conservativehome--2020-12-08--James Frayne: Six ways of boosting local pride and identity

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
In an excellent recent blog , my colleague Andy Westwood of Manchester University called on the Government to pursue a local identity strategy .
In it , he wrote : “ Buying or subsidising a hotel , pier or football club might not sit easily with notions of the role of government , nor a faith in competition rules .
It goes against the grain of markets , state aid and traditional Conservative views of the state .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t attempt such an approach .
But if we really want to care about ‘ place ’ and identity then we should put these objections aside.
” He is right .
Local identity should be a defining part of the Government ’ s “ levelling up ” agenda .
While new investment in infrastructure and education and skills are ultimately what ’ s needed to improve post-industrial areas , local people will have to wait many years to reap the benefits of such policy decisions .
But the Government can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to improve towns and cities by thinking about things through the prism of local identity .
A key question should be : how do we make these towns nicer places to live ?
A simple question – but one which would drive different policy answers to simply asking how we deliver more jobs .
Here is what focus groups tell you people in post-industrial areas want to see .
They say their towns and cities were thriving until the late 1990s , but have been in increasingly rapid decline ever since .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bustling markets are a distant memory , local businesses have moved out , once-great festivals have been downgraded or ceased altogether , community pubs have shut , low-level anti-social behaviour ( like open drug use ) has risen massively , attractive local focal points such as war memorials have been vandalised .
While the sense of malaise in these towns and cities is unmistakable , equally unmistakable is the sense of local pride people have for the places they live in .
People are angry about the state of their towns because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government should be looking to tap into .
This can sound a bit vague and woolly , but it doesn ’ t have to be so .
For a start , it ’ s important to acknowledge that England really is unusual in the intensity of very local identity .
In a tiny country , small towns , often separated by just a few miles , think of themselves as being entirely different from their near-neighbours – and indeed they often sound completely different .
Think of the huge differences between , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miles apart and on paper quite similar , but people who consider themselves to be totally different ; and remarkably , who sound totally different despite being separated by a car journey of half an hour .
Nor does renewing local identity all have to be a 30-year project .
Some parts of such a project , to be clear , does : if you are going to make devolution work , revive major civic institutions and change the role of universities in their place – as well as build major infrastructure – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overnight .
But there ’ s also a lot that can be done in four years , with tangible results .
Here are some illustrative examples of things that a combination of national and local Government might do : • None Keep the streets clean and safe .
As well as generally increasing the visible police presence , pay for security guards to walk through the high street during the hours that the shops are open , and deploy others to walk through local parks .
• .
Everywhere I go , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a fireworks display , a special annual market – that used to bring people together and that disappeared in the last few years .
The Government should help bring them back .
• None For that matter , there should be incentives to restore a local market da y .
Many towns still have the basic infrastructure – and certainly the space – to bring back the sorts of large markets that existed on Saturday mornings and which brought huge commerce to small towns .
This basic infrastructure should be repaired or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades to deliver , but regular , inexpensive buses don ’ t .
• None Invest in those institutions that are delivering leisure services to the local community .
Long Eaton United is an example of a thriving local institution of the kind I ’ m thinking of .
Its training facilities – partly grant-funded – are used to ensure that huge numbers of teams – for men , women , boys and girls – are all able to play .
There are huge numbers of similar clubs across the country who could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As we deliver the levelling up funds and the towns funds , plus the safer streets money , and all of the plethora of pots the government has ( very sensibly ) been putting into these kinds of efforts , government needs to make sure it doesn ’ t just go on long-term infrastructure like broadband , or local economic zones .
Important though these are , the Government needs to ensure they ’ re making a tangible and visible difference to towns .
Without that , no one will give it permission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be honest , this is what people care about most .

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
In an excellent recent blog, my colleague Andy Westwood of Manchester University called on the Government to pursue a local identity strategy.
In it, he wrote: “Buying or subsidising a hotel, pier or football club might not sit easily with notions of the role of government, nor a faith in competition rules. It goes against the grain of markets, state aid and traditional Conservative views of the state. There are lots of arguments about why we shouldn’t attempt such an approach. But if we really want to care about ‘place’ and identity then we should put these objections aside.”
He is right. Local identity should be a defining part of the Government’s “levelling up” agenda. While new investment in infrastructure and education and skills are ultimately what’s needed to improve post-industrial areas, local people will have to wait many years to reap the benefits of such policy decisions.
But the Government can do a lot in a short space of time to improve towns and cities by thinking about things through the prism of local identity. A key question should be: how do we make these towns nicer places to live? A simple question – but one which would drive different policy answers to simply asking how we deliver more jobs.
Here is what focus groups tell you people in post-industrial areas want to see. They say their towns and cities were thriving until the late 1990s, but have been in increasingly rapid decline ever since. Shops have closed on once-busy high streets, bustling markets are a distant memory, local businesses have moved out, once-great festivals have been downgraded or ceased altogether, community pubs have shut, low-level anti-social behaviour (like open drug use) has risen massively, attractive local focal points such as war memorials have been vandalised.
While the sense of malaise in these towns and cities is unmistakable, equally unmistakable is the sense of local pride people have for the places they live in. People are angry about the state of their towns because they love them. This is what the Government should be looking to tap into.
This can sound a bit vague and woolly, but it doesn’t have to be so. For a start, it’s important to acknowledge that England really is unusual in the intensity of very local identity. In a tiny country, small towns, often separated by just a few miles, think of themselves as being entirely different from their near-neighbours – and indeed they often sound completely different.
Think of the huge differences between, say, Mansfield and Rotherham. 25 miles apart and on paper quite similar, but people who consider themselves to be totally different; and remarkably, who sound totally different despite being separated by a car journey of half an hour.
Nor does renewing local identity all have to be a 30-year project. Some parts of such a project, to be clear, does: if you are going to make devolution work, revive major civic institutions and change the role of universities in their place – as well as build major infrastructure – you won’t see the results overnight. But there’s also a lot that can be done in four years, with tangible results. Here are some illustrative examples of things that a combination of national and local Government might do:
Keep the streets clean and safe . As well as generally increasing the visible police presence, pay for security guards to walk through the high street during the hours that the shops are open, and deploy others to walk through local parks.
. As well as generally increasing the visible police presence, pay for security guards to walk through the high street during the hours that the shops are open, and deploy others to walk through local parks. Bring back the events . Everywhere I go, people have a local event – a carnival, a fireworks display, a special annual market – that used to bring people together and that disappeared in the last few years. The Government should help bring them back.
. Everywhere I go, people have a local event – a carnival, a fireworks display, a special annual market – that used to bring people together and that disappeared in the last few years. The Government should help bring them back. For that matter, there should be incentives to restore a local market da y. Many towns still have the basic infrastructure – and certainly the space – to bring back the sorts of large markets that existed on Saturday mornings and which brought huge commerce to small towns. This basic infrastructure should be repaired or rebuilt.
y. Many towns still have the basic infrastructure – and certainly the space – to bring back the sorts of large markets that existed on Saturday mornings and which brought huge commerce to small towns. This basic infrastructure should be repaired or rebuilt. Some transport takes decades to deliver, but regular, inexpensive buses don’t .
. Invest in those institutions that are delivering leisure services to the local community . Long Eaton United is an example of a thriving local institution of the kind I’m thinking of. Its training facilities – partly grant-funded – are used to ensure that huge numbers of teams – for men, women, boys and girls – are all able to play. There are huge numbers of similar clubs across the country who could play a similarly important role locally.
. Long Eaton United is an example of a thriving local institution of the kind I’m thinking of. Its training facilities – partly grant-funded – are used to ensure that huge numbers of teams – for men, women, boys and girls – are all able to play. There are huge numbers of similar clubs across the country who could play a similarly important role locally. Support libraries and local museums . Cultural infrastructure needs funding and supporting.
As we deliver the levelling up funds and the towns funds, plus the safer streets money, and all of the plethora of pots the government has (very sensibly) been putting into these kinds of efforts, government needs to make sure it doesn’t just go on long-term infrastructure like broadband, or local economic zones.
Important though these are, the Government needs to ensure they’re making a tangible and visible difference to towns. Without that, no one will give it permission to do longer term work – and, to be honest, this is what people care about most.


conservativehome--2020-12-08--WATCH: 90-year-old Margaret Keenan becomes the first to receive the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine

90-year-old Margaret Keenan is the first to receive the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine , administered by Matron May Parsons , as UK @ @ @ @ @ https : //t.co/3eBGv3RUsU pic.twitter.com/ltWAL8uDmr

90-year-old Margaret Keenan is the first to receive the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, administered by Matron May Parsons, as UK's mass vaccination programme begins https://t.co/3eBGv3RUsU pic.twitter.com/ltWAL8uDmr
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) December 8, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-08--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of Sport England – 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 Sports Grounds Safety Authority ( SGSA ) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body , The Football Licensing Authority .
The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government ’ s independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three core functions of the SGSA are : to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and Wales to allow them to permit spectators to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification ; provide strategic support for sports grounds , governing bodies and others , both in the UK and internationally ; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance , particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds ( Green Guide ) .
” Time : Up to two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly .
The Regulator plays a key role in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework , and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper .
This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation , leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector .
All of this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new Chair of the regulator .
The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more challenging times , whilst ensuring that going forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor ( and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers ) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board .
The OPA Board Chair sets the Board ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA .
The Chair is responsible for : providing advice to the Sponsor and wider MOD on OPA ’ s strategic direction , objectives and risks , business performance and governance arrangements ; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance , delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management ; ensuring that the Board is effective , including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically through an annual board effectiveness review ; and when considering re-appointments… ” “ The Pensions Regulator ( TPR ) is the public body that protects workplace pensions in the UK .
TPR works with employers and those running pension schemes so that people can save safely for their retirement .
TPR aims to be a strong , visible regulator that builds people ’ s confidence in pensions .
TPR is a public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) .
It has around 750 staff and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Financial Conduct Authority , which regulates personal pension schemes , and with other public bodies .
TPR is responsible for : protecting people ’ s savings in workplace pensions ; improving the way that workplace pension schemes are run ; reducing the risk of pension schemes ending up in the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) ; making sure employers balance the needs of their defined benefit pension scheme with growing their business ; making sure employers enrol their staff into a pension scheme and pay money into it ( known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Applications are encouraged from all sections of the community to help ensure that the Sport England board is representative of the diverse society it serves .
Sport England is a government-funded Non-Departmental Public Body and National Lottery distributor .
It is responsible for supporting , growing and advocating for grassroots sport and physical activity in England in line with its statutory objectives as set out in its Royal Charter .
Its vision is to ensure that everyone , regardless of their age , background or level of ability feels able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it takes its strategic lead from the government ’ s sport and physical activity strategy Sporting Future : A New Strategy for an Active Nation .
The Chair will be responsible for overseeing the final stages of implementation of Sport England ’ s current Towards an Active Nation strategy ( 2017-2021 ) , and the final stages of development and roll-out of its new strategy for 2021-2025 , in close collaboration with the Deputy Chair , Chief Executive , and Executive Team.
” Time : Up to 2 days per week .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( FRC ) is to promote transparency and integrity in business .
These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs , create prosperity and generate economic growth .
The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries .
The FRC also sets standards for accounting , auditing and actuarial work .
As the UK ’ s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promote the quality of corporate reporting and audit .
It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.
” “ UK Shared Business Services Ltd ( UK SBS ) is a non-profit making company limited by shares .
It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money .
The Company provides HR & Payroll , Finance , Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business , Energy & Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) , UK Research and Innovation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clients .
It is recognised by the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting , interesting and challenging time for UK SBS ; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation , delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age.
” “ With rapid progress in the development of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transforming the strategic road network .
They need to demonstrate that they can meet the government ’ s commitment to zero carbon and within its committed timescales .
They also need to exploit the full potential of the digital revolution , both in their delivery , and in communications with road users and stakeholders .
That is why HE are now delivering £27.4 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025 to improve the road network ( RIS2 ) .
This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Highways England at an exciting time , with the opportunity to help shape the future of the organisation and ensure its continued success .
This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for the immediate supply chain , technology and workplace transformation Highways England faces.
” Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee “ The FPC is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability .
The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ Schools Adjudicators are office holders appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to make decisions about a range of matters relating to publicly funded schools in England .
They are statutory office holders appointed under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 .
The main function of the Schools Adjudicators is to rule on objections to and referrals about determined school admission arrangements of all state funded schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions and if they do not conform , in what respect they do not conform… There are currently ten Schools Adjudicators , including the Chief Schools Adjudicator .
They are appointed for their ability to act impartially , independently and objectively .
Their role is to look afresh at all cases referred to them and consider each case on its merits in the light of the legislation , the Statutory Guidance for Decision Makers on Statutory Proposals and the School Admissions Code .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Sports Grounds Safety Authority – Chair
“The Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body, The Football Licensing Authority. The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government’s independent advisor on sports grounds safety. The three core functions of the SGSA are: to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and Wales to allow them to permit spectators to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification; provide strategic support for sports grounds, governing bodies and others, both in the UK and internationally; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance, particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (Green Guide).”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £36,260 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 08 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulator of Social Housing – Chair
“This Government is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly. The Regulator plays a key role in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework, and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper. This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation, leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector. All of this is likely to provide a challenging task for a new Chair of the regulator. The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more challenging times, whilst ensuring that going forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £65,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 13 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Oil & Pipeline Agency – Chair
“The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor (and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board. The OPA Board Chair sets the Board’s agenda and has a personal role in advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA. The Chair is responsible for: providing advice to the Sponsor and wider MOD on OPA’s strategic direction, objectives and risks, business performance and governance arrangements; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance, delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management; ensuring that the Board is effective, including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs, and making recommendations on areas of development, typically through an annual board effectiveness review; and when considering re-appointments…”
Time: 30 days per week.
Remuneration: £27,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pension Agency – Chair
“The Pensions Regulator (TPR) is the public body that protects workplace pensions in the UK. TPR works with employers and those running pension schemes so that people can save safely for their retirement. TPR aims to be a strong, visible regulator that builds people’s confidence in pensions. TPR is a public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It has around 750 staff and is based in Brighton. TPR works closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates personal pension schemes, and with other public bodies. TPR is responsible for: protecting people’s savings in workplace pensions; improving the way that workplace pension schemes are run; reducing the risk of pension schemes ending up in the Pension Protection Fund (PPF); making sure employers balance the needs of their defined benefit pension scheme with growing their business; making sure employers enrol their staff into a pension scheme and pay money into it (known as ‘automatic enrolment’).”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £73,840 per annum.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Sport England – Chair
“Applications are encouraged from all sections of the community to help ensure that the Sport England board is representative of the diverse society it serves. Sport England is a government-funded Non-Departmental Public Body and National Lottery distributor. It is responsible for supporting, growing and advocating for grassroots sport and physical activity in England in line with its statutory objectives as set out in its Royal Charter. Its vision is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their age, background or level of ability feels able to engage in sport and physical activity and it takes its strategic lead from the government’s sport and physical activity strategy Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation. The Chair will be responsible for overseeing the final stages of implementation of Sport England’s current Towards an Active Nation strategy (2017-2021), and the final stages of development and roll-out of its new strategy for 2021-2025, in close collaboration with the Deputy Chair, Chief Executive, and Executive Team.”
Time: Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum.
Closes: 21 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Reporting Council – Chair
“The mission of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is to promote transparency and integrity in business. These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs, create prosperity and generate economic growth. The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries. The FRC also sets standards for accounting, auditing and actuarial work. As the UK’s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors, and takes action where necessary, to promote the quality of corporate reporting and audit. It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.”
Time: 1.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Shared Business Services Ltd – Chair
“UK Shared Business Services Ltd (UK SBS) is a non-profit making company limited by shares. It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money. The Company provides HR & Payroll, Finance, Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and other public sector clients. It is recognised by the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting, interesting and challenging time for UK SBS; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation, delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age.”
Time: Max 36 days per annum.
Remuneration: £575 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Highways England – Chair
“With rapid progress in the development of new technologies, Highways England are modernising and transforming the strategic road network. They need to demonstrate that they can meet the government’s commitment to zero carbon and within its committed timescales. They also need to exploit the full potential of the digital revolution, both in their delivery, and in communications with road users and stakeholders. That is why HE are now delivering £27.4 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025 to improve the road network (RIS2). This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps England moving. You would be joining Highways England at an exciting time, with the opportunity to help shape the future of the organisation and ensure its continued success. This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for the immediate supply chain, technology and workplace transformation Highways England faces.”
Time: 24/27 days per annum
Remuneration: £25,000 per annum/plus £3,000 for chairing.
Closes: 08 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 11 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Schools Adjudicator
“Schools Adjudicators are office holders appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to make decisions about a range of matters relating to publicly funded schools in England. They are statutory office holders appointed under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The main function of the Schools Adjudicators is to rule on objections to and referrals about determined school admission arrangements of all state funded schools; this involves establishing whether or not arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions and if they do not conform, in what respect they do not conform… There are currently ten Schools Adjudicators, including the Chief Schools Adjudicator. They are appointed for their ability to act impartially, independently and objectively. Their role is to look afresh at all cases referred to them and consider each case on its merits in the light of the legislation, the Statutory Guidance for Decision Makers on Statutory Proposals and the School Admissions Code.”
Time: Part-time.
Remuneration: £355 per diem/£58 per hour.
Closes: 29 January


conservativehome--2020-12-08--Johnson to fly to Brussels. Triumph, sellout, last-ditch gamble – or simply showing willing before t

Johnson to fly to Brussels. Triumph, sellout, last-ditch gamble – or simply showing willing before talks collapse?

A deal agreed by Boris Johnson in London and one agreed by him in Brussels ought to turn out much the same .
But that is not how some Conservative MPs will see it .
Neville Chamberlain… ” I hold in my hand a piece of paper ” … ” peace in our time ” .
The former Prime Minister ’ s trip to Munich has a grip on a certain type of Eurosceptic imagination .
So it was that one senior pro-Brexit MP texted ConservativeHome yesterday evening to say “ and lo , it came to pass that Eurosceptics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prelude to a sellout ” .
Our sense is that only a small minority of Tory MPs want No Deal , and are inclined to greet the prospect of a deal with hostility – any deal at all .
Some Brexiteering backbenchers we spoke to yesterday evening were quizzical rather than belligerent , partly because they trust the Prime Minister , and partly because they trust David Frost .
The Frost-and-Oliver-Lewis show has done much to settle the nerves of longtime Eurosceptic Conservative MPs .
Fairly or unfairly , some keep contrasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But much depends for them , reasonably enough , on what any agreement actually says – and , in particular , whether it binds the UK to EU rules in perpetuity .
All the above is founded on the commonsense presumption that there would be no point in the Prime Minister travelling to Brussels were a deal not at least possible .
Some of those set on No Deal will claim that the tale we are reading of a deadlocked negotiation is chaff – a cover for Johnson preparing to claim victory while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is true that the Prime Minister changed his tune on parts of the Withdrawal Agreement – agreeing new regulatory barriers in the Irish Sea that he had previously opposed .
It is also the case that even if Labour doesn ’ t support any agreement , and merely abstains , he would have the numbers to get an agreement through the Commons .
However , the commentary closest to the action insists that the disagreements between the Government and the EU , and within the EU itself , as France and Germany disagree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , divergence between UK and EU rules has been at the heart of Johnson ’ s approach to Brexit long before he resigned from Theresa May ’ s Government over Chequers .
And we do not read him as willing to follow in her footsteps – that ’ s to say , show a willingness to split the Conservative Party , work with a Labour leader…and be duly deposed .
Indeed , there ’ s reason to believe that a Prime Ministerial visit to Brussels may be a sign that we should prepare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for No Deal .
This view of events holds that Johnson wants to show that he wants an agreement before accepting the inevitable : that the negotiating positions of the two sides of the table are now irreconcilable .
One senior Brexiteer told ConservativeHome that , since Ursula von der Leyen ’ s position is closer to Angela Merkel ’ s than Emmanuel Macron ’ s , the Prime Minister may hope to find a way through on that basis .
After all , the President of the European Commission is a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cabinet .
But Michel Barnier might need a new negotiating mandate for there to be substantial movement from the EU side .
We read this morning that the date of the Prime Minister ’ s visit is uncertain : that it may come today , or tomorrow…or after Thursday ’ s EU summit .
He will presumably want to avoid that event altogether , after May ’ s horrendous series of humiliations at similar events during the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations .
Remember the dreadful photo of the former Prime Minister sitting in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for company , being trolled by Donald Tusk on Instagram , and being described ( allegedly ) by Jean-Claude Juncker as “ nebulous ” .
It defies that Eurosceptic imagination to picture Johnson returning from Brussels with no piece of paper and not declaring a deal for our time .
But so it may be yet .

A deal agreed by Boris Johnson in London and one agreed by him in Brussels ought to turn out much the same. But that is not how some Conservative MPs will see it.
Neville Chamberlain…”I hold in my hand a piece of paper”…”peace in our time”. The former Prime Minister’s trip to Munich has a grip on a certain type of Eurosceptic imagination.
So it was that one senior pro-Brexit MP texted ConservativeHome yesterday evening to say “and lo, it came to pass that Eurosceptics began telling me Boris going there is a prelude to a sellout”.
Our sense is that only a small minority of Tory MPs want No Deal, and are inclined to greet the prospect of a deal with hostility – any deal at all.
Some Brexiteering backbenchers we spoke to yesterday evening were quizzical rather than belligerent, partly because they trust the Prime Minister, and partly because they trust David Frost.
The Frost-and-Oliver-Lewis show has done much to settle the nerves of longtime Eurosceptic Conservative MPs. Fairly or unfairly, some keep contrasting it with the Olly Robbins experience.
But much depends for them, reasonably enough, on what any agreement actually says – and, in particular, whether it binds the UK to EU rules in perpetuity.
All the above is founded on the commonsense presumption that there would be no point in the Prime Minister travelling to Brussels were a deal not at least possible.
Some of those set on No Deal will claim that the tale we are reading of a deadlocked negotiation is chaff – a cover for Johnson preparing to claim victory while having actually been defeated.
Now it is true that the Prime Minister changed his tune on parts of the Withdrawal Agreement – agreeing new regulatory barriers in the Irish Sea that he had previously opposed.
It is also the case that even if Labour doesn’t support any agreement, and merely abstains, he would have the numbers to get an agreement through the Commons.
However, the commentary closest to the action insists that the disagreements between the Government and the EU, and within the EU itself, as France and Germany disagree, are real and raw.
Furthermore, divergence between UK and EU rules has been at the heart of Johnson’s approach to Brexit long before he resigned from Theresa May’s Government over Chequers.
And we do not read him as willing to follow in her footsteps – that’s to say, show a willingness to split the Conservative Party, work with a Labour leader…and be duly deposed.
Indeed, there’s reason to believe that a Prime Ministerial visit to Brussels may be a sign that we should prepare ourselves not for a deal, but for No Deal.
This view of events holds that Johnson wants to show that he wants an agreement before accepting the inevitable: that the negotiating positions of the two sides of the table are now irreconcilable.
One senior Brexiteer told ConservativeHome that, since Ursula von der Leyen’s position is closer to Angela Merkel’s than Emmanuel Macron’s, the Prime Minister may hope to find a way through on that basis.
After all, the President of the European Commission is a former Minister of Defence in Merkel’s Cabinet. But Michel Barnier might need a new negotiating mandate for there to be substantial movement from the EU side.
We read this morning that the date of the Prime Minister’s visit is uncertain: that it may come today, or tomorrow…or after Thursday’s EU summit.
He will presumably want to avoid that event altogether, after May’s horrendous series of humiliations at similar events during the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations.
Remember the dreadful photo of the former Prime Minister sitting in a waiting room with only a pot plant for company, being trolled by Donald Tusk on Instagram, and being described (allegedly) by Jean-Claude Juncker as “nebulous”.
It defies that Eurosceptic imagination to picture Johnson returning from Brussels with no piece of paper and not declaring a deal for our time. But so it may be yet.


conservativehome--2020-12-08--Radical: Keira Bell’s case is a national scandal. It should have never taken a court hearing to halt

Radical: Keira Bell’s case is a national scandal. It should have never taken a court hearing to halt the harm of children.

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER , and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome .
She is co-founder of Radical .
She and Victoria Hewson , her co-founder , alternate authorship of this fortnightly column on trans , sex and gender issues , and are co-authors of the article below .
The tide continues to turn .
The judgment handed down in last week ’ s Keira Bell case is the latest example of pushback against the agenda of the gender-identity activists who ’ ve captured our institutions .
Regular readers will know we believe this capture not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents a serious direct threat to some of the most vulnerable members of our society .
Over recent years , many concerns have been raised about the practices of the Gender Identity Development Service ( GIDS ) — the UK clinic addressing the needs of under-18s who experience ‘ difficulties with their gender identity ’ .
Foremost has been concern about the medical interventions GIDS have undertaken on children .
These fall into two categories : the prescription of puberty blockers , from around age 11 , and the prescription of cross-sex hormones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of children referred to GIDS has famously rocketed , with 2,728 children ( between the ages of four to 18 ) referred in 2019-20 .
The Bell case — more formally , Bell and Ors v Tavistock and Portman — represents the culmination of concerns about GIDS , and puberty blockers in particular .
The claimants , Bell ( referred to in the judgment as Quincy ) , and Mrs A ( the mother of a 15-year-old girl ) brought a judicial review against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs to persons under the age of 18 .
Bell , now 23 , had been prescribed these at 16 , then quickly moved on to cross-sex hormones , before a double mastectomy aged 20 .
Soon after , she realised the emotional and mental difficulties she ’ d felt as a teenager were not , after all , a sign that her true ‘ gender identity ’ was male , and thus ‘ solvable ’ with hormones and surgery .
The court case turned on the question of whether children treated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mrs A ’ s daughter — were capable of giving informed consent , in the legal sense , to such interventions .
GIDS , and the NHS trusts that administer these interventions , proceed only if they consider a child is competent to give consent ( it wasn ’ t their practice to proceed on the basis of parental consent alone ) .
The test for competence in English law derives from the 1986 Gillick case , in which it was established that under 18s can consent to treatment if they have sufficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and implications .
In the Bell case , three senior judges found the use of puberty-blocking drugs in treating gender dysphoria to be experimental , to lack a firm evidence-base and clarity of purpose , and to have consequences that are ‘ highly complex and potentially lifelong and life changing in the most fundamental way imaginable ’ .
GIDS had argued that blockers can be stopped , and don ’ t necessarily lead to cross-sex hormones and surgery .
But the court found that , in actuality , taking these drugs almost always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that ‘ once on that pathway it is extremely rare for a child to get off it ’ .
A child would , therefore , need to be able to weigh up not just the immediate ( and poorly understood , even by specialists ) medical consequences of taking blockers , but all the consequences for their future health , relationships , fertility , and sexual function .
Unsurprisingly , the court found it highly unlikely that children aged 13 or under would be able to give informed consent , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A court order will now , therefore , generally be required for blockers to be prescribed to them .
For children aged 16 and over ( where there ’ s a presumption in law they can give consent ) , the capacity for informed consent was considered more plausible , but clinicians will need to apply to the court for consent in cases where there ’ s doubt the treatment will be in the child ’ s long-term best interests .
The judgment is a damning indictment of GIDS ’ clinical practice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of data on the ages of the children they ’ d ‘ treated ’ , on the number or proportion of these children who ’ d been diagnosed with autism or mental-health conditions , and for failing to track the outcomes of their patients into adulthood .
But , if you ’ re thinking these findings might ’ ve led to contrition from GIDS , and all those who ’ ve advocated for these interventions , then you clearly haven ’ t been following these matters .
One of the reasons institutional capture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevents necessary accountability and redress .
Often , legitimate criticism simply can not get through .
And if you ’ ve ever voiced concerns about GIDS , you ’ ll know too well about the personal costs involved in speaking out .
Unsurprisingly , therefore , there ’ s been a serious backlash against the Bell judgment .
Stonewall took a predictable line , and Jolyon Maugham QC compared it to the Holocaust .
Liberty and Amnesty International made emotional claims that showed they hadn ’ t understood the judgment .
Mermaids ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Emily Maitlis for making unsubstantiated claims about suicides amongst gender-dysphoric children .
And the UK ’ s made about puberty blockers that the court had expressly found unsubstantiated .
GIDS itself is continuing a legal action against a former member of staff who raised the alarm about the use of experimental hormone treatments on children .
At Radical , we ’ re saddened and worried that it ’ s taken a court case to call a halt to what is so obviously an example of the exploitation and harm of children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of those referred to gender clinics are particularly so .
Yet their mental health problems have been left undiagnosed and untreated , their bodies subjected to experimental drugs , and their physical and mental development threatened in ways many of them will still fail to understand .
The case vindicates Bell ’ s brave quest to prevent others undergoing the ordeal she ’ s suffered .
And also the work of Transgender Trend — which has tirelessly campaigned to raise awareness , and facilitate open debate about these issues , and was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what ’ s urgently required now is full recognition of the abhorrence of what ’ s been going on .
Because this isn ’ t just about proving consequential harm .
As the judgment shows , children , who can not even consent to these life-changing interventions , have been deemed capable of determining they should take place .
As we ’ ve written before , the problem is not just , therefore , that decisions about these matters are irreversible , or even harmful ; it is that a child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , in a sufficiently reliable manner .
Yes , some children — unlike Bell — may feel grateful in later life for having undergone these interventions , regardless of any personal costs involved , such as the lack of fertility and sexual function .
But if a child is incapable of making a choice , then it is incoherent and wrong to see any preference they may seem to display , as a child , about the matter , as a ‘ choice ’ .
And if a child then goes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened as a result of that ‘ choice ’ , this does nothing to justify the decision of the adults — charged with the child ’ s care — who allowed them to make that ‘ choice ’ .
That this has been happening is an affront to human dignity .
Recognising the harm these children have suffered is vital .
But beyond that is the most basic abnegation of responsibility : parental , clinical , and societal .
And demands for proof of harm are themselves a horrific moral failure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deep wrongness of what has been going on .
Urgent institutional change , proper access to appropriate mental-health treatment , and serious accountability and redress are required — now .

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. She is co-founder of Radical. She and Victoria Hewson, her co-founder, alternate authorship of this fortnightly column on trans, sex and gender issues, and are co-authors of the article below.
The tide continues to turn. The judgment handed down in last week’s Keira Bell case is the latest example of pushback against the agenda of the gender-identity activists who’ve captured our institutions. Regular readers will know we believe this capture not only damages our democratic processes, it represents a serious direct threat to some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Over recent years, many concerns have been raised about the practices of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) — the UK clinic addressing the needs of under-18s who experience ‘difficulties with their gender identity’. Foremost has been concern about the medical interventions GIDS have undertaken on children. These fall into two categories: the prescription of puberty blockers, from around age 11, and the prescription of cross-sex hormones, from age 16. The number of children referred to GIDS has famously rocketed, with 2,728 children (between the ages of four to 18) referred in 2019-20.
The Bell case — more formally, Bell and Ors v Tavistock and Portman — represents the culmination of concerns about GIDS, and puberty blockers in particular. The claimants, Bell (referred to in the judgment as Quincy), and Mrs A (the mother of a 15-year-old girl) brought a judicial review against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, in respect of its practice of prescribing puberty-suppressing drugs to persons under the age of 18. Bell, now 23, had been prescribed these at 16, then quickly moved on to cross-sex hormones, before a double mastectomy aged 20. Soon after, she realised the emotional and mental difficulties she’d felt as a teenager were not, after all, a sign that her true ‘gender identity’ was male, and thus ‘solvable’ with hormones and surgery.
The court case turned on the question of whether children treated by GIDS — such as Bell, and Mrs A’s daughter — were capable of giving informed consent, in the legal sense, to such interventions. GIDS, and the NHS trusts that administer these interventions, proceed only if they consider a child is competent to give consent (it wasn’t their practice to proceed on the basis of parental consent alone). The test for competence in English law derives from the 1986 Gillick case, in which it was established that under 18s can consent to treatment if they have sufficient maturity and intelligence to understand its nature and implications.
In the Bell case, three senior judges found the use of puberty-blocking drugs in treating gender dysphoria to be experimental, to lack a firm evidence-base and clarity of purpose, and to have consequences that are ‘highly complex and potentially lifelong and life changing in the most fundamental way imaginable’.
GIDS had argued that blockers can be stopped, and don’t necessarily lead to cross-sex hormones and surgery. But the court found that, in actuality, taking these drugs almost always puts a child on that medical pathway, and that ‘once on that pathway it is extremely rare for a child to get off it’. A child would, therefore, need to be able to weigh up not just the immediate (and poorly understood, even by specialists) medical consequences of taking blockers, but all the consequences for their future health, relationships, fertility, and sexual function.
Unsurprisingly, the court found it highly unlikely that children aged 13 or under would be able to give informed consent, and doubtful that 14- or 15-year-olds could. A court order will now, therefore, generally be required for blockers to be prescribed to them. For children aged 16 and over (where there’s a presumption in law they can give consent), the capacity for informed consent was considered more plausible, but clinicians will need to apply to the court for consent in cases where there’s doubt the treatment will be in the child’s long-term best interests.
The judgment is a damning indictment of GIDS’ clinical practice. Its clinicians were criticised for their lack of data on the ages of the children they’d ‘treated’, on the number or proportion of these children who’d been diagnosed with autism or mental-health conditions, and for failing to track the outcomes of their patients into adulthood.
But, if you’re thinking these findings might’ve led to contrition from GIDS, and all those who’ve advocated for these interventions, then you clearly haven’t been following these matters. One of the reasons institutional capture is so dangerous, is that it prevents necessary accountability and redress. Often, legitimate criticism simply cannot get through. And if you’ve ever voiced concerns about GIDS, you’ll know too well about the personal costs involved in speaking out.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, there’s been a serious backlash against the Bell judgment. Stonewall took a predictable line, and Jolyon Maugham QC compared it to the Holocaust. Liberty and Amnesty International made emotional claims that showed they hadn’t understood the judgment. Mermaids’ founder was taken to task by Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis for making unsubstantiated claims about suicides amongst gender-dysphoric children. And the UK’s National LBGT Adviser made claims about puberty blockers that the court had expressly found unsubstantiated. GIDS itself is continuing a legal action against a former member of staff who raised the alarm about the use of experimental hormone treatments on children.
At Radical, we’re saddened and worried that it’s taken a court case to call a halt to what is so obviously an example of the exploitation and harm of children. All children are vulnerable, but many of those referred to gender clinics are particularly so. Yet their mental health problems have been left undiagnosed and untreated, their bodies subjected to experimental drugs, and their physical and mental development threatened in ways many of them will still fail to understand.
The case vindicates Bell’s brave quest to prevent others undergoing the ordeal she’s suffered. And also the work of Transgender Trend — which has tirelessly campaigned to raise awareness, and facilitate open debate about these issues, and was allowed to submit evidence in the case.
But what’s urgently required now is full recognition of the abhorrence of what’s been going on. Because this isn’t just about proving consequential harm. As the judgment shows, children, who cannot even consent to these life-changing interventions, have been deemed capable of determining they should take place. As we’ve written before, the problem is not just, therefore, that decisions about these matters are irreversible, or even harmful; it is that a child is incapable of making such a serious decision, in a sufficiently reliable manner.
Yes, some children — unlike Bell — may feel grateful in later life for having undergone these interventions, regardless of any personal costs involved, such as the lack of fertility and sexual function. But if a child is incapable of making a choice, then it is incoherent and wrong to see any preference they may seem to display, as a child, about the matter, as a ‘choice’. And if a child then goes on to feel happy about the consequences of what happened as a result of that ‘choice’, this does nothing to justify the decision of the adults — charged with the child’s care — who allowed them to make that ‘choice’.
That this has been happening is an affront to human dignity. Recognising the harm these children have suffered is vital. But beyond that is the most basic abnegation of responsibility: parental, clinical, and societal. And demands for proof of harm are themselves a horrific moral failure. Nobody should have needed that to know the deep wrongness of what has been going on. Urgent institutional change, proper access to appropriate mental-health treatment, and serious accountability and redress are required — now.


conservativehome--2020-12-08--Tony Devenish: Conservatives can be pro-cyclist and pro-motorist

Tony Devenish is a member of the London Assembly for West Central .
Why have we Conservatives got ourselves in such a mess over cycle lanes , both in London and right across the country ?
There is near unanimity amongst the various left-wing parties and , more importantly , a unanimity of purpose across the unelected , ostensibly impartial , notionally apolitical , public sector leaders that there is a transport ‘ modal ’ hierarchy and motorists are last in line .
They are pressing for more cycling and walking ( which , we should be clear , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective is more sinister .
It is to drive the private motor car and most road traffic – goodbye , white van man – off our roads and tax putatively what remains .
Many actively call cars “ the new tobacco ” .
Londoners who are unfortunate enough to be living in Labour-controlled Boroughs , wonder why they are being ignored in fighting against new LTNs or Low Traffic Neighbourhoods .
I ’ m surprised that the “ Nanny in Chief ” , Labour ’ s Sir Kier Starmer has yet to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he hadn ’ t knocked a cyclist off his bicycle the other week in his gas guzzler , he would have done .
The excuse offered for these LTNs is that they will improve air quality .
This is undermined when air quality fails to improve in London – even during Covid and lockdown – despite Sadiq Khan , the Mayor of London , exercising every tool at his disposal as if he were trying to hurt motorists , businesses , and tourism .
When his policies fail , we are told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why can ’ t they be smarter instead ?
I fully support , for example , freight consolidation centres , which were pioneered during the 2012 Olympics and are being trialled in the West End .
Or more electric buses .
But far too many of the measures being pushed are anti-choice and anti-Conservative .
While the talk is often about discouraging “ unnecessary journeys ” , who decides which journeys are unnecessary ?
I have spent plenty of time since Covid struck listening to devastated grandparents who , having been isolated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been shocked to discover that they are being actively discouraged from driving their loved ones to a favourite High Street over the summer months .
Most 80-year-olds and the disabled will struggle without a car .
I have spent even more time reassuring businesses trying to recover from Covid as authorities actively block motorist customers from visiting struggling shops and offices .
To be clear , retrofitting cycle lanes onto existing road layouts , which in many of our towns and cities haven ’ t changed since the horse and cart gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , is not easy .
Many cycle paths have been – the vast majority agree – ill-considered and implemented at counterproductive speed .
My own local road surface has had to be dug up and re-laid four or five times in the last four years in order to ensure both traffic and cyclists can coexist .
Transport flow is an art not a science .
None of this is new .
The final two years of Boris Johnson ’ s Mayoralty saw an unprecedented growth in cycling provision in London and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 49 per cent higher when he left City Hall in 2016 than it had been when he arrived in 2008 .
I had hoped we would have learnt lessons such as that bedding-in cycle schemes needs to be done with great care , taking the time to take the public with us .
If there is one golden rule in politics , it is surely this : to take the public with you .
This means that if radical change is necessary or desirable , it needs phasing in incredibly carefully .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years to truly expand cycling demand .
In the meantime , the case for building more and more Cycle Superhighways is questionable .
When these double-width cycle lanes , which take so much road surface , are imposed in the wrong place ( such as the Embankment ) it is hard to escape the view that the primary aim under Khan has become to push motorists off the road to accelerate so called “ modal shift ” .
Cycle Quietways are far more in keeping with cycling demand in London .
Public consultation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ tick box ” exercise by those such as the Mayor of London , who only accepts real consultation if it delivers the answer he wants .
It is shameful that , much to Khan ’ s gleeful delight , it was this Conservative Government that in July – as a Covid measure – suspended the need for public consultation for up to 18 months .
An unprecedented and truly chilling decision .
Technology like Zoom shows consultation is actually easier with the nation stuck at home .
Please think again , Grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khan to increase the Congestion Charge to £15 a day and to expand its hours of operation from 7am-6pm weekdays-only to operating seven days a week until 10pm .
Another kick in the teeth for wealth creators .
Khan who knows how to tell a blatant lie then blamed the Government .
It took Alexandra Shulman , the former Editor of Vogue , to ask the question “ when did being a motorist make you Public Enemy Number One ?
” I hope we Conservatives will pause , look in the rear-view mirror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nanny State vote is sown up by Labour and the other statist political parties .
We Conservatives must U-turn and support choice .
We must recognise that for some people and for some journeys it makes sense to drive a motor car – and stop penalising those who make that choice .
The PM ’ s speech on the environment shows the future can embrace electric cars .
We should , in parallel , support the sensible expansion of cycling and walking .
As the PM is so fond of saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .

Tony Devenish is a member of the London Assembly for West Central.
Why have we Conservatives got ourselves in such a mess over cycle lanes, both in London and right across the country?
There is near unanimity amongst the various left-wing parties and, more importantly, a unanimity of purpose across the unelected, ostensibly impartial, notionally apolitical, public sector leaders that there is a transport ‘modal’ hierarchy and motorists are last in line. They are pressing for more cycling and walking (which, we should be clear, is a good thing) but their primary objective is more sinister. It is to drive the private motor car and most road traffic – goodbye, white van man – off our roads and tax putatively what remains.
Many actively call cars “the new tobacco”. Londoners who are unfortunate enough to be living in Labour-controlled Boroughs, wonder why they are being ignored in fighting against new LTNs or Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. I’m surprised that the “Nanny in Chief”, Labour’s Sir Kier Starmer has yet to make a speech on this. Perhaps, if he hadn’t knocked a cyclist off his bicycle the other week in his gas guzzler, he would have done.
The excuse offered for these LTNs is that they will improve air quality. This is undermined when air quality fails to improve in London – even during Covid and lockdown – despite Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, exercising every tool at his disposal as if he were trying to hurt motorists, businesses, and tourism. When his policies fail, we are told we must be “more radical”. Why can’t they be smarter instead? I fully support, for example, freight consolidation centres, which were pioneered during the 2012 Olympics and are being trialled in the West End. Or more electric buses. But far too many of the measures being pushed are anti-choice and anti-Conservative.
While the talk is often about discouraging “unnecessary journeys”, who decides which journeys are unnecessary? I have spent plenty of time since Covid struck listening to devastated grandparents who, having been isolated from their grandchildren during Lockdown One, have been shocked to discover that they are being actively discouraged from driving their loved ones to a favourite High Street over the summer months. Most 80-year-olds and the disabled will struggle without a car. I have spent even more time reassuring businesses trying to recover from Covid as authorities actively block motorist customers from visiting struggling shops and offices.
To be clear, retrofitting cycle lanes onto existing road layouts, which in many of our towns and cities haven’t changed since the horse and cart gave way to the car a hundred years ago, is not easy. Many cycle paths have been – the vast majority agree – ill-considered and implemented at counterproductive speed. My own local road surface has had to be dug up and re-laid four or five times in the last four years in order to ensure both traffic and cyclists can coexist. Transport flow is an art not a science.
None of this is new. The final two years of Boris Johnson’s Mayoralty saw an unprecedented growth in cycling provision in London and the numbers of daily journeys by bike was 49 per cent higher when he left City Hall in 2016 than it had been when he arrived in 2008. I had hoped we would have learnt lessons such as that bedding-in cycle schemes needs to be done with great care, taking the time to take the public with us.
If there is one golden rule in politics, it is surely this: to take the public with you. This means that if radical change is necessary or desirable, it needs phasing in incredibly carefully. Many cyclists openly admit it will take 20 years to truly expand cycling demand. In the meantime, the case for building more and more Cycle Superhighways is questionable. When these double-width cycle lanes, which take so much road surface, are imposed in the wrong place (such as the Embankment) it is hard to escape the view that the primary aim under Khan has become to push motorists off the road to accelerate so called “modal shift”. Cycle Quietways are far more in keeping with cycling demand in London.
Public consultation is far too often used as a “tick box” exercise by those such as the Mayor of London, who only accepts real consultation if it delivers the answer he wants. It is shameful that, much to Khan’s gleeful delight, it was this Conservative Government that in July – as a Covid measure – suspended the need for public consultation for up to 18 months. An unprecedented and truly chilling decision. Technology like Zoom shows consultation is actually easier with the nation stuck at home. Please think again, Grant Shapps.
A lack of consultation allowed Khan to increase the Congestion Charge to £15 a day and to expand its hours of operation from 7am-6pm weekdays-only to operating seven days a week until 10pm. Another kick in the teeth for wealth creators. Khan who knows how to tell a blatant lie then blamed the Government.
It took Alexandra Shulman, the former Editor of Vogue, to ask the question “when did being a motorist make you Public Enemy Number One?” I hope we Conservatives will pause, look in the rear-view mirror at the great British public and decide the Nanny State vote is sown up by Labour and the other statist political parties. We Conservatives must U-turn and support choice. We must recognise that for some people and for some journeys it makes sense to drive a motor car – and stop penalising those who make that choice. The PM’s speech on the environment shows the future can embrace electric cars. We should, in parallel, support the sensible expansion of cycling and walking. As the PM is so fond of saying, we can have our cake and eat it.


conservativehome--2020-12-09--Sarah Elliott: Biden might have won the US election, but Republican victories elsewhere will inhibit

Sarah Elliott: Biden might have won the US election, but Republican victories elsewhere will inhibit his presidency

“ The number one concern… was defunding the police .
We need not ever use the words “ socialist ” or “ socialism ” again .
And if we classify Tuesday as a success , from a congressional standpoint , we are going to get torn apart in 2022.
” These were the impassioned words said by Democratic House member , Representative Abigail Spanberger ( D-VA ) , on the Democratic House caucus post-mortem election call on November 5 .
Not exactly the high-fiving debrief you would expect after keeping control of the US House and beating one ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s because it wasn ’ t a slam-dunk victory night for the Democrats .
There was no blue wave in the legislative races of the House of Representatives or the Senate .
The best they achieved on election night 2020 was a Democratic president in the White House , but one who will find it exceptionally difficult to pass an agenda .
The GOP actually had a great night for the legacy of the party , future elections and solidifying the electability of conservative principles .
In the US House of Representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not lose a single incumbent seat , and only lost three races , with a couple still too close to call but the Republican is leading .
The Democrats , who came into this election cycle with a lead of 36 seats ( after having won 40 in the 2018 midterms ) , have only a narrow lead of five seats , all within the taking for the Republicans come the 2022 midterms , when it ’ s typical for the legislature to switch to the opposite party of the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were defending seats in more Democratic-leaning states , where most analysts felt they would lose their majority .
But tight races such as Joni Ernst in Iowa , Tom Tillis in North Carolina and Susan Collins in Maine all went to the GOP .
Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell survived a tremendous fundraising blitz , each being outspent by $ 30 million , and yet they won decisively .
And now with the two run-off Senate races in Georgia , the Republicans have a strong shot at maintaining control of the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario in a Biden administration is to control the legislature and paralyse him as president .
What should also be noted is that the Republicans maintained 60 per cent of the state legislature races .
It ’ s the first time since 1946 so few chambers have switched hands , and this is massively important when it comes to the redistricting of congressional districts , which will take place in the next year or so .
With Republicans in control of most state legislatures , it means that they will be responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whereas the Democrats only 47 .
This has long-term consequences on future congressional contests .
Thus , this sets up the 2022 midterms nicely , especially since the Grand Ole Party is not as white , male and stale .
The incoming House GOP class is the most diverse freshman class for the Republicans in history .
The majority of those who won are female , there are 18 ( at least ) new GOP women members , and every seat flipped is by either a woman , minority candidate , and or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them will be a BAME representative .
There will be a total of 28 GOP women in the US House and nine GOP women Senators .
All of this reflects a concentrated effort by Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) and National Republican Congressional Committee ( NRCC ) Chairman Representative Tom Emmer ( R-MN ) , instigated by Representative Elise Stefanik ( R-NY ) .
After the Democrats dramatically decreased the number of Republican women in Congress from 23 to 13 in 2018 , and with the rise of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of four House Democratic women ( Omar , Talib , Ocasio-Cortez , Pressley ) , it was a wake-up call for Republicans .
Stefanik led the efforts in the 2018 midterms for female recruitment , and convinced 100 female candidates to run , but only one candidate made it through the primary .
This motivated her to push the NRCC to get involved in the primary process , and make recruiting diverse women a priority for the party .
McCarthy followed her advice , and in an unprecedented move endorsed eleven female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cycle saw ninety-four female GOP candidates through to the general election .
Political action committees ( PACs ) were set up to ensure the funding was there from the primary such as E-PAC , Winning for Women , RightNOW PAC and View PAC .
Now entering the halls of Congress in January are a Ukranian immigrant , the first female graduate from the military academy – the Citadel , single mothers , Greek and Cuban Americans , an Iranian American , and two South Korean immigrants .
All Republican and all women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of two , won her Dallas , Texas suburb seat even though it voted for Biden , and she was outspent by $ 1.5 million .
Maria Elvira Salazar , a former Spanish television broadcaster and daughter of Cuban refugees who fled Castro ’ s Cuba , flipped the Miami seat filled by Democratic-establishment representative Donna Shalala .
Clinton won the district in 2016 by 20 points .
Salazar ran on an anti-socialist and pro-America message .
Tony Gonzales , a Navy veteran , narrowly won a recount in the Texas-Mexican border district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representative Will Hurd .
This district voted for Clinton in 2016 , but with President Trump ’ s and Hurd ’ s endorsement , squeaked by with a win , despite being outspent by $ 4.2 million .
Young Kim and Michelle Steel are the first South Korean immigrants to serve in the US Congress , both women and both hail from California .
In California , the GOP won back four of the seven seats they lost to the Democrats in 2018 .
Representative elect Mike Garcia , a former Navy pilot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won a seat just north of Los Angeles , and David Valadao , a dairy farmer , reclaimed his seat that he lost two years prior .
These candidates were not just successful because of their stories , background , sex or ethnicities , but because of their message too .
They are all staunchly conservative , anti-abortion , for securing the border , anti-socialist , for lowering taxes , and for keeping small businesses open during the pandemic .
These messages worked with independents and Democrats alike .
When the Democratic message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” to defund the police , keep the borders open and allow anyone in without due process , permit abortion up to the 38th-week , look at American history through race only , cancel anyone ’ s livelihood if they disagree with you , dissolve American energy independence , upend the American healthcare industry to a single-payer one , and not offer any new ideas except to tax , spend and keep your businesses shut , Democrats can not expect to win .
This is a good thing .
These are bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
We value our private property , our businesses , our country ’ s constitution , and our freedom .
How refreshing to still see these values are appealing and electable across the party lines .
As Representative Spanberger said , socialism and defunding the police should never be uttered again .
May that be the case and may all politicians take note .

Sarah Elliott is Chair of Republicans Overseas UK.
“The number one concern… was defunding the police. We need not ever use the words “socialist” or “socialism” again. And if we classify Tuesday as a success, from a congressional standpoint, we are going to get torn apart in 2022.”
These were the impassioned words said by Democratic House member, Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), on the Democratic House caucus post-mortem election call on November 5. Not exactly the high-fiving debrief you would expect after keeping control of the US House and beating one’s favourite foe, Donald Trump.
It’s because it wasn’t a slam-dunk victory night for the Democrats. There was no blue wave in the legislative races of the House of Representatives or the Senate. The best they achieved on election night 2020 was a Democratic president in the White House, but one who will find it exceptionally difficult to pass an agenda.
The GOP actually had a great night for the legacy of the party, future elections and solidifying the electability of conservative principles.
In the US House of Representatives, Republicans flipped 14 Democratic-held seats, did not lose a single incumbent seat, and only lost three races, with a couple still too close to call but the Republican is leading. The Democrats, who came into this election cycle with a lead of 36 seats (after having won 40 in the 2018 midterms), have only a narrow lead of five seats, all within the taking for the Republicans come the 2022 midterms, when it’s typical for the legislature to switch to the opposite party of the White House.
In the Senate, the Republicans were defending seats in more Democratic-leaning states, where most analysts felt they would lose their majority. But tight races such as Joni Ernst in Iowa, Tom Tillis in North Carolina and Susan Collins in Maine all went to the GOP. Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell survived a tremendous fundraising blitz, each being outspent by $30 million, and yet they won decisively. And now with the two run-off Senate races in Georgia, the Republicans have a strong shot at maintaining control of the Senate.
For Republicans, the best case scenario in a Biden administration is to control the legislature and paralyse him as president.
What should also be noted is that the Republicans maintained 60 per cent of the state legislature races. It’s the first time since 1946 so few chambers have switched hands, and this is massively important when it comes to the redistricting of congressional districts, which will take place in the next year or so. With Republicans in control of most state legislatures, it means that they will be responsible for determining the boundaries for 175 districts, whereas the Democrats only 47. This has long-term consequences on future congressional contests.
Thus, this sets up the 2022 midterms nicely, especially since the Grand Old Party is not as white, male and stale.
The incoming House GOP class is the most diverse freshman class for the Republicans in history. The majority of those who won are female, there are 18 (at least) new GOP women members, and every seat flipped is by either a woman, minority candidate, and or a veteran. Six to nine of them will be a BAME representative. There will be a total of 28 GOP women in the US House and nine GOP women Senators.
All of this reflects a concentrated effort by Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Representative Tom Emmer (R-MN), instigated by Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY). After the Democrats dramatically decreased the number of Republican women in Congress from 23 to 13 in 2018, and with the rise of “The Squad,” the very progressive-Left group of four House Democratic women (Omar, Talib, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley), it was a wake-up call for Republicans.
Stefanik led the efforts in the 2018 midterms for female recruitment, and convinced 100 female candidates to run, but only one candidate made it through the primary. This motivated her to push the NRCC to get involved in the primary process, and make recruiting diverse women a priority for the party.
McCarthy followed her advice, and in an unprecedented move endorsed eleven female candidates during the primaries. The 2020 cycle saw ninety-four female GOP candidates through to the general election.
Political action committees (PACs) were set up to ensure the funding was there from the primary such as E-PAC, Winning for Women, RightNOW PAC and View PAC.
Now entering the halls of Congress in January are a Ukranian immigrant, the first female graduate from the military academy – the Citadel, single mothers, Greek and Cuban Americans, an Iranian American, and two South Korean immigrants. All Republican and all women.
Beth Van Duyane, a single mother of two, won her Dallas, Texas suburb seat even though it voted for Biden, and she was outspent by $1.5 million.
Maria Elvira Salazar, a former Spanish television broadcaster and daughter of Cuban refugees who fled Castro’s Cuba, flipped the Miami seat filled by Democratic-establishment representative Donna Shalala. Clinton won the district in 2016 by 20 points. Salazar ran on an anti-socialist and pro-America message.
Tony Gonzales, a Navy veteran, narrowly won a recount in the Texas-Mexican border district Texas-23, replacing the retiring African-American GOP representative Will Hurd. This district voted for Clinton in 2016, but with President Trump’s and Hurd’s endorsement, squeaked by with a win, despite being outspent by $4.2 million.
Young Kim and Michelle Steel are the first South Korean immigrants to serve in the US Congress, both women and both hail from California.
In California, the GOP won back four of the seven seats they lost to the Democrats in 2018. Representative elect Mike Garcia, a former Navy pilot and son of a Mexican immigrant, won a seat just north of Los Angeles, and David Valadao, a dairy farmer, reclaimed his seat that he lost two years prior.
These candidates were not just successful because of their stories, background, sex or ethnicities, but because of their message too. They are all staunchly conservative, anti-abortion, for securing the border, anti-socialist, for lowering taxes, and for keeping small businesses open during the pandemic. These messages worked with independents and Democrats alike.
When the Democratic message is “I’m not Trump,” to defund the police, keep the borders open and allow anyone in without due process, permit abortion up to the 38th-week, look at American history through race only, cancel anyone’s livelihood if they disagree with you, dissolve American energy independence, upend the American healthcare industry to a single-payer one, and not offer any new ideas except to tax, spend and keep your businesses shut, Democrats cannot expect to win. This is a good thing. These are bad ideas.
America is not a socialist country. We value our private property, our businesses, our country’s constitution, and our freedom. How refreshing to still see these values are appealing and electable across the party lines.
As Representative Spanberger said, socialism and defunding the police should never be uttered again. May that be the case and may all politicians take note.


conservativehome--2020-12-09--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of Sport England – and more


conservativehome--2020-12-09--Hancock bounces bounces bounces back

Hancock bounces bounces bounces back

Matt Hancock came yesterday to the House of Commons and declared : “ At 6.31 this morning , 90 year-old Margaret Keenan from Enniskillen , who lives in Coventry , became the first person in the world to receive a clinically authorised vaccine for covid-19 .
This marks the start of the NHS ’ s Herculean task to deploy vaccine right across the UK , in line with its founding mission to support people according to clinical need , not ability to pay .
This simple act of vaccination is a tribute to scientific endeavour , human ingenuity and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today marks the start of the fight back against our common enemy , coronavirus.
” Such cheering news was also faintly disconcerting , for we have grown used to Hancock as one of the handful of ministers trusted by Downing Street to take to the airwaves and field question after question about the lethal onward march of the pandemic .
As Health Secretary , he is second only to the Prime Minister as the figure people seek to blame for the many grievous deficiencies in the official response to the crisis , ranging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , through shortages of personal protective equipment , to the appalling deficiencies of the track and trace system and the dodgy use of statistics to justify restrictions on personal liberty .
The British media generally proceeds on the assumption that someone in high office has blundered .
This is a healthy frame of mind , for it helps to ensure ministerial accountability , and to instill the fear of being found out which is one of the most effectual checks on corruption .
Hancock has proved resilient in the face of ferocious criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He ’ s got india-rubber bounce back – if you punch him he just gets up again.
” He received his early training in the George Osborne school of politics , which gave Hancock ( in the words of Janan Ganesh in George Osborne : The Austerity Chancellor , published in 2012 ) “ a pitiless focus on the political bottom line ” .
Unlike many of Osborne ’ s followers , Hancock survived and flourished in the era of Theresa May , who in the summer of 2018 promoted him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill the gap left by Jeremy Hunt , whom she moved to the Foreign Office , to fill the gap left by the resignation of Boris Johnson .
A year later , May was forced out and Hancock entered the crowded race to succeed her , but after receiving the votes of only 20 MPs in the first round , threw in his lot with Johnson and asked to be made Chancellor of the Exchequer .
Johnson conducted a ruthless purge of May ’ s Cabinet , but kept Hancock on as Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and during the pandemic far more arduous .
Hancock , who is still only 42 , communicates a somewhat gauche decency , but is also a highly professional and intensely ambitious man of government , valued by three successive Prime Ministers for his ability to keep the show on the road where others might crumble .
Neither he nor Johnson is especially popular just now with Conservative Party members : in this site ’ s most recent Cabinet League Table the two of them were barely above zero .
But the arrival of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world-beating speed with which the first of these is being administered in this country , could well transform those rankings .
The pandemic has led to astonishing advances , for which the Health Secretary deserves a share of the credit , just as he deserved a share of the blame for the many things which went wrong , so that towards the end of April Hancock was in acute danger of becoming , as this site put it , the Scapecock .
It is a mark of the sudden improvement in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to tell MPs , without a murmur of criticism , that in only eight months ’ time he intends to take some time off : “ It makes me very proud that we have managed to start this vaccination programme sooner than many people anticipated .
People told me that it was not going to be possible and that it was all very difficult .
It has been difficult , but we have got there , and we did so because of international science , working with German scientists and American pharmaceutical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world working on this project .
I have high confidence that the summer of 2021 will be a bright one , without the sorts of restrictions that made the summer of 2020 more restricted .
I have booked my holiday—I am going to Cornwall .
”

Matt Hancock came yesterday to the House of Commons and declared:
“At 6.31 this morning, 90 year-old Margaret Keenan from Enniskillen, who lives in Coventry, became the first person in the world to receive a clinically authorised vaccine for covid-19. This marks the start of the NHS’s Herculean task to deploy vaccine right across the UK, in line with its founding mission to support people according to clinical need, not ability to pay. This simple act of vaccination is a tribute to scientific endeavour, human ingenuity and the hard work of so many people. Today marks the start of the fight back against our common enemy, coronavirus.”
Such cheering news was also faintly disconcerting, for we have grown used to Hancock as one of the handful of ministers trusted by Downing Street to take to the airwaves and field question after question about the lethal onward march of the pandemic.
As Health Secretary, he is second only to the Prime Minister as the figure people seek to blame for the many grievous deficiencies in the official response to the crisis, ranging from care homes abandoned to their fate, through shortages of personal protective equipment, to the appalling deficiencies of the track and trace system and the dodgy use of statistics to justify restrictions on personal liberty.
The British media generally proceeds on the assumption that someone in high office has blundered. This is a healthy frame of mind, for it helps to ensure ministerial accountability, and to instill the fear of being found out which is one of the most effectual checks on corruption.
Hancock has proved resilient in the face of ferocious criticism. As a former minister remarks, “He’s got india-rubber bounce back – if you punch him he just gets up again.”
He received his early training in the George Osborne school of politics, which gave Hancock (in the words of Janan Ganesh in George Osborne: The Austerity Chancellor, published in 2012) “a pitiless focus on the political bottom line”.
Unlike many of Osborne’s followers, Hancock survived and flourished in the era of Theresa May, who in the summer of 2018 promoted him to the post of Health Secretary, to fill the gap left by Jeremy Hunt, whom she moved to the Foreign Office, to fill the gap left by the resignation of Boris Johnson.
A year later, May was forced out and Hancock entered the crowded race to succeed her, but after receiving the votes of only 20 MPs in the first round, threw in his lot with Johnson and asked to be made Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Johnson conducted a ruthless purge of May’s Cabinet, but kept Hancock on as Health Secretary, always an arduous role, and during the pandemic far more arduous.
Hancock, who is still only 42, communicates a somewhat gauche decency, but is also a highly professional and intensely ambitious man of government, valued by three successive Prime Ministers for his ability to keep the show on the road where others might crumble.
Neither he nor Johnson is especially popular just now with Conservative Party members: in this site’s most recent Cabinet League Table the two of them were barely above zero.
But the arrival of several vaccines which work, and the world-beating speed with which the first of these is being administered in this country, could well transform those rankings.
The pandemic has led to astonishing advances, for which the Health Secretary deserves a share of the credit, just as he deserved a share of the blame for the many things which went wrong, so that towards the end of April Hancock was in acute danger of becoming, as this site put it, the Scapecock.
It is a mark of the sudden improvement in the country’s prospects that Hancock was yesterday able to tell MPs, without a murmur of criticism, that in only eight months’ time he intends to take some time off: