdown one of the most obvious ways in which woke ideology exerted itself was through the statue-toppling campaign .
What began as just protests in response to the horrific murder of George Floyd descended into anarchy .
We ’ ve also seen JK Rowling shunned in celebrity circles for having conventional views on biological sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chastised , as she ’ s been , if universities continue teaching in the way they do , while shunning anyone who offers alternative perspectives .
Policy Exchange ’ s report makes some important suggestions .
It wants higher education institutions and the Government to do much more to ensure that all lawful speech is protected .
Gavin Williamson , too , has taken some incredibly important steps towards moderating the issue .
Knowing how much many of these institutions need a Government bailout thanks to Covid-19 , he has told them they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech .
It ’ s a great incentive .
The more the Government can set out policies to counter the issue , the better ; universities are , after all , providing society with the next lawyers , journalists , doctors and generation of professionals .
We simply can not have them siding with one ideology ; it ’ s not healthy for democracy , at the very least .
But combatting the groupthink will take more than legislation .
It will also need the Government to be much bolder in putting forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Johnson ’ s ratings on the ConHome survey had gone down – which I hypothesised was due to his new-found interventionist tendencies on obesity , and face masks , and the rest .
But some of this may also reflect the silent majority ’ s wish for the Government to get a bit louder on the culture wars .
Ministers should , at least , speak up while they can .

Yesterday, research Policy Exchange confirmed what many people have worried about for years: a growing intolerance towards different political opinions at universities. Its report, titled Academic Freedom in the UK, showed the extent to which viewpoint diversity is under threat at these institutions.
Researchers examined one of the largest representative samples of UK-based academics in recent years and found that only 54 per cent of them would feel comfortable sitting next to a Leave supporter at lunch, with a third seeking to avoid hiring Leavers in the first place.
Researchers also estimated that between “a third and half of those reviewing a grant bid would mark it lower if it took a right-wing perspective”. In general, grants were found to attract the strongest levels of discrimination.
In summarising their report, the authors wrote that: “Hostile or just uncomfortable attitudes signal to those subject to such discrimination that they should conceal their views and narrow their research questions to conform to prevailing norms”.
In other words, academics are starting to self-censor in order to get by.
Much of this reinforces a recent article for ConservativeHome by Alexander Woolf, who wrote about the difficulties of trying to succeed in academia should one not subscribe to socialist politics. He regretted that people like him were “unwelcome in the vast majority of political science departments in this country.”
The research also reinforces my own feature for The Telegraph last year, in which I spoke to undergraduates about their experiences at universities. “I have lost a couple of really good friendships as soon as they found out I’m Tory”, one 19-year-old told me. Another Conservative said he was “abused and threatened” after protesting university strikes on campus.
The UK – and indeed the US – has reached a deeply troubling state of affairs in regards to ideological insularity on campus. And something has to change.
Fundamentally, it’s a contradiction of universities’ whole raison d’être for them to suppress and demonise diverse viewpoints. How is anyone meant to write or think anything interesting when only one worldview counts? The woke one, as it is called.
It’s not good commercially, either, given the British reliance on international students. Why would anyone want to study here when this problem exists?
The research will be particularly dispiriting to the general public as a measure of how much the culture wars have escalated – and how much worse it could get.
Some have always claimed that this battle is exaggerated, but the fact that an academic would shun a sarnie with another – simply because they want to leave an economic union – is a terrible indictment on society.
And it’s not only that: it’s campuses banning speakers, and even clapping (because it’s not “inclusive”) to replace it with jazz hands, and so forth.
Some of this is in part due to the growth of arts degrees and others which teach youngsters to see the world through the sociological lens – as a series of systems stacked against them, that they must then dismantle.
Yes, the Conservatives got a fantastic majority last year, and many took this as a pushback woke ideology, which was a dominant feature of Corbyn’s Labour (and Starmer’s hasn’t been particularly better, mind you).
But these victories can seem immaterial when its proponents have made great strides in our academic institutions – and elsewhere.
Over lockdown one of the most obvious ways in which woke ideology exerted itself was through the statue-toppling campaign. What began as just protests in response to the horrific murder of George Floyd descended into anarchy.
We’ve also seen JK Rowling shunned in celebrity circles for having conventional views on biological sex.
More and more people will be chastised, as she’s been, if universities continue teaching in the way they do, while shunning anyone who offers alternative perspectives.
Policy Exchange’s report makes some important suggestions. It wants higher education institutions and the Government to do much more to ensure that all lawful speech is protected.
Gavin Williamson, too, has taken some incredibly important steps towards moderating the issue. Knowing how much many of these institutions need a Government bailout thanks to Covid-19, he has told them they must first prove their commitment to free speech. It’s a great incentive.
The more the Government can set out policies to counter the issue, the better; universities are, after all, providing society with the next lawyers, journalists, doctors and generation of professionals. We simply cannot have them siding with one ideology; it’s not healthy for democracy, at the very least.
But combatting the groupthink will take more than legislation. It will also need the Government to be much bolder in putting forward its values.
Yesterday it was noticeable that Johnson’s ratings on the ConHome survey had gone down – which I hypothesised was due to his new-found interventionist tendencies on obesity, and face masks, and the rest.
But some of this may also reflect the silent majority’s wish for the Government to get a bit louder on the culture wars. Ministers should, at least, speak up while they can.