conservativehome--2020-02-27--Henry Hill: MPs prepare to pile pressure on Lewis over Ulster veterans

MPs prepare for battle on Ulster veterans as Lewis won ’ t commit to amnesty… The spotlight is back on the Government ’ s approach to veterans of the Troubles in Northern Ireland after Brandon Lewis , the new Secretary of State , refused to say whether there would be an amnesty .
According to the Belfast Telegraph , he was pressed on the subject during a recent visit to Londonderry .
Whilst reiterating the Prime Minister ’ s commitment to cracking down on “ vexatious ” claims , Lewis said that the decision to take individuals to court was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( PPS ) .
The issue is back in the news after one former soldier , Eddie ‘ Spud ’ Murphy , apparently took his own life “ after he was questioned by the PSNI about his actions while on duty in Northern Ireland.
” Meanwhile dozens of Tory MPs have set up a new campaign group to press the Government to introduce legislation to protect ex-servicemen from prosecution for actions undertaken whilst serving in Ulster .
Its leadership includes Sir Iain Duncan Smith , Owen Paterson , and Mark Francois .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Julian Smith , Lewis ’ predecessor , to get Stormont back on its feet revived the provisions from the 2014 Stormont House Agreement on reviewing every death in the Troubles from 1969 onwards .
This undercut the Government ’ s policy on veterans and more , as we noted at the time .
…as the Government ties itself in knots over the Irish Protocol Veterans aren ’ t the only area in which the Government ’ s policy on Ulster is deeply confused .
Today ’ s papers continue to carry the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking up the prospect of the UK reneging on the controversial Irish Protocol – the policy which introduces a customs border between Northern Ireland and the mainland .
Experts are already warning that such a move would put trade deals with the EU and the US ‘ at risk ’ , although there is growing speculation that Boris Johnson ’ s strategy is not really geared towards securing a deal with Brussels at least .
But the line on this is not consistent .
Just today , for example , Michael Gove appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be a border down the Irish Sea a mere ten minutes after pledging that the Government would uphold the Protocol , which mandates one .
The Prime Minister ‘ got Brexit done ’ by apparently abandoning explicit promises to the Unionists about his opposition to any internal partition of the UK .
Will he now try to pull the same trick twice – but this time on Brussels ?
It ’ s a sad but probably inevitable feature of devolution that politicians face strong temptations to seek political capital by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week Jackson Carlaw , the newly-elected leader of the Scottish Conservatives , embarked on a bid to lobby the Government over its plans to introduce a new , points-based immigration system .
He was reportedly responding to ‘ fury ’ in Tory circles north of the border over the introduction of a plan which might not adequately cater to Scotland ’ s particular immigration needs .
The new leader also welcomed Nicola Sturgeon ’ s proposals for a separate Scottish visa – quickl rejected by the Government – and made a point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would decide policy in Scotland “ irrespective of the UK party line ” .
This latter is a curious statement , as the national party doesn ’ t have a line on devolved policy and Carlaw most certainly won ’ t be setting reserved policy .
However Alister Jack has since come out to bat for the scheme , which as we ’ ve noted has the potential to be much more flexible than its draconian mood music suggests , and has been publicly supported by Adam Tomkins , a senior Tory MSP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the defining features and biggest advantages of the SNP has been their phalanx-like discipline .
No infighting or factionalism amongst the Nationalists – instead the whole machine marched in lock-step behind first Alex Salmond and then Sturgeon as they fought to break up the United Kingdom .
Such cohesion is unusual , and requires a few factors to maintain : a very strong party leadership , deep commitment to a common cause , and a sense of momentum towards it .
Obviously the Nationalists are as committed to independence as ever , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crumble .
The lack of progress since Brexit in 2016 has opened up a split between ‘ gradualists ’ , who insist on playing the long game , and ‘ fundamentalists ’ who think the cause ought to be fairing better and think the solution lies in more aggressive and unorthodox tactics .
Meanwhile the First Minister is weakened by the looming shadow of Salmond ’ s trial .
She has few winning outcomes : if he goes down on most of the charges , it will raise questions of what she knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then the biggest of the SNP ’ s ‘ big beasts ’ will be back on the scene and out for blood after what he feels was a betrayal by his Party .
This internal struggle now has a proxy in the form of the selection contest for Edinburgh Central , the Holyrood constituency being vacated by Ruth Davidson at the next Scottish election .
Angus Robertson , the SNP ’ s former Commons leader , is seeking the nomination on a platform of loyalty to Sturgeon but Joanna Cherry , an ally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is running against him .

MPs prepare for battle on Ulster veterans as Lewis won’t commit to amnesty…
The spotlight is back on the Government’s approach to veterans of the Troubles in Northern Ireland after Brandon Lewis, the new Secretary of State, refused to say whether there would be an amnesty.
According to the Belfast Telegraph, he was pressed on the subject during a recent visit to Londonderry. Whilst reiterating the Prime Minister’s commitment to cracking down on “vexatious” claims, Lewis said that the decision to take individuals to court was the business of the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).
The issue is back in the news after one former soldier, Eddie ‘Spud’ Murphy, apparently took his own life “after he was questioned by the PSNI about his actions while on duty in Northern Ireland.”
Meanwhile dozens of Tory MPs have set up a new campaign group to press the Government to introduce legislation to protect ex-servicemen from prosecution for actions undertaken whilst serving in Ulster. Its leadership includes Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Paterson, and Mark Francois.
They formed the campaign after the deal struck by Julian Smith, Lewis’ predecessor, to get Stormont back on its feet revived the provisions from the 2014 Stormont House Agreement on reviewing every death in the Troubles from 1969 onwards. This undercut the Government’s policy on veterans and more, as we noted at the time.
…as the Government ties itself in knots over the Irish Protocol
Veterans aren’t the only area in which the Government’s policy on Ulster is deeply confused. Today’s papers continue to carry the story that ministers are (intermittently) talking up the prospect of the UK reneging on the controversial Irish Protocol – the policy which introduces a customs border between Northern Ireland and the mainland.
Experts are already warning that such a move would put trade deals with the EU and the US ‘at risk’, although there is growing speculation that Boris Johnson’s strategy is not really geared towards securing a deal with Brussels at least.
But the line on this is not consistent. Just today, for example, Michael Gove appears to have promised the DUP that there won’t be a border down the Irish Sea a mere ten minutes after pledging that the Government would uphold the Protocol, which mandates one.
The Prime Minister ‘got Brexit done’ by apparently abandoning explicit promises to the Unionists about his opposition to any internal partition of the UK. Will he now try to pull the same trick twice – but this time on Brussels?
Carlaw talks tough on immigration
It’s a sad but probably inevitable feature of devolution that politicians face strong temptations to seek political capital by squaring off against the centre. So this week Jackson Carlaw, the newly-elected leader of the Scottish Conservatives, embarked on a bid to lobby the Government over its plans to introduce a new, points-based immigration system.
He was reportedly responding to ‘fury’ in Tory circles north of the border over the introduction of a plan which might not adequately cater to Scotland’s particular immigration needs.
The new leader also welcomed Nicola Sturgeon’s proposals for a separate Scottish visa – quickl rejected by the Government – and made a point of telling a TV crew that he would decide policy in Scotland “irrespective of the UK party line”. This latter is a curious statement, as the national party doesn’t have a line on devolved policy and Carlaw most certainly won’t be setting reserved policy.
However Alister Jack has since come out to bat for the scheme, which as we’ve noted has the potential to be much more flexible than its draconian mood music suggests, and has been publicly supported by Adam Tomkins, a senior Tory MSP.
SNP showdown over Davidson’s seat reflects broader divisions
For years now, one of the defining features and biggest advantages of the SNP has been their phalanx-like discipline. No infighting or factionalism amongst the Nationalists – instead the whole machine marched in lock-step behind first Alex Salmond and then Sturgeon as they fought to break up the United Kingdom.
Such cohesion is unusual, and requires a few factors to maintain: a very strong party leadership, deep commitment to a common cause, and a sense of momentum towards it.
Obviously the Nationalists are as committed to independence as ever, but the other two pillars are starting to crumble. The lack of progress since Brexit in 2016 has opened up a split between ‘gradualists’, who insist on playing the long game, and ‘fundamentalists’ who think the cause ought to be fairing better and think the solution lies in more aggressive and unorthodox tactics.
Meanwhile the First Minister is weakened by the looming shadow of Salmond’s trial. She has few winning outcomes: if he goes down on most of the charges, it will raise questions of what she knew and when; if he walks free then the biggest of the SNP’s ‘big beasts’ will be back on the scene and out for blood after what he feels was a betrayal by his Party.
This internal struggle now has a proxy in the form of the selection contest for Edinburgh Central, the Holyrood constituency being vacated by Ruth Davidson at the next Scottish election. Angus Robertson, the SNP’s former Commons leader, is seeking the nomination on a platform of loyalty to Sturgeon but Joanna Cherry, an ally of Salmond who currently sits at Westminster, is running against him.


conservativehome--2020-03-01--WATCH: Hancock on the Coronavirus, 111, public demand – and putting more resources in

`` Priti is a very determined person but she 's also very courteous , '' @ MattHancock says of the @ @ @ @ @ facing bullying accusations and of ‘ orchestrating a vicious campaign ’ against ’ a top @ @ @

"Priti is a very determined person but she's also very courteous," @MattHancock says of the home secretary, who is facing bullying accusations and of ‘orchestrating a vicious campaign’ against’a top civil servant.
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/bFXOdYFYmN @SophyRidgeSky pic.twitter.com/fpNJY9ZBnu
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 1, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-01--WATCH: “I certainly am.” Burgon’s answer when asked if he’s the Corbynite candidate.

WATCH : “ I certainly am.
” Burgon ’ s answer when asked if he ’ s the Corbynite candidate @

#Marr: Are you the continuity Jeremy Corbyn candidate?
Labour deputy leadership contender Richard Burgon: “I certainly am”https://t.co/uIQURTeAN6 pic.twitter.com/0v3YPmltzy
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 1, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-01--WATCH: Hancock – Patel is “determined” and “courteous”


conservativehome--2020-03-01--WATCH: “It’s becoming a bit interminable, I have to say.” McDonnell on Labour’s leadership election.

Shadow Chancellor @ johnmcdonnellMP tells @ SophyRidgeSky any one of the Labour leadership candidates `` would make a good leader @ @ @ @ @ but says the contest has `` gone on a bit '' .

"It's becoming a bit interminable."
Shadow Chancellor @johnmcdonnellMP tells @SophyRidgeSky any one of the Labour leadership candidates "would make a good leader of the party" – but says the contest has "gone on a bit".
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/bFXOdYFYmN pic.twitter.com/Dgiad7FuGg
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) March 1, 2020


conservativehome--2020-03-01--The behaviours of the civil service

The behaviours of the civil service

At one level , the tale of Philip Rutman ’ s resignation is just another story of the falling-out of a politician and a civil servant .
It is scarcely unique – especially at the Home Office .
Consider the departure from it , during Theresa May ’ s term as Home Secretary , of Helen Ghosh .
But Sir Philip ’ s departure is about much , much more than two people who couldn ’ t get on , or a row about delivery , or even a rift about policy .
At its heart is a culture clash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set on changing the direction of the country post-Brexit – and now backed by a majority of 80 in the Commons… …And a civil service that is profoundly unhappy , at least at the top , not only with the way in which the journey is being carried out , but with where it is going .
That said , there are some more humdrum points to make at the start .
Not the least of them being that ConservativeHome is in no place to judge Sir Philip ’ s claims about Priti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First , the Home Office seems still to be “ unfit for purpose ” , to quote the words first used about it by John Reid after his own appointment to head the department .
He was following Charles Clarke , who himself had been forced to resign .
As have no fewer than three of the last ten Home Secretaries .
The department has been hit by a succession of scandals – not least the Windrush affair , which forced Amber Rudd to quit only two years ago after she “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committe over it .
A report into the affair concluded that she has been let down by her officials .
Sir Philip was Permanent Secretary at the department at the time .
Second , Sir Philip complains that he has been “ the target of a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign ” against him .
Perhaps – but the first shots in this battle were fired on his behalf – in the Sunday Times on February 20 , which reported that Sir Philip ’ s relationship with Patel became toxic during an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is difficult to believe that Mark Sedwill ’ s predecessor , Jeremy Heywood , would not have found a way of smoothing-over the rupture .
It isn ’ t hard to see how this would have been done .
Sir Philip would have been quietly “ moved on ” , perhaps duly to be translated into Lord Rutnam , and Patel ’ s card would surreptitiously have been marked .
But Sedwill isn ’ t Heywood .
The latter was from the heart of the system : a Treasury man to his fingertips @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chancellors of the Exchequer , no less .
Sedwill is essentially a former diplomat – at one point Britain ’ s Ambassador to Afghanistan ; later National Security Adviser , a post he still holds .
Indeed , he is the first man both to serve in that post while also being Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service – a triple accumulation of power .
But for all that , he doesn ’ t have Heywood ’ s experience in negotiating the concealed mirrors , trapdoors , and false bookcases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me a financial settlement that would have avoided this outcome , ” Rutnam said yesterday .
That he is now suing the Government is a failure of the system over which Sedwill presides .
Furthermore , the lack of grip has been evident for the nine days that has passed since that original Times report .
We urged that this nettle be seized on February 22 .
Instead , the fumbling continued .
Sir Philip must now explain why today he complains of the Home Secretary ’ s “ behaviours ” while , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined her to dismiss these and other claims about her as “ false ” .
“ I hope that my stand may help in maintaining the quality of government in our country ” , he said yesterday .
Which returns us to the culture clash at the core of the matter .
As we ’ ve put it before , the civil service is impartial but not neutral .
This is how it must be .
It must not choose between parties but it must select between values , as we all do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal democracy ; NATO ; the mixed economy ; nuclear deterrence and , not least , EU membership .
We like to cite three names by way of example .
Michael Quinlan , a theoretician of nuclear deterrence ; Charles Farr , a security policy-driver and Michael Palliser , early in the long line of euro-enthusiasts at the Foreign Office .
Or take a look at Twitter – where Nicholas Macpherson , the former Treasury Permanent Secretary , likes the hashtag # soundmoney .
And Simon Fraser , a counterpart at the Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project .
The long and short of it is that Boris Johnson ’ s Vote Leave Downing Street sees leaving the EU as the start and not the end of national renewal .
In its view , we are not taking back control from the European Court of Justice only to see it accumulate in the European Court of Human Rights .
The Conservative Manifesto commits to ensuring that judicial review “ is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays ” .
The Constitution , Democracy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutinise the functioning of the Royal Prerogative .
Number Ten has not forgotten the Supreme Court ’ s progation judgement .
All this is a further offence , coming as it does on top of Brexit , to the worldview of what ConHome used to call Britain ’ s pro-EU ascendancy .
The Sir Humphreys know well that their system is propped up by this scaffolding of modern governance , and grasp that paring it bacl it is integral to Dominic Cummings ’ aspirations of civil service reform .
We will discover during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if any , helped to drive Sir Philip ’ s resignation and decision to sue .
Or implementation issues : on the one hand , Downing Street wants its new immigration system delivered as soon as possible – to help demonstrate to voters that “ the People ’ s Government ” will deliver .
On the other , the Home Office and parts of the civil service elsewhere will be resistant to the sheer pace of change , arguing that it is impracticable .
That beaten and battered Ascendancy will see in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He complained of Patel ’ s “ behaviours ” .
It will hope for more of the same – more challenges ; more resignations .
It will be claimed that Sir Philip was “ speaking truth to power ” .
But who truly holds power in Britain ?
Is it the people we put into office ?
Or is it those that never leave government at all ?
Is it politicians who we can put in and later throw out ?
Or is it the specially-trained caste who , at their best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the system ’ s worst , are too seldom held accountable for their mistakes ?
We are going to find out – at least if the Prime Minister sees through the logic of what he has started , and applies himself to unleashing Britain ’ s potential .

At one level, the tale of Philip Rutman’s resignation is just another story of the falling-out of a politician and a civil servant.
It is scarcely unique – especially at the Home Office. Consider the departure from it, during Theresa May’s term as Home Secretary, of Helen Ghosh.
But Sir Philip’s departure is about much, much more than two people who couldn’t get on, or a row about delivery, or even a rift about policy.
At its heart is a culture clash between Boris Johnson’s Government, set on changing the direction of the country post-Brexit – and now backed by a majority of 80 in the Commons…
…And a civil service that is profoundly unhappy, at least at the top, not only with the way in which the journey is being carried out, but with where it is going.
That said, there are some more humdrum points to make at the start. Not the least of them being that ConservativeHome is in no place to judge Sir Philip’s claims about Priti Patel. But we note the following.
First, the Home Office seems still to be “unfit for purpose”, to quote the words first used about it by John Reid after his own appointment to head the department.
He was following Charles Clarke, who himself had been forced to resign. As have no fewer than three of the last ten Home Secretaries.
The department has been hit by a succession of scandals – not least the Windrush affair, which forced Amber Rudd to quit only two years ago after she “inadvertently misled” the Home Affairs Select Committe over it.
A report into the affair concluded that she has been let down by her officials. Sir Philip was Permanent Secretary at the department at the time.
Second, Sir Philip complains that he has been “the target of a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign” against him.
Perhaps – but the first shots in this battle were fired on his behalf – in the Sunday Times on February 20, which reported that Sir Philip’s relationship with Patel became toxic during an election row about tasers.
Finally, it is difficult to believe that Mark Sedwill’s predecessor, Jeremy Heywood, would not have found a way of smoothing-over the rupture.
It isn’t hard to see how this would have been done. Sir Philip would have been quietly “moved on”, perhaps duly to be translated into Lord Rutnam, and Patel’s card would surreptitiously have been marked.
(For reference, Ghosh went on to first to be Director-General of the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, and thence to Balliol College, of which she is now Master.)
But Sedwill isn’t Heywood. The latter was from the heart of the system: a Treasury man to his fingertips – once Principal Private Secretary to three Chancellors of the Exchequer, no less.
Sedwill is essentially a former diplomat – at one point Britain’s Ambassador to Afghanistan; later National Security Adviser, a post he still holds.
Indeed, he is the first man both to serve in that post while also being Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service – a triple accumulation of power.
But for all that, he doesn’t have Heywood’s experience in negotiating the concealed mirrors, trapdoors, and false bookcases of Whitehall.
“The Cabinet Office offered me a financial settlement that would have avoided this outcome,” Rutnam said yesterday. That he is now suing the Government is a failure of the system over which Sedwill presides.
Furthermore, the lack of grip has been evident for the nine days that has passed since that original Times report. We urged that this nettle be seized on February 22. Instead, the fumbling continued.
Sir Philip must now explain why today he complains of the Home Secretary’s “behaviours” while, less than a week ago, he joined her to dismiss these and other claims about her as “false”.
“I hope that my stand may help in maintaining the quality of government in our country”, he said yesterday. Which returns us to the culture clash at the core of the matter.
As we’ve put it before, the civil service is impartial but not neutral. This is how it must be. It must not choose between parties but it must select between values, as we all do.
Post-war, these have included: liberal democracy; NATO; the mixed economy; nuclear deterrence and, not least, EU membership.
We like to cite three names by way of example. Michael Quinlan, a theoretician of nuclear deterrence; Charles Farr, a security policy-driver and Michael Palliser, early in the long line of euro-enthusiasts at the Foreign Office.
Or take a look at Twitter – where Nicholas Macpherson, the former Treasury Permanent Secretary, likes the hashtag #soundmoney. And Simon Fraser, a counterpart at the Foreign Office, is critical of the Brexit project.
The long and short of it is that Boris Johnson’s Vote Leave Downing Street sees leaving the EU as the start and not the end of national renewal.
In its view, we are not taking back control from the European Court of Justice only to see it accumulate in the European Court of Human Rights.
The Conservative Manifesto commits to ensuring that judicial review “is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays”.
The Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission that it proposes will also scrutinise the functioning of the Royal Prerogative. Number Ten has not forgotten the Supreme Court’s progation judgement.
All this is a further offence, coming as it does on top of Brexit, to the worldview of what ConHome used to call Britain’s pro-EU ascendancy.
The Sir Humphreys know well that their system is propped up by this scaffolding of modern governance, and grasp that paring it bacl it is integral to Dominic Cummings’ aspirations of civil service reform.
We will discover during the next few weeks what policy issues, if any, helped to drive Sir Philip’s resignation and decision to sue.
Or implementation issues: on the one hand, Downing Street wants its new immigration system delivered as soon as possible – to help demonstrate to voters that “the People’s Government” will deliver.
On the other, the Home Office and parts of the civil service elsewhere will be resistant to the sheer pace of change, arguing that it is impracticable.
That beaten and battered Ascendancy will see in Sir Philip a standard to rally round. He complained of Patel’s “behaviours”. It will hope for more of the same – more challenges; more resignations.
It will be claimed that Sir Philip was “speaking truth to power”. But who truly holds power in Britain? Is it the people we put into office? Or is it those that never leave government at all?
Is it politicians who we can put in and later throw out? Or is it the specially-trained caste who, at their best, are selfless public servants but who, at the system’s worst, are too seldom held accountable for their mistakes?
We are going to find out – at least if the Prime Minister sees through the logic of what he has started, and applies himself to unleashing Britain’s potential.


conservativehome--2020-02-29--Johnson and Symonds to marry.  She is pregnant.  Oh, and the former Home Office Permanent Secretary

Johnson and Symonds to marry.  She is pregnant.  Oh, and the former Home Office Permanent Secretary is suing the Government.

News of the first follows news of the second .
Was it released to drive Philip Rutnam ’ s resignation @ @ @ @ @ agenda ?
You might say that – we couldn ’ t possibly comment .
We @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister and his fiancee .
And will be back tomorrow to write about recent @ @ @ @ @ – which are about much more than merely the breakdown of relations between a politician @ @ @ @ @

News of the first follows news of the second.
Was it released to drive Philip Rutnam’s resignation and statement down the news agenda? You might say that – we couldn’t possibly comment.
We send best wishes to the Prime Minister and his fiancee.
And will be back tomorrow to write about recent events at the Home Office – which are about much more than merely the breakdown of relations between a politician and a civil servant.


conservativehome--2020-02-29--No Deal 1) There is a green fly in the red, white and blue ointment. Or the other way round, if you

No Deal 1) There is a green fly in the red, white and blue ointment. Or the other way round, if you prefer.

On ConservativeHome today , our columnist David Gauke , formerly a pillar of Remain , makes a case for No Deal .
Elsewhere , there is a vogue for claiming that the latter ( or an “ Australian-style deal ” , as we ’ re now meant to call it : in other words , the most basic of WTO terms ) is so like a Canada-type deal that Boris Johnson will actually go for it .
Maybe .
But there is a green fly in this red , white and blue ointment : Ireland .
On paper , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it must be drawn either in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland , or on the island of Ireland between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic – in other words , on Ireland ’ s land border .
The position in the Withdrawal Agreement is clear .
The border will be in the Irish Sea .
However , the EU and the Government and the UK disagree about the consequences .
The EU says that the Northern Ireland Protocol necessitates border checks on good moving from Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counters that the implementation of the Protocol remains subject to discussion and agreement – and is ruling out intrusive checks .
And exactly how trade across the Irish Sea will works will be determined by decisions yet to be taken in a UK-EU Joint Committee , and by the wider UK-EU trade relationship – the main subject of stage two of the Brexit talks .
So , then : in the event of No Deal , goods will flow from Great Britain through Northern Ireland – and thus unregulated into the EU ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an EU coalition led by the Commission and France will prioritise the protection of the market , while Ireland will be focused on preserving the present settlement on the island .
There are four broad possibile outcomes .
First , pressure from the coalition leads , sooner or later , to a rough and ready land border in Ireland .
Leo Varadkar ’ s government hated the idea .
So did Irish public opinion .
Varadkar has now gone and Sinn Fein , the greenest of all Ireland ’ s party , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are on the rise .
Our own security services didn ’ t like the idea of a Brexit land border before Boris Johnson ’ s deal and Sinn Fein ’ s rise .
They will like it even less now .
( Furthermore , there is no precedent for checks between two parts of the Single Market – since the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland will be in both ) .
Which leads to the second possibility .
The Prime Minister U-turns and slaps intrusive controls on goods moving from Great Britain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate logic of the Withdrawal Agreement , which of course would remain in place .
Business in Northern Ireland would complain .
So would Ulster ’ s Unionists .
And protest in Northern Ireland doesn ’ t always come in a green jumper .
Sometimes it wears an Orange one .
So Johnson will continue to insist that he won ’ t do anything of the kind – just as he insisted in 2018 he wouldn ’ t put a border in the Irish Sea at all .
But that was before he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belt .
Third , Ireland eventually decides that checks on the island of Ireland is even more painful , at least in political terms , than checks between Ireland and the EU .
And that the least unpleasant option is first to put these in place , and then blame the Brits .
Some Brexiteers talk up this possibility , but it flies in the face of Ireland ’ s politics , economic development ( at least in most sectors ) and culture .
And why would other parties in Ireland want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Sinn Fein ?
And finally…Ireland gets its way .
There is a bit of leakage into the Single Market but the French , grumblingly and relucantly , consent to connive in turning a blind eye .
Everyone muddles through .
So much for the options .
They give reason to pause and ponder .
It was the Irish dimenson – not money , not citizens – that proved the biggest obstacle to negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement .
By extension , it ’ s therefore one of the most formidable to a No @ @ @

On ConservativeHome today, our columnist David Gauke, formerly a pillar of Remain, makes a case for No Deal.
Elsewhere, there is a vogue for claiming that the latter (or an “Australian-style deal”, as we’re now meant to call it: in other words, the most basic of WTO terms) is so like a Canada-type deal that Boris Johnson will actually go for it.
Maybe. But there is a green fly in this red, white and blue ointment: Ireland.
On paper, there must be a border with the EU. And it must be drawn either in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or on the island of Ireland between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic – in other words, on Ireland’s land border.
The position in the Withdrawal Agreement is clear. The border will be in the Irish Sea. However, the EU and the Government and the UK disagree about the consequences.
The EU says that the Northern Ireland Protocol necessitates border checks on good moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
The UK counters that the implementation of the Protocol remains subject to discussion and agreement – and is ruling out intrusive checks.
And exactly how trade across the Irish Sea will works will be determined by decisions yet to be taken in a UK-EU Joint Committee, and by the wider UK-EU trade relationship – the main subject of stage two of the Brexit talks.
So, then: in the event of No Deal, goods will flow from Great Britain through Northern Ireland – and thus unregulated into the EU’s Internal Market.
Broadly speaking, an EU coalition led by the Commission and France will prioritise the protection of the market, while Ireland will be focused on preserving the present settlement on the island.
There are four broad possibile outcomes.
First, pressure from the coalition leads, sooner or later, to a rough and ready land border in Ireland. Leo Varadkar’s government hated the idea. So did Irish public opinion. Varadkar has now gone and Sinn Fein, the greenest of all Ireland’s party, and one with a paramilitary wing to boot, are on the rise.
Our own security services didn’t like the idea of a Brexit land border before Boris Johnson’s deal and Sinn Fein’s rise. They will like it even less now. (Furthermore, there is no precedent for checks between two parts of the Single Market – since the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland will be in both).
Which leads to the second possibility. The Prime Minister U-turns and slaps intrusive controls on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland – bowing to the ultimate logic of the Withdrawal Agreement, which of course would remain in place.
Business in Northern Ireland would complain. So would Ulster’s Unionists. And protest in Northern Ireland doesn’t always come in a green jumper. Sometimes it wears an Orange one.
So Johnson will continue to insist that he won’t do anything of the kind – just as he insisted in 2018 he wouldn’t put a border in the Irish Sea at all. But that was before he had a near-landslide tucked under his electoral belt.
Third, Ireland eventually decides that checks on the island of Ireland is even more painful, at least in political terms, than checks between Ireland and the EU. And that the least unpleasant option is first to put these in place, and then blame the Brits.
Some Brexiteers talk up this possibility, but it flies in the face of Ireland’s politics, economic development (at least in most sectors) and culture. And why would other parties in Ireland want to create what would be a propaganda gift for Sinn Fein?
And finally…Ireland gets its way. There is a bit of leakage into the Single Market but the French, grumblingly and relucantly, consent to connive in turning a blind eye. Everyone muddles through.
So much for the options. They give reason to pause and ponder. It was the Irish dimenson – not money, not citizens – that proved the biggest obstacle to negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement. By extension, it’s therefore one of the most formidable to a No Deal outcome.


conservativehome--2020-02-29--No Deal 2) Why I, a leading former Remainer, am making a case for Johnson actively seeking it

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
Let me make the case for the UK leaving the implementation period at the end of the year without concluding a free trade deal with the EU .
And I don ’ t just mean that , as a fall-back position , it is an outcome that the Government could live with .
I want to make the case for why , at one level , that this is the outcome the UK Government should actively seek .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t believe that a No Deal outcome is remotely in the national interest – what with the potential chaos at the ports and the factory closures and general economic malaise and so on .
As those who follow these things closely will be aware , I have been somewhat unenthusiastic about the consequences of a No Deal Brexit , an attitude that has not necessarily been to the advantage of my political career .
However , from the political perspective of the Government , there is a rather persuasive argument for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sooner the better .
The challenge for the Government is that there is , and has always been , a trade-off between access to EU markets and regulatory autonomy .
If you want preferential access to markets , there will need to be a degree of consistency in regulations .
The greater the preferential access , the greater the required level of consistency .
The clear position of the Government is that ‘ the point of Brexit ’ is ‘ to recover our political and economic independence in full ’ ( to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Signing up to EU rules or extending the current Implementation Period ( whereby we continue to comply with EU rules ) runs contrary to ‘ the point of Brexit ’ .
There are two relevant consequences of this position .
The first is that , in terms of getting preferential access to EU markets , the best one can hope for is an unambitious , thin free trade agreement .
Such an agreement will be better economically than a departure on WTO terms but not that much better .
Another way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downside of failing to get a deal is not that much because we have already accepted a great deal of pain as it is .
The second consequence is that if ‘ recovering our political and economic independence in full ’ is , to use David Frost ’ s word , ‘ fundamental ’ to Brexit then it is very hard to find a compromise .
Any deviation from such a position opens up a political vulnerability .
The political pain of compromise gets greater every time someone in Number 10 makes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficulty with reaching a deal .
Any deal that Boris Johnson gets is one that he will sell with gusto .
It will be a fabulous deal , the best possible deal , a triumph .
This has its advantages but it also means that the Prime Minister will have ownership of the consequences of the deal .
If it turns out to be less than a triumph , there is no one else he can blame .
The buck will stop with him .
So getting a deal is likely to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ betrayal from Nigel Farage etc ) and limited economic upside .
A deal would reduce disruption in early 2021 but there is a case for getting the economic pain out the way early in the Parliament .
Of course , when I say that there will be economic pain , I am going along with the consensus view of economists that putting up trade barriers with one ’ s most important trade partner is a bad thing .
The Government thinks the concerns are overstated .
David Frost has argued that openness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ productivity as most economists believe .
Andrew Neil told MakeUK that the days of ‘ complex , cross-border supply chains are coming to an end ’ and the Government believes that the future of manufacturing is ‘ 3D printers ’ .
Trade openness doesn ’ t matter very much after all .
Without getting too much into these arguments , they are hard to reconcile with the ‘ Global Britain ’ narrative that Brexit will be a great success because we can reduce trade barriers with the rest of the world .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government , the political price to be paid for getting a deal might not be worth it .
If it has reached that conclusion , what would it do ?
First , make sure that it is the EU that gets the blame with the British public .
Accuse the EU of introducing new demands or placing demands on the UK that are wholly unprecedented , even if these claims are not strictly true .
Or , in the former case , even loosely true .
There will be lots of people willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fault – just keep repeating the argument , however brazenly untrue .
There are people inside No 10 who know how to do this sort of thing very well .
Second , reassure the British public that no deal will be alright .
Rebrand ‘ no deal ’ , perhaps with reference to a prosperous and familiar country that we like .
Australia will do .
Third , provoke the EU to be intransigent .
The best way to do that is to undermine the EU ’ s trust in our good intentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we have an interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol , signed in October , which appears to be wholly at variance with the interpretation made by everyone else as to the need to check goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland .
Someone in Government also appears to have briefed that the Attorney General and Northern Ireland Secretary had been sacked and replaced by people willing to do what they are told on this point .
If we can not be trusted to stand by agreements reached four months ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comply with vague assertions not to lower our social or environmental protections in the decades ahead .
Attempting to renege on the Northern Ireland Protocol will increase the EU ’ s determination to insist on the Level Playing Field provisions in a legally watertight way .
Everything the Government has done – including the negotiating mandate set out this week – is consistent with causing the talks to collapse .
That leaves the question of timing .
The most coherent position would be to bring this to a head as soon as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will reveal to the EU that this is a Government that will tough it out and they will crumble .
Those German car manufacturers will finally ride to our rescue .
If you are a pessimist , at least this gives businesses time to prepare for the exciting , new opportunities of leaving on WTO terms .
As a strategy , critics would be justified in describing it as reckless , evasive of responsibility , cynical and dishonest .
But politically , on the evidence of the last few years , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government must be tempted .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
Let me make the case for the UK leaving the implementation period at the end of the year without concluding a free trade deal with the EU. And I don’t just mean that, as a fall-back position, it is an outcome that the Government could live with. I want to make the case for why, at one level, that this is the outcome the UK Government should actively seek.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t believe that a No Deal outcome is remotely in the national interest – what with the potential chaos at the ports and the factory closures and general economic malaise and so on. As those who follow these things closely will be aware, I have been somewhat unenthusiastic about the consequences of a No Deal Brexit, an attitude that has not necessarily been to the advantage of my political career.
However, from the political perspective of the Government, there is a rather persuasive argument for ensuring the talks blow up. And the sooner the better.
The challenge for the Government is that there is, and has always been, a trade-off between access to EU markets and regulatory autonomy. If you want preferential access to markets, there will need to be a degree of consistency in regulations. The greater the preferential access, the greater the required level of consistency.
The clear position of the Government is that ‘the point of Brexit’ is ‘to recover our political and economic independence in full’ (to quote David Frost’s recent speech). Signing up to EU rules or extending the current Implementation Period (whereby we continue to comply with EU rules) runs contrary to ‘the point of Brexit’.
There are two relevant consequences of this position. The first is that, in terms of getting preferential access to EU markets, the best one can hope for is an unambitious, thin free trade agreement. Such an agreement will be better economically than a departure on WTO terms but not that much better. Another way of putting it is that the economic downside of failing to get a deal is not that much because we have already accepted a great deal of pain as it is.
The second consequence is that if ‘recovering our political and economic independence in full’ is, to use David Frost’s word, ‘fundamental’ to Brexit then it is very hard to find a compromise. Any deviation from such a position opens up a political vulnerability. The political pain of compromise gets greater every time someone in Number 10 makes the fundamentalist case.
There is a further difficulty with reaching a deal. Any deal that Boris Johnson gets is one that he will sell with gusto. It will be a fabulous deal, the best possible deal, a triumph. This has its advantages but it also means that the Prime Minister will have ownership of the consequences of the deal. If it turns out to be less than a triumph, there is no one else he can blame. The buck will stop with him.
So getting a deal is likely to have a significant political cost (cries of betrayal from Nigel Farage etc) and limited economic upside. A deal would reduce disruption in early 2021 but there is a case for getting the economic pain out the way early in the Parliament.
Of course, when I say that there will be economic pain, I am going along with the consensus view of economists that putting up trade barriers with one’s most important trade partner is a bad thing. The Government thinks the concerns are overstated. David Frost has argued that openness to trade is not as important for driving productivity as most economists believe. Andrew Neil told MakeUK that the days of ‘complex, cross-border supply chains are coming to an end’ and the Government believes that the future of manufacturing is ‘3D printers’. Trade openness doesn’t matter very much after all.
Without getting too much into these arguments, they are hard to reconcile with the ‘Global Britain’ narrative that Brexit will be a great success because we can reduce trade barriers with the rest of the world. In any event, if you are the Government, the political price to be paid for getting a deal might not be worth it. If it has reached that conclusion, what would it do?
First, make sure that it is the EU that gets the blame with the British public. Accuse the EU of introducing new demands or placing demands on the UK that are wholly unprecedented, even if these claims are not strictly true. Or, in the former case, even loosely true. There will be lots of people willing to believe that the EU is at fault – just keep repeating the argument, however brazenly untrue. There are people inside No 10 who know how to do this sort of thing very well.
Second, reassure the British public that no deal will be alright. Rebrand ‘no deal’, perhaps with reference to a prosperous and familiar country that we like. Australia will do.
Third, provoke the EU to be intransigent. The best way to do that is to undermine the EU’s trust in our good intentions.
We are currently telling the EU that we have an interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, signed in October, which appears to be wholly at variance with the interpretation made by everyone else as to the need to check goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Someone in Government also appears to have briefed that the Attorney General and Northern Ireland Secretary had been sacked and replaced by people willing to do what they are told on this point.
If we cannot be trusted to stand by agreements reached four months ago, we won’t be trusted to comply with vague assertions not to lower our social or environmental protections in the decades ahead. Attempting to renege on the Northern Ireland Protocol will increase the EU’s determination to insist on the Level Playing Field provisions in a legally watertight way.
Everything the Government has done – including the negotiating mandate set out this week – is consistent with causing the talks to collapse. That leaves the question of timing.
The most coherent position would be to bring this to a head as soon as possible. If you are an optimist, this will reveal to the EU that this is a Government that will tough it out and they will crumble. Those German car manufacturers will finally ride to our rescue. If you are a pessimist, at least this gives businesses time to prepare for the exciting, new opportunities of leaving on WTO terms.
As a strategy, critics would be justified in describing it as reckless, evasive of responsibility, cynical and dishonest. But politically, on the evidence of the last few years, it would probably work. I fear the Government must be tempted.


conservativehome--2020-03-02--Howard Flight: Outside the EU, our small business sector can really take off

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund , a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury , and Chairman of the EIS Association .
Citizens are broadly aware that he prophets of economic doom have turned out to be quite wrong , and rather the UK has been the best-performing European economy .
In particular , Britain has had a surprisingly strong small companies ( SME ) sector .
While we suffer from regulatory cancer affecting particularly larger businesses , we have manged to keep the SME sector relatively open .
The UK is by far the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set up a new business .
One of the good things which the Major Government did was to introduce the Enterprise Investment Scheme ( EIS ) , providing valuable tax incentives to investors in small companies .
This has underpinned the growth and success of the sector .
There are now some 70,000 SMEs in the UK , and some 80 per cent of graduates leaving Russell Group Universities go to work for SMEs .
At the time of the EU referendum I argued the case for Brexit at some dozen City debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keen Remainers – protecting their oligopolistic position in Europe – while smaller , newer companies were virtually all Brexit supporters .
Since 2016 thousands of British SMEs have abandoned EU markets but have been winning far more lucrative export contract all around the world .
The British economy is switching its strategic trading pattern back to its historic international focus and away from the moribund EU .
The key high-growth markets for our exports are North America , the Middle East , and South Asia .
Exports to Taiwan have grown 40 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of National Statistics ( ONS ) has confirmed the SME boom .
It states that UK exports are currently growing faster than at any other time since records began – rises of 22 per cent year on year , reaching a total of £640 billion .
If exports to smaller companies not covered by the ONS , and export sales via Amazon and eBay , are included the total growth figure is over 30 per cent .
Britain ’ s exports to Kazakhstan are the same as those to Austria !
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expansion in our food exports to China and that by 2024 China will represent a market 50 per cent larger than the whole of Europe .
Over the past year British exports of food and drink reached a record value of £22.5bn , with three out of every four bottles of gin consumed worldwide coming from the UK !
Interestingly , it has not been the more prosperous South East of England taking the lead here ; Wales , the East Midlands , and the North West are the leading regions for UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SMEs exporting has doubled in the last four years .
It is also becoming apparent that the EU-structured arrangements we had a member have been damaging of our cost of living and current account deficit .
We have been paying some 30 per cent more for our food than we should have done if we had bought globally , and we have a current account ( trading ) deficit with the EU and in particular with Germany of £100bn per annum which has served to suck investment capital from the UK economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad deal with the EU , and I suspect did not understand the economics of the deal he struck .
It is substantially for this reason that , outside the EU , the British economy will have the ability to outperform its recent record .
Where EIS has been so important has been in providing a tax incentive to invest in new small companies and , recently , even more in knowledge-intensive companies .
Here again , the EU has made the rules more complicated than is needed or appropriate for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The EIS primary legislation is long , highly detailed , and contains many restrictions which are un-commercial and not justified .
The legislation needs streamlining to enable faster deployment of EIS funds to provide greater support for SMEs .
The EIS legislation is intended to be enabling but has become too much like anti-avoidance legislation .
HMRC is in some cases placing restrictions on investments which are not contained in the legislation .
Much of this has been caused by the UK being under EU treaty obligations , where we need to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A lot of damage has been done by the EU in ruling that EIS is deemed to represent ‘ state aid ’ – it is to meet the state aid risk guidelines that EIS primary legislation is so long and detailed .
Outside the EU there is now the scope to make considerable improvements to EIS , in particular making it much less demanding for SMEs seeking risk finance .
There is also scope for larger amounts of EIS investment .
In the tax year 2017/18 37,350 individuals invested in EIS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarter of a million taxpayers earning in excess of £250,000 per annum .
HMRC has taken a greater interest in EIS and has commissioned its own independent research .
This found that three quarters of investees had sought EIS investment , largely to start their business or to develop new products .
Additionally , 58 per cent of investee companies said productivity had increased due to their EIS investment , and 38 per cent said funding was raised for working capital and cash flow .
Not surprisingly , they found that smaller companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but only 11 per cent felt their investment would have gone ahead without EIS support .
Furthermore , 90 per cent of investee companies said their company had grown by a third since they first sought EIS investment , and 90 per cent of companies attributed at least part of their growth to EIS investment .
My biggest task as Chairman of the EIS Association has been to limit and find a way of managing the extra requirements which have come from the EU ; and to counter arguments for closing down EIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Treasury .
The complaint is that the EIS tax incentives cost revenue .
Yet from the studies that have been done the reverse appears to be the case – EIS investment in SMEs creates more follow-on tax revenue than the original cost of the tax incentive .
Fortunately , the recent Conservative manifesto contained both a recognition of how effective EIS has been in supporting SMEs , and the commitment for it to continue .
That should count for something .

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund, a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Chairman of the EIS Association.
Citizens are broadly aware that he prophets of economic doom have turned out to be quite wrong, and rather the UK has been the best-performing European economy.
In particular, Britain has had a surprisingly strong small companies (SME) sector. While we suffer from regulatory cancer affecting particularly larger businesses, we have manged to keep the SME sector relatively open. The UK is by far the easiest economy in Europe in which to set up a new business.
One of the good things which the Major Government did was to introduce the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), providing valuable tax incentives to investors in small companies. This has underpinned the growth and success of the sector. There are now some 70,000 SMEs in the UK, and some 80 per cent of graduates leaving Russell Group Universities go to work for SMEs.
At the time of the EU referendum I argued the case for Brexit at some dozen City debates. Not surprisingly the large institutions were keen Remainers – protecting their oligopolistic position in Europe – while smaller, newer companies were virtually all Brexit supporters. Since 2016 thousands of British SMEs have abandoned EU markets but have been winning far more lucrative export contract all around the world.
The British economy is switching its strategic trading pattern back to its historic international focus and away from the moribund EU. The key high-growth markets for our exports are North America, the Middle East, and South Asia. Exports to Taiwan have grown 40 per cent in the last year.
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) has confirmed the SME boom. It states that UK exports are currently growing faster than at any other time since records began – rises of 22 per cent year on year, reaching a total of £640 billion. If exports to smaller companies not covered by the ONS, and export sales via Amazon and eBay, are included the total growth figure is over 30 per cent. Britain’s exports to Kazakhstan are the same as those to Austria!
The Food and Drink Federation reports a rapid expansion in our food exports to China and that by 2024 China will represent a market 50 per cent larger than the whole of Europe. Over the past year British exports of food and drink reached a record value of £22.5bn, with three out of every four bottles of gin consumed worldwide coming from the UK!
Interestingly, it has not been the more prosperous South East of England taking the lead here; Wales, the East Midlands, and the North West are the leading regions for UK export growth. The number of Welsh SMEs exporting has doubled in the last four years.
It is also becoming apparent that the EU-structured arrangements we had a member have been damaging of our cost of living and current account deficit. We have been paying some 30 per cent more for our food than we should have done if we had bought globally, and we have a current account (trading) deficit with the EU and in particular with Germany of £100bn per annum which has served to suck investment capital from the UK economy.
In a word, Ted Heath did a bad deal with the EU, and I suspect did not understand the economics of the deal he struck. It is substantially for this reason that, outside the EU, the British economy will have the ability to outperform its recent record.
Where EIS has been so important has been in providing a tax incentive to invest in new small companies and, recently, even more in knowledge-intensive companies. Here again, the EU has made the rules more complicated than is needed or appropriate for the scale of the market they address.
The EIS primary legislation is long, highly detailed, and contains many restrictions which are un-commercial and not justified. The legislation needs streamlining to enable faster deployment of EIS funds to provide greater support for SMEs. The EIS legislation is intended to be enabling but has become too much like anti-avoidance legislation. HMRC is in some cases placing restrictions on investments which are not contained in the legislation.
Much of this has been caused by the UK being under EU treaty obligations, where we need to meet the requirements of the risk finance guidelines. A lot of damage has been done by the EU in ruling that EIS is deemed to represent ‘state aid’ – it is to meet the state aid risk guidelines that EIS primary legislation is so long and detailed. Outside the EU there is now the scope to make considerable improvements to EIS, in particular making it much less demanding for SMEs seeking risk finance.
There is also scope for larger amounts of EIS investment. In the tax year 2017/18 37,350 individuals invested in EIS, where there are estimated to be a quarter of a million taxpayers earning in excess of £250,000 per annum.
HMRC has taken a greater interest in EIS and has commissioned its own independent research. This found that three quarters of investees had sought EIS investment, largely to start their business or to develop new products. Additionally, 58 per cent of investee companies said productivity had increased due to their EIS investment, and 38 per cent said funding was raised for working capital and cash flow. Not surprisingly, they found that smaller companies have a harder time securing EIS investment but only 11 per cent felt their investment would have gone ahead without EIS support. Furthermore, 90 per cent of investee companies said their company had grown by a third since they first sought EIS investment, and 90 per cent of companies attributed at least part of their growth to EIS investment.
My biggest task as Chairman of the EIS Association has been to limit and find a way of managing the extra requirements which have come from the EU; and to counter arguments for closing down EIS which have been advanced by both HMRC and the Treasury. The complaint is that the EIS tax incentives cost revenue. Yet from the studies that have been done the reverse appears to be the case – EIS investment in SMEs creates more follow-on tax revenue than the original cost of the tax incentive.
Fortunately, the recent Conservative manifesto contained both a recognition of how effective EIS has been in supporting SMEs, and the commitment for it to continue. That should count for something.


conservativehome--2020-03-02--Conservative activists: there is no Climate Emergency. Our survey.

The monthly survey regularly polls our panel of Party members for their views on major policy issues .
But it @ @ @ @ @ we can see asked them about Climate Change .
So here we go – as @ @ @ @ @ the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow this autumn .
The breakdown is clear @ @ @ @ @ polled say that there is no Climate Change Emergency .
And almost a third say @ @ @ @ @ mere six per cent have no view on the matter at all .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ survey results on the same theme , including about whether Party activists believe that human @ @ @ @ @ – and indeed whether the latter is happening at all .

The monthly survey regularly polls our panel of Party members for their views on major policy issues. But it has never as far as we can see asked them about Climate Change.
So here we go – as the UK prepares to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow this autumn.
The breakdown is clear. Almost two-thirds of those polled say that there is no Climate Change Emergency. And almost a third say that there is. A mere six per cent have no view on the matter at all.
We’ll later be publishing other survey results on the same theme, including about whether Party activists believe that human activity is driving global warming – and indeed whether the latter is happening at all.


conservativehome--2020-03-02--Richard Holden: Local elections 1) Will more bricks fall from the Red Wall this May?

The first electoral challenge for the Conservative Party after the Prime Minister ’ s stunning victory in December comes in the local elections this May .
These aren ’ t natural ‘ Conservative defence councils ’ , since they are mostly made up of core metropolitan areas or unitary authorities that are Labour controlled .
We must also remember that we ’ re now some years into Conservative-led Government .
However , Boris Johnson ’ s win with a majority of 80 is a very different outcome to the one which gave us David Cameron ’ s Coalition with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for election this time cover parts of the so-called “ Red Wall ” – so they ’ ll give a signal as to whether Conservatives are building the foundations of a new “ Blue Wall ” on the base of those new MPs or , alternately , if Labour will be able to rebuild from their strong local authority control in these areas .
For both parties , they will give a signal as to where the fight might be in future years up to election 2024 .
My “ Bricks Picks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all but guaranteed to be back as Greater Manchester ’ s Mayor .
But within the conurbation lie more Conservative Parliamentary seats than for quarter of a century .
During last year ’ s election , we gained both Bury Parliamentary seats from Labour by wafer-thin majorities of just 402 and 105 .
With only a third of the council up this year , it ’ s not possible for Conservatives to win the council overall , but it is possible for us to gain seats and for Labour to go backwards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NOC , or even a handful of key wards , then it would be a disastrous night for whoever their new leader is .
That ’ s unlikely , but the ‘ Bury Brick ’ of the former Red Wall is the one to watch .
Why are they all called “ Andy ?
” Andy Street has been doing a cracking job locally .
With Labour requiring just a 0.5 per cent swing , the party may believe that it will just make it over the line .
However , Andy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so he has an outside chance of victory .
A win for the Conservatives here would be a massive achievement , and would continue to allow us to claim a major metropolitan conurbation as ours .
Until relatively recently Dudley , also under the West Midlands combined authority , has been solidly Labour .
The swing to the Conservatives in Dudley North during the election campaign was one of the largest in Britain ( the former local Labour MP Ian Austin backed local Conservatives due to Labour ’ s anti-semitism ) .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election against Jeremy Corbyn , but that won ’ t be the case come May .
At council level , Dudley is currently NOC – if it is taken by either Labour or Conservatives the victor will chalk it up as a significant success .
Ben Houchen was probably the biggest surprise of local election night 2017 winning with a first round of just 39.5 per cent on a 21.3 per cent turnout .
His victory is now seen as a catalyst for much of the progress across the North East that Conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by delivering on some of his bold promises , such as nationalising the airport in Tees Valley ( which is restarting soon and new routes are being announced regularly ) and promising to bring steelmaking back since its mothballing by SSI , with a new electric arc due to come in .
Given the previous low turnout and tight result this is definitely a contest Labour can win .
Indeed , it ’ s one that they should never have lost in the first place but , Ben has worked hard locally and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manage to wrestle back control her , then their new leader will face some very serious questions within a month of being elected .
So far out that I hesitate to include it .
Back in 2016 , Labour ’ s Ron Hogg smashed it locally with a first-round victory of almost 51,000 votes ( 63.8 per cent ) of the vote to the Conservatives share of under 19,000 ( 23.6 per cent ) .
However , the general election saw a tiny majority win by the Conservatives across the PCC area .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sad death of Hogg , late last year , and Conservatives will be shortly doing the same .
Perhaps this should be a foregone conclusion of a Labour victory but it will definitely be interesting to see if the Conservatives manage to pick up vote share significantly or even , at a stretch , manage to take the vote to a second round – or if the previous Labour landslide results end up being reflected again .
If it ’ s the former it will give the Conservatives heart for the local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If the latter , Labour will feel very confident of retaining overall control of this county that ’ s been under Labour total control at local government level since 1919 .
These local elections may turn out not to matter very much – after all , Ed Miliband did well in local elections but failed in 2015 .
Furthermore , the Coronavirus could yet affect them severely .
But , all other things being equal , given the demographic changes in voting patterns you might expect to see at least a modicum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 result is to be believed , based on more than ‘ borrowed votes.
’ There have been some grumblings about CCHQ moving slowly to recognise the new political reality with resources and support for different parts of the country .
However , with Amanda Milling now in place , alongside Ben Elliott , it ’ s clear to me that at the top the party gets the next stage – it ’ s now a matter of ensuring that those resources and support is cascaded down across the country to help build @ @ @ @ @ @

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
The Golden Lion, St John’s Chapel
The first electoral challenge for the Conservative Party after the Prime Minister’s stunning victory in December comes in the local elections this May. These aren’t natural ‘Conservative defence councils’, since they are mostly made up of core metropolitan areas or unitary authorities that are Labour controlled.
We must also remember that we’re now some years into Conservative-led Government. However, Boris Johnson’s win with a majority of 80 is a very different outcome to the one which gave us David Cameron’s Coalition with the Liberal Democrats from 2010-15.
Some areas up for election this time cover parts of the so-called “Red Wall” – so they’ll give a signal as to whether Conservatives are building the foundations of a new “Blue Wall” on the base of those new MPs or, alternately, if Labour will be able to rebuild from their strong local authority control in these areas. For both parties, they will give a signal as to where the fight might be in future years up to election 2024.
My “Bricks Picks” are the following:
Bury Council
Andy Burnham is all but guaranteed to be back as Greater Manchester’s Mayor. But within the conurbation lie more Conservative Parliamentary seats than for quarter of a century.
During last year’s election, we gained both Bury Parliamentary seats from Labour by wafer-thin majorities of just 402 and 105. With only a third of the council up this year, it’s not possible for Conservatives to win the council overall, but it is possible for us to gain seats and for Labour to go backwards.
If Labour lost this council to NOC, or even a handful of key wards, then it would be a disastrous night for whoever their new leader is. That’s unlikely, but the ‘Bury Brick’ of the former Red Wall is the one to watch.
West Midlands
Why are they all called “Andy?” Andy Street has been doing a cracking job locally. With Labour requiring just a 0.5 per cent swing, the party may believe that it will just make it over the line.
However, Andy has put the mayorality on the map, so he has an outside chance of victory. A win for the Conservatives here would be a massive achievement, and would continue to allow us to claim a major metropolitan conurbation as ours.
Dudley Council
Until relatively recently Dudley, also under the West Midlands combined authority, has been solidly Labour. The swing to the Conservatives in Dudley North during the election campaign was one of the largest in Britain (the former local Labour MP Ian Austin backed local Conservatives due to Labour’s anti-semitism).
His personal support clearly helped in a Parliamentary election against Jeremy Corbyn, but that won’t be the case come May. At council level, Dudley is currently NOC – if it is taken by either Labour or Conservatives the victor will chalk it up as a significant success.
Tees Valley
Ben Houchen was probably the biggest surprise of local election night 2017 winning with a first round of just 39.5 per cent on a 21.3 per cent turnout.
His victory is now seen as a catalyst for much of the progress across the North East that Conservatives made in 2019. He has capitalised by delivering on some of his bold promises, such as nationalising the airport in Tees Valley (which is restarting soon and new routes are being announced regularly) and promising to bring steelmaking back since its mothballing by SSI, with a new electric arc due to come in.
Given the previous low turnout and tight result this is definitely a contest Labour can win. Indeed, it’s one that they should never have lost in the first place but, Ben has worked hard locally and delivered. If Labour don’t manage to wrestle back control her, then their new leader will face some very serious questions within a month of being elected.
Durham PCC
So far out that I hesitate to include it. Back in 2016, Labour’s Ron Hogg smashed it locally with a first-round victory of almost 51,000 votes (63.8 per cent) of the vote to the Conservatives share of under 19,000 (23.6 per cent).
However, the general election saw a tiny majority win by the Conservatives across the PCC area. Labour selected a new candidate, following the sad death of Hogg, late last year, and Conservatives will be shortly doing the same.
Perhaps this should be a foregone conclusion of a Labour victory but it will definitely be interesting to see if the Conservatives manage to pick up vote share significantly or even, at a stretch, manage to take the vote to a second round – or if the previous Labour landslide results end up being reflected again.
If it’s the former it will give the Conservatives heart for the local elections next year on Durham County Council. If the latter, Labour will feel very confident of retaining overall control of this county that’s been under Labour total control at local government level since 1919.
– – – – – – – – – –
These local elections may turn out not to matter very much – after all, Ed Miliband did well in local elections but failed in 2015. Furthermore, the Coronavirus could yet affect them severely.
But, all other things being equal, given the demographic changes in voting patterns you might expect to see at least a modicum of underlying trend movement, if the 2019 result is to be believed, based on more than ‘borrowed votes.’
There have been some grumblings about CCHQ moving slowly to recognise the new political reality with resources and support for different parts of the country. However, with Amanda Milling now in place, alongside Ben Elliott, it’s clear to me that at the top the party gets the next stage – it’s now a matter of ensuring that those resources and support is cascaded down across the country to help build the foundations of future successes.


conservativehome--2020-03-02--Local elections 2) The Conservatives can hope to gain more Police and Crime Commissioners

We have an array of local elections being held , May 7th , in England and Wales .
We have the high profile Mayoral contests along with a complicate mix of contests in district councils , unitary authorities , and metropolitan boroughs .
I have already provided an initial overview but as Polling Day approaches , I will provide a closer look at the different categories in a weekly series .
We shall start with the Police and Crime Commissioner elections .
Contests to elect a PCC will take place in the following areas : Police and Crime Commissioner elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time the Conservatives won 20 PCC posts with 15 going to Labour .
Both parties made gains at the expense of independents , though the independents still won three seats .
I suspect that some voted for an independent at the first elections in 2012 due to a vague sense of disquiet that a PCC could order the police to go off and arrest political opponents ( or decline to arrest political supporters ) .
As such concerns proved ill-founded , the independents found it more difficult in 2016 .
Perhaps they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour voters turn to them – finding that easier than voting Conservative .
Plaid Cymru won two seats .
Elections took place the same day for the Welsh Assembly – which probably helped Plaid and certainly will have increased turnout .
That will not apply this time , as the Welsh Assembly operate on a five year cycle and so takes to the polls next year .
Dyfed-Powys was gained by Plaid from the Conservatives last time .
The General Election in December would suggest the Conservatives have a decent chance of taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Cheshire and Derbyshire .
Lincolnshire was a fairly close Labour victory .
So those will be potential Conservative gains .
Humberside will be more of a stretch – but it was won by the Conservatives in 2012 .
The same applies to Leicestershire .
UKIP got a significant vote share last time – 13.7 per cent .
Where will those votes go ?
The Lib Dems only got 8.6 per cent .
Even in their best result , Cumbria , they were in third place .
So even if they substantially increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win any seats .
Might Labour be saved from a drubbing by the election of a new Leader on April 4th ?
It is expected that Sir Keir Starmer will win .
That will give him a chance to tour the studios and proclaim that Labour has a “ fresh start ” , that it has “ moved on ” from Corbynism .
Surely , on the issue of crime , the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn must have been especially toxic for Labour ?
With his sympathies for assorted terrorist groups , any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough on crime ” faced being laughed to scorn .
The difficulty for Labour is that they are doing so badly at present that even if a Starmer Bounce does transpire , giving them an extra couple of points in the polls , they would still be likely to lose seats .
So the Conservatives have good prospects of winning the PCC elections .
Why does that not set the pulse racing ?
Why have several of the Conservative candidates been selected late and secretively ?
After all , the PCCs have real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and policing priorities .
They have the power to hire and fire the chief constable .
The contrast between the previous regime of police authorities – which were toothless talking shops – is stark .
The cost of the system is much the same .
But the new arrangements offer real democratic accountability .
For that very reason some of the chief constables don ’ t like it .
But there are advantages for them too .
The PCC can help communicate with the public and provide “ joined up ” Government between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NHS .
The language used doesn ’ t help .
The areas covered sometimes have artficial bureaucratic names such as Thames Valley , Humberside , or West Mercia .
Then there is the title “ Police and Crime Commissioner.
” Dan Hannan first proposed that such a role should be introduced .
He suggested they should be called “ sheriffs.
” This title was rejected as “ too American ” – an objection that betrays a limited grasp of history .
Hannan also argues that the PCCs be given power “ over local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Imagine that the PCC for Kent jailed shoplifters , while the PCC for Surrey took a softer line .
One of two things would happen .
Either a flood of Kentish crooks ( and crooks of Kent ) would pour across the county border , encouraging Surrey to elect someone tougher ; or , conversely , Kentish taxpayers would baulk at funding the extra prison places .
Either way , voters would be in charge.
” That reform would be welcome .
But so would the existing PCC doing a more effective job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have really made clear that political correctness is to be banished and free speech upheld ?
Or taken bold steps to bring in reforms to improve value for money ?
What has been done to reduce bureaucracy and make policing less risk averse ?
Often it is the poor who suffer most when the police decide not to take action over “ minor crime ” – such as the theft of low value items .
What are PCCs doing to change that defeatist culture ?
The test would be if it really makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Conservative PCC .
In London , the role is taken on by the Mayor and there is clear evidence that the failings of Sadiq Khan have had an impact on rising crime .
I ’ m not sure if there is a such a strong contrast between police forces elsewhere .
In fairness , there have been quiet achievements by PCCs that have tended to attract little media interest .
But it is time for more assertiveness if the role is to win public credibility .
For many Conservative PCC candidates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election in May , but in proving that their victories make a difference to the rest of us .

We have an array of local elections being held, May 7th, in England and Wales. We have the high profile Mayoral contests along with a complicate mix of contests in district councils, unitary authorities, and metropolitan boroughs. I have already provided an initial overview but as Polling Day approaches, I will provide a closer look at the different categories in a weekly series. We shall start with the Police and Crime Commissioner elections.
Contests to elect a PCC will take place in the following areas:
Avon and Somerset
Cheshire
Derbyshire
Devon & Cornwall
Dorset
Gloucestershire
Gwent
Hampshire
Humberside
Kent
Lancashire
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
Merseyside
Northamptonshire
North Yorkshire
South Wales
Staffordshire
Surrey
Sussex
Thames Valley
West Mercia
West Midlands
West Yorkshire
Wiltshire
Police and Crime Commissioner elections last took place in 2016. That time the Conservatives won 20 PCC posts with 15 going to Labour. Both parties made gains at the expense of independents, though the independents still won three seats. I suspect that some voted for an independent at the first elections in 2012 due to a vague sense of disquiet that a PCC could order the police to go off and arrest political opponents (or decline to arrest political supporters). As such concerns proved ill-founded, the independents found it more difficult in 2016. Perhaps they will have a revival this time if disillusioned Labour voters turn to them – finding that easier than voting Conservative.
Plaid Cymru won two seats. Elections took place the same day for the Welsh Assembly – which probably helped Plaid and certainly will have increased turnout. That will not apply this time, as the Welsh Assembly operate on a five year cycle and so takes to the polls next year. Dyfed-Powys was gained by Plaid from the Conservatives last time. The General Election in December would suggest the Conservatives have a decent chance of taking it back.
Labour only narrowly won in Cheshire and Derbyshire. Leicestershire was a fairly close Labour victory. So those will be potential Conservative gains. Humberside will be more of a stretch – but it was won by the Conservatives in 2012. The same applies to Leicestershire.
UKIP got a significant vote share last time – 13.7 per cent. Where will those votes go? The Lib Dems only got 8.6 per cent. Even in their best result, Cumbria, they were in third place. So even if they substantially increase their vote share they are unlikely to win any seats.
Might Labour be saved from a drubbing by the election of a new Leader on April 4th? It is expected that Sir Keir Starmer will win. That will give him a chance to tour the studios and proclaim that Labour has a “fresh start”, that it has “moved on” from Corbynism. Surely, on the issue of crime, the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn must have been especially toxic for Labour? With his sympathies for assorted terrorist groups, any Labour candidate claiming the Party was “tough on crime” faced being laughed to scorn. The difficulty for Labour is that they are doing so badly at present that even if a Starmer Bounce does transpire, giving them an extra couple of points in the polls, they would still be likely to lose seats.
So the Conservatives have good prospects of winning the PCC elections. Why does that not set the pulse racing? Why have several of the Conservative candidates been selected late and secretively?
After all, the PCCs have real power. They can set the budget and policing priorities. They have the power to hire and fire the chief constable. The contrast between the previous regime of police authorities – which were toothless talking shops – is stark. The cost of the system is much the same. But the new arrangements offer real democratic accountability. For that very reason some of the chief constables don’t like it. But there are advantages for them too. The PCC can help communicate with the public and provide “joined up” Government between the police and local authorities and the NHS.
The language used doesn’t help. The areas covered sometimes have artficial bureaucratic names such as Thames Valley, Humberside, or West Mercia. Then there is the title “Police and Crime Commissioner.” Dan Hannan first proposed that such a role should be introduced. He suggested they should be called “sheriffs.” This title was rejected as “too American” – an objection that betrays a limited grasp of history. Hannan also argues that the PCCs be given power “over local sentencing guidelines.” He says:
“Imagine that the PCC for Kent jailed shoplifters, while the PCC for Surrey took a softer line. One of two things would happen. Either a flood of Kentish crooks (and crooks of Kent) would pour across the county border, encouraging Surrey to elect someone tougher; or, conversely, Kentish taxpayers would baulk at funding the extra prison places. Either way, voters would be in charge.”
That reform would be welcome. But so would the existing PCC doing a more effective job with their existing powers. How many have really made clear that political correctness is to be banished and free speech upheld? Or taken bold steps to bring in reforms to improve value for money? What has been done to reduce bureaucracy and make policing less risk averse? Often it is the poor who suffer most when the police decide not to take action over “minor crime” – such as the theft of low value items. What are PCCs doing to change that defeatist culture?
The test would be if it really makes any difference if there is a Labour of Conservative PCC. In London, the role is taken on by the Mayor and there is clear evidence that the failings of Sadiq Khan have had an impact on rising crime. I’m not sure if there is a such a strong contrast between police forces elsewhere.
In fairness, there have been quiet achievements by PCCs that have tended to attract little media interest. But it is time for more assertiveness if the role is to win public credibility. For many Conservative PCC candidates, the hardest part will not be winning the election in May, but in proving that their victories make a difference to the rest of us.


conservativehome--2020-03-02--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct A

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Office of the Children ’ s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work .
It is a small organisation , but it has a loud voice and is highly respected .
The Children ’ s Commissioner ’ s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children ’ s Commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals , with a wide breadth of experience , to join this Board , which meets quarterly in London .
Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children , particularly the most vulnerable , and be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work.
” “ We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors ( NEDs ) with substantial experience of leading complex , delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office .
They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department ’ s work through a fresh , independent , and external perspective .
You will work closely with ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.
” “ Robert Chote will be stepping down as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after 10 years in post .
We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR ’ s staff .
This is a high profile and influential role , requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity .
Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity .
Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term .
There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.
” “ The Office for Nuclear Regulation ( ONR ) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK .
Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect , trust and confidence .
ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) who have principal responsibility for governance , finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety .
The Department for Business , Energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director ( NED ) to the ONR Board.
” “ This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services , leading a sizeable and complex organisation .
There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role .
Under Andrew Bailey , the FCA has formulated a transformation programme , to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers ; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified ; [ and ] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal , and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.
” “ The Coast to Capital Strategic Board comprises private sector and local authority Members , setting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic prosperity for all in the Coast to Capital area , including through Government funding of projects through the Local Growth Fund .
They are accountable to the LEP Board and for the proper governance of the LEP .
Coast to Capital is seeking an influential and persuasive senior business figure from the C2C area to help lead the region and meet the ambitious vision set out in its strategic plan .
Currently chaired by Tim Wates , who will be stepping down in July 2020 , the Board brings together a diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians and leaders from Universities and Further Education .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Children’s Commissioner’s Office – Advisory Board Member
“The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work. It is a small organisation, but it has a loud voice and is highly respected. The Children’s Commissioner’s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children’s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions. The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals, with a wide breadth of experience, to join this Board, which meets quarterly in London. Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children, particularly the most vulnerable, and be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work.”
Time: 3-4 meetings per year.
Remuneration: Reasonable expenses.
Closes: 03 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Non-Executive Directors
“We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) with substantial experience of leading complex, delivery focused organisations, to support the Home Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office. They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department’s work through a fresh, independent, and external perspective. You will work closely with ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.”
Time: “3 years”.
Remuneration: £15,000.
Closes: 08 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Budget Responsibility – Chair
“Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year, after 10 years in post. We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR’s staff. This is a high profile and influential role, requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity. Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity. Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term. There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms. This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.”
Time: Full- or part-time.
Remuneration: £158,762 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 19 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Nuclear Regulation – Security Non-Executive Director
“The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK. Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect, trust and confidence. ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) who have principal responsibility for governance, finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director (NED) to the ONR Board.”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 plus expenses.
Closes: 22 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Conduct Authority – Chief Executive
“This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services, leading a sizeable and complex organisation. There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role. Under Andrew Bailey, the FCA has formulated a transformation programme, to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development: a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified; [and] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal, and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Competitive.
Closes: 27 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (C2C LEP) – Chair
“The Coast to Capital Strategic Board comprises private sector and local authority Members, setting a vision for and overseeing delivery of economic prosperity for all in the Coast to Capital area, including through Government funding of projects through the Local Growth Fund. They are accountable to the LEP Board and for the proper governance of the LEP. Coast to Capital is seeking an influential and persuasive senior business figure from the C2C area to help lead the region and meet the ambitious vision set out in its strategic plan. Currently chaired by Tim Wates, who will be stepping down in July 2020, the Board brings together a diverse mix of regional business leaders alongside senior politicians and leaders from Universities and Further Education.”
Time: Four days per month, three-year term.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 30 March