conservativehome--2020-12-31--The Deal in Detail 5) Immigration

The Deal in Detail 5) Immigration

David Goodhart is Head of Demography at Policy Exchange and author of The Road to Somewhere : The New Tribes Shaping British Politics .
A sense that the country was changing too fast and a desire to reclaim normal national controls over who comes and goes and who , in effect , becomes a citizen was one of the primary motivations behind Brexit .
And on January 1 the EU free movement rules will duly come to a formal end , with EU citizens no longer able to come and live and work here as if they were British citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens arriving in the UK was expected , Covid-restrictions allowing , as anyone resident here for only one day prior to 2021 will be able to claim the right to live and work here for five years ( and then apply for the right to stay permanently ) .
Most of the UK ’ s new “ points-based ” immigration rules , levelling the field between EU and non-EU people wishing to come for more that a visit , became law in early 2020 , and the Withdrawal Agreement dealt with the rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final Brexit deal did contain some new details on such things as the Erasmus student exchange system and on mutual recognition of professional qualifications .
Overall on the post-Brexit movement of people many important things will stay the same ( visa-free short stays up to 90 days will continue to be allowed in both directions ) , many things will change quite radically ( such as the ability of EU citizens to work in low-skill jobs ) and some things remain uncertain ( the mutual recognition of professional qualifications ) .
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began life on December 1 2020 for the rest of the world and January 1 2021 for the EU .
Ian Robinson of immigration lawyers Fragomen puts it like this : “ We now have one of the fastest and most certain immigration schemes in the world for skilled workers , though it is also one of the most expensive .
That said , it could never be as fast or certain as free movement ” .
The new so-called points-based visa system liberalises skilled immigration , which now applies equally to EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK into an employer-sponsorship immigration system for anyone with A-level equivalent qualifications or paid above £25,600 .
The previous cap of 20,700 on skilled workers from outside the EU is suspended and employers no longer have to observe the resident labour market test ( advertising the job to British citizens first ) .
Immigration into lower skill jobs , by contrast , is essentially closed with no exemptions ( apart from the seasonal agricultural workers scheme ) .
Will this reduce or increase overall numbers ?
In the short-term , the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main work and student categories .
In the medium term the numbers could rise , especially if there is a significant influx from Hong Kong , but the liberalisation for skilled worker immigrants is likely to be more than matched by the reduction in EU citizens coming to do low-skill jobs .
Government will have two tools for regulating flows if numbers do creep up : it could reintroduce a cap on the visa numbers if unemployment starts rising too high and it can increase the cost to the employer of bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high by international standards ( though both Australia and the US are comparable ) , with a single person costing an employer £5,500 for a three-year visa , assuming the employer pays the annual health charge of £625 and the visa cost of £600 , and for someone with a spouse and three children for five years the cost rises to around £27,000 .
And what about the impact of the low skill immigration stop ?
The Government ’ s intention is that employers will make those jobs more attractive to those already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investing in labour-saving equipment .
There is some tentative evidence that that is indeed happening .
EU citizens make up about seven per cent of the UK workforce ( 17 per cent in London ) and about two-thirds are classified as low-skill , but some sectors have become heavily dependent on them : food production ( around one third ) , hotels ( 20 per cent ) , and warehousing ( 18 per cent ) .
Only about four per cent of NHS nurses are from the EU , but that rises to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workforce .
( If there is to be an exemption on low-skill immigration anywhere it is most likely to be in social care . )
Most EU citizens intend to stay , with around 3.5 million signing up for the EU settlement scheme which grants continuity of rights ( though only permanently once you have been resident for five years ) .
But by the end of June next year anyone who has not signed up will be regarded as an illegal immigrant and subject to the so-called “ hostile environment ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are likely to have slipped through the net will be granted some kind of amnesty , the problem for the Government is that will then set a precedent that many of the estimated one million illegal immigrants from outside the EU will want to exploit .
Things are likely to be somewhat more difficult for British citizens wanting to work in an EU country , with the exception of Germany and the Netherlands work permit systems tend to be highly bureaucratic .
Moreover , the EU rejected the UK ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mutual recognition of professional qualifications for doctors , lawyers , accountants etc .
The Brexit deal has established a framework for making agreements in this area but these are usually quite hard to reach and it seems likely that the UK will have to negotiate 27 bilateral arrangements .
The other big story is students .
EU students will no longer get privileged access to UK universities and will have to pay the same higher tuition fees as those from outside the EU .
This is likely to leave a big dent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently 143,000 ( including post-grads ) .
The UK is also pulling out of the Erasmus student exchange scheme which has been running for more than 30 years .
In 2017 about 16,000 UK students had a term ( about three months ) at an EU university and 31,000 EU students came here .
Both decisions have caused some dismay in the higher education world .
But Erasmus accounted for less than half of all UK student exchanges and will be replaced by the Turing scheme with a more global focus .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , staying in the scheme would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds , and that the new scheme will underscore the two main things that Brexit is about : global Britain and levelling up .
The Government has committed to spending at least £100m on the Turing scheme with a goal of 35,000 student participants and instead of attracting generally affluent language students from Russell Group universities , as Erasmus has done , it will aim at a wider social mix .
Finally , one dog that didn ’ t bark .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended to young people from the EU .
The scheme currently attracts a few tens of thousands of people under 30 each year , mainly from Australia and New Zealand but also Japan and South Korea , for a two year period in which they are allowed to work .
The UK was apparently quite keen on extending it to Europeans but the EU decided it didn ’ t have competence to negotiate it .
Bilateral deals may well be struck .
But as bar work , one of the staples for scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short supply for a few more months the lack of an extension to young Europeans isn ’ t going to be missed .
The new migration rules will need time to settle and will produce some unintended consequences , but the decision to end free movement is a broadly popular one , and one that even most Remainers now accept .
Most employers will be happy with the liberalisation of skilled migration though there will be pressure in some sectors for temporary exemptions from the low-skill ban .
More generally , under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migration anxieties shift from being felt predominantly among lower socio-economic groups to higher ones , complaining about affluent areas becoming unaffordable as more high paid professionals enter the country .
The new migration landscape will also see an increase in short-term flows and a reduction in permanent residence , and that broadly fits with the democratic desire for the UK to remain an open country but with slower underlying demographic change .
This is the fourth in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit @ @ @

David Goodhart is Head of Demography at Policy Exchange and author of The Road to Somewhere: The New Tribes Shaping British Politics.
A sense that the country was changing too fast and a desire to reclaim normal national controls over who comes and goes and who, in effect, becomes a citizen was one of the primary motivations behind Brexit. And on January 1 the EU free movement rules will duly come to a formal end, with EU citizens no longer able to come and live and work here as if they were British citizens.
A last minute flurry of EU citizens arriving in the UK was expected, Covid-restrictions allowing, as anyone resident here for only one day prior to 2021 will be able to claim the right to live and work here for five years (and then apply for the right to stay permanently).
Most of the UK’s new “points-based” immigration rules, levelling the field between EU and non-EU people wishing to come for more that a visit, became law in early 2020, and the Withdrawal Agreement dealt with the rights of EU citizens already here. But the final Brexit deal did contain some new details on such things as the Erasmus student exchange system and on mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
Overall on the post-Brexit movement of people many important things will stay the same (visa-free short stays up to 90 days will continue to be allowed in both directions), many things will change quite radically (such as the ability of EU citizens to work in low-skill jobs) and some things remain uncertain (the mutual recognition of professional qualifications).
First, the bigger picture immigration story that began life on December 1 2020 for the rest of the world and January 1 2021 for the EU. Ian Robinson of immigration lawyers Fragomen puts it like this:
“We now have one of the fastest and most certain immigration schemes in the world for skilled workers, though it is also one of the most expensive. That said, it could never be as fast or certain as free movement”.
The new so-called points-based visa system liberalises skilled immigration, which now applies equally to EU and non-EU people, and essentially turns the UK into an employer-sponsorship immigration system for anyone with A-level equivalent qualifications or paid above £25,600. The previous cap of 20,700 on skilled workers from outside the EU is suspended and employers no longer have to observe the resident labour market test (advertising the job to British citizens first).
Immigration into lower skill jobs, by contrast, is essentially closed with no exemptions (apart from the seasonal agricultural workers scheme).
Will this reduce or increase overall numbers? In the short-term, the pandemic is likely to depress numbers arriving in the main work and student categories. In the medium term the numbers could rise, especially if there is a significant influx from Hong Kong, but the liberalisation for skilled worker immigrants is likely to be more than matched by the reduction in EU citizens coming to do low-skill jobs.
Government will have two tools for regulating flows if numbers do creep up: it could reintroduce a cap on the visa numbers if unemployment starts rising too high and it can increase the cost to the employer of bringing someone in. That cost is already high by international standards (though both Australia and the US are comparable), with a single person costing an employer £5,500 for a three-year visa, assuming the employer pays the annual health charge of £625 and the visa cost of £600, and for someone with a spouse and three children for five years the cost rises to around £27,000.
And what about the impact of the low skill immigration stop? The Government’s intention is that employers will make those jobs more attractive to those already living here or phase them out by investing in labour-saving equipment.
There is some tentative evidence that that is indeed happening. EU citizens make up about seven per cent of the UK workforce (17 per cent in London) and about two-thirds are classified as low-skill, but some sectors have become heavily dependent on them: food production (around one third), hotels (20 per cent), and warehousing (18 per cent). Only about four per cent of NHS nurses are from the EU, but that rises to eight per cent for the social care workforce. (If there is to be an exemption on low-skill immigration anywhere it is most likely to be in social care.)
Most EU citizens intend to stay, with around 3.5 million signing up for the EU settlement scheme which grants continuity of rights (though only permanently once you have been resident for five years). But by the end of June next year anyone who has not signed up will be regarded as an illegal immigrant and subject to the so-called “hostile environment”.
It is likely that the few thousand people who are likely to have slipped through the net will be granted some kind of amnesty, the problem for the Government is that will then set a precedent that many of the estimated one million illegal immigrants from outside the EU will want to exploit.
Things are likely to be somewhat more difficult for British citizens wanting to work in an EU country, with the exception of Germany and the Netherlands work permit systems tend to be highly bureaucratic. Moreover, the EU rejected the UK’s wish to continue with the existing system of mutual recognition of professional qualifications for doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. The Brexit deal has established a framework for making agreements in this area but these are usually quite hard to reach and it seems likely that the UK will have to negotiate 27 bilateral arrangements.
The other big story is students. EU students will no longer get privileged access to UK universities and will have to pay the same higher tuition fees as those from outside the EU. This is likely to leave a big dent in the number of EU students, currently 143,000 (including post-grads). The UK is also pulling out of the Erasmus student exchange scheme which has been running for more than 30 years. In 2017 about 16,000 UK students had a term (about three months) at an EU university and 31,000 EU students came here.
Both decisions have caused some dismay in the higher education world. But Erasmus accounted for less than half of all UK student exchanges and will be replaced by the Turing scheme with a more global focus. The Government argues that Erasmus was unnecessarily expensive, staying in the scheme would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and that the new scheme will underscore the two main things that Brexit is about: global Britain and levelling up.
The Government has committed to spending at least £100m on the Turing scheme with a goal of 35,000 student participants and instead of attracting generally affluent language students from Russell Group universities, as Erasmus has done, it will aim at a wider social mix.
Finally, one dog that didn’t bark. The Youth Mobility Scheme has not been extended to young people from the EU. The scheme currently attracts a few tens of thousands of people under 30 each year, mainly from Australia and New Zealand but also Japan and South Korea, for a two year period in which they are allowed to work. The UK was apparently quite keen on extending it to Europeans but the EU decided it didn’t have competence to negotiate it. Bilateral deals may well be struck. But as bar work, one of the staples for scheme participants, is going to be in short supply for a few more months the lack of an extension to young Europeans isn’t going to be missed.
The new migration rules will need time to settle and will produce some unintended consequences, but the decision to end free movement is a broadly popular one, and one that even most Remainers now accept. Most employers will be happy with the liberalisation of skilled migration though there will be pressure in some sectors for temporary exemptions from the low-skill ban.
More generally, under the new regime we might start to see migration anxieties shift from being felt predominantly among lower socio-economic groups to higher ones, complaining about affluent areas becoming unaffordable as more high paid professionals enter the country. The new migration landscape will also see an increase in short-term flows and a reduction in permanent residence, and that broadly fits with the democratic desire for the UK to remain an open country but with slower underlying demographic change.
This is the fourth in a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal.


conservativehome--2020-01-30--Three takeaways from yesterday’s select committee chairmanship elections

Last night , we learned the results of the elections for the chairmanships of various select committees .
We published the full list here .
These committees play an important role in holding the Government to account , especially now it enjoys the first solid one-party majority since 2010 .
They can also take the initiative and help set the policy agenda .
So looking under the bonnet at some of these results , what do they tell us ?
Perhaps one of the most interesting result was that of the Digital , Culture , Media , and Sport Select @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chairman Damian Collins .
Knight , who has represented Solihull since the 2015 election , has served on the DCMS Committee for three years .
As a former BBC journalist he previously garnered press attention during the Committee ’ s hearings over equal pay at the Corporation , and he recently wrote on this site about his plan to have the Committee serve as its own ‘ Royal Commission ’ on finding a new model for the BBC – one which , in his words , “ weans it off the poll tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this marks quite a shift from Collins ’ chairmanship , under which the Committee had focused on issues such as Facebook and online disinformation… as well as trying to summon Dominic Cummings .
Downing Street will probably not be unhappy about this particular change .
As has already been pointed out elsewhere , several May-era ministers have now taken up key chairmanships .
These include not only Jeremy Hunt , the Prime Minister ’ s vanquished rival for the leadership , at Health but also Greg Clark at Science & Technology and Tobias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described in some quarters as the basis for a ‘ Tory resistance ’ , although that might overstate the potency of even the most powerful committee in the face of a majority of close to 80 .
Setting aside that purely political angle , there are arguments for and against appointing former ministers to lead the committees which scrutinise the departments they used to run .
On the one hand , they almost certainly bring a greater familiarity with the work of said department than your average backbencher will have .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own baggage : they may try to use their new position to defend pet projects , or to direct scrutiny away from areas where a share of the blame might redound upon them .
So yes , they may well know where the bodies are buried .
But they probably buried one or two of them themselves .
When David Cameron first took office in 2010 , school reform was at the very top of his Government ’ s reform agenda .
The drive towards free schools , and Michael Gove ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was one of the central planks of the Conservative agenda .
This focus , perhaps inevitably , took a serious hit after 2015 when Brexit started taking up more and more of the Party ’ s energy and attention .
Back in 2018 we noted that the Government “ has lost momentum on free schools , faith schools , and grammars ” , and by the most recent election the Conservative manifesto offering on schools was extremely thin .
But for all that , it is nonetheless telling that the newly-enlarged bloc of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two people prepared to stand for the chairmanship of the Education Committee .
It really does suggest that the Party ’ s waning interest in education – with the obvious exception of Rob Halfon , the new chairman – extends not just to the front bench but to the back benches too .

Last night, we learned the results of the elections for the chairmanships of various select committees. We published the full list here.
These committees play an important role in holding the Government to account, especially now it enjoys the first solid one-party majority since 2010. They can also take the initiative and help set the policy agenda. So looking under the bonnet at some of these results, what do they tell us?
A shift in focus at DCMS
Perhaps one of the most interesting result was that of the Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee, where Julian Knight defeated incumbent chairman Damian Collins.
Knight, who has represented Solihull since the 2015 election, has served on the DCMS Committee for three years. As a former BBC journalist he previously garnered press attention during the Committee’s hearings over equal pay at the Corporation, and he recently wrote on this site about his plan to have the Committee serve as its own ‘Royal Commission’ on finding a new model for the BBC – one which, in his words, “weans it off the poll tax”.
Others have already noted that this marks quite a shift from Collins’ chairmanship, under which the Committee had focused on issues such as Facebook and online disinformation… as well as trying to summon Dominic Cummings. Downing Street will probably not be unhappy about this particular change.
(Incidentally Philip Dunne, another candidate who wrote for us about his plans, was successfully elected to chair the Environmental Audit Committee.)
Ex-ministers: yea or nay?
As has already been pointed out elsewhere, several May-era ministers have now taken up key chairmanships. These include not only Jeremy Hunt, the Prime Minister’s vanquished rival for the leadership, at Health but also Greg Clark at Science & Technology and Tobias Ellwood at Defence.
This has been described in some quarters as the basis for a ‘Tory resistance’, although that might overstate the potency of even the most powerful committee in the face of a majority of close to 80. Setting aside that purely political angle, there are arguments for and against appointing former ministers to lead the committees which scrutinise the departments they used to run.
On the one hand, they almost certainly bring a greater familiarity with the work of said department than your average backbencher will have. On the other, that familiarity comes with its own baggage: they may try to use their new position to defend pet projects, or to direct scrutiny away from areas where a share of the blame might redound upon them.
So yes, they may well know where the bodies are buried. But they probably buried one or two of them themselves.
A waning interest in education?
When David Cameron first took office in 2010, school reform was at the very top of his Government’s reform agenda. The drive towards free schools, and Michael Gove’s battles with the ‘Blob’, was one of the central planks of the Conservative agenda.
This focus, perhaps inevitably, took a serious hit after 2015 when Brexit started taking up more and more of the Party’s energy and attention. Back in 2018 we noted that the Government “has lost momentum on free schools, faith schools, and grammars”, and by the most recent election the Conservative manifesto offering on schools was extremely thin.
But for all that, it is nonetheless telling that the newly-enlarged bloc of Tory MPs couldn’t find even two people prepared to stand for the chairmanship of the Education Committee. It really does suggest that the Party’s waning interest in education – with the obvious exception of Rob Halfon, the new chairman – extends not just to the front bench but to the back benches too.


conservativehome--2020-01-30--WATCH: The Brexit Story 19) The Gang of Three cross the floor

Soubry , Allen and Wollaston take their place with the Independent Group on the Commons benches pic.twitter.com/Nkq3qNcVnu

Soubry, Allen and Wollaston take their place with the Independent Group on the Commons benches pic.twitter.com/Nkq3qNcVnu
— Ned Simons (@nedsimons) February 20, 2019


conservativehome--2020-01-30--WATCH: The Brexit Story 18) “Give this deal a second look,” May urges MPs. They didn’t.

“ Give this deal a second look ” – UK PM Theresa May urges MPs to reconsider her # Brexit @ @ @ @ @ Union

“Give this deal a second look” – UK PM Theresa May urges MPs to reconsider her #Brexit plans to leave the European Union
Latest: https://t.co/whLNc9zZCK pic.twitter.com/VUkXLyjs2z
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) January 14, 2019


conservativehome--2020-01-30--WATCH: The Brexit Story 17) North Korean ovation from Tory MPs as their leader fends off no confiden

WATCH: The Brexit Story 17) North Korean ovation from Tory MPs as their leader fends off no confidence vote

“ The parliamentary party does have confidence in Theresa May ” Chairman of 1922 Committee , Sir Graham Brady says @ @ @ @ @ with 200 out of 317 Conservative MPs supporting her leadership of the partyhttps : //t.co/9Vw2gOQoDc @

“The parliamentary party does have confidence in Theresa May”
Chairman of 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady says PM wins #ConfidenceVote, with 200 out of 317 Conservative MPs supporting her leadership of the partyhttps://t.co/9Vw2gOQoDc pic.twitter.com/7Delcb1vO1
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) December 12, 2018


conservativehome--2020-01-30--WATCH: The Brexit Story 16) May’s doomed first push for her deal

“ We should not let the search for a perfect Brexit prevent a good Brexit that delivers for the British @ @ @ @ @ concludes opening statement in # Brexit withdrawal debate

“We should not let the search for a perfect Brexit prevent a good Brexit that delivers for the British people” – Theresa May concludes opening statement in #Brexit withdrawal debate
Latest: https://t.co/ql8hpAjfOz pic.twitter.com/3msZVE1BJ1
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 4, 2018


conservativehome--2020-01-31--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Tees Valley Local Enterprise

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – and more

Seven years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
Since then , the figures have varied , and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts .
Nonetheless , it remains the case that , since it took office in 2010 , our Party has punched beneath its 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry .
CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy , and works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met .
CITB seeks to create the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways of working , embracing new technologies , creating a demand in construction for more skills , new skills and higher level skills .
CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.
” “ The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board .
They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident , clear and consistent leadership .
They will also lead the Agency ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Housing , Communities and Local Government , who they will meet on a regular basis .
The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England , helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England ’ s core mission .
The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming… ” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Northern Ireland Office ( NIO ) is seeking to appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Board .
In addition to his/her responsibilities as a Board Member , the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department ’ s Audit and Risk Committee .
The successful candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2020 .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office .
They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice , support , constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area ’ s economic success .
The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders , while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government .
We want you to have a voice , make a difference and give something back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the private sector ( Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website ) .
” Time : Minimum one day per week on average .
“ The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee .
The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC ’ s work and is responsible for overseeing the operation and output of the Committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To date , the MAC has operated “ hands-on ” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat .
The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee , across the Secretariat and with government departments.
” “ The Secretary of State , working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency , is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members .
The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills , knowledge and expertise .
Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero , climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.
” “ The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership ( LEP ) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans .
The Combined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal and diverse membership , and through this latest round of appointments , have committed to achieve 50 % female representation on the LEP board in 2020 .
Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term , we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background , experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.
” “ As Chair of the STRB , you will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body ; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State .
You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it ; where necessary challenging existing assumptions ; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB ; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the wide range of consultees… ”

Seven years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
Since then, the figures have varied, and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that, since it took office in 2010, our Party has punched beneath its 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, every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Construction Industry Training Board – Board Trustee
“CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry. CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy, and works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met. CITB seeks to create the culture and conditions that will deliver new ways of working, embracing new technologies, creating a demand in construction for more skills, new skills and higher level skills. CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.”
Time: Around 16 hours per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 28 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Homes England – Chair
“The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board. They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident, clear and consistent leadership. They will also lead the Agency’s relationship with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who they will meet on a regular basis. The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England, helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England’s core mission. The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming…”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £95,000 per annum.
Closes: 31 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Office – Lead Non-Executive Director
“The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) is seeking to appoint a Lead Non-Executive Director to its Management Board. In addition to his/her responsibilities as a Board Member, the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department’s Audit and Risk Committee. The successful candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2020. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office. They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice, support, constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department’s work.”
Time: Approx. 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £12,500 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 03 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Solent Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area’s economic success. The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders, while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government. We want you to have a voice, make a difference and give something back to the region. The Chair must come from the private sector (Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website).”
Time: Minimum one day per week on average.
Remuneration: ‘Reasonable expenses’.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Migration Advisory Committee – Chair
“The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee. The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC’s work and is responsible for overseeing the operation and output of the Committee, in collaboration with the Home Office Secretariat. To date, the MAC has operated “hands-on” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat. The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee, across the Secretariat and with government departments.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Environment Agency – Board Member
“The Secretary of State, working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency, is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members. The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds. Applicants will need to demonstrate they are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills, knowledge and expertise. Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero, climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.”
Time: Four days per month.
Remuneration: £350 per diem, reasonable expenses.
Closes: 25 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans. The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership, and through this latest round of appointments, have committed to achieve 50% female representation on the LEP board in 2020. Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term, we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background, experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence expenses.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
School Teachers’ Review Body – Chair
“As Chair of the STRB, you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State. You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it; where necessary challenging existing assumptions; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees…”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 01 March


conservativehome--2020-01-31--Brexit Day. “Those who bet against Britain are going to lose their shirts”.

In which election did a party win its highest share of the vote since the war ?
The answer is the European elections of 1979 .
The Conservatives took over 50 per cent of it .
They sent to Strasbourg what was surely most pro-federalist intake of any British party ever .
Members included such committed pro-Europeans as Peter Price , Bill Newton-Dunn , Tom Spencer , David Curry and Edward Heath ’ s old friend Madron Seligman .
What happened during the next half-century or so ?
How did the more euro-enthusiast of the two main parties become overwhelmingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that Britain is leaving the EU today ?
One version of history begins at an end of its spectrum by observing that Britain ’ s centre-right papers became increasingly hostile to the European project .
It ends at the other by claiming that the EU referendum was fixed by Russian gold , sinister billionaires , dark advertising , big data and all the ephemara of Cadwalladrism .
If you believe that the world is conspiracy-driven and that voters are fundamentally stupid , there is nothing we could possibly write to disabuse you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Fleet Street should provoke discussion .
What came first : the anti-federalist take of proprietors or that of voters ?
Which drove which ?
Which was the chicken and which the egg ?
In any event , the papers have long been a power in decline .
And what about the pro-EU slant of our national broadcaster ?
No , the fundamental shift within the Conservative Party and among the British people is better explained by the coming-together of an old habit and a new trend .
The old habit is British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , in an island that hasn ’ t been successfully invaded for a thousand years , which has a web of ancient institutions , and in which self-government has fewer of the popular negatives that haunt it among our neighbours .
The new trend is the western revolt against its elites , driven by a post-crash backlash and popular discontent with mass immigration .
This was accentuated in Britain by the expenses scandal , the Iraq War , and the Government in power at the time , Tony Blair ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement .
But the tide of public opinion had shifted against the European project long before then .
The original impetus was given by the EU openly becoming what it has always been : the federalist project for which those 1979 Tories yearned .
Think Jacques Delors , the Maastricht Treaty , the Euro – and communism ’ s collapse .
The Europe issue helped to bring down Margaret Thatcher .
The putsch that removed a three-times victorious Prime Minister who was undefeated at the polls had consequences .
These helped to stiffen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as its instinct for sovereignty intensified .
Party change , voter trends and political expediency pushed David Cameron towards that referendum .
But for all the move in public opinion , Leave ’ s victory was narrow .
That was largely because of that most persistent of electoral habits – caution .
But the aftermath of the result saw the Citizens of Nowhere , as Theresa May didn ’ t really mean to describe them , rally against the Majority for Somewhere .
One seldom saw the EU flag brandished in earnest before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t been true since .
Britain ’ s pro-EU Ascendancy had become accustomed to ruling over the best part of 50 years .
Its rage against the democratic removal of what it believed it was entitled to respected few conventions .
Those it broke included the neutrality of the Speaker , the apoliticality of the Supreme Court and the role of the legislature – which under what this site called the Real Prime Minister , Oliver Letwin , sought to usurp the role of the executive in order ultimately to thwart the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Ministers resigned over Brexit one way or the other , including a holder of a great office of state – Boris Johnson , who followed David Davis out of Cabinet over the Chequers Plan .
The counter-rage of voters was terrible to behold .
It reduced the Conservatives to four MEPs in last year ’ s European elections , revived Nigel Farage and created the conditions for the Brexit Party , and drove Tory ratings down to 20 per cent or so .
A second referendum loomed into view .
We believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditionally stolid and stable Britain , in which those long-standing institutions had been buttressed over time by first-past-the-post .
It seems like a dream that Boris Johnson has turned all that round in less than a year .
His near-landslide last month was a demonstration of the power not of inevitability and immutable forces in history , as Marxists cling erroneously to believing , but to the force of accident and personality .
This evening , some will rejoice – including this Brexit-backing site – and some mourn .
Which you do will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be prosperous and happy as a self-governing nation , as it has been for most of its history and as most countries are today .
We are with one of Johnson ’ s first lines as Prime Minister , spoken from the podium outside Downing Street : “ those who bet against Britain are going to lose their shirts ” .
And as you prepare for this evening , mull how this country stands today , and how others do .
France has an embedded leader , Emmanuel Macron , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open thuggery wouldn ’ t last a moment here .
Germany is in transition .
The endurance of its system is formidable , but the AfD has the best part of 100 Bundestag seats .
Italy has Salvini , Hungary has Orban .
Spain is seeing the emergence of Vox .
Trump is a force from outside the Republican mainstream .
In India , one of the great success stories of mass democracy since the end of colonialism , communalism is on the rise .
Some on the Right cheer some of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them – if not hostile .
Johnson ’ s Government stands out from them because of the combination of his majority and its flavour .
The back-to-the-future explosion of Brexit apart , his Government is identifiably a sign of continuity , not rupture .
It is not credible to argue that he represents a radical break from the long story of Disraeli , Baldwin , Churchill , Macmillan , Cameron and Thatcher .
Though it is significant that he is repudiating her hostility to the role of the state with a commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking with the inheritance of any of them , it ’ s with hers .
At the cost of taking a complacent view of the world , Britain and Johnson , with their combination of recovered stability and mainstream politics , look not half bad at all compared to the alternatives ( Corbynism especially ) .
We are sometimes not sufficiently thankful for what we have – even in a country with a formidable challenge to its integrity , in the form of the future of Scotland ; and a mass of Just-About-Managings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt , addiction , disorderly neighbourhoods , bad schools , poor health , crime , homelessness .
These are challenges for the future , as is Part Two of the Brexit negotiation .
The past has shaped where we are , both good and bad .
Later today , ConservativeHome will raise a glass to Britain ’ s old-but-new future .

In which election did a party win its highest share of the vote since the war? The answer is the European elections of 1979. The Conservatives took over 50 per cent of it.
They sent to Strasbourg what was surely most pro-federalist intake of any British party ever. Members included such committed pro-Europeans as Peter Price, Bill Newton-Dunn, Tom Spencer, David Curry and Edward Heath’s old friend Madron Seligman.
What happened during the next half-century or so? How did the more euro-enthusiast of the two main parties become overwhelmingly euro-sceptic? And why has it come about that Britain is leaving the EU today?
One version of history begins at an end of its spectrum by observing that Britain’s centre-right papers became increasingly hostile to the European project. It ends at the other by claiming that the EU referendum was fixed by Russian gold, sinister billionaires, dark advertising, big data and all the ephemara of Cadwalladrism.
If you believe that the world is conspiracy-driven and that voters are fundamentally stupid, there is nothing we could possibly write to disabuse you.
Even that truth about the change in Fleet Street should provoke discussion. What came first: the anti-federalist take of proprietors or that of voters? Which drove which? Which was the chicken and which the egg? In any event, the papers have long been a power in decline. And what about the pro-EU slant of our national broadcaster?
No, the fundamental shift within the Conservative Party and among the British people is better explained by the coming-together of an old habit and a new trend.
The old habit is British nationalism distilled through our history – in other words, in an island that hasn’t been successfully invaded for a thousand years, which has a web of ancient institutions, and in which self-government has fewer of the popular negatives that haunt it among our neighbours.
The new trend is the western revolt against its elites, driven by a post-crash backlash and popular discontent with mass immigration.
This was accentuated in Britain by the expenses scandal, the Iraq War, and the Government in power at the time, Tony Blair’s, which spurned post-enlargement restrictions on free movement. But the tide of public opinion had shifted against the European project long before then.
The original impetus was given by the EU openly becoming what it has always been: the federalist project for which those 1979 Tories yearned. Think Jacques Delors, the Maastricht Treaty, the Euro – and communism’s collapse.
The Europe issue helped to bring down Margaret Thatcher. The putsch that removed a three-times victorious Prime Minister who was undefeated at the polls had consequences. These helped to stiffen resistance within the party to the Euro as its instinct for sovereignty intensified.
Party change, voter trends and political expediency pushed David Cameron towards that referendum. But for all the move in public opinion, Leave’s victory was narrow.
That was largely because of that most persistent of electoral habits – caution. But the aftermath of the result saw the Citizens of Nowhere, as Theresa May didn’t really mean to describe them, rally against the Majority for Somewhere. One seldom saw the EU flag brandished in earnest before June 23rd, 2016. That hasn’t been true since.
Britain’s pro-EU Ascendancy had become accustomed to ruling over the best part of 50 years. Its rage against the democratic removal of what it believed it was entitled to respected few conventions.
Those it broke included the neutrality of the Speaker, the apoliticality of the Supreme Court and the role of the legislature – which under what this site called the Real Prime Minister, Oliver Letwin, sought to usurp the role of the executive in order ultimately to thwart the voters.
Over 40 of May’s Ministers resigned over Brexit one way or the other, including a holder of a great office of state – Boris Johnson, who followed David Davis out of Cabinet over the Chequers Plan.
The counter-rage of voters was terrible to behold. It reduced the Conservatives to four MEPs in last year’s European elections, revived Nigel Farage and created the conditions for the Brexit Party, and drove Tory ratings down to 20 per cent or so. A second referendum loomed into view.
We believe that the consequences would have shaken even traditionally stolid and stable Britain, in which those long-standing institutions had been buttressed over time by first-past-the-post.
It seems like a dream that Boris Johnson has turned all that round in less than a year. His near-landslide last month was a demonstration of the power not of inevitability and immutable forces in history, as Marxists cling erroneously to believing, but to the force of accident and personality.
This evening, some will rejoice – including this Brexit-backing site – and some mourn. Which you do will boil down to whether you believe Britain will be prosperous and happy as a self-governing nation, as it has been for most of its history and as most countries are today.
We are with one of Johnson’s first lines as Prime Minister, spoken from the podium outside Downing Street: “those who bet against Britain are going to lose their shirts”.
And as you prepare for this evening, mull how this country stands today, and how others do. France has an embedded leader, Emmanuel Macron, but also yellow jackets and brutal police, whose open thuggery wouldn’t last a moment here.
Germany is in transition. The endurance of its system is formidable, but the AfD has the best part of 100 Bundestag seats. Italy has Salvini, Hungary has Orban. Spain is seeing the emergence of Vox.
Trump is a force from outside the Republican mainstream. In India, one of the great success stories of mass democracy since the end of colonialism, communalism is on the rise. Some on the Right cheer some of these movements; others are suspicious of all of them – if not hostile.
Johnson’s Government stands out from them because of the combination of his majority and its flavour. The back-to-the-future explosion of Brexit apart, his Government is identifiably a sign of continuity, not rupture.
It is not credible to argue that he represents a radical break from the long story of Disraeli, Baldwin, Churchill, Macmillan, Cameron and Thatcher. Though it is significant that he is repudiating her hostility to the role of the state with a commitment to its activism. If he is breaking with the inheritance of any of them, it’s with hers.
At the cost of taking a complacent view of the world, Britain and Johnson, with their combination of recovered stability and mainstream politics, look not half bad at all compared to the alternatives (Corbynism especially).
We are sometimes not sufficiently thankful for what we have – even in a country with a formidable challenge to its integrity, in the form of the future of Scotland; and a mass of Just-About-Managings and downright left behinds, struggling with debt, addiction, disorderly neighbourhoods, bad schools, poor health, crime, homelessness.
These are challenges for the future, as is Part Two of the Brexit negotiation. The past has shaped where we are, both good and bad. Later today, ConservativeHome will raise a glass to Britain’s old-but-new future.


conservativehome--2020-01-31--Iain Dale: No gloating, no jingoism, please. Let’s not rub Remainers’ noses in it.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN .
I think that like most people I really struggle with the decision to enable Huawei to be a major part of the 5G project .
This country has cosied up to China for too long .
I haven ’ t ever said this before but , given that David Cameron has said it in his memoirs , I don ’ t feel I ’ m doing anything wrong by doing so .
Some time ago , I went on a tour of GCHQ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrated where all our incoming cyber attacks came from .
A lot came from Russia .
Many came from North Korea .
But the majority emanated from China .
Cameron clearly saw the same evidence , as he relates in his book .
One assumes that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have the same information , and yet they have seen fit to give the same country – which is addicted to launching cyber attacks on this country – access to our 5G system .
To say that it will only have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are told that the intelligence agencies are all on board with this .
Really ?
If GCHQ is on board , you have to question the logic of their position , give that they know very well China ’ s role in cyber attacks .
Decisions like this are all about managing risk .
We need to know for certain that in any sort of national emergency China or Huawei would not be in a position to shut down our 5G network .
We ’ ve already sold the pass in other parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water and nuclear power .
I find it bizarre that on the face of it , we have now handed over parts of 5G to the Chinese too .
Having said that , I also understand the need to roll out fast broadband as quickly as possible .
This pledge was of course a key part of Boris Johnson ’ s leadership campaign .
The Prime Minister has expended a lot of political capital on Huawei .
You might say , well , with a majority of 80 , he Prime Minister can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big decision looms in the next few weeks , and that is whether the government will continue with HS2 .
All the signs are that it will .
I can not believe that Steve Barclay and Robert Buckland would have said what they ’ ve said on the media this week about it without having been tipped the wink .
If the decision is ‘ yes ’ , that ’ s yet more political capital up the swannee .
Like Steve Baker , I won ’ t be attending the Brexit shindig in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I will not be on Parliament Sq .
Bearing in mind our need to unite this country when many people feel great sorrow about leaving the EU , I ’ m encouraging magnanimity from Brexit supporters .
It ’ s time for big hearts.
” I totally agree .
I understand that people who ’ ve fought for this all their political lives wish to celebrate us leaving .
I ’ m glad we ’ re leaving the EU too .
But let ’ s not have any gloating or outrageous jingoism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very ugly social media posts from ultra-Remainers this week .
Let ’ s not play their game .
Happy Independence Day !
The announcement of a Middle East peace plan ought to be a moment of celebration .
It ought to enable us to feel optimistic about the future .
However , I am afraid that Donald Trump ’ s plan does nothing of the sort .
It is so one-sided and pro-Israel – and offers virtually nothing to the Palestinians – that it is almost risible .
It ’ s dead on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , of course , typical .
Indeed , they denounced it before they even knew what was in it .
The fact that their cynicism was justified is by the by .
The fact remains , however , that each time the Palestinians have been offered the chance of a separate Palestinian state – and there have been eight or nine occasions over the years – they have turned it down .
Until both the Israelis and the Palestinians recognise that neither of them will ever get their perfect scenario , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace agreement will never be possible .
I ’ m depressed to say that I don ’ t see it happening in my lifetime .
As I ’ ve told you before , I ’ ve become addicted to the US political drama series , Madam Secretary .
t ’ s all about a fictional US Secretary of State called Elizabeth McCord , and her battles on US foreign policy and keeping her family on the straight and narrow .
I ’ m 60 episodes in to the total of 120 .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one episode a day , but they do rather good cliffhangers .
Little did I know that this would coincide with me interviewing the real Secretary of State , Mike Pompeo during his visit to London this week .
At the time of writing , it hasn ’ t happened yet , but suffice to say that it ’ s a big deal , both for me and LBC , given he isn ’ t doing any interviews with the BBC .
Or with any other broadcaster to my knowledge .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.
I think that like most people I really struggle with the decision to enable Huawei to be a major part of the 5G project.
This country has cosied up to China for too long. I haven’t ever said this before but, given that David Cameron has said it in his memoirs, I don’t feel I’m doing anything wrong by doing so.
Some time ago, I went on a tour of GCHQ and I was shown a live screen which demonstrated where all our incoming cyber attacks came from. A lot came from Russia. Many came from North Korea. But the majority emanated from China.
Cameron clearly saw the same evidence, as he relates in his book. One assumes that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have the same information, and yet they have seen fit to give the same country – which is addicted to launching cyber attacks on this country – access to our 5G system.
To say that it will only have peripheral access means very little. We are told that the intelligence agencies are all on board with this. Really? If GCHQ is on board, you have to question the logic of their position, give that they know very well China’s role in cyber attacks.
Decisions like this are all about managing risk. We need to know for certain that in any sort of national emergency China or Huawei would not be in a position to shut down our 5G network.
We’ve already sold the pass in other parts of our national infrastructure, such as water and nuclear power. I find it bizarre that on the face of it, we have now handed over parts of 5G to the Chinese too. Having said that, I also understand the need to roll out fast broadband as quickly as possible. This pledge was of course a key part of Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign.
– – – – – – – – – –
The Prime Minister has expended a lot of political capital on Huawei. You might say, well, with a majority of 80, he Prime Minister can afford to do that.
But another big decision looms in the next few weeks, and that is whether the government will continue with HS2. All the signs are that it will. I cannot believe that Steve Barclay and Robert Buckland would have said what they’ve said on the media this week about it without having been tipped the wink. If the decision is ‘yes’, that’s yet more political capital up the swannee.
– – – – – – – – – –
Like Steve Baker, I won’t be attending the Brexit shindig in Parliament Square tonight.
He says: “I will not be on Parliament Sq. Bearing in mind our need to unite this country when many people feel great sorrow about leaving the EU, I’m encouraging magnanimity from Brexit supporters. It’s time for big hearts.”
I totally agree. I understand that people who’ve fought for this all their political lives wish to celebrate us leaving. I’m glad we’re leaving the EU too.
But let’s not have any gloating or outrageous jingoism. We’ve already seen some very ugly social media posts from ultra-Remainers this week. Let’s not play their game. Happy Independence Day!
– – – – – – – – – –
The announcement of a Middle East peace plan ought to be a moment of celebration. It ought to enable us to feel optimistic about the future.
However, I am afraid that Donald Trump’s plan does nothing of the sort. It is so one-sided and pro-Israel – and offers virtually nothing to the Palestinians – that it is almost risible. It’s dead on arrival.
The Palestinian reaction to it was, of course, typical. Indeed, they denounced it before they even knew what was in it. The fact that their cynicism was justified is by the by.
The fact remains, however, that each time the Palestinians have been offered the chance of a separate Palestinian state – and there have been eight or nine occasions over the years – they have turned it down.
Until both the Israelis and the Palestinians recognise that neither of them will ever get their perfect scenario, but will have to entertain compromise, a peace agreement will never be possible. I’m depressed to say that I don’t see it happening in my lifetime.
– – – – – – – – – –
As I’ve told you before, I’ve become addicted to the US political drama series, Madam Secretary.
t’s all about a fictional US Secretary of State called Elizabeth McCord, and her battles on US foreign policy and keeping her family on the straight and narrow.
I’m 60 episodes in to the total of 120. I’m trying to restrict myself to one episode a day, but they do rather good cliffhangers. Little did I know that this would coincide with me interviewing the real Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo during his visit to London this week.
At the time of writing, it hasn’t happened yet, but suffice to say that it’s a big deal, both for me and LBC, given he isn’t doing any interviews with the BBC. Or with any other broadcaster to my knowledge.


conservativehome--2020-01-31--Ben Southwood: Scruton’s final gift – a way to ensure that new buildings are beautiful

A tradition of conservative philosophers from Burke through Chesterton to their successor , the late great Sir Roger Scruton , has emphasised the hidden wisdom in the rituals , traditions , laws , and institutions surrounding us .
Societies tend to slowly evolve a culture that deals with their problems – shocks can push things out of whack for a time , but cultural norms adapt .
According to a groundbreaking report from the government commission which Scruton chaired , the post-war changes to the UK ’ s planning regime were another such shock .
He suggests a few ingenious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for society again , enhancing beauty while providing housing needs .
Readers of ConHome will probably know the story of Sir Roger ’ s chairmanship of the Building Better , Building Beautiful Commission .
Appointed amidst controversy , Scruton was dismissed in April after seeming to make unacceptable remarks in an interview with the New Statesman .
It later transpired that those remarks had been misrepresented : the New Statesman apologised and Scruton was reappointed , only to be diagnosed with lung cancer in the very same week .
Scruton poured his remaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , attending meetings in a wheelchair and working closely on drafting the text with his friend and Co-Chair Nicholas Boys Smith .
I am told that he was still working on the finishing details in the final days of his life .
The result of this labour , entitled Living with Beauty , was published this week .
It is a triumphant vindication of Scruton ’ s appointment and in many ways , a fitting culmination of his life ’ s work , uniting depth of vision with a wealth of empirical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the great issues of our time .
The fundamental thesis is stated in its introduction : ‘ Our proposals aim for long-term investment in which the values that matter to people – beauty , community , history , landscape – are safeguarded .
Hence places , not units ; high streets , not glass bottles ; local design codes , not faceless architecture that could be anywhere ’ .
The report ’ s core insight is that beauty is important .
The aesthetics of buildings affect others : you are forced to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yourself , while you can enjoy beautiful buildings , villages , and towns whose construction you had no part in .
Towns have even larger effects on others : if built well , they free their residents with clean air , public commerce in squares and streets , walkable amenities , and the ability to build community through easy resident interaction .
If built poorly , ‘ green space ’ is forbidding and unused , roads are dangerous and tedious to cross , and commerce encourages anonymity rather than interaction .
Beautiful buildings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Victorian public buildings that survive long after their initial uses have gone .
Ugly buildings are torn down and replaced , at a huge cost .
Scruton argues that , in some ways , the Victorian and Edwardian system served this goal well .
Rules were simple – with six-storey height limits and rules over design , but not much else .
The arrival of new materials , new modes of transport , and new design ideologies changed this .
But the report is no paean to the past .
We can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern materials , or return to the unthinking belief that there is only one possible style in which to build .
Nor ought we to do these things , even if we could .
Instead , we must learn to live with the changes that they have wrought , to preserve the many blessings while overcoming or mitigating the difficulties .
The solution is not to wish away the modern world , but to work to humanise it .
How , though , to build new traditional towns , given the changes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve and expand those we already have ?
And further , how to make sure our cities and suburbs can provide the living space demanded by their larger and richer populations ?
Throwing cash at people is not always enough to get the right sort of changes .
Even if it were , the main current techniques – Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy – don ’ t necessarily mean money where the public actually want it , nor do they guarantee the development will improve , rather than worsen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report proposes forty-five tweaks to the current regime to create a structure that allows us to protect and enhance the beauty we are bequeathed plus make our own contributions for posterity .
By enshrining beauty , it hopes also to raise faith in the planning system and new developments and create more support for development that ameliorates housing shortages in parts of the country .
One suggestion is removing the distinction in the tax system between demolishing constructing new buildings ( which is zero-rated ) and improving or adapting old buildings , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second is that local design codes could be simplified , but based on local tastes and preferences through consultation .
Another could be more transformative .
Since 1947 , homeowners have been mainly banned from extending their properties as they could before then .
The planning system has effectively frozen a particular form of suburbia in place .
It has done this by nationalising the ancient right to extend one ’ s home : even when there is an acute shortage of homes , the planning system effectively bans people from , say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terraces .
This is one of the root causes of the housing shortage , and of the failure of the twentieth century to reproduce the rich fabric of older cities .
This solution of allowing streets to vote on whether residents would all like to have the right to expand their properties , in line with local preferences echoes a recent proposal from Jacob Rees-Mogg , among others .
“ The government should investigate ways of facilitating gentle suburban intensification and mixed use , with the consent of local communities [ and ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in to limited additional permissions , subject to design codes.
” In time , we can repair areas that have become dilapidated ; rejuvenate high streets that have lost custom and strengthen communities .
“ In the older areas of English cities , it is still common that one can walk , not only to shops for groceries and household goods , but to primary and secondary schools , a library , a post office , a church , several pubs and cafés , a war memorial and a town hall .
Neighbourhoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their residents by encouraging walking .
But they also feel different since , to put it simply , they are alive .
In these public spaces , strangers become neighbours , and a community is formed.
” In short , the report shows us how this country can be cherished , not bulldozed ; enhanced , not uglified or preserved in aspic .
Its themes of heritage and community may appeal to conservative minds like those of Robert Jenrick , the Housing Secretary and Esther McVey , the Housing Minister .
So far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain ’ s institutional development has primarily been theoretical .
His final gift is more practical .
In the post-war period , housing policy was socialist : the state erected concrete slab blocks and master-planned New Towns like Stevenage and Basingstoke .
Since the 1980s , the state has stepped back from building new towns or big council blocks , but the housing market has come to be dominated by the likes of Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey .
Scruton ’ s legacy offers an alternative that will allow people to conserve and improve @ @ @ @ @ @

Ben Southwood is an independent researcher.
A tradition of conservative philosophers from Burke through Chesterton to their successor, the late great Sir Roger Scruton, has emphasised the hidden wisdom in the rituals, traditions, laws, and institutions surrounding us. Societies tend to slowly evolve a culture that deals with their problems – shocks can push things out of whack for a time, but cultural norms adapt.
According to a groundbreaking report from the government commission which Scruton chaired, the post-war changes to the UK’s planning regime were another such shock. He suggests a few ingenious tweaks that can make the system work for society again, enhancing beauty while providing housing needs.
Readers of ConHome will probably know the story of Sir Roger’s chairmanship of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. Appointed amidst controversy, Scruton was dismissed in April after seeming to make unacceptable remarks in an interview with the New Statesman. It later transpired that those remarks had been misrepresented: the New Statesman apologised and Scruton was reappointed, only to be diagnosed with lung cancer in the very same week.
Scruton poured his remaining energy into finalising the Commission’s report, attending meetings in a wheelchair and working closely on drafting the text with his friend and Co-Chair Nicholas Boys Smith. I am told that he was still working on the finishing details in the final days of his life.
The result of this labour, entitled Living with Beauty, was published this week. It is a triumphant vindication of Scruton’s appointment and in many ways, a fitting culmination of his life’s work, uniting depth of vision with a wealth of empirical evidence and policy detail on one of the great issues of our time. The fundamental thesis is stated in its introduction:
‘Our proposals aim for long-term investment in which the values that matter to people – beauty, community, history, landscape – are safeguarded. Hence places, not units; high streets, not glass bottles; local design codes, not faceless architecture that could be anywhere’.
The report’s core insight is that beauty is important. The aesthetics of buildings affect others: you are forced to see eyesores whether or not you built them yourself, while you can enjoy beautiful buildings, villages, and towns whose construction you had no part in. Towns have even larger effects on others: if built well, they free their residents with clean air, public commerce in squares and streets, walkable amenities, and the ability to build community through easy resident interaction. If built poorly, ‘green space’ is forbidding and unused, roads are dangerous and tedious to cross, and commerce encourages anonymity rather than interaction.
Beautiful buildings are conserved and adapted, like the Victorian public buildings that survive long after their initial uses have gone. Ugly buildings are torn down and replaced, at a huge cost.
Scruton argues that, in some ways, the Victorian and Edwardian system served this goal well. Rules were simple – with six-storey height limits and rules over design, but not much else. The arrival of new materials, new modes of transport, and new design ideologies changed this. But the report is no paean to the past.
We cannot abolish the car, or work without modern materials, or return to the unthinking belief that there is only one possible style in which to build. Nor ought we to do these things, even if we could. Instead, we must learn to live with the changes that they have wrought, to preserve the many blessings while overcoming or mitigating the difficulties. The solution is not to wish away the modern world, but to work to humanise it.
How, though, to build new traditional towns, given the changes of the 20th century? And how to improve and expand those we already have? And further, how to make sure our cities and suburbs can provide the living space demanded by their larger and richer populations?
Throwing cash at people is not always enough to get the right sort of changes. Even if it were, the main current techniques – Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy – don’t necessarily mean money where the public actually want it, nor do they guarantee the development will improve, rather than worsen, the place overall.
Scruton’s report proposes forty-five tweaks to the current regime to create a structure that allows us to protect and enhance the beauty we are bequeathed plus make our own contributions for posterity. By enshrining beauty, it hopes also to raise faith in the planning system and new developments and create more support for development that ameliorates housing shortages in parts of the country.
One suggestion is removing the distinction in the tax system between demolishing constructing new buildings (which is zero-rated) and improving or adapting old buildings, which faces 20 per cent VAT. A second is that local design codes could be simplified, but based on local tastes and preferences through consultation.
Another could be more transformative. Since 1947, homeowners have been mainly banned from extending their properties as they could before then. The planning system has effectively frozen a particular form of suburbia in place. It has done this by nationalising the ancient right to extend one’s home: even when there is an acute shortage of homes, the planning system effectively bans people from, say, redeveloping their bungalows as five-story Georgian-style terraces. This is one of the root causes of the housing shortage, and of the failure of the twentieth century to reproduce the rich fabric of older cities.
This solution of allowing streets to vote on whether residents would all like to have the right to expand their properties, in line with local preferences echoes a recent proposal from Jacob Rees-Mogg, among others.
“The government should investigate ways of facilitating gentle suburban intensification and mixed use, with the consent of local communities [and] allowing individual streets to vote to opt in to limited additional permissions, subject to design codes.”
In time, we can repair areas that have become dilapidated; rejuvenate high streets that have lost custom and strengthen communities.
“In the older areas of English cities, it is still common that one can walk, not only to shops for groceries and household goods, but to primary and secondary schools, a library, a post office, a church, several pubs and cafés, a war memorial and a town hall. Neighbourhoods like this bring well-known health benefits to their residents by encouraging walking. But they also feel different since, to put it simply, they are alive. In these public spaces, strangers become neighbours, and a community is formed.”
In short, the report shows us how this country can be cherished, not bulldozed; enhanced, not uglified or preserved in aspic. Its themes of heritage and community may appeal to conservative minds like those of Robert Jenrick, the Housing Secretary and Esther McVey, the Housing Minister.
So far, Sir Roger’s contribution to Britain’s institutional development has primarily been theoretical. His final gift is more practical. In the post-war period, housing policy was socialist: the state erected concrete slab blocks and master-planned New Towns like Stevenage and Basingstoke. Since the 1980s, the state has stepped back from building new towns or big council blocks, but the housing market has come to be dominated by the likes of Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey.
Scruton’s legacy offers an alternative that will allow people to conserve and improve the places where they live.


conservativehome--2020-02-03--WATCH: The next stage of Brexit. Johnson says that the UK has “embarked on a great voyage”

“ If we are brave and if we truly commit to… championing global free trade now… we can make a @ @ @ @ @ for Britain , for our European friends and for the world ” PM Boris Johnson @ @ @ @ @ “ embarked ” on a “ great voyage ” https : //t.co/WnstHrHZZA pic.twitter.com/ujSOp26HcS

“If we are brave and if we truly commit to… championing global free trade now… we can make a huge success of this venture for Britain, for our European friends and for the world”
PM Boris Johnson says the UK has now “embarked” on a “great voyage”https://t.co/WnstHrHZZA pic.twitter.com/ujSOp26HcS
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 3, 2020


conservativehome--2020-02-03--Howard Flight: Business rates, childcare, inheritance tax – and reforms we need.

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund , and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury .
One of the criticisms of our bureaucracy is that it takes so long to address tax injustices which are blindingly obvious to citizen tax payers .
I refer to retail property taxes , IHT , the non-allowability of expenses and in particular of child care costs for working mothers ; and lastly , property taxation and VAT .
Perhaps the most pressing is the treatment of local high street shops ’ business rates versus out of town stores @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while high streets are closing down because the businesses – large and small – do not support the prevailing high levels of business rates and rental costs .
Out of town stores should pay a great deal more and high street shops a great deal less tax to achieve a fair balance and to save our high streets .
I believe it was also wrong , and the wrong time , to reduce so substantially the tax deductibility of interest costs on domestic rental incomes .
The provision of much needed accommodation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the buy to let market .
We are moving towards a position where it is no longer an attractive investment and the supply will ebb , because of the sharp reduction in the tax allowance of interest as an expense against rental income .
Recent polls have shown that a significant majority of voters dislike inheritance tax , and think that the 45 per cent flat rate is too high and that the level of £350,000 at which it applies is far too low compared with the US , where IHT only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most citizens would like to get rid of IHT , which I hope the Government will consider seriously .
For British citizens , it is a punishment for saving .
In the meantime , there are also particular aspects which are unfair – for example a brother and sister who have shared the same house for many years ought to be treated the same as a married couple .
At present , when one dies the survivor is often forced to realise their half of the property they have lived in together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suitable alternative housing .
Where both partners in a marriage or relationship work full time , as is now usually the case , ( more women than men are employed ) , any children below school age have to be looked after in some form of nursery .
The Government has partially addressed this issue by providing limited amounts of free nursery facilities – that is if you can get into one near where you live .
The free care may cover the morning , but the afternoon care has to be paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are alarmingly high .
This issue mostly applies to the mothers .
The point is that they can not work without incurring the costs of nursery facilities .
These should surely be a tax-deductible expense .
The individual can not work unless they are paying for childminding services .
Those justifying the present regime have argued that having children is the choice of the parents , and so couples with or without children should be treated alike .
The weakness here is that if everyone decided not to have children , mankind would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applies to self-employed individuals needing to hire an assistant in order to deal with their requirements .
While the individual can not run their business without such assistance , the cost of this is not tax deductible against the employer individual ’ s income , where their remuneration is paid via PAYE .
This means that the individual is having to pay for such assistance out of after-tax income .
Where VAT does and does not apply on building works is a mystery to most people .
It is determined by what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in need of rationalisation , especially as it can affect charities .
This was impossible whilst we were EU members , but could soon be rationalised .
Finally , the television licence is in the news .
The principle ought to be that those who wish to watch the BBC pay a fee for it and those who do not do so , but may watch other channels , do not pay a licence fee .
It ought to be possible to monitor any houses watching the corporation ’ s programmes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can then be billed .
Possibly the easiest way of dealing with people being able to receive the BBC for paying nothing would be for it to be required to copy the type of arrangements which other fee-paying channels already operate ?

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund, and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
One of the criticisms of our bureaucracy is that it takes so long to address tax injustices which are blindingly obvious to citizen tax payers. I refer to retail property taxes, IHT, the non-allowability of expenses and in particular of child care costs for working mothers; and lastly, property taxation and VAT.
Perhaps the most pressing is the treatment of local high street shops’ business rates versus out of town stores property taxation. The latter remains modest, while high streets are closing down because the businesses – large and small – do not support the prevailing high levels of business rates and rental costs. Out of town stores should pay a great deal more and high street shops a great deal less tax to achieve a fair balance and to save our high streets.
I believe it was also wrong, and the wrong time, to reduce so substantially the tax deductibility of interest costs on domestic rental incomes. The provision of much needed accommodation over that last decade has depended substantially on the buy to let market. We are moving towards a position where it is no longer an attractive investment and the supply will ebb, because of the sharp reduction in the tax allowance of interest as an expense against rental income.
Recent polls have shown that a significant majority of voters dislike inheritance tax, and think that the 45 per cent flat rate is too high and that the level of £350,000 at which it applies is far too low compared with the US, where IHT only applies at levels of substantial wealth.
Most citizens would like to get rid of IHT, which I hope the Government will consider seriously. For British citizens, it is a punishment for saving. In the meantime, there are also particular aspects which are unfair – for example a brother and sister who have shared the same house for many years ought to be treated the same as a married couple. At present, when one dies the survivor is often forced to realise their half of the property they have lived in together, and may not be able to afford suitable alternative housing.
Where both partners in a marriage or relationship work full time, as is now usually the case, (more women than men are employed), any children below school age have to be looked after in some form of nursery. The Government has partially addressed this issue by providing limited amounts of free nursery facilities – that is if you can get into one near where you live.
The free care may cover the morning, but the afternoon care has to be paid for, and the costs of it are alarmingly high. This issue mostly applies to the mothers. The point is that they cannot work without incurring the costs of nursery facilities. These should surely be a tax-deductible expense.
The individual cannot work unless they are paying for childminding services. Those justifying the present regime have argued that having children is the choice of the parents, and so couples with or without children should be treated alike. The weakness here is that if everyone decided not to have children, mankind would die out.
Essentially the same issue applies to self-employed individuals needing to hire an assistant in order to deal with their requirements. While the individual cannot run their business without such assistance, the cost of this is not tax deductible against the employer individual’s income, where their remuneration is paid via PAYE. This means that the individual is having to pay for such assistance out of after-tax income.
Where VAT does and does not apply on building works is a mystery to most people. It is determined by what was agreed when we joined the EU and is in need of rationalisation, especially as it can affect charities. This was impossible whilst we were EU members, but could soon be rationalised.
Finally, the television licence is in the news. The principle ought to be that those who wish to watch the BBC pay a fee for it and those who do not do so, but may watch other channels, do not pay a licence fee. It ought to be possible to monitor any houses watching the corporation’s programmes, but not paying the fee, who can then be billed. Possibly the easiest way of dealing with people being able to receive the BBC for paying nothing would be for it to be required to copy the type of arrangements which other fee-paying channels already operate?