conservativehome--2020-06-09--James Frayne: We should prepare ourselves to hear horrifying tales of what’s happened in lockdown Br

James Frayne: We should prepare ourselves to hear horrifying tales of what’s happened in lockdown Britain

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
“ Healing and fixing Britain ” must become the Conservatives ’ mission for the next two years at least .
“ Healing ” , by showing that the Party understands the trauma that people went through during the crisis , and how and why some things went wrong ( and others right ) .
“ Fixing ” , by showing it knows which decisions to take to reform the state and public services , so the country is better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a growing risk that the Government ends up getting the fixing part right , but ultimately faces a public backlash on a lack of healing .
The Government is trailing the prospect of an emergency Budget ( although this will probably be delayed for a while ) and is considering aggressive action to get the economy moving .
This is welcome in practical terms as well as political terms .
The country has to get moving again , or we ’ ll be looking at the most appalling depression we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving and staving off the worst of the recession won ’ t even take the Party to the start line of what you might call its own political recovery .
It needs a much more fundamental “ reboot ” .
A few weeks ago , I wrote on this site about the coming “ Fairness Audit ” that will take place when the worst of the virus had passed .
I suggested people will be looking hard at which groups suffered disproportionately and why , and which groups appeared to sail through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already see this Audit beginning to take shape .
Pretty soon , amid rising unemployment and growing business failures , we ’ ll collectively hear the most appalling stories about life in Britain in the lockdown : stories of domestic violence and abuse ; vulnerable children abandoned with no oversight from schools or social services ; rising general healthcare problems ; estates lost to drug dealers ; rising drug and alcohol abuse ; and so on .
So far , the media haven ’ t begun to scratch the surface of all this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll hear stories about the harsh reality of life in hospitals and care homes .
We will ask : how could these things have happened ?
In this climate , getting the economy moving won ’ t even begin to give the Government any political momentum .
It will need to conduct the equivalent of its own Fairness Audit .
It will need to show it fully understands , feels and cares deeply for what the public went through and who suffered most – and that it is actively seeking the ugly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take place , emotions will run high ; people will want to know what happened .
Where it occurred , it will need to be honest about state failure .
This process can ’ t be ducked ; people will find out the truth for themselves , in time .
Only by doing this properly will the Government be trusted to take decisions to fix the state and improve the country .
The public are fair-minded .
They don ’ t believe that the Coronavirus could have been predicted , and they know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifetime event was going to test the Government in ways that would be beyond anyone ’ s capacity to fully respond .
But they will be deeply concerned about those failings of the state that the crisis has revealed – and they will want them dealt with urgently .
A Government-run audit which includes how the state performed is a prerequisite for putting things right .
Within reason , the public will not punish the Government for being honest about failings within the NHS or the civil service , nor about failings in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The media became obsessed with the Dominic Cummings Affair .
While it ’ s true to say it “ cut through ” to the public , in the sense that many people heard about it , it was ultimately an irrelevance ( as upsetting this truth is for some ) .
For the public , it wasn ’ t on the same planet as , say , the difficulties of accessing PPE for the NHS quickly , or getting the testing programme sorted , or the challenges of getting schools open .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite early on ; they called this right .
It has therefore shown that it knows what the public doesn ’ t care about .
They now need to show they understand what the public does care about .

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
“Healing and fixing Britain” must become the Conservatives’ mission for the next two years at least.
“Healing”, by showing that the Party understands the trauma that people went through during the crisis, and how and why some things went wrong (and others right).
“Fixing”, by showing it knows which decisions to take to reform the state and public services, so the country is better prepared for next time.
There’s a growing risk that the Government ends up getting the fixing part right, but ultimately faces a public backlash on a lack of healing.
The Government is trailing the prospect of an emergency Budget (although this will probably be delayed for a while) and is considering aggressive action to get the economy moving. This is welcome in practical terms as well as political terms. The country has to get moving again, or we’ll be looking at the most appalling depression we’ve ever seen.
But getting the economy moving and staving off the worst of the recession won’t even take the Party to the start line of what you might call its own political recovery. It needs a much more fundamental “reboot”.
A few weeks ago, I wrote on this site about the coming “Fairness Audit” that will take place when the worst of the virus had passed. I suggested people will be looking hard at which groups suffered disproportionately and why, and which groups appeared to sail through the crisis with minimal difficulty. You can already see this Audit beginning to take shape.
Pretty soon, amid rising unemployment and growing business failures, we’ll collectively hear the most appalling stories about life in Britain in the lockdown: stories of domestic violence and abuse; vulnerable children abandoned with no oversight from schools or social services; rising general healthcare problems; estates lost to drug dealers; rising drug and alcohol abuse; and so on.
So far, the media haven’t begun to scratch the surface of all this. And, of course, we’ll hear stories about the harsh reality of life in hospitals and care homes. We will ask: how could these things have happened?
In this climate, getting the economy moving won’t even begin to give the Government any political momentum. It will need to conduct the equivalent of its own Fairness Audit. It will need to show it fully understands, feels and cares deeply for what the public went through and who suffered most – and that it is actively seeking the ugly truth.
During the post-mortem which will take place, emotions will run high; people will want to know what happened. Where it occurred, it will need to be honest about state failure. This process can’t be ducked; people will find out the truth for themselves, in time. Only by doing this properly will the Government be trusted to take decisions to fix the state and improve the country.
The public are fair-minded. They don’t believe that the Coronavirus could have been predicted, and they know this (hopefully) once in a lifetime event was going to test the Government in ways that would be beyond anyone’s capacity to fully respond.
But they will be deeply concerned about those failings of the state that the crisis has revealed – and they will want them dealt with urgently. A Government-run audit which includes how the state performed is a prerequisite for putting things right. Within reason, the public will not punish the Government for being honest about failings within the NHS or the civil service, nor about failings in the relationships with government bodies more broadly.
The media became obsessed with the Dominic Cummings Affair. While it’s true to say it “cut through” to the public, in the sense that many people heard about it, it was ultimately an irrelevance (as upsetting this truth is for some).
For the public, it wasn’t on the same planet as, say, the difficulties of accessing PPE for the NHS quickly, or getting the testing programme sorted, or the challenges of getting schools open. The Government obviously came to this conclusion quite early on; they called this right. It has therefore shown that it knows what the public doesn’t care about. They now need to show they understand what the public does care about.


conservativehome--2020-06-09--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioner

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioners – 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 Imperial War Museum ( IWM ) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War .
Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today , IWM is the world ’ s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain , its former Empire and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War to the present .
The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose , fulfilled in different ways at its different branches , both physical and virtual .
In addition to its headquarters building , IWM London , in Southwark , the Museum ’ s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London , IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire , and IWM North in Trafford , Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind .
The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the armed forces , and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.
” Time : Up to one day per month .
“ Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice , supporting as well as challenging the executive , and covering such issues as : support , guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy ( the single departmental plan ) ; performance ( including agreeing key performance indicators ) , operational issues ( including the operational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adherence to relevant standards ( e.g .
commercial , digital ) , and on the effective management of the department ; [ and ] the recruitment , appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives , as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.
” Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of Prisons “ Reporting directly to Ministers , the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government , and deliver the services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Inspectorate ’ s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate , and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required .
In addition to its annual inspection programme , the Inspectorate has , since 2019 , introduced Independent Reviews of Progress , which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons a year .
The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pensions Ombudsman ( TPO ) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run .
The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) Board under the PPF ’ s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) Financial Assistance Scheme .
Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation , they are held by one post holder .
Throughout this document the term ‘ PO ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints .
Determinations are final and binding on all parties , subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law .
Services are provided free of charge.
” “ DFID leads the UK ’ s work to end extreme poverty , deliver the Global Goals , and tackle global challenges in line with the government ’ s UK Aid Strategy .
We are delivering against the Government ’ s manifesto to stand up for the right of every girl in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education , to end the preventable deaths of mothers , new born babies and children by 2030 and to fight climate change , protect the environment and preserve biodiversity .
We are helping to lead the international response to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the Coronavirus and we work to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit .
We do this whilst also investing in the systems that help support Global Health Security and improve peoples ’ resilience to shocks and supporting countries receiving aid to become self-sufficient.
” “ The Commission operates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Northern Ireland Office and is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland… Candidates for these roles must be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the Commission and will need to demonstrate : the ability to build productive and respectful relationships with fellow Commissioners , senior stakeholders and diverse communities ; knowledge of human rights law , and of the scope and limits of the NIHRCs work in Northern Ireland , and the considerations that influence the environment in which it operates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise judgement across a broad spectrum of policy and high level human rights issues ; and a reputation for personal integrity , professional conduct and credibility , with an exceptional sense of propriety.
” “ IE : UK is a joint industry and government partnership , strategically targeting major infrastructure export opportunities around the world .
It is supported by DIT ’ s network of local staff in 116 markets , with the objective of identifying , pursuing , and delivering major strategic infrastructure projects through a consortium-led approach .
The objective of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure exports and identify gaps in the UK supply chain for FDI to fill .
The IE : UK Board is co-chaired by DIT ‘ s Minister for Exports and a senior industry leader .
The Industry sector co-Chair will benefit from working closely with the Minister for Exports and leading UK based infrastructure companies to help shape the direction of UK export policy and support within the infrastructure sector .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Imperial War Museum – RAF Trustee and Navy Trustee
“The Imperial War Museum (IWM) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War. Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today, IWM is the world’s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain, its former Empire and the Commonwealth, from the First World War to the present. The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose, fulfilled in different ways at its different branches, both physical and virtual. In addition to its headquarters building, IWM London, in Southwark, the Museum’s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London, IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire, and IWM North in Trafford, Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind. The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces, and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.”
Time: Up to one day per month.
Remuneration: Expenses reasonably incurred.
Closes: 12 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for International Trade – Lead Non-Executive Board Member/Non-Executive Board Member
“Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice, supporting as well as challenging the executive, and covering such issues as: support, guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy (the single departmental plan); performance (including agreeing key performance indicators), operational issues (including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals), adherence to relevant standards (e.g. commercial, digital), and on the effective management of the department; [and] the recruitment, appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives, as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000/£15,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
“Reporting directly to Ministers, the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government, and deliver the services under the Inspectorate’s scrutiny. The Inspectorate’s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate, and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required. In addition to its annual inspection programme, the Inspectorate has, since 2019, introduced Independent Reviews of Progress, which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons a year. The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £135,000 per annum.
Closes: 15 June
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pensions Ombudsman – Chair
“The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run. The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Board under the PPF’s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Financial Assistance Scheme. Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation, they are held by one post holder. Throughout this document the term ‘PO’ will therefore cover both roles. TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints. Determinations are final and binding on all parties, subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law. Services are provided free of charge.”
Time: Min. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 June
– – – – – – – – – –
DFID Board – Non-Executive Director
“DFID leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty, deliver the Global Goals, and tackle global challenges in line with the government’s UK Aid Strategy. We are delivering against the Government’s manifesto to stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education, to end the preventable deaths of mothers, new born babies and children by 2030 and to fight climate change, protect the environment and preserve biodiversity. We are helping to lead the international response to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the Coronavirus and we work to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit. We do this whilst also investing in the systems that help support Global Health Security and improve peoples’ resilience to shocks and supporting countries receiving aid to become self-sufficient.”
Time: Approx. 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 26 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission – Commissioners
“The Commission operates as an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office and is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland… Candidates for these roles must be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the Commission and will need to demonstrate: the ability to build productive and respectful relationships with fellow Commissioners, senior stakeholders and diverse communities; knowledge of human rights law, and of the scope and limits of the NIHRCs work in Northern Ireland, and the considerations that influence the environment in which it operates; the ability to analyse information and exercise judgement across a broad spectrum of policy and high level human rights issues; and a reputation for personal integrity, professional conduct and credibility, with an exceptional sense of propriety.”
Time: Approx. 3 days per month.
Remuneration: £7,500 per annum.
Closes: 26 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Infrastructure Exports:UK – Board co-Chair
“IE:UK is a joint industry and government partnership, strategically targeting major infrastructure export opportunities around the world. It is supported by DIT’s network of local staff in 116 markets, with the objective of identifying, pursuing, and delivering major strategic infrastructure projects through a consortium-led approach. The objective of IE:UK is to increase UK infrastructure exports and identify gaps in the UK supply chain for FDI to fill. The IE:UK Board is co-chaired by DIT‘s Minister for Exports and a senior industry leader. The Industry sector co-Chair will benefit from working closely with the Minister for Exports and leading UK based infrastructure companies to help shape the direction of UK export policy and support within the infrastructure sector.”
Time: 3-4 meetings a year.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 29 June


conservativehome--2020-06-09--Looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The problem isn’t too many divorces.  It’s too few m

Looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The problem isn’t too many divorces.  It’s too few marriages.

The Government ’ s proposed Divorce Law reform bill , which was debated yesterday in the Commons , has three strangenesses about it .
The first is that , although it has been labelled a No Fault Divorce measure , that form of divorce already exists in law – after two years , if both parties consent , and five years , without the respondent ’ s consent .
The Government wants to sweep away all five present grounds for divorce – two of which we refer to above – and make it automatic on a petitioner declaring that their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives rise to the second oddity .
The demand for justice is everywhere ; see the aftermath of George Floyd ’ s killing .
Good and evil and right and wrong are woven into the very substance of law .
So it will seem curious to some for it not to apply to how husbands and wives treat each other ( or husbands and husbands or wives and wives ) .
Where would our soap operas be , our EastEnders and Coronation Streets , without viewers taking sides in rows between partners ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ namely , the falling-out of pro-marriage groups about the Government ’ s Bill .
The Marriage Foundation is for it .
The Campaign for Marriage is against .
One point should be clear at the start : fault , as decided by a court , has no bearing on the division of property or care for children .
Its function is essentially declaratory .
So the fault debate is a bit of red herring .
And in practice , the three fault-based grounds for divorce – adultery , unreasonable behaviour and desertion – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up proceedings .
Which is why James Mackay , that pillar of Free Presbyterian rectitude who was once John Major ’ s Lord Chancellor , championed much the same reform in 1996 that Boris Johnson ’ s Government is championing now .
He claimed then as the Government claims today – via David Gauke , when he was Lord Chancellor , under Theresa May – that the main effect of the concept of fault was to further poison relations between divorcing couples .
Ironically , it was Tony Blair ’ s socially liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Mackay ’ s plan .
Derry Irvine , his successor , took fright at a £50 million bill attached to mediation schemes that came with the scheme .
One of the main arguments put against the Bill is that it trivialises divorce by making it available at once if only one partner wishes it to happen – and that it will spur quickie divorces that some of the couples concerned will regret .
The counter-case is that four out five divorces will actually take longer than they do now , because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initial petition stage and when the court grants a ‘ decree nisi ’ .
Furthermore , the prospect of more divorces raises a which-is-the-cart-and-which-is-the-horse-question , the answer to which is obscure either way .
Are unhappy marriages like a pent-up dam , waiting to be released if the law changes , or more like a new market product – creating their own demand simply by coming available to consumers ?
We can see the case for saying that the law isn ’ t a neutral instrument , and can help to shape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that the reform will stimulate more divorces , for better or worse ( and , usually , for poorer ) .
There is a good case for a minimum wait of a year for divorce by mutual consent , two years if contested – the system that currently applies in Scotland .
That might well be a better proposal than the Government ’ s .
But given the choice between its plan and the status quo , the former is clearly the lesser of two evils .
But maybe those preoccupied with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this issue through the wrong end of the telescope .
For the fact is that the divorce rate has been declining since the early noughties , and the marriage rate is bobbing along at its lowest ever .
In other words , the problem isn ’ t too many divorces ; it ’ s too few marriages – at least if you believe that marriage is important for all of us , because stability at home helps to boost children ’ s life chances .
So if the rich marry but the poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trend during recent years ) , social justice will be set back in modern Britain .
There is a strict limit to what the state can do in the home , or should be .
None the less , one of the complaints of some Conservative MPs when the Bill was debated yesterday was the absence of proposals to support marriage .
Robert Buckland , who as Justice Secretary led for the Government on the Bill , referred to the Troubled Families Programme , Family Hubs research and a £39 million reducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily complex to administer , and if the Government is looking for a measure that ’ s a bit more straightforward , there is one to hand .
Namely , beefing up the transferable tax allowance that David Cameron introduced in 2015 , which would be of real value to couples in which one member doesn ’ t work full-time .
This would recognise that they are not stand-alone individuals but poolers of income ; help to make tax fairer between different sorts of household , and support couples who marry ( or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The case for it has been made by ConservativeHome and , on this site , Anne Fennell , Iain Mansfield , Nora Leach and Ranil Jayawardena .
Venturing wider , the simplest childcare policy is the best – namely , putting more choice in the hands of parents by restoring child tax allowances .
Or , more practicably ( since the move wouldn ’ t help parents who don ’ t pay tax ) , rebadge universal child benefit as a family tax allowance – which it essentially is anyway .
All in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up no fault divorce , whatever one thinks of the Government ’ s proposed timeframe .
And there would be , too , in more support for marriage .

The Government’s proposed Divorce Law reform bill, which was debated yesterday in the Commons, has three strangenesses about it.
The first is that, although it has been labelled a No Fault Divorce measure, that form of divorce already exists in law – after two years, if both parties consent, and five years, without the respondent’s consent.
The Government wants to sweep away all five present grounds for divorce – two of which we refer to above – and make it automatic on a petitioner declaring that their marriage has irretrievably broken down.
This gives rise to the second oddity. The demand for justice is everywhere; see the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing. Good and evil and right and wrong are woven into the very substance of law.
So it will seem curious to some for it not to apply to how husbands and wives treat each other (or husbands and husbands or wives and wives).
Where would our soap operas be, our EastEnders and Coronation Streets, without viewers taking sides in rows between partners?
This leads to the third weirdness – namely, the falling-out of pro-marriage groups about the Government’s Bill. The Marriage Foundation is for it. The Campaign for Marriage is against.
One point should be clear at the start: fault, as decided by a court, has no bearing on the division of property or care for children. Its function is essentially declaratory.
So the fault debate is a bit of red herring. And in practice, the three fault-based grounds for divorce – adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion – are often manipulated simply to help speed up proceedings.
Which is why James Mackay, that pillar of Free Presbyterian rectitude who was once John Major’s Lord Chancellor, championed much the same reform in 1996 that Boris Johnson’s Government is championing now.
He claimed then as the Government claims today – via David Gauke, when he was Lord Chancellor, under Theresa May – that the main effect of the concept of fault was to further poison relations between divorcing couples.
Ironically, it was Tony Blair’s socially liberal New Labour Government that put the kibosh on Mackay’s plan. Derry Irvine, his successor, took fright at a £50 million bill attached to mediation schemes that came with the scheme.
One of the main arguments put against the Bill is that it trivialises divorce by making it available at once if only one partner wishes it to happen – and that it will spur quickie divorces that some of the couples concerned will regret.
The counter-case is that four out five divorces will actually take longer than they do now, because the Government is proposing a 20-week period between the initial petition stage and when the court grants a ‘decree nisi’.
Furthermore, the prospect of more divorces raises a which-is-the-cart-and-which-is-the-horse-question, the answer to which is obscure either way.
Are unhappy marriages like a pent-up dam, waiting to be released if the law changes, or more like a new market product – creating their own demand simply by coming available to consumers?
We can see the case for saying that the law isn’t a neutral instrument, and can help to shape fashion. So it is possible to believe that the reform will stimulate more divorces, for better or worse (and, usually, for poorer).
There is a good case for a minimum wait of a year for divorce by mutual consent, two years if contested – the system that currently applies in Scotland.
That might well be a better proposal than the Government’s. But given the choice between its plan and the status quo, the former is clearly the lesser of two evils.
But maybe those preoccupied with the Bill either way are looking at this issue through the wrong end of the telescope.
For the fact is that the divorce rate has been declining since the early noughties, and the marriage rate is bobbing along at its lowest ever.
In other words, the problem isn’t too many divorces; it’s too few marriages – at least if you believe that marriage is important for all of us, because stability at home helps to boost children’s life chances.
So if the rich marry but the poor don’t (which has been the trend during recent years), social justice will be set back in modern Britain.
There is a strict limit to what the state can do in the home, or should be. None the less, one of the complaints of some Conservative MPs when the Bill was debated yesterday was the absence of proposals to support marriage.
Robert Buckland, who as Justice Secretary led for the Government on the Bill, referred to the Troubled Families Programme, Family Hubs research and a £39 million reducing parental conflict programme.
These programmes are necessarily complex to administer, and if the Government is looking for a measure that’s a bit more straightforward, there is one to hand.
Namely, beefing up the transferable tax allowance that David Cameron introduced in 2015, which would be of real value to couples in which one member doesn’t work full-time.
This would recognise that they are not stand-alone individuals but poolers of income; help to make tax fairer between different sorts of household, and support couples who marry (or who are in civil partnerships).
The case for it has been made by ConservativeHome and, on this site, Anne Fennell, Iain Mansfield, Nora Leach and Ranil Jayawardena.
Venturing wider, the simplest childcare policy is the best – namely, putting more choice in the hands of parents by restoring child tax allowances.
Or, more practicably (since the move wouldn’t help parents who don’t pay tax), rebadge universal child benefit as a family tax allowance – which it essentially is anyway.
All in all, there is sense in speeding up no fault divorce, whatever one thinks of the Government’s proposed timeframe. And there would be, too, in more support for marriage.


conservativehome--2020-06-09--Interview with Chris Patten: We must stand up to the Communists in Beijing who hate freedom in Hong

Interview with Chris Patten: We must stand up to the Communists in Beijing who hate freedom in Hong Kong

Chinese people love freedom , but the Chinese Communists hate it .
Chris Patten , who served from 1992-97 as the last Governor of Hong Kong , argues in this interview that we must therefore stand up to the latter , who have become worse under the dictatorship of Xi Jinping : “ Hong Kong represents all the things that they hate .
And it ’ s interesting that it ’ s not outsiders who got millions to march last year , in a protest against the destruction of the firewall between the rule of law in Hong Kong and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainland .
“ The idea that nowadays we have the ability to do that – we can barely organise a traffic jam in Kent , let alone a million people on the streets of Hong Kong .
“ They just can ’ t face the fact that Chinese people – look at Taiwan as well – love freedom , love a government that is accountable to some extent , love due process and the rule of law , love all those things as much as anybody else , so human rights really , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Leninists who run the show in Beijing benefit from the help of “ useful idiots ” who “ always make an excuse for China whatever it does ” .
He thinks George Osborne made a serious error in 2015 by hailing a new “ golden age ” in Sino-British relations : From 1979-92 , when he lost his seat to the Liberal Democrats , Patten was MP for Bath , serving from November 1990 as Conservative Party Chairman under John Major .
At the end of this interview , he expresses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent developments in the party : ConHome : “ When did you begin to think China was a menace ?
” Patten : “ Looking at the telegram sent by Sir Alan Donald [ British ambassador in Beijing ] on 5th June 1989 describing what had happened in Tiananmen Square , I recalled thinking at the time how much those events , that massacre , reflected the absolute determination of part of the leadership of the Communist Party to stay in power , even if it meant getting part of the army to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was never under any illusions when I went to Hong Kong as to why people in Hong Kong were nervous about the future .
“ But while it made me determined to do what we could within the terms of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law to try to secure Hong Kong ’ s freedoms , I also began the period after 1997 not without hope .
“ By and large , for the first 12 or 13 years it didn ’ t go too badly .
I think what changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was chosen I think partly because of what they thought was an attempted coup by Bo Xilai .
“ And he reflected also a sense that things were starting to drift and the party was in danger of losing control .
“ And really ever since he came in in 2012 , 2013 , the Communist leadership have cracked down everywhere , on dissidents , in Xinjiang with probably well over a million people locked up in what are in effect concentration camps , breaking their word in the South China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bases , and behaviour towards Hong Kong .
“ And I think a document which everyone should be aware of , and it ’ s had I think too little attention from people when looking at China , is a document called in a rather Orwellian way Communiqué Number Nine , sent out in 2013 , not long after Xi Jinping became dictator , to warn the party and the government against the devils of liberal democracy .
“ Anybody who says ‘ We don ’ t want a cold war with China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard China as an enemy ’ , I understand that sentiment , but the trouble is that China regards us an an enemy .
“ China regards all the things we stand for as hostile to the continuance in power of the Chinese Communist regime .
It ’ s not the people of China that are the problem .
It ’ s Xi Jinping and his apparatchiks .
“ So I think ever since 2013 I ’ ve become more nervous and I ’ ve said so .
“ And I think what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which the Xi Jinping dictatorship has taken advantage of the fact that the rest of the world is understandably obsessed with fighting the Coronavirus – which of course has got so much worse because of the initial cover-up by China – in order to flex their muscles , whether in relation to Taiwan , or fishing vessels in the South China Sea , and to try to turn the screws on Hong Kong .
“ Hong Kong represents all the things that they hate .
And it ’ s interesting that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to march last year , in a protest against the destruction of the firewall between the rule of law in Hong Kong and what passes for Communist law on the mainland .
“ The idea that nowadays we have the ability to do that – we can barely organise a traffic jam in Kent , let alone a million people on the streets of Hong Kong .
“ They just can ’ t face the fact that Chinese people – look at Taiwan as well – love freedom , love a government that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due process and the rule of law , love all those things as much as anybody else , so human rights really , really are universally valid.
” ConHome : “ Given that things started going wrong in 2013 , where does that leave George Osborne with his idea in 2015 of ‘ a golden age ’ in Sino-British relations ?
” Patten : “ Well it ’ s a golden age for Chinese bullying , that ’ s for sure .
Look , there is no question that even though we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much tougher approach to China , I don ’ t believe we would ever try to cut off all relationships with China .
“ But there ’ s a difference between that and getting all sort of mushy and romantic and soft-headed about what China stands for .
“ Why have the Germans now perfectly understandably got really nervous about predatory investment by China ?
In for example the robotics industry .
Could a British or a German firm take over a robotics firm in China ?
Of course not .
“ So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rational human being , George is persuaded during that visit to go to Urumqi , to go to Xinjiang .
“ How much British trade is there in Urumqi ?
He went to Urumqi in order to please the Chinese , so that they could continue with the fiction that they were looking after Uighur Muslims .
“ We were promised , as a result of this golden age , a huge amount of investment in the Northern Powerhouse , a billion in Sheffield for example .
The last leader of Sheffield Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it go ?
’ It was like candyfloss .
It never appeared .
“ So I ’ m not sure what we have to show for this golden age except a Chinese ambassador in London who blags and bullies at every opportunity.
” ConHome : “ Where does it come from , the Chinese regime ’ s contempt for human rights , the gross maltreatment which you ’ ve already referred to of the Uighurs , many other cases .
Is it Leninist Communism or is it some other factor ?
” Patten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leninist Communism .
After all , you can ’ t say it ’ s a cultural factor .
Taiwan is a Chinese community , Hong Kong is a Chinese community , and in both of those people believe passionately in freedom .
“ What you ’ ve got is Leninism complete with what I think Lenin called useful idiots.
” ConHome : “ Who are the useful idiots ?
” Patten : “ People who can always make an excuse for China whatever it does .
If the PLA [ People ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ High Street someone would say that ’ s quite close to China so maybe we should understand they ’ ve just adjusted the border a bit.
” ConHome : “ Apropos that , on the Huawei deal , GCHQ and so on were saying it ’ s all right.
” Patten : “ Well can I just say one thing about our security services .
I think they ’ re pretty good on their China , I think they ’ re fairly clear-headed .
“ I don ’ t mean by that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not hostile to China .
I ’ m just very wary about this Chinese Communist regime .
“ I think China is a fantastic civilisation .
I ’ ve read huge amounts of Chinese history .
One of the greatest novelists today is a Chinese , Ma Jian , who lives in London , and his book Beijing Coma is one of the great works of the last part of the last century .
“ I ’ m very , very positive about China , but I ’ m very , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ConHome : “ And what should the British Government be doing now ?
” Patten : “ What I think the British Government should be doing now is pretty well what Tom Tugendhat and a group of Conservatives right across the board , and people from other parties , have been doing .
“ Because it ’ s very important that it ’ s not just a Conservative Party issue .
I think we should be looking at our relationship with China in every sector .
“ Trade , education , investment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bend the rules , where we need to be absolutely clear about supply chains , about the independence of strategic industries , and act accordingly .
“ But we need to do it across the board and we then need to discuss with our colleagues and friends where we can match things with them .
“ For example , at the moment we allow friends and allies to be picked off .
When the Australians asked for a full and open inquiry into where the Coronavirus arose and how it could then best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origins , when they suggested that and the Chinese responded by saying ‘ Huh !
We won ’ t buy your beef , we won ’ t buy your barley any more if you do that ’ , we should have made a fuss about it.
” ConHome : “ Could we end on British politics .
Is it conceivable that we could ever join the European Union ?
” Patten : “ I slightly doubt it .
My children ’ s generation think we will .
But it may be a rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be as things move on .
“ At the moment what concerns me about this is two things .
First of all , I accept that we ’ re leaving the European Union , I mean we plainly are .
“ I don ’ t like it , I think it ’ s shooting ourselves in both feet , but we ’ re doing it .
“ But I want us to do it in the most sensible way for Britain , and I think the refusal to accept an extension so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another of those triumphs , which is so deeply unconservative , of ideology over reason and political good sense .
“ And it ’ s infused of course as well with something which I regard with a degree of contempt .
That the Conservative Party should turn itself into an organisation which whips up sentiment against Parliament , or those who are regarded as the elite , is a complete contradiction of what the Conservative Party has normally stood for .
“ It ’ s turning the Conservative Party not into the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robespierre.
” ConHome : “ Oh God !
And what role does the present Prime Minister play in this ?
” Patten : “ Well I ’ m not sure that he does play a role in it .
But inevitably , you whip up public against Parliament , public against experts , and then when you ’ re the elite , you behave worse than the elite did before .
Which is I think where the Prime Minister ’ s principal adviser comes in .
”

Chinese people love freedom, but the Chinese Communists hate it. Chris Patten, who served from 1992-97 as the last Governor of Hong Kong, argues in this interview that we must therefore stand up to the latter, who have become worse under the dictatorship of Xi Jinping:
“Hong Kong represents all the things that they hate. And it’s interesting that it’s not outsiders who got millions to march last year, in a protest against the destruction of the firewall between the rule of law in Hong Kong and what passes for Communist law on the mainland. “The idea that nowadays we have the ability to do that – we can barely organise a traffic jam in Kent, let alone a million people on the streets of Hong Kong. “They just can’t face the fact that Chinese people – look at Taiwan as well – love freedom, love a government that is accountable to some extent, love due process and the rule of law, love all those things as much as anybody else, so human rights really, really are universally valid.”
Patten adds that the Leninists who run the show in Beijing benefit from the help of “useful idiots” who “always make an excuse for China whatever it does”.
He thinks George Osborne made a serious error in 2015 by hailing a new “golden age” in Sino-British relations:
“I’m not sure what we have to show for this golden age except a Chinese ambassador in London who blags and bullies at every opportunity.”
From 1979-92, when he lost his seat to the Liberal Democrats, Patten was MP for Bath, serving from November 1990 as Conservative Party Chairman under John Major.
At the end of this interview, he expresses “a degree of contempt” for recent developments in the party:
“That the Conservative Party should turn itself into an organisation which whips up sentiment against Parliament, or those who are regarded as the elite, is a complete contradiction of what the Conservative Party has normally stood for. “It’s turning the Conservative Party not into the party of Burke but into the party of Robespierre.”
ConHome: “When did you begin to think China was a menace?”
Patten: “Looking at the telegram sent by Sir Alan Donald [British ambassador in Beijing] on 5th June 1989 describing what had happened in Tiananmen Square, I recalled thinking at the time how much those events, that massacre, reflected the absolute determination of part of the leadership of the Communist Party to stay in power, even if it meant getting part of the army to shoot their own people.
“So I was never under any illusions when I went to Hong Kong as to why people in Hong Kong were nervous about the future.
“But while it made me determined to do what we could within the terms of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law to try to secure Hong Kong’s freedoms, I also began the period after 1997 not without hope.
“By and large, for the first 12 or 13 years it didn’t go too badly. I think what changed everything was the arrival of Xi Jinping, who was chosen I think partly because of what they thought was an attempted coup by Bo Xilai.
“And he reflected also a sense that things were starting to drift and the party was in danger of losing control.
“And really ever since he came in in 2012, 2013, the Communist leadership have cracked down everywhere, on dissidents, in Xinjiang with probably well over a million people locked up in what are in effect concentration camps, breaking their word in the South China Sea with the militarisation of atolls and bases, and behaviour towards Hong Kong.
“And I think a document which everyone should be aware of, and it’s had I think too little attention from people when looking at China, is a document called in a rather Orwellian way Communiqué Number Nine, sent out in 2013, not long after Xi Jinping became dictator, to warn the party and the government against the devils of liberal democracy.
“Anybody who says ‘We don’t want a cold war with China, we don’t want to regard China as an enemy’, I understand that sentiment, but the trouble is that China regards us an an enemy.
“China regards all the things we stand for as hostile to the continuance in power of the Chinese Communist regime. It’s not the people of China that are the problem. It’s Xi Jinping and his apparatchiks.
“So I think ever since 2013 I’ve become more nervous and I’ve said so.
“And I think what’s happened recently, the way in which the Xi Jinping dictatorship has taken advantage of the fact that the rest of the world is understandably obsessed with fighting the Coronavirus – which of course has got so much worse because of the initial cover-up by China – in order to flex their muscles, whether in relation to Taiwan, or fishing vessels in the South China Sea, and to try to turn the screws on Hong Kong.
“Hong Kong represents all the things that they hate. And it’s interesting that it’s not outsiders who got millions to march last year, in a protest against the destruction of the firewall between the rule of law in Hong Kong and what passes for Communist law on the mainland.
“The idea that nowadays we have the ability to do that – we can barely organise a traffic jam in Kent, let alone a million people on the streets of Hong Kong.
“They just can’t face the fact that Chinese people – look at Taiwan as well – love freedom, love a government that is accountable to some extent, love due process and the rule of law, love all those things as much as anybody else, so human rights really, really are universally valid.”
ConHome: “Given that things started going wrong in 2013, where does that leave George Osborne with his idea in 2015 of ‘a golden age’ in Sino-British relations?”
Patten: “Well it’s a golden age for Chinese bullying, that’s for sure. Look, there is no question that even though we have to have, with others, a much tougher approach to China, I don’t believe we would ever try to cut off all relationships with China.
“But there’s a difference between that and getting all sort of mushy and romantic and soft-headed about what China stands for.
“Why have the Germans now perfectly understandably got really nervous about predatory investment by China? In for example the robotics industry. Could a British or a German firm take over a robotics firm in China? Of course not.
“So George, who is otherwise a perfectly rational human being, George is persuaded during that visit to go to Urumqi, to go to Xinjiang.
“How much British trade is there in Urumqi? He went to Urumqi in order to please the Chinese, so that they could continue with the fiction that they were looking after Uighur Muslims.
“We were promised, as a result of this golden age, a huge amount of investment in the Northern Powerhouse, a billion in Sheffield for example. The last leader of Sheffield Council said last year, ‘Where did it go?’ It was like candyfloss. It never appeared.
“So I’m not sure what we have to show for this golden age except a Chinese ambassador in London who blags and bullies at every opportunity.”
ConHome: “Where does it come from, the Chinese regime’s contempt for human rights, the gross maltreatment which you’ve already referred to of the Uighurs, many other cases. Is it Leninist Communism or is it some other factor?”
Patten: “I think it’s Leninist Communism. After all, you can’t say it’s a cultural factor. Taiwan is a Chinese community, Hong Kong is a Chinese community, and in both of those people believe passionately in freedom.
“What you’ve got is Leninism complete with what I think Lenin called useful idiots.”
ConHome: “Who are the useful idiots?”
Patten: “People who can always make an excuse for China whatever it does. If the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] were marching up Colchester High Street someone would say that’s quite close to China so maybe we should understand they’ve just adjusted the border a bit.”
ConHome: “Apropos that, on the Huawei deal, GCHQ and so on were saying it’s all right.”
Patten: “Well can I just say one thing about our security services. I think they’re pretty good on their China, I think they’re fairly clear-headed.
“I don’t mean by that they’re hostile to China. I’m not hostile to China. I’m just very wary about this Chinese Communist regime.
“I think China is a fantastic civilisation. I’ve read huge amounts of Chinese history. One of the greatest novelists today is a Chinese, Ma Jian, who lives in London, and his book Beijing Coma is one of the great works of the last part of the last century.
“I’m very, very positive about China, but I’m very, very negative about the Chinese Communist Party.”
ConHome: “And what should the British Government be doing now?”
Patten: “What I think the British Government should be doing now is pretty well what Tom Tugendhat and a group of Conservatives right across the board, and people from other parties, have been doing.
“Because it’s very important that it’s not just a Conservative Party issue. I think we should be looking at our relationship with China in every sector.
“Trade, education, investment, security, and seeing where they bend the rules, where we need to be absolutely clear about supply chains, about the independence of strategic industries, and act accordingly.
“But we need to do it across the board and we then need to discuss with our colleagues and friends where we can match things with them.
“For example, at the moment we allow friends and allies to be picked off. When the Australians asked for a full and open inquiry into where the Coronavirus arose and how it could then best be fought by knowing more about its origins, when they suggested that and the Chinese responded by saying ‘Huh! We won’t buy your beef, we won’t buy your barley any more if you do that’, we should have made a fuss about it.”
ConHome: “Could we end on British politics. Is it conceivable that we could ever join the European Union?”
Patten: “I slightly doubt it. My children’s generation think we will. But it may be a rather different European Union, and would need to be as things move on.
“At the moment what concerns me about this is two things. First of all, I accept that we’re leaving the European Union, I mean we plainly are.
“I don’t like it, I think it’s shooting ourselves in both feet, but we’re doing it.
“But I want us to do it in the most sensible way for Britain, and I think the refusal to accept an extension so we can negotiate a better deal is another of those triumphs, which is so deeply unconservative, of ideology over reason and political good sense.
“And it’s infused of course as well with something which I regard with a degree of contempt. That the Conservative Party should turn itself into an organisation which whips up sentiment against Parliament, or those who are regarded as the elite, is a complete contradiction of what the Conservative Party has normally stood for.
“It’s turning the Conservative Party not into the party of Burke but into the party of Robespierre.”
ConHome: “Oh God! And what role does the present Prime Minister play in this?”
Patten: “Well I’m not sure that he does play a role in it. But inevitably, you whip up public against Parliament, public against experts, and then when you’re the elite, you behave worse than the elite did before. Which is I think where the Prime Minister’s principal adviser comes in.”


conservativehome--2020-06-09--Emma Webb: Scotland’s new Hate Crime Bill imposes a new system of blasphemy. It urgently needs rejec

Emma Webb: Scotland’s new Hate Crime Bill imposes a new system of blasphemy. It urgently needs rejecting.

Emma Webb is a Radical Associate , and the Director of the Forum on Integration , Democracy and Extremism ( FIDE ) at Civitas .
Last weekend , author JK Rowling stuck her head above the parapet again by criticising the phrase “ people who menstruate ” .
“ I ’ m sure there used to be a word for those people ” , she Tweeted , “ Someone help me out .
Wumben ?
Wimpund ?
Woomud ?
” .
Responding to her critics she explained that she was opposed to the erasure of the concept of sex .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but one that has become heretical wrong-think in some quarters .
Our policing of language , whether by law or by mob , is leading us down a dangerous road that must be resisted .
In May , the United Nations Tweeted advice on how we should speak .
We should say “ humankind ” instead of “ mankind ” , “ owner ” instead of “ landlord ” , “ partner ” instead of “ boyfriend/girlfriend ” , “ family name ” instead of “ maiden name ” , “ spouse ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife ” .
Doing so , they said , would “ create a more equal world by using gender neutral language if you are unsure about someone ’ s gender or are referring to a group ” .
This is not the first time in recent months that an international organisation has issued such advice .
In March the World Health Organisation told the public to use some words and avoid others when talking about the Coronavirus .
We should avoid calling it “ Wuhan virus ” , “ Chinese virus ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak of “ contracting ” not of “ transmitting ” or “ spreading ” Covid-19 because , according to WHO ’ s General Director “ stigma , to be honest , is more dangerous than the virus itself ” .
It is increasingly accepted that policing expression is a path to a better society – and this should worry us immensely .
On our own shores , the same can be found in the recent Hate Crime and Public Order ( Scotland ) Bill , particularly its creation of “ offences relating to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the Bill , Humza Yousaf , the Scottish Justice Secretary , explained the motivation for this legislation : “ we all have a responsibility to challenge prejudice in order to ensure Scotland is the inclusive and respectful society we want it to be ” .
In the minister ’ s opinion , this can be engineered through legislation .
Commenting on the Bill , he said , “ Stirring up of hatred can contribute to a social atmosphere in which discrimination is accepted as normal .
By creating robust laws for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong message to victims , perpetrators , communities and to wider society that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated seriously and will not be tolerated ” .
I have written elsewhere about the implications of this for freedom of expression about religion – but the Bill would also cause real problems in the ongoing debate around transgenderism and the Gender Recognition Act .
The protected groups named by the Bill are expanded to include : age , disability , religion ( social , cultural group , perceived religious affiliation ) , sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in sex characteristics .
“ Stirring up hatred ” against these groups , according to the Bill , is defined as behaving in a threatening , abusive or insulting manner , or sending , showing or making available such material to another person .
It makes a crime of displaying , publishing or distributing “ material that stirs up hatred ” .
It is irrelevant if an individual intends to “ stir up hatred ” – it is enough that “ it is likely that hatred will be stirred up ” .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material ” illegal giving a judge the power to grant a warrant for the police to search your home , seize and destroy relevant material .
Most authoritarian of all , the Bill specifically states that public performances – plays – will also be subject to this , seeing directors and actors brought before a court .
These offences may result in up to seven years in prison .
As pointed out by writer Stephen Daisley “ this Bill comes in the middle of a debate about the law on gender identity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ often belligerent rhetoric , especially on social media.
” Feminists are often derided as “ TERFS ” – trans-exclusionary radical feminists – and critics are called transphobic for arguing that sex is a biological fact .
A Bill such as this would have a very real negative impact on debate over this issue .
All we need to do is look at how some have already been persecuted for taking certain positions .
Take think-tanker Maya Forstater who was fired after tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employer , the Centre for Global Development ( CGD ) to ensure that gender critical views – that there are only two biological sexes – is protected under the equality act .
The judge ruled that her views were “ not worthy of respect in a democratic society ” , and she lost the case .
Or the ‘ cancelling ’ and no-platforming of those with gender critical views on university campuses , like feminist firebrand Germain Greer for her view that trans women are “ not women ” .
The complexities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silence dissent are obvious – it would result in an identity politics crossfire that would make discussions of public interest impossible .
Take the case of David Mackereth , the Christian doctor who was sacked for refusing to use gender pronouns because he believed compelling him to do so was “ a ritual denial of an obvious truth ” and against his conscience and religious beliefs .
He argued that the Department for Work and Pensions discriminated against his religious belief by suspending him , while they described his stance as “ unwanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a breakaway group from LGBT+ activist group Stonewall , describes itself as “ asserting the right of lesbians , bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted ” has been criticised for transphobia .
As Debbie Hayton writes in The Spectator “ when homosexual people declare themselves to be attracted to the same sex , as opposed to the same gender , they risk being attacked and shamed as transphobic bigots ” .
Currently the verdict is out on the Gender Recognition Act ( GRA ) .
Current practice which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual to have a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria , live in the acquired gender for two years , and provide supporting evidence to a panel of clinicians ; the GRA seeks to require no medical diagnosis or evidence and would make it easier to transition , including for 16-17 year olds .
Rightly , there are objections .
Liz Truss , the Minister for Women and Equalities , recently announced the intention to protect single-sex spaces and to protect younger people .
Reports suggest this may include banning ‘ gender confirmation surgery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were unhappy about this ; notably influential Stonewall .
One article in Pink News described her announcement as an “ attack on transgender youth ” .
It is easy enough to see that the Bill ’ s “ abusive or insulting ” would be used on this battleground , and how detrimental it would be to open debate .
As Orwell asked , “ Don ’ t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought ?
In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which to express it ” .
The implicit – and dangerous – idea is that you can change hearts and minds with law , and build a particular vision of society , by limiting expression .
But as one commentator noted “ criminal law isn ’ t ethics .
What is legal doesn ’ t – and shouldn ’ t – exhaust an analysis of what ’ s right and wrong to do and say and encourage others to think ” .
The Hate Crime and Public Order ( Scotland ) Bill abolishes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time introducing a more far-ranging equivalent that seeks to protect new “ sacred ” beliefs .
If it is successful , its impact will not stop at the Scottish border .

Emma Webb is a Radical Associate, and the Director of the Forum on Integration, Democracy and Extremism (FIDE) at Civitas.
Last weekend, author JK Rowling stuck her head above the parapet again by criticising the phrase “people who menstruate”.
“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people”, she Tweeted, “Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”. Responding to her critics she explained that she was opposed to the erasure of the concept of sex. An entirely reasonable position to take, but one that has become heretical wrong-think in some quarters.
Our policing of language, whether by law or by mob, is leading us down a dangerous road that must be resisted.
In May, the United Nations Tweeted advice on how we should speak. We should say “humankind” instead of “mankind”, “owner” instead of “landlord”, “partner” instead of “boyfriend/girlfriend”, “family name” instead of “maiden name”, “spouse” instead of “husband” and “wife”. Doing so, they said, would “create a more equal world by using gender neutral language if you are unsure about someone’s gender or are referring to a group”.
This is not the first time in recent months that an international organisation has issued such advice. In March the World Health Organisation told the public to use some words and avoid others when talking about the Coronavirus. We should avoid calling it “Wuhan virus”, “Chinese virus” or “Asian virus”, and should speak of “contracting” not of “transmitting” or “spreading” Covid-19 because, according to WHO’s General Director “stigma, to be honest, is more dangerous than the virus itself”.
It is increasingly accepted that policing expression is a path to a better society – and this should worry us immensely. On our own shores, the same can be found in the recent Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, particularly its creation of “offences relating to stirring up hatred”. The minister behind the Bill, Humza Yousaf, the Scottish Justice Secretary, explained the motivation for this legislation: “we all have a responsibility to challenge prejudice in order to ensure Scotland is the inclusive and respectful society we want it to be”.
In the minister’s opinion, this can be engineered through legislation. Commenting on the Bill, he said, “Stirring up of hatred can contribute to a social atmosphere in which discrimination is accepted as normal. By creating robust laws for the justice system, parliament will send a strong message to victims, perpetrators, communities and to wider society that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated seriously and will not be tolerated”.
I have written elsewhere about the implications of this for freedom of expression about religion – but the Bill would also cause real problems in the ongoing debate around transgenderism and the Gender Recognition Act.
The protected groups named by the Bill are expanded to include: age, disability, religion (social, cultural group, perceived religious affiliation), sexual orientation, transgender identity, and variations in sex characteristics.
“Stirring up hatred” against these groups, according to the Bill, is defined as behaving in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner, or sending, showing or making available such material to another person. It makes a crime of displaying, publishing or distributing “material that stirs up hatred”. It is irrelevant if an individual intends to “stir up hatred” – it is enough that “it is likely that hatred will be stirred up”.
The Bill makes the possession of “inflammatory material” illegal giving a judge the power to grant a warrant for the police to search your home, seize and destroy relevant material. Most authoritarian of all, the Bill specifically states that public performances – plays – will also be subject to this, seeing directors and actors brought before a court. These offences may result in up to seven years in prison.
As pointed out by writer Stephen Daisley “this Bill comes in the middle of a debate about the law on gender identity. That debate is characterised by robust, often belligerent rhetoric, especially on social media.” Feminists are often derided as “TERFS” – trans-exclusionary radical feminists – and critics are called transphobic for arguing that sex is a biological fact.
A Bill such as this would have a very real negative impact on debate over this issue. All we need to do is look at how some have already been persecuted for taking certain positions.
Take think-tanker Maya Forstater who was fired after tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex. She brought a test case against her former employer, the Centre for Global Development (CGD) to ensure that gender critical views – that there are only two biological sexes – is protected under the equality act. The judge ruled that her views were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”, and she lost the case.
Or the ‘cancelling’ and no-platforming of those with gender critical views on university campuses, like feminist firebrand Germain Greer for her view that trans women are “not women”.
The complexities of how this Bill could be used to silence dissent are obvious – it would result in an identity politics crossfire that would make discussions of public interest impossible. Take the case of David Mackereth, the Christian doctor who was sacked for refusing to use gender pronouns because he believed compelling him to do so was “a ritual denial of an obvious truth” and against his conscience and religious beliefs. He argued that the Department for Work and Pensions discriminated against his religious belief by suspending him, while they described his stance as “unwanted conduct”.
Even the LGB Alliance, a breakaway group from LGBT+ activist group Stonewall, describes itself as “asserting the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted” has been criticised for transphobia. As Debbie Hayton writes in The Spectator “when homosexual people declare themselves to be attracted to the same sex, as opposed to the same gender, they risk being attacked and shamed as transphobic bigots”.
Currently the verdict is out on the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Current practice which, for safeguarding reasons, requires an individual to have a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, live in the acquired gender for two years, and provide supporting evidence to a panel of clinicians; the GRA seeks to require no medical diagnosis or evidence and would make it easier to transition, including for 16-17 year olds.
Rightly, there are objections. Liz Truss, the Minister for Women and Equalities, recently announced the intention to protect single-sex spaces and to protect younger people. Reports suggest this may include banning ‘gender confirmation surgery’ for under 18s.
Some activists were unhappy about this; notably influential Stonewall. One article in Pink News described her announcement as an “attack on transgender youth”. It is easy enough to see that the Bill’s “abusive or insulting” would be used on this battleground, and how detrimental it would be to open debate.
As Orwell asked, “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it”.
The implicit – and dangerous – idea is that you can change hearts and minds with law, and build a particular vision of society, by limiting expression. But as one commentator noted “criminal law isn’t ethics. What is legal doesn’t – and shouldn’t – exhaust an analysis of what’s right and wrong to do and say and encourage others to think”.
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill abolishes the offence of blasphemy, at the same time introducing a more far-ranging equivalent that seeks to protect new “sacred” beliefs. If it is successful, its impact will not stop at the Scottish border.


Coronavirus Count

Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 284,868 ( Up from 283,311 ) .
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 40,465 ( Up from 40,261 ) .
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 1,557 ( Down from 1,650 ) .
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 204 ( Down from 357 ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD : THE UK GOVERNMENT ’ S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY See here .
New as of Monday May 11 .
See here .
New as of Tuesday June 2 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19 See here .
New as of Tuesday June 2 .
See here .
New as of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LANDLORDS , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus .
• In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 6am on Sunday June 7 . )

HEADLINE FACTS
Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 292,950 (Up from 291,409).
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 41,481 (Up from 41,279).
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 1,541 (Up from 1,266).
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 202 (Up from 151).
England total cases: 156,410 (Up from 156,018 ).
England total deaths: 37,069 (Up from 36,883).
England death rate: 279.4 (Was 278.7).
Scotland total cases: 15,709 (Up from 15,682).
Scotland total deaths: 2,439 (Up from 2,434).
Scotland death rate: 288.9 (Was 288.4).
Wales total cases: 14,658 (Up from 14,581).
Wales total deaths: 1,435 (Up from 1,425).
Wales death rate: 467.0 (Was 464.6)
Northern Ireland total cases: 4,838 (Up from 4,822)
Northern Ireland total deaths: 538 (Up from 537).
Northern Ireland death rate: 257.1 (Was 256.3).
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED
DAILY NUMBER OF LAB-CONFIRMED ENGLAND CASES
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
RISK
“The risk to the UK has been raised to high” –
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
NHS VOLUNTEER RESPONDER FORM
See here
(The Government’s scheme to recruit 250,000 volunteers.)
– – –
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD: THE UK GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY
See here. New as of Monday May 11.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON THE LOCKDOWN.
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL DISTANCING
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: GENERAL ADVICE
See here.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CAN’T DO
See here.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW
See here. Published on Saturday March 28.
– – –
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS
Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when you cough or sneeze .
Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell.
SYMPTOMS
The symptoms of coronavirus are:
A cough.
A high temperature.
Shortness of breath.
However, these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness.
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common, such as cold and flu.
USING 111
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do.
Use this service if:
You think you might have coronavirus.
In the last 14 days you’ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers.
You’ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus.
In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours.
In Wales call 111 (if available in your area) or 0845 46 47.
In Northern Ireland call 111.
Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital.
FURTHER LINKS TO GOVERNMENT ADVICE
– – –
(All information taken from Government sources.
Updated as of 19.00 on Friday June 12.)


conservativehome--2020-06-09--David Williams: A focus on localised growth is needed for recovery

Cllr David Williams is the Chairman of the County Councils Network and the Leader of Hertfordshire County Council “ Every part of our government , from Whitehall to your local town hall is working together in this national effort .
Nowhere is that clearer than on the front lines in our communities… .
local councils , at their best , can help to make life , even in times like this , more liveable and more humane.
” Those are not the words of a council leader , but of Robert Jenrick , the Housing , Communities and Local Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the heaviest lifting during the pandemic : imparting the government ’ s guidance to local people , delivering over one million food parcels to the most vulnerable , securing PPE , protecting the NHS by buying care in the community , working with schools and nurseries to keep them open , providing accommodation for the homeless , and sadly , building mortuaries at lightning speed .
I ’ ve enjoyed a strong relationship with Robert and his ministerial colleagues during the pandemic , and I believe local government will come out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On reflection , councils accomplished a huge amount in a short space of time – days rather than weeks .
This included re-shaping services , re-deploying staff , and implementing working from home strategies for thousands-strong workforces .
Importantly , this was done whilst keeping the show on the road for vital day-to-day services : grass cutting , waste disposal , and road repairs , to name a few .
For those services where we could not continue delivery during the pandemic , colleagues imaginatively re-purposed them – such as putting library @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Hertfordshire , many of our public health services , such as smoking cessation and sexual health went online – freeing up some of our workforce to be re-deployed in health settings on the Coronavirus frontline .
Since the very start of the pandemic , a clear focus for the government has been to ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed by the virus .
Councils played no small part in this : being tasked with securing care in the community to ensure there was capacity in acute settings .
We saw county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing back old care homes into use , training staff and councillors to work within adult social care services , and re-purposing buildings in a stadium into a brand-new 240-bed care facility .
Protecting care homes from the financial storm of Coronavirus has always been of utmost importance to us : it is in no-one ’ s interest for any provider to become insolvent .
Contrary to what has been alleged in the national media , the vast majority of county authorities have agreed to pay their providers significantly more in fees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time .
Many of us saw provider finances and uncompetitive carer pay as a problem coming down the track and began setting aside millions as we budgeted for the current financial year .
An emerging issue for the government in the pandemic has been the harrowing scenes in care homes .
A great deal of focus has been on the sheer numbers , but every individual death is an absolute tragedy .
I know my county colleagues have been straining every sinew to ensure that personal protective equipment makes its way into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trade links they had built up with other countries .
As this shows , in every step of the pandemic , we ’ ve been ready and willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the government : helping to address local issues and in ensuring the most vulnerable are protected .
We have proved to be flexible to changes in guidance ; such as getting recycling centres and country parks re-opened and safe .
In almost every area of the public realm – from infection control in care homes , to planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding to local enterprises – councils have stepped up where necessarily and used taxpayers ’ money wisely .
The County Councils Network ’ s new publication showcases some of the best work from counties across the country .
But we can not rest on our laurels now as the country heads into recovery .
A place-based , local focus will be necessary to give the country the economic growth it needs after the pandemic .
CCN ’ s blueprint for localised growth , released before the lockdown , shows why counties should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county areas are so diverse with differing areas having particular needs , strengths , and weaknesses , a one-size-fits-all approach will not work .
Some areas will be vulnerable to current and future declines in hospitality , others from a slowdown in the global economy , and others from a dip in retail .
Here , county authorities can play a hugely important leadership and visionary role .
Crucially , we need to channel the positive energy created in our communities and bring people with us on the road to recovery .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans whilst funding uncertainty remains .
Further pressures , such as children ’ s social services , and providing safe home to school transport are coming down the track .
We still await confirmation as to whether lost income from Council Tax and Business Rates – potentially running into billions – will be met .
If we have begun to enhance our reputation and the respect in which we are held , then it must be supported with adequate levels of funding from the government .
The Communities Secretary has been very receptive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rest assured we will not be making blank cheque arguments – focusing instead on practical solutions based on clear evidence .
But for now we will continue to do what we do best : rolling up our sleeves , getting on with the day job , and ensuring that our residents receive the best possible services , and the most vulnerable stay protected .

Cllr David Williams is the Chairman of the County Councils Network and the Leader of Hertfordshire County Council
“Every part of our government, from Whitehall to your local town hall is working together in this national effort. Nowhere is that clearer than on the front lines in our communities…. local councils, at their best, can help to make life, even in times like this, more liveable and more humane.”
Those are not the words of a council leader, but of Robert Jenrick, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary.
County authorities have done some of the heaviest lifting during the pandemic: imparting the government’s guidance to local people, delivering over one million food parcels to the most vulnerable, securing PPE, protecting the NHS by buying care in the community, working with schools and nurseries to keep them open, providing accommodation for the homeless, and sadly, building mortuaries at lightning speed.
I’ve enjoyed a strong relationship with Robert and his ministerial colleagues during the pandemic, and I believe local government will come out of this difficult phase with an enhanced reputation.
On reflection, councils accomplished a huge amount in a short space of time – days rather than weeks. This included re-shaping services, re-deploying staff, and implementing working from home strategies for thousands-strong workforces.
Importantly, this was done whilst keeping the show on the road for vital day-to-day services: grass cutting, waste disposal, and road repairs, to name a few. For those services where we could not continue delivery during the pandemic, colleagues imaginatively re-purposed them – such as putting library services online, and even webcasted funerals.
In Hertfordshire, many of our public health services, such as smoking cessation and sexual health went online – freeing up some of our workforce to be re-deployed in health settings on the Coronavirus frontline.
Since the very start of the pandemic, a clear focus for the government has been to ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed by the virus.
Councils played no small part in this: being tasked with securing care in the community to ensure there was capacity in acute settings. We saw county authorities at their imaginative best here: bringing back old care homes into use, training staff and councillors to work within adult social care services, and re-purposing buildings in a stadium into a brand-new 240-bed care facility.
Protecting care homes from the financial storm of Coronavirus has always been of utmost importance to us: it is in no-one’s interest for any provider to become insolvent.
Contrary to what has been alleged in the national media, the vast majority of county authorities have agreed to pay their providers significantly more in fees, concluding complex negotiations in a short space of time. Many of us saw provider finances and uncompetitive carer pay as a problem coming down the track and began setting aside millions as we budgeted for the current financial year.
An emerging issue for the government in the pandemic has been the harrowing scenes in care homes. A great deal of focus has been on the sheer numbers, but every individual death is an absolute tragedy.
I know my county colleagues have been straining every sinew to ensure that personal protective equipment makes its way into care settings, including some counties using the trade links they had built up with other countries.
As this shows, in every step of the pandemic, we’ve been ready and willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the government: helping to address local issues and in ensuring the most vulnerable are protected.
We have proved to be flexible to changes in guidance; such as getting recycling centres and country parks re-opened and safe.
In almost every area of the public realm – from infection control in care homes, to planning cycle lanes, to getting lifeline grant funding to local enterprises – councils have stepped up where necessarily and used taxpayers’ money wisely.
The County Councils Network’s new publication showcases some of the best work from counties across the country.
But we cannot rest on our laurels now as the country heads into recovery. A place-based, local focus will be necessary to give the country the economic growth it needs after the pandemic. CCN’s blueprint for localised growth, released before the lockdown, shows why counties should be at the forefront of this.
As county areas are so diverse with differing areas having particular needs, strengths, and weaknesses, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Some areas will be vulnerable to current and future declines in hospitality, others from a slowdown in the global economy, and others from a dip in retail.
Here, county authorities can play a hugely important leadership and visionary role. Crucially, we need to channel the positive energy created in our communities and bring people with us on the road to recovery.
However, we cannot completely fulfil ambitious plans whilst funding uncertainty remains. Further pressures, such as children’s social services, and providing safe home to school transport are coming down the track. We still await confirmation as to whether lost income from Council Tax and Business Rates – potentially running into billions – will be met.
If we have begun to enhance our reputation and the respect in which we are held, then it must be supported with adequate levels of funding from the government.
The Communities Secretary has been very receptive to our advocacy during the outbreak – and rest assured we will not be making blank cheque arguments – focusing instead on practical solutions based on clear evidence.
But for now we will continue to do what we do best: rolling up our sleeves, getting on with the day job, and ensuring that our residents receive the best possible services, and the most vulnerable stay protected.


conservativehome--2020-06-09--What Sunak said about racism and riots. And what he didn’t say.

Racism , statues , riots : Rishi Sunak is Chancellor of the Exchequer , and so has no immediate departmental responsibility for the events that have followed the killing of George Floyd .
So that he has made a statement about them at all is worth noting – wrapped up in the accessible declaration on Twitter that “ I ’ ve had a lot of questions on what I think about last weekend ’ s protests so I thought it would be easiest to share my thoughts below ” .
It got a bit lost between Boris Johnson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patel ’ s robust performance in the Commons yesterday afternoon .
But what ’ s especially interesting is that although his line of reasoning is much the same as the Prime Minister ’ s , he steers well clear of saying that “ black lives matter ” – unlike Johnson himself .
The core of Sunak ’ s statement is that change comes slowly but surely ; a very conservative view and , in the context of present events , a radical one .
It ’ s striking that three Conservative ethnic minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patel , and also Sunak – have sounded clearer-headed than some of their colleagues .
Downing Street insists that talk of divisions between Johnson and Sunak is misplaced , but Sunak , who is reportedly “ cultivating his brand ” , certainly possesses a quality in short supply among top Tories : self-confidence .

Racism, statues, riots: Rishi Sunak is Chancellor of the Exchequer, and so has no immediate departmental responsibility for the events that have followed the killing of George Floyd.
So that he has made a statement about them at all is worth noting – wrapped up in the accessible declaration on Twitter that “I’ve had a lot of questions on what I think about last weekend’s protests so I thought it would be easiest to share my thoughts below”.
It got a bit lost between Boris Johnson’s own statement yesterday evening, and Priti Patel’s robust performance in the Commons yesterday afternoon.
But what’s especially interesting is that although his line of reasoning is much the same as the Prime Minister’s, he steers well clear of saying that “black lives matter” – unlike Johnson himself.
The core of Sunak’s statement is that change comes slowly but surely; a very conservative view and, in the context of present events, a radical one. It’s striking that three Conservative ethnic minority Ministers – first Kemi Badenoch; then Patel, and also Sunak – have sounded clearer-headed than some of their colleagues.
Downing Street insists that talk of divisions between Johnson and Sunak is misplaced, but Sunak, who is reportedly “cultivating his brand”, certainly possesses a quality in short supply among top Tories: self-confidence.


conservativehome--2020-06-10--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioner