conservativehome--2020-09-29--“Project fear” and a “national trauma” – criticisms from Tory backbenchers in the Commons yesterday

Yesterday , MPs took part in a lengthy Commons debate on Coronavirus .
It ’ s clear from the breadth of the concerns they raised that managing the next stage of the crisis will be even more complicated than the first , not least because there is so much more information to go on – and thus positions have changed among MPs as to what ’ s the best strategy for Covid-19 .
Indeed , it was interesting to note that several mentioned columns in The Times and Daily Telegraph during the debate – as well as the articles of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ) , which were referenced by Steve Baker – as sources of inspiration for their evolving perspectives .
While ostensibly it looks as though only a handful of Conservative MPs are sceptical of the Government ’ s latest direction – Desmond Swayne said Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance ’ s recent graph had been “ an attempt to terrify the British people ” and Andrew Lewer criticised the “ dystopian nature of some of these restrictions ” – even the more moderate remarks indicate that a sizeable number of Conservatives are becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the economic effects of lockdown .
Without further ado , here are some of the criticisms that were made yesterday .
Tory MPs that took part in the debate : Perhaps the biggest criticism levelled at the Government by Tory MPs is the lack of Parliamentary scrutiny in decision making : “ If the first duty of Government is to keep people safe , will the Secretary of State remember that the first duty of Parliament is to hold Government to account ?
I know that he wants to take public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore reassure us that he is also determined to take Parliament with him ?
” “ it is about not just scrutiny but the laws we are making .
The laws that came in at midnight , for example , were 12 pages of laws , with lots of detail , criminal offences and duties not mentioned when they were set out in a statement last week…We need to scrutinise the detail of the legislation before it comes into force and give our assent , and not , I am afraid , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it into force by decree.
” The original objective of the legislation has been achieved , but , as so often happens with regulation brought in by Governments , they want to keep it .
They say , “ Oh , we need to keep it just in case.
” That is why , in an Adjournment debate on 2 September , I demanded that if the Government were going to keep the regulations , it should be on the basis that there were proper regulatory impact assessments for them .
We do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is all most unsatisfactory.
” “ The dystopian nature of some of these restrictions has already caused a considerable deal of damage in society .
I recognise the difficult balance and approach the Government had to take , but if we look at some other countries—Sweden , yes , but others too—it becomes evident that there are alternative approaches to controlling the virus without as significant an impact on civil liberties or as damaging an effect on the economy… .
A bonfire of restrictions must be metaphorically set alight… This has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge concerns about how the Government want to progress with the extension of covid laws .
I do not feel it is appropriate that Members of Parliament read about new restrictions in the press—restrictions that cover criminal offences , duties and penalties that can reach up to £10,000—and I am hugely concerned about the role of covid marshals .
I am sent to the House of Commons to represent my constituents in Wealden , and I can not do that if parliamentary democracy is suspended .
“ I have supported the Government on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place as a country , but I feel that this Parliament should be sovereign and we should make some decisions .
It is no good the Government , the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State just saying out there , “ We ’ re going to do this.
” We need to ratify it and we need to agree with it .
I probably would agree with it , but I would like to have a say in what we are doing .
I have had dozens of constituents say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be able to go and see our grandchildren.
” Others criticised the scientific evidence upon which decisions had been made : “ It is very uncomfortable being frightened to death by scientists presenting charts to the nation that they must know are wrong ; that chart last Monday undermined public trust , as it was quite clearly pushing a worst-case scenario without telling us the probability of such a scenario occurring .
Was it designed to instil fear in order to control the public ?
Is that how we want to govern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance of the chiefs last week should have been a sacking offence .
When they presented that graph , it was with the caveat that it was not a prediction , but nevertheless it was clear that they presented it as a plausible scenario , with its 50,000 cases per day by mid-October based on the doubling of infections by the week… It was “ project fear ” .
It was an attempt to terrify the British people , as if they had not been terrified enough.
” And one MP said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of vaccine : “ Fundamentally , we owe it to the British people to be totally honest with them about the situation .
Until we have a vaccine , we are going to be living alongside the threat of the virus and some of those we love may die… [ given there is no vaccine ) , to return to a national lockdown would be not only untenable but wrong.
” There were also worries about the groups of society most affected by Covid measures : “ Many of the poorest members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones who are suffering from lockdowns in different ways .
Would it not therefore be right for this House to debate—quite rightly not to reject all lockdowns , but at least to debate—the different political choices that are being made as these questions are being asked ?
” “ we need more targeted support for women .
Across the globe , women have been more adversely impacted than men by the coronavirus .
We have record numbers of women in work in this country now , but we face critical problems with women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , being made redundant and not being able to get back into work because they are disproportionately represented in those sectors that have been hardest hit.
” Several MPs were more supportive of the Emergency Powers Bill .
“ This country is facing an emergency .
Even the most libertarian of us , and I count myself as such , have to recognise that , on occasion , the Executive must be given room to manoeuvre to make decisions in the moment .
We already have checks , balances and safety mechanisms in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and proportionate .
What the amendment proposes is the equivalent of the House of Commons making Churchill come here to take a vote every time he wanted to send out Spitfires.
” And there were a few optimistic takes… “ we have many things to celebrate in this country about how we have approached the response to this pandemic—not least the brilliant scientific community in this country , which has produced the only known effective treatment for covid-19 and is doing great work on getting us closer to a vaccine .
We like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media like to beat us up—but is not the truth that we have many things that the rest of the world follows us in ?
” “ Against all my instincts—and in the knowledge that I am not the Member of Parliament for dogmatic libertarians across the country , with whom I generally agree , but in fact the MP for Wycombe—I have done the right thing : I have , against my expectations , installed the contact tracing app .
I ran out of excuses , I have installed it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as we speak .
I hope that will be of some reassurance , even to those libertarians who might condemn me for it .
”

Yesterday, MPs took part in a lengthy Commons debate on Coronavirus. It’s clear from the breadth of the concerns they raised that managing the next stage of the crisis will be even more complicated than the first, not least because there is so much more information to go on – and thus positions have changed among MPs as to what’s the best strategy for Covid-19. Indeed, it was interesting to note that several mentioned columns in The Times and Daily Telegraph during the debate – as well as the articles of Dr Raghib Ali (published on ConservativeHome here), which were referenced by Steve Baker – as sources of inspiration for their evolving perspectives.
While ostensibly it looks as though only a handful of Conservative MPs are sceptical of the Government’s latest direction – Desmond Swayne said Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance’s recent graph had been “an attempt to terrify the British people” and Andrew Lewer criticised the “dystopian nature of some of these restrictions” – even the more moderate remarks indicate that a sizeable number of Conservatives are becoming increasingly wary of the Emergency Powers Bill, and the economic effects of lockdown. Without further ado, here are some of the criticisms that were made yesterday.
Tory MPs that took part in the debate:
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) Steve Brine (Winchester) John Redwood (Wokingham) Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) Lucy Allan (Telford) Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) Pauline Latham (Mid Derybyshire) Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) Maria Miller (Basingstoke) Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) Bill Wiggin (North Hertfordshire) Mark Pawsey (Rugby) Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) Richard Drax (South Dorset) Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) – slightly critical Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) Jacob Young (Redcar) Peter Gibson (Darlington) Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) Felicity Buchan (Kensington) Rob Butler (Aylesbury) Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) James Daly (Bury North) Selaine Saxby (North Devon) Richard Holden (North West Durham) Dean Russell (Watford) Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) David Amess (Southend West)
Perhaps the biggest criticism levelled at the Government by Tory MPs is the lack of Parliamentary scrutiny in decision making:
Edward Leigh:
“If the first duty of Government is to keep people safe, will the Secretary of State remember that the first duty of Parliament is to hold Government to account? I know that he wants to take public opinion with him, but will he therefore reassure us that he is also determined to take Parliament with him?”
Mark Harper:
“it is about not just scrutiny but the laws we are making. The laws that came in at midnight, for example, were 12 pages of laws, with lots of detail, criminal offences and duties not mentioned when they were set out in a statement last week…We need to scrutinise the detail of the legislation before it comes into force and give our assent, and not, I am afraid, just allow the Secretary of State to put it into force by decree.”
Christopher Chope:
The original objective of the legislation has been achieved, but, as so often happens with regulation brought in by Governments, they want to keep it. They say, “Oh, we need to keep it just in case.” That is why, in an Adjournment debate on 2 September, I demanded that if the Government were going to keep the regulations, it should be on the basis that there were proper regulatory impact assessments for them. We do not have those regulatory impact assessments. It is all most unsatisfactory.”
Andrew Lewer:
“The dystopian nature of some of these restrictions has already caused a considerable deal of damage in society. I recognise the difficult balance and approach the Government had to take, but if we look at some other countries—Sweden, yes, but others too—it becomes evident that there are alternative approaches to controlling the virus without as significant an impact on civil liberties or as damaging an effect on the economy…. A bonfire of restrictions must be metaphorically set alight… This has been a national trauma.”
Nusrat Ghani:
“I have huge concerns about how the Government want to progress with the extension of covid laws. I do not feel it is appropriate that Members of Parliament read about new restrictions in the press—restrictions that cover criminal offences, duties and penalties that can reach up to £10,000—and I am hugely concerned about the role of covid marshals. I am sent to the House of Commons to represent my constituents in Wealden, and I cannot do that if parliamentary democracy is suspended.
Pauline Latham:
“I have supported the Government on the new measures that we have put in place as a country, but I feel that this Parliament should be sovereign and we should make some decisions. It is no good the Government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State just saying out there, “We’re going to do this.” We need to ratify it and we need to agree with it. I probably would agree with it, but I would like to have a say in what we are doing. I have had dozens of constituents say, “Enough is enough. We want to be able to go and see our grandchildren.”
Others criticised the scientific evidence upon which decisions had been made:
Lucy Allen:
“It is very uncomfortable being frightened to death by scientists presenting charts to the nation that they must know are wrong; that chart last Monday undermined public trust, as it was quite clearly pushing a worst-case scenario without telling us the probability of such a scenario occurring. Was it designed to instil fear in order to control the public? Is that how we want to govern?”
Desmond Swayne
“I believe that the appearance of the chiefs last week should have been a sacking offence. When they presented that graph, it was with the caveat that it was not a prediction, but nevertheless it was clear that they presented it as a plausible scenario, with its 50,000 cases per day by mid-October based on the doubling of infections by the week… It was “project fear”. It was an attempt to terrify the British people, as if they had not been terrified enough.”
And one MP said it was time to be honest about the lack of vaccine:
Simon Clarke:
“Fundamentally, we owe it to the British people to be totally honest with them about the situation. Until we have a vaccine, we are going to be living alongside the threat of the virus and some of those we love may die… [given there is no vaccine), to return to a national lockdown would be not only untenable but wrong.”
There were also worries about the groups of society most affected by Covid measures:
Tom Tugendhat:
“Many of the poorest members of the communities I represent are the ones who are suffering from lockdowns in different ways. Would it not therefore be right for this House to debate—quite rightly not to reject all lockdowns, but at least to debate—the different political choices that are being made as these questions are being asked?”
Maria Miller:
“we need more targeted support for women. Across the globe, women have been more adversely impacted than men by the coronavirus. We have record numbers of women in work in this country now, but we face critical problems with women, particularly pregnant women and new mums, being made redundant and not being able to get back into work because they are disproportionately represented in those sectors that have been hardest hit.”
Several MPs were more supportive of the Emergency Powers Bill.
Chris Clarkson:
“This country is facing an emergency. Even the most libertarian of us, and I count myself as such, have to recognise that, on occasion, the Executive must be given room to manoeuvre to make decisions in the moment. We already have checks, balances and safety mechanisms in place to ensure that decisions are appropriate and proportionate. What the amendment proposes is the equivalent of the House of Commons making Churchill come here to take a vote every time he wanted to send out Spitfires.”
And there were a few optimistic takes…
Steve Brine:
“we have many things to celebrate in this country about how we have approached the response to this pandemic—not least the brilliant scientific community in this country, which has produced the only known effective treatment for covid-19 and is doing great work on getting us closer to a vaccine. We like to beat ourselves up—or, rather, the media like to beat us up—but is not the truth that we have many things that the rest of the world follows us in?”
… even around contact tracing:
Steve Baker:
“Against all my instincts—and in the knowledge that I am not the Member of Parliament for dogmatic libertarians across the country, with whom I generally agree, but in fact the MP for Wycombe—I have done the right thing: I have, against my expectations, installed the contact tracing app. I ran out of excuses, I have installed it, and I am allowing it to run even as we speak. I hope that will be of some reassurance, even to those libertarians who might condemn me for it.”


conservativehome--2020-09-29--Calling Tories: New public appointments announced. Chair of the East West Railway Company – 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 .
“ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report.
” “ As we approach life outside of the EU , Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity .
As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry .
The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone ( EEZ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers .
Given this period of great change , the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish , working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.
” “ Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation ?
Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations ?
Then look no further than the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry , delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford , Milton Keynes , Bedford and Cambridge and places in between .
The East West Railway Company ( EWR Co ) was set up as a company in 2017 , and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018 .
It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities , as well as reducing journey times , congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.
” “ The role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes ; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following : strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ Help us make a better future for people and the environment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction .
This includes enabling a high standard of discussion ; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government ; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles ; Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills , experience and outlook ; offering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan ; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.
” “ Formed in 2009 , and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body ( NDPB ) since 2012 , the RPC ’ s role is to provide Government with external , independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures .
It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing so , helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses , civil society , charities and other non-government organisations .
The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department ’ s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members , who provide robust and objective advice to government , parliament , and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigates the most serious and sensitive incidents and allegations involving the police in England and Wales. It also oversees the police complaints system, and sets the standards by which the police handle complaints. The IOPC carries out hundreds of investigations into incidents and allegations involving the police each year. These include investigations into: deaths or serious injuries during or following police custody; police shootings; allegations of use of excessive force. The IOPC is seeking up to six non-executive board members, including one Senior Independent Director. The responsibilities of the non-executive members will include ensuring robust governance and financial management of the organisation; setting and promoting the strategic aims and values of the IOPC; providing support, advice and constructive challenge to the Director General in the carrying out of his/her functions; and monitoring and reviewing organisational performance and contributing to the efficient and effective running of the IOPC.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Sea Fish Industry Authority – Chair
“As we approach life outside of the EU, Seafish will play a pivotal role in navigating the UK seafood industry through this once-in-a-life-time opportunity. As a non-departmental public body Seafish supports our ambitious vision for sustainably managed seas while securing a profitable future for all sectors of the seafood industry. The effective care and management of waters in our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and the precious resources within it, is critical to ensuring our fishing and seafood industry grows sustainably to meet the demands of consumers. Given this period of great change, the successful candidate will provide vision and strong strategic leadership to Seafish, working collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 16 October
– – – – – – – – – –
East West Railway Company – Chair
“Looking for a new and exhilarating challenge leading a visionary UK based infrastructure delivery organisation? Excited by the thought of positively challenging industry norms and inspiring a team to surpass customer expectations? Then look no further than the opportunity to chair the Board of the East West Railway Company – a company at the forefront of the changing landscape of the rail industry, delivering a multi-billion pound rail link with services connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge and places in between. The East West Railway Company (EWR Co) was set up as a company in 2017, and constituted as an arms-length body of the Department for Transport in September 2018. It was created to drive forward the delivery of the East West Rail project – a new direct line, providing much-needed East West connectivity to unlock the economic potential of the Oxford Cambridge Arc – supporting new jobs and communities, as well as reducing journey times, congestion and travel costs for residents and commuters.”
Time: 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Policy Committee – Chair
“Formed in 2009, and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) since 2012, the RPC’s role is to provide Government with external, independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures. It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals, and by doing so, helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department’s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members, who provide robust and objective advice to government, parliament, and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 25 October


conservativehome--2020-09-30--The 56 Conservative MPs backing Brady’s amendment on coronavirus regulations

“ Line [ 1 ] , leave out from “ expire ” to end and add “ provided Ministers ensure @ @ @ @ @ practicable that in the exercise of their powers to tackle the pandemic under the Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ legislation , including for example part 2A of the Public Health ( Control of Disease @ @ @ @ @ has an opportunity to debate and vote upon any secondary legislation with effect in the @ @ @ @ @ whole United Kingdom before it comes into effect .
”

Updated September 29
Amendment: Prior parliamentary scrutiny of major national coronavirus regulations
“Line [1], leave out from “expire” to end and add “provided Ministers ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that in the exercise of their powers to tackle the pandemic under the Coronavirus Act 2020 and other primary legislation, including for example part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, Parliament has an opportunity to debate and vote upon any secondary legislation with effect in the whole of England or the whole United Kingdom before it comes into effect.”
Sir Graham Brady
John Cryer
David Davis
Harriet Harman
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
John Spellar
Other signatories:
Conservatives:
Steve Baker
Harriet Baldwin
Bob Blackman
Peter Bone
Andrew Bridgen
Paul Bristow
Christopher Chope
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
James Daly
Philip Davies
Dehenna Davison
Jonathan Djanogly
Jackie Doyle-Price
Richard Drax
George Freeman
Richard Fuller
Sir Roger Gale
Nus Ghani
Cheryl Gillan
James Gray
Damian Green
Sally-Ann Hart
John Hayes
Philip Hollobone
Tom Hunt
Bernard Jenkin
David Jones
Daniel Kawczynski
Pauline Latham
Edward Leigh
Chris Loder
Tim Loughton
Craig Mackinlay
Karl McCartney
Stephen McPartland
Esther McVey
Stephen Metcalfe new
Huw Merriman
Bob Neil
John Redwood
Laurence Robertson
Bob Seely
Henry Smith
David Simmonds
Greg Smith
Sir Robert Syms
Julian Sturdy
Craig Tracey
Tom Tugendhat
Charles Walker


conservativehome--2020-09-30--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the East West Railway Company – a

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the East West Railway Company – and more


conservativehome--2020-09-30--A Conservative leader can afford to take on his left or his right – but not the 1922 Committee’s Exe

A Conservative leader can afford to take on his left or his right – but not the 1922 Committee’s Executive

It may be that Lindsay Hoyle calls Graham Brady ’ s amendment during today ’ s debate on the Coronavirus Act .
If he does , the Government will make concessions ; if he doesn ’ t , it will doubtless make some , but fewer than otherwise – because it will be under less pressure to do so in the absence of a vote .
Either way , the 1922 Committee Chairman will step out of the headlines and into the shadows , at least for a while but , before he does so , it ’ s worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see internal opposition to the Government being led by a ’ 22 Chairman .
The five who preceded Brady were : Michael Spicer , Archie Hamilton , Marcus Fox , Cranley Oslow and Edward Du Cann .
The last stands out as having had ambitions of his own – he was tipped at one point to succeed Edward Heath as Party leader – but otherwise the names have a certain flavour .
None habitually stepped forward into the public spotlight , and most were quietly supportive of the Conservative leader of the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ function .
It would be wrong to say that Brady is unsupportive of Boris Johnson , but a change in the relationship between the leadership and the ’ 22 has gradually been taking place .
Brady ’ s is the world of colleagues , consultations , courtesy , the Party Board , understatement , experience , due process and long , slow marination in the culture of the Party over many years .
The Prime Minister has been a feature of public life for a long time too , first entering the Commons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a very different animal .
His is the world of Have I Got News For You , writing books , the Spectator , leaving Parliament altogether for a period and the Daily Telegraph , not necessarily in that order .
He was a celebrity before entering the Commons – which is rare among MPs , though certainly not unique .
Unlike many fellow Conservative MPs , he didn ’ t come up through the ranks , as a local activist or councillor .
( “ Almost half of the Class of 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before , and almost as many had served as councillors or mayors , ” Henry Hill writes in his study of the new intake .
This would matter less were Johnson a “ House of Commons man ” , as the saying goes .
As a performer at the Despatch Box , he has learned much and is now strong , though uneven – and sometimes very powerful , as so often before last year ’ s general election .
None the less , the platform , where he can orate to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chamber , where he must convere with other MPs as equals , is where he ’ s most at home .
He was never at ease speaking from the backbenches .
He will also now be across the names and backgrounds of lots of his colleagues , but though gregarious he is also a loner – not remotely a Gavin Williamson , say , when it comes to knowing who they are , and keeping abreast of what they ’ re up to .
Furthermore , he ’ s not a details man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the lockdown rules in the North-East reminds us .
This doesn ’ t mean he can ’ t master them : indeed , Ministers report that he will sometimes phone them and probe them , pushing and prodding away at a problem until he feels he ’ s got to the heart of it .
But you get the picture .
On the one hand , you have something like a club .
On the other , someone who ’ s never quite been part of it .
Tension between Tory leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hills , or older .
That Johnson is at odds with some of them , given the challenge of a pandemic , is in some ways not remotely surprising .
Nor is he the first leader with whom Brady and the ’ 22 has had a tense relationship .
The Coalition was a testing time for Conservative MPs , because they were sharing government with another party .
So the back-and-forth between Brady and David Cameron was sometimes strained .
That the early Cameron period followed the Tony Blair playbook with the leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pick fights with its own core supporters didn ’ t exactly help – especially once the transition had been made from oppostion to government .
It may be significant that the biggest and most internally fractious of those confrontations , in opposition , was over grammar schools .
Brady resigned from Camerons ’ front bench in consequence .
So the trail of events that has led to today ’ s debate is a long one .
The essence of it was summed up by Charles Walker , one of the ’ 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commons debate on the UK Internal Market Bill .
“ If you keep whacking a dog , don ’ t be surprised when it bites you back , ” he said .
Walker has become over a bit of a shop steward for Tory MPs , representing their interests and concerns to the leadership .
He doesn ’ t speak for all of them , but for some of the more experienced ones , especially , his words will have struck a chord .
Many of them are sensitive to the gradual decline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an MP until fairly recently – see in passing the expenses scandal ; media pressure on families ; the fall in party membership figures over time ; the rise of Twitter and Facebook ; the squeeze on outside interests and faster Conservative MP turnover in safer seats .
That last has been high among Tory women MPs compared to their proportion of the whole ; meanwhile , there is an undercurrent of complaint among some male Tory MPs of their promotion chances being lessened by the determination of successive leaderships to appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister can take on his Party ’ s left or his right from time to time .
But he can ’ t take on a coalition of both at the same time – especially when it ’ s backed by the ’ 22 , or senior ex-Ministers in numbers , or both .
We close with two examples .
First , Huawei .
The 38 Tory MPs who rebelled over its 5G role during the Telecommunications Bill included : Damian Green , Iain Duncan Smith , David Davis , Liam Fox , Owen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s five former Cabinet Ministers and two senior Select Committee chairmen .
( Plus Brady , by the way . )
That ’ s also a spread of opinion which spans the Parliamentary Party .
Next , there ’ s the Brady amendment itself .
Green , Duncan Smith , Tugendhat and Neil have signed it too , as have other backbenchers ranging , in terms of Party opinion , from John Redwood to Richard Fuller ; from Esther McVey to George Freeman .
As David Gauke wrote last Saturday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at odds with his right , as the weeks pass , on both the Coronavirus and Brexit .
But the biggest management challenge to him doesn ’ t spring from Government policy , but from Parliamentary culture – and dogs that no longer bark only , but bite too .

spiceIt may be that Lindsay Hoyle calls Graham Brady’s amendment during today’s debate on the Coronavirus Act. If he does, the Government will make concessions; if he doesn’t, it will doubtless make some, but fewer than otherwise – because it will be under less pressure to do so in the absence of a vote.
Either way, the 1922 Committee Chairman will step out of the headlines and into the shadows, at least for a while but, before he does so, it’s worth reflecting on how ominous it is to see internal opposition to the Government being led by a ’22 Chairman.
The five who preceded Brady were: Michael Spicer, Archie Hamilton, Marcus Fox, Cranley Oslow and Edward Du Cann. The last stands out as having had ambitions of his own – he was tipped at one point to succeed Edward Heath as Party leader – but otherwise the names have a certain flavour.
None habitually stepped forward into the public spotlight, and most were quietly supportive of the Conservative leader of the day, seeing this as part of their function. It would be wrong to say that Brady is unsupportive of Boris Johnson, but a change in the relationship between the leadership and the ’22 has gradually been taking place.
Brady’s is the world of colleagues, consultations, courtesy, the Party Board, understatement, experience, due process and long, slow marination in the culture of the Party over many years.
The Prime Minister has been a feature of public life for a long time too, first entering the Commons almost 20 years ago. But he is a very different animal.
His is the world of Have I Got News For You, writing books, the Spectator, leaving Parliament altogether for a period and the Daily Telegraph, not necessarily in that order. He was a celebrity before entering the Commons – which is rare among MPs, though certainly not unique.
Unlike many fellow Conservative MPs, he didn’t come up through the ranks, as a local activist or councillor. (“Almost half of the Class of 2019 had fought at least one general election before, and almost as many had served as councillors or mayors,” Henry Hill writes in his study of the new intake.
This would matter less were Johnson a “House of Commons man”, as the saying goes. As a performer at the Despatch Box, he has learned much and is now strong, though uneven – and sometimes very powerful, as so often before last year’s general election.
None the less, the platform, where he can orate to a crowd from a podium, not the Chamber, where he must convere with other MPs as equals, is where he’s most at home. He was never at ease speaking from the backbenches.
He will also now be across the names and backgrounds of lots of his colleagues, but though gregarious he is also a loner – not remotely a Gavin Williamson, say, when it comes to knowing who they are, and keeping abreast of what they’re up to.
Furthermore, he’s not a details man either – as yesterday’s cock-up over the lockdown rules in the North-East reminds us. This doesn’t mean he can’t master them: indeed, Ministers report that he will sometimes phone them and probe them, pushing and prodding away at a problem until he feels he’s got to the heart of it.
But you get the picture. On the one hand, you have something like a club. On the other, someone who’s never quite been part of it.
Tension between Tory leaders and backbenchers is as old as the hills, or older. That Johnson is at odds with some of them, given the challenge of a pandemic, is in some ways not remotely surprising.
Nor is he the first leader with whom Brady and the ’22 has had a tense relationship. The Coalition was a testing time for Conservative MPs, because they were sharing government with another party. So the back-and-forth between Brady and David Cameron was sometimes strained.
That the early Cameron period followed the Tony Blair playbook with the leadership prepared, if not actually eager, to pick fights with its own core supporters didn’t exactly help – especially once the transition had been made from oppostion to government.
It may be significant that the biggest and most internally fractious of those confrontations, in opposition, was over grammar schools. Brady resigned from Camerons’ front bench in consequence. So the trail of events that has led to today’s debate is a long one.
The essence of it was summed up by Charles Walker, one of the ’22’s Vice-Chairmen, during a recent Commons debate on the UK Internal Market Bill. “If you keep whacking a dog, don’t be surprised when it bites you back,” he said.
Walker has become over a bit of a shop steward for Tory MPs, representing their interests and concerns to the leadership. He doesn’t speak for all of them, but for some of the more experienced ones, especially, his words will have struck a chord.
Many of them are sensitive to the gradual decline in the status that came with serving as an MP until fairly recently – see in passing the expenses scandal; media pressure on families; the fall in party membership figures over time; the rise of Twitter and Facebook; the squeeze on outside interests and faster Conservative MP turnover in safer seats.
That last has been high among Tory women MPs compared to their proportion of the whole; meanwhile, there is an undercurrent of complaint among some male Tory MPs of their promotion chances being lessened by the determination of successive leaderships to appoint more women Ministers.
A Conservative Prime Minister can take on his Party’s left or his right from time to time. But he can’t take on a coalition of both at the same time – especially when it’s backed by the ’22, or senior ex-Ministers in numbers, or both. We close with two examples.
First, Huawei. The 38 Tory MPs who rebelled over its 5G role during the Telecommunications Bill included: Damian Green, Iain Duncan Smith, David Davis, Liam Fox, Owen Paterson, Tom Tugendhat and Bob Neill. That’s five former Cabinet Ministers and two senior Select Committee chairmen. (Plus Brady, by the way.)
That’s also a spread of opinion which spans the Parliamentary Party. Next, there’s the Brady amendment itself. Green, Duncan Smith, Tugendhat and Neill have signed it too, as have other backbenchers ranging, in terms of Party opinion, from John Redwood to Richard Fuller; from Esther McVey to George Freeman.
As David Gauke wrote last Saturday, the Prime Minister could find himself at odds with his right, as the weeks pass, on both the Coronavirus and Brexit. But the biggest management challenge to him doesn’t spring from Government policy, but from Parliamentary culture – and dogs that no longer bark only, but bite too.


conservativehome--2020-09-30--Daniel Hannan: Clever, inquisitive and, crucially, independent, Charles Moore would be the perfect B

Daniel Hannan: Clever, inquisitive and, crucially, independent, Charles Moore would be the perfect BBC chairman

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
Charles Moore is everything a BBC chairman should be : clever , inquisitive , independent , humane , well-read , polite , patriotic , broad-minded and generous to his critics .
During the golden age of newspapers – roughly the years between the new technology brought in following the Wapping dispute in the late 1980s and the rise of online journalism in the early 2000s – he led the editorial field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ styles were very different , was The Daily Mail ’ s Paul Dacre , now being mooted as the next head of Ofcom .
In the interests of full disclosure , I have worked for both men .
I don ’ t know Dacre well , but even slight acquaintance is enough to reveal the secret of his success , namely an unparalleled ability to speak to and for ordinary people .
At a time when other newspapers were going online or throwing themselves on the generosity of patrons , Dacre ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A newsman to his fingertips , he filled the editor ’ s chair with his restless energy and curiosity .
With almost all media struggling to make money , he is exactly the regulator we need : fair-minded , diligent and committed in his bones to freedom of speech .
I know Moore rather better , having spent seven years working for him at The Daily Telegraph .
He was , as any Telegraph writer of that era will attest , a wonderful boss .
Patiently and intelligently , he improved every section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pages to the weekly children ’ s pull-out section .
He always stood by his people – he once went to war against the Prince of Wales ’ s office because it had treated a Telegraph photographer badly – yet he was impervious to flattery .
The newspaper he edited reflected his voracious interests .
He cared a great deal about accuracy , and hired several Labour-leaning lobby correspondents – perhaps on the principle that a Leftist reporter on a Rightist paper would always strive to be objective .
The BBC stands to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did at each of his newspapers , he will take a benign interest in every aspect of programming , from comedy to cookery .
He will ensure that the Corporation gets a sympathetic hearing in Downing Street .
He will steer it through a landscape changed utterly by the rise of YouTube and Netflix .
He will revive that sense of integrity and high-mindedness that we might loosely call Reithian .
This , naturally , is not the view of most Beeb staff .
Have I Got News For You , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the path to Number 10 , Tweeted that if Moore became chairman , the BBC wouldn ’ t last another five years .
One staffer described his mooted appointment as “ the Corporation ’ s Stalingrad.
” In part , this is simply a howl of anguish from a Leftist establishment used to getting its way .
It is striking how many BBC figures cite Moore ’ s Euroscepticism and Toryism as ipso facto disqualifications – even though the country voted for Brexit and then elected a Conservative Government .
Implicit in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Right can ’ t be disinterested – or , more precisely , that the soft Left positions we associate with the Beeb are statements of objective fact .
The ordinary viewer might think the BBC has certain prejudices – feminism good , austerity bad ; immigration good , Israel bad ; EU good , Trump bad – but to its editors , these are not prejudices but truths .
Moore ’ s critics display the close-mindedness that they falsely suspect in him .
In fact , you won ’ t find a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a Liberal back in the pre-SDP days when that party was still broadly liberal .
His liberalism rested , and rests still , on a readiness to question assumptions , to think things through from first principles , to spot what others have missed .
Successive Conservative leaders came to fear his pen more than that of any Labour-supporting editor .
His BBC critics , naturally , won ’ t be convinced by anything I write .
A readiness to dismiss views from outside their tribe is part of their problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they will come to appreciate him .
For the BBC , as it is currently run , is obsolete .
The problem is not that it is biased or expensive or out-of-touch .
The problem rather , is that it is not feasible to fund a state broadcaster through taxes in an age of streaming .
Yes , the BBC ’ s partiality has weakened it by alienating conservatives .
But even if everyone agreed that it was run by the best , wisest and most neutral public servants , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some senior figures within the BBC recognise that change is coming , and want to take ownership of that change .
The corporation , after all , has huge advantages .
No broadcaster has a stronger global brand .
BBC programmes are watched on every continent .
Much of what it does would be commercially viable under any dispensation .
People are creatures of habit .
Thirty years after privatisation , BT was still by far the largest supplier of landlines , with nearly 40 per cent of the market .
Without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will still want to watch Strictly and Planet Earth and Eastenders .
The BBC could more than hold its own as a subscription channel .
Yes , some parts might be less viable than others – I never understood , for example , why the BBC felt the need to get into local radio , an area amply served by private suppliers .
But there is every reason to believe that a more commercial BBC could become more popular as well as more efficient .
The way to ensure that that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resist all reform , to be dragged kicking and screaming into each new change .
A wise BBC will turn technological change to its advantage , aiming to emerge as a more successful and original content-generator while recovering its former place in our national esteem .
No one would help it achieve that goal better than Charles Moore .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
Charles Moore is everything a BBC chairman should be: clever, inquisitive, independent, humane, well-read, polite, patriotic, broad-minded and generous to his critics. During the golden age of newspapers – roughly the years between the new technology brought in following the Wapping dispute in the late 1980s and the rise of online journalism in the early 2000s – he led the editorial field. His only rival, though their styles were very different, was The Daily Mail’s Paul Dacre, now being mooted as the next head of Ofcom.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have worked for both men. I don’t know Dacre well, but even slight acquaintance is enough to reveal the secret of his success, namely an unparalleled ability to speak to and for ordinary people. At a time when other newspapers were going online or throwing themselves on the generosity of patrons, Dacre’s Mail remained both popular and profitable. A newsman to his fingertips, he filled the editor’s chair with his restless energy and curiosity. With almost all media struggling to make money, he is exactly the regulator we need: fair-minded, diligent and committed in his bones to freedom of speech.
I know Moore rather better, having spent seven years working for him at The Daily Telegraph. He was, as any Telegraph writer of that era will attest, a wonderful boss. Patiently and intelligently, he improved every section of the paper, from the sports pages to the weekly children’s pull-out section. He always stood by his people – he once went to war against the Prince of Wales’s office because it had treated a Telegraph photographer badly – yet he was impervious to flattery. The newspaper he edited reflected his voracious interests. He cared a great deal about accuracy, and hired several Labour-leaning lobby correspondents – perhaps on the principle that a Leftist reporter on a Rightist paper would always strive to be objective.
The BBC stands to gain enormously from his involvement. As he did at each of his newspapers, he will take a benign interest in every aspect of programming, from comedy to cookery. He will ensure that the Corporation gets a sympathetic hearing in Downing Street. He will steer it through a landscape changed utterly by the rise of YouTube and Netflix. He will revive that sense of integrity and high-mindedness that we might loosely call Reithian.
This, naturally, is not the view of most Beeb staff. Have I Got News For You, the quiz show which arguably set Boris on the path to Number 10, Tweeted that if Moore became chairman, the BBC wouldn’t last another five years. One staffer described his mooted appointment as “the Corporation’s Stalingrad.”
In part, this is simply a howl of anguish from a Leftist establishment used to getting its way. It is striking how many BBC figures cite Moore’s Euroscepticism and Toryism as ipso facto disqualifications – even though the country voted for Brexit and then elected a Conservative Government. Implicit in the criticism is the notion that someone on the Right can’t be disinterested – or, more precisely, that the soft Left positions we associate with the Beeb are statements of objective fact. The ordinary viewer might think the BBC has certain prejudices – feminism good, austerity bad; immigration good, Israel bad; EU good, Trump bad – but to its editors, these are not prejudices but truths.
Moore’s critics display the close-mindedness that they falsely suspect in him. In fact, you won’t find a less partisan man. Moore started out as a Liberal back in the pre-SDP days when that party was still broadly liberal. His liberalism rested, and rests still, on a readiness to question assumptions, to think things through from first principles, to spot what others have missed. Successive Conservative leaders came to fear his pen more than that of any Labour-supporting editor.
His BBC critics, naturally, won’t be convinced by anything I write. A readiness to dismiss views from outside their tribe is part of their problem. But, if he gets the job, they will come to appreciate him.
For the BBC, as it is currently run, is obsolete. The problem is not that it is biased or expensive or out-of-touch. The problem rather, is that it is not feasible to fund a state broadcaster through taxes in an age of streaming. Yes, the BBC’s partiality has weakened it by alienating conservatives. But even if everyone agreed that it was run by the best, wisest and most neutral public servants, it would still not survive in its current form.
Some senior figures within the BBC recognise that change is coming, and want to take ownership of that change. The corporation, after all, has huge advantages. No broadcaster has a stronger global brand. BBC programmes are watched on every continent. Much of what it does would be commercially viable under any dispensation.
People are creatures of habit. Thirty years after privatisation, BT was still by far the largest supplier of landlines, with nearly 40 per cent of the market. Without the licence fee, plenty of viewers will still want to watch Strictly and Planet Earth and Eastenders. The BBC could more than hold its own as a subscription channel. Yes, some parts might be less viable than others – I never understood, for example, why the BBC felt the need to get into local radio, an area amply served by private suppliers. But there is every reason to believe that a more commercial BBC could become more popular as well as more efficient.
The way to ensure that that doesn’t happen, of course, is to resist all reform, to be dragged kicking and screaming into each new change.
A wise BBC will turn technological change to its advantage, aiming to emerge as a more successful and original content-generator while recovering its former place in our national esteem. No one would help it achieve that goal better than Charles Moore.


conservativehome--2020-09-30--Gerard Dugdill: Anger persists over the loss of our traditional counties. Proper names and boundarie

Gerard Dugdill: Anger persists over the loss of our traditional counties. Proper names and boundaries must be restored.

Gerard Dugdill is the Campaign Manager of the British Counties Campaign , which seeks to restore official recognition for the 92 traditional British Counties Imagine if your name was changed against your will .
John Smith became John Smith- & -Jones , because you lived next door to Mr Jones .
Dorothy Black became Dorothy Grey and then Dorothy White .
Smith laughed , then protested .
He tried a variety of brush off tactics until , with deepening resentment , he tried desperately to stop the avalanche of references to Mr Smith- & -Jones by ripping up all mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To no avail .
The letters kept coming… In 1974 , on April Fool ’ s Day , certain citizens of , for example , ancient Lancashire found themselves in Greater Manchester , Yorkshire in Lancashire , Hampshire in Dorset , Northumberland and Durham in Tyne & Wear .
In Scotland , Glaswegians have shifted from Lanarkshire to Strathclyde , then sort of back to Glasgow .
Men of Stirlingshire and Perthshire have gone to Central and back .
Men of Roxburghshire have disappeared into Borders .
In Wales – or England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monmouthshire to Gwent , then in 1996 , to a beyond bizarre mix of Newport , Monmouthshire , and a version of Gwent simultaneously killed off and brought back .
Poor Wales , defenceless beyond repair .
Only Wikipedia , presumably upon instruction , can officiously carry the disingenuous spirit of our legal , accounting , and insolvency , quack-speak-ridden times : “ Monmouthshire ( Welsh : Sir Fynwy ) is a principal area with the style of ‘ county ’ in South East Wales.
” All the while of course , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Land Registry , say – insisted that your name hadn ’ t really changed , but only for “ administrative ” purposes .
You are perfectly entitled to refer to your previous name , Ms White , even though everybody who matters now calls you just that , save the odd annoying reference to Ms Grey still slipping through .
Those “ arrogant officials ” have long since decided .
Who did they consult ?
Whose wishes did they comply with ?
The indignation of years of bullying , indifference , wasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and confusion has prompted an online petition from Pamela Moorhouse .
“ It needs to be mandatory for all councils to tell everyone about the historic counties , tell how the Heath Government in 1974 removed and replaced them with the present historic nonsense names , and ignored all objections .
“ Why , when being forced into Humberside , were we told ‘ We ’ ve come to get rid of your traditional areas ’ if it was all admin only ?
The first Government statements at the time of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
All the traditional areas have now gone !
There are none left anywhere anymore !
’ Does anyone else remember ?
“ Nobody wanted their history changing , so they ‘ pushed objectors away ’ , and now lie to everyone , saying that the new counties have always existed .
“ Ours does it by implication .
‘ Would you like to know about people who lived in 50s North East Lincolnshire ?
’ , knowing quite well that NEL wasn ’ t created till 1996 , introduced by our then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Grimsby wanted historic Lincolnshire back , after getting rid of Humberside , but the council didn ’ t want us back in Lincs , so suggested NEL as a compromise .
“ So if it ’ s the people ’ s choice , the new counties will remain and valuable history will be lost forever , as millions are currently in ignorance about the events of 74 , confirmed by people ’ s memories in our smart survey results .
“ Can these views be published so everyone knows about 74 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on us for 20 years so we didn ’ t sneak back to the old counties ?
Or at least part of them ?
“ But we must have full education , as millions have never heard of the traditional counties.
” A Government White Paper next month will repeortedly address these grievances .
Please do sign the petition .

Gerard Dugdill is the Campaign Manager of the British Counties Campaign, which seeks to restore official recognition for the 92 traditional British Counties
Imagine if your name was changed against your will. John Smith became John Smith-&-Jones, because you lived next door to Mr Jones. Dorothy Black became Dorothy Grey and then Dorothy White.
Smith laughed, then protested. He tried a variety of brush off tactics until, with deepening resentment, he tried desperately to stop the avalanche of references to Mr Smith-&-Jones by ripping up all mail and returning to senders in tiny pieces. To no avail. The letters kept coming…
In 1974, on April Fool’s Day, certain citizens of, for example, ancient Lancashire found themselves in Greater Manchester, Yorkshire in Lancashire, Hampshire in Dorset, Northumberland and Durham in Tyne & Wear.
In Scotland, Glaswegians have shifted from Lanarkshire to Strathclyde, then sort of back to Glasgow. Men of Stirlingshire and Perthshire have gone to Central and back. Men of Roxburghshire have disappeared into Borders.
In Wales – or England? – folk of Newport went from Monmouthshire to Gwent, then in 1996, to a beyond bizarre mix of Newport, Monmouthshire, and a version of Gwent simultaneously killed off and brought back.
Poor Wales, defenceless beyond repair. Only Wikipedia, presumably upon instruction, can officiously carry the disingenuous spirit of our legal, accounting, and insolvency, quack-speak-ridden times:
“Monmouthshire (Welsh: Sir Fynwy) is a principal area with the style of ‘county’ in South East Wales.”
All the while of course, when you complained, the letter writers – the Land Registry, say – insisted that your name hadn’t really changed, but only for “administrative” purposes. You are perfectly entitled to refer to your previous name, Ms White, even though everybody who matters now calls you just that, save the odd annoying reference to Ms Grey still slipping through.
Those “arrogant officials” have long since decided. Who did they consult? Whose wishes did they comply with?
The indignation of years of bullying, indifference, wasted money, identity denial, identity crisis, and confusion has prompted an online petition from Pamela Moorhouse.
She says:
“It needs to be mandatory for all councils to tell everyone about the historic counties, tell how the Heath Government in 1974 removed and replaced them with the present historic nonsense names, and ignored all objections.
“Why, when being forced into Humberside, were we told ‘We’ve come to get rid of your traditional areas’ if it was all admin only? The first Government statements at the time of the change were ‘That’s it! All the traditional areas have now gone! There are none left anywhere anymore!’ Does anyone else remember?
“Nobody wanted their history changing, so they ‘pushed objectors away’, and now lie to everyone, saying that the new counties have always existed.
“Ours does it by implication. ‘Would you like to know about people who lived in 50s North East Lincolnshire?’, knowing quite well that NEL wasn’t created till 1996, introduced by our then MP Austin Mitchell, carefully as everyone in Grimsby wanted historic Lincolnshire back, after getting rid of Humberside, but the council didn’t want us back in Lincs, so suggested NEL as a compromise.
“So if it’s the people’s choice, the new counties will remain and valuable history will be lost forever, as millions are currently in ignorance about the events of 74, confirmed by people’s memories in our smart survey results.
“Can these views be published so everyone knows about 74, and the new councils keeping an eye on us for 20 years so we didn’t sneak back to the old counties? Or at least part of them?
“But we must have full education, as millions have never heard of the traditional counties.”
A Government White Paper next month will repeortedly address these grievances. Please do sign the petition.


conservativehome--2020-09-29--Caroline Elsom: The Online Harms proposals set us on a course that will threaten freedom, privacy an

Caroline Elsom: The Online Harms proposals set us on a course that will threaten freedom, privacy and competitiveness – while being unlikely to make us safer

Caroline Elsom is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies .
It ’ s almost eighteen months since the Government laid out its roadmap for tackling online harms .
The Online Harms White Paper ’ s mission was to make the UK the safest place to go online , and the best place to grow a digital business .
This is a laudable aim , yet the plans outlined tell a different story .
They set us on a course that will seriously threaten our freedom , privacy and competitiveness – while being unlikely to make us any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented curbs on private life to combat Covid-19 .
It can ill-afford to commit a potentially embarrassing unforced error that will shrink the private sphere in the UK and might damage both the Party ’ s and the country ’ s reputation for openness , tolerance and freedom .
It is time to reflect on the purpose and design of any new regulation .
My new report for the Centre for Policy Studies , Safety without Censorship , uncovers the extent of the flaws in the system proposed for Ofcom to regulate online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model , clearly differentiating Ofcom ’ s powers over illegal content from its remit over legal speech that may be considered by some to be harmful .
If it the Government chooses to ignore the warnings , it appears almost inevitable that the eventual Online Harms Bill will meet a similar fate to that of France .
In June this year , the French Constitutional Council found large parts of France ’ s online hate speech legislation ( known as the Loi Avia after National Assembly member Laetitia Avia , who drafted it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it breached a basic legality test for impermissible vagueness .
According to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK ’ s own Human Rights Act 1998 , restrictions to free of expression have to be ‘ prescribed by law ’ and ‘ necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim ’ .
This means , for example , that users must be able to reasonably foresee whether the platform will be legally obliged to remove content they are about to post .
In France , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out in clear enough terms that allowed the scope of liability to be determined .
Given how alike the principles in the Loi Avia and the White Paper are , similar judicial challenges would likely be mounted in the UK on human rights grounds right from the start .
Even if the eventual Online Harms Bill manages to clear this hurdle , it could fall down on other legal grounds .
The Loi Avia gave powers to France ’ s Higher Audiovisual Council to require hosts to remove the most extreme content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse imagery ) within an hour .
For other content , deadlines of up to 24 hours apply , depending on who has made the request , the nature of the content and what sort of site it is on .
This failed the requirement of necessity and proportionality , because of the powers it gave to an administrative authority rather than allowing host sites to obtain a judicial ruling on the matter .
The UK Government ’ s proposals are likely to run aground on both of these aspects of legality too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White Paper expands much further into the terrain of ‘ legal but harmful ’ than the Loi Avia .
The Foundation for Law , Justice and Society rightly point out that the White Paper leaves open the possibility that constraints on free speech could be imposed ‘ on the basis of opaque agreements between platforms and politician ’ rather than being subject to the constraints of parliamentary debate .
If this fundamental principle is to change , it will involve amendment or repeal of the Human Rights Act , requiring the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it could still be defeated under principles of freedom of speech under English common law .
Extreme caution should be exercised in going down this route to tackle online harms so as not to erode important checks against creeping censorship .
There are also issues of fairness in leaving all these crucial issues to be decided by a series of court battles .
Tech giants with entire legal departments can mount these legal challenges with relative ease , but smaller companies seeking to dispute the rules do not have the resources for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened with large companies who have been subject to fines from the Information Commissioner ’ s Office .
Last year , Facebook appealed against an ICO fine of £500,000 on the grounds of bias and procedural unfairness .
The ICO was forced to settle this out of court , allowing Facebook to avoid admitting liability .
Much larger cases against the likes of British Airways and Marriott Hotels have been delayed as it appears the ICO is unable or unwilling to defend its position against the legal firepower large corporations are able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely that two years will have passed before the Online Harms Bill makes progress through the House .
Making crucial changes now could avoid many more years of legal disputes dooming this policy to failure .

Caroline Elsom is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies.
It’s almost eighteen months since the Government laid out its roadmap for tackling online harms. The Online Harms White Paper’s mission was to make the UK the safest place to go online, and the best place to grow a digital business.
This is a laudable aim, yet the plans outlined tell a different story. They set us on a course that will seriously threaten our freedom, privacy and competitiveness – while being unlikely to make us any safer.
This Conservative Government has enacted unprecedented curbs on private life to combat Covid-19. It can ill-afford to commit a potentially embarrassing unforced error that will shrink the private sphere in the UK and might damage both the Party’s and the country’s reputation for openness, tolerance and freedom.
It is time to reflect on the purpose and design of any new regulation. My new report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Safety without Censorship, uncovers the extent of the flaws in the system proposed for Ofcom to regulate online content.
The report offers an alternative model, clearly differentiating Ofcom’s powers over illegal content from its remit over legal speech that may be considered by some to be harmful.
If it the Government chooses to ignore the warnings, it appears almost inevitable that the eventual Online Harms Bill will meet a similar fate to that of France. In June this year, the French Constitutional Council found large parts of France’s online hate speech legislation (known as the Loi Avia after National Assembly member Laetitia Avia, who drafted it) unconstitutional. Among other reasons, it breached a basic legality test for impermissible vagueness.
According to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK’s own Human Rights Act 1998, restrictions to free of expression have to be ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim’. This means, for example, that users must be able to reasonably foresee whether the platform will be legally obliged to remove content they are about to post.
In France, it was judged that platforms’ obligations were not laid out in clear enough terms that allowed the scope of liability to be determined. Given how alike the principles in the Loi Avia and the White Paper are, similar judicial challenges would likely be mounted in the UK on human rights grounds right from the start.
Even if the eventual Online Harms Bill manages to clear this hurdle, it could fall down on other legal grounds. The Loi Avia gave powers to France’s Higher Audiovisual Council to require hosts to remove the most extreme content (certain terrorist content and child sexual abuse imagery) within an hour.
For other content, deadlines of up to 24 hours apply, depending on who has made the request, the nature of the content and what sort of site it is on. This failed the requirement of necessity and proportionality, because of the powers it gave to an administrative authority rather than allowing host sites to obtain a judicial ruling on the matter.
The UK Government’s proposals are likely to run aground on both of these aspects of legality too. If anything more so, as the White Paper expands much further into the terrain of ‘legal but harmful’ than the Loi Avia. The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society rightly point out that the White Paper leaves open the possibility that constraints on free speech could be imposed ‘on the basis of opaque agreements between platforms and politician’ rather than being subject to the constraints of parliamentary debate.
If this fundamental principle is to change, it will involve amendment or repeal of the Human Rights Act, requiring the full legislative scrutiny of Parliament. Even then, it could still be defeated under principles of freedom of speech under English common law. Extreme caution should be exercised in going down this route to tackle online harms so as not to erode important checks against creeping censorship.
There are also issues of fairness in leaving all these crucial issues to be decided by a series of court battles. Tech giants with entire legal departments can mount these legal challenges with relative ease, but smaller companies seeking to dispute the rules do not have the resources for a fair fight.
This has already happened with large companies who have been subject to fines from the Information Commissioner’s Office. Last year, Facebook appealed against an ICO fine of £500,000 on the grounds of bias and procedural unfairness.
The ICO was forced to settle this out of court, allowing Facebook to avoid admitting liability. Much larger cases against the likes of British Airways and Marriott Hotels have been delayed as it appears the ICO is unable or unwilling to defend its position against the legal firepower large corporations are able to bring to the fight.
It is likely that two years will have passed before the Online Harms Bill makes progress through the House. Making crucial changes now could avoid many more years of legal disputes dooming this policy to failure.


conservativehome--2020-09-30--The Conservative Party Conference programme – and which ministers are up and down

With only two days to go , the itinerary for this year ’ s Conservative Party Conference is upon us .
Much has changed , thanks to Covid-19 , not least the way events have been formatted .
Without further ado , ConservativeHome takes a look at who ’ s doing what , and how events have been categorised – as well as what this could imply for ministers .
The first thing to note is that every MP in the Cabinet is making at least one appearance , albeit in different formats .
The MPs taking part in two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Matt Hancock .
The Prime Minister will also be delivering a speech and being interviewed by Lord Sharpe of Epsom .
The events have been categorised broadly into keynote speeches , fireside chats , interactive interviews , panel discussions and training sessions .
Clearly the most important is the keynote speech , which the following Cabinet ministers will be giving : Milling will also be opening the conference at 11:30 on the first day .
Next up there ’ s the fireside chat .
There are two versions of this , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the other by party members .
The latter is arguably a more complex task ; ministers are out on their own dealing with questions .
The ministers doing this are : • None Gavin Williamson ( 11:00 on Monday ) – interviewed by Peter Ashton , a headteacher and his former politics teacher .
• None Matt Hancock ( 16:30 on Monday ) – interviewed by Patrick Stephenson , Director of Innovation and Healthcare at Fujitsu .
There ’ s also the “ interactive interview ” .
It ’ s not obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fireside chat ” , but the ministers taking part in these are : • None Liz Truss ( 14:30 on Saturday ) – interviewed by Robert Colville , Director of the Centre for Policy Studies .
• None Matt Hancock ( 14:00 on Sunday ) – interviewed by Nimco Ali OBE , CEO and Founder of the Five Foundation .
• None Grant Shapps ( 15:00 on Monday ) – although it does not say who will interview him yet .
• None Oliver Dowden ( 15:30 on Monday ) – interviewed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is labelled as simply an “ interview ” ) .
Then there are the panel discussions .
More sceptical Conservative members may notice that a number of fairly high profile Cabinet ministers are taking part in these .
They may ask why they have not been put forward for the fireside chat or an interview – instead being accompanied by ministerial teams .
• None Ben Wallace , Secretary of State for Defence , who ’ s partaking in the Ministry of Defence Panel Discussion ( 12:15 on Saturday ) with other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Jenrick , Secretary of State for Housing , Communities and Local Government , who ’ s chairing a discussion ( 13:30 on Sunday ) with party members and other ministers from the department .
• None Thérèse Coffey , Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions , who ’ s chairing the The Department for Work & Pensions Panel Discussion ( 11:30 on Monday ) with other ministers from the department .
• None George Eustice , Secretary of State for Environment , Food and Rural Affairs , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14:00 on Monday ) with other ministers from the department .
It looks as though Downing Street has taken a decision to downgrade their profile .
Last up on the agenda are events focussed around increasing participation in Conservative campaigning .
It ’ s clear , in particular , that CCHQ is keen to push for more female participation , with events on Female Entrepreneurs and Training , and Women and the 2021 Elections , alongside training support for young people .

With only two days to go, the itinerary for this year’s Conservative Party Conference is upon us. Much has changed, thanks to Covid-19, not least the way events have been formatted.
Without further ado, ConservativeHome takes a look at who’s doing what, and how events have been categorised – as well as what this could imply for ministers.
The first thing to note is that every MP in the Cabinet is making at least one appearance, albeit in different formats. The MPs taking part in two events are Amanda Milling, Elizabeth Truss and Matt Hancock. The Prime Minister will also be delivering a speech and being interviewed by Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
The events have been categorised broadly into keynote speeches, fireside chats, interactive interviews, panel discussions and training sessions.
Clearly the most important is the keynote speech, which the following Cabinet ministers will be giving:
Dominic Raab (15:00 on Saturday)
Priti Patel (15:00 on Sunday)
Rishi Sunak (11:50 on Monday)
The Prime Minister (11:30 on Tuesday)
Milling will also be opening the conference at 11:30 on the first day.
Next up there’s the fireside chat. There are two versions of this, one involving being asked questions by an interviewer, the other by party members. The latter is arguably a more complex task; ministers are out on their own dealing with questions. The ministers doing this are:
Michael Gove (11:45 on Saturday)
Alok Sharma (14:30 on Monday)
Fireside chats involving an interviewer include:
Robert Buckland (16:00 on Sunday) – interviewed by Ken Clarke.
Gavin Williamson (11:00 on Monday) – interviewed by Peter Ashton, a headteacher and his former politics teacher.
Matt Hancock (16:30 on Monday) – interviewed by Patrick Stephenson, Director of Innovation and Healthcare at Fujitsu.
There’s also the “interactive interview”. It’s not obvious what makes this different from the “fireside chat”, but the ministers taking part in these are:
Liz Truss (14:30 on Saturday) – interviewed by Robert Colville, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies.
Matt Hancock (14:00 on Sunday) – interviewed by Nimco Ali OBE, CEO and Founder of the Five Foundation.
Grant Shapps (15:00 on Monday) – although it does not say who will interview him yet.
Oliver Dowden (15:30 on Monday) – interviewed by Joy Morrissey, MP for Beaconsfield (this is labelled as simply an “interview”).
Then there are the panel discussions. More sceptical Conservative members may notice that a number of fairly high profile Cabinet ministers are taking part in these. They may ask why they have not been put forward for the fireside chat or an interview – instead being accompanied by ministerial teams.
These include:
Ben Wallace, Secretary of State for Defence, who’s partaking in the Ministry of Defence Panel Discussion (12:15 on Saturday) with other ministers from the department.
Robert Jenrick, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who’s chairing a discussion (13:30 on Sunday) with party members and other ministers from the department.
Thérèse Coffey, Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions, who’s chairing the The Department for Work & Pensions Panel Discussion (11:30 on Monday) with other ministers from the department.
George Eustice, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who’s holding a panel discussion (14:00 on Monday) with other ministers from the department.
It looks as though Downing Street has taken a decision to downgrade their profile.
Last up on the agenda are events focussed around increasing participation in Conservative campaigning. It’s clear, in particular, that CCHQ is keen to push for more female participation, with events on Female Entrepreneurs and Training, and Women and the 2021 Elections, alongside training support for young people.


conservativehome--2020-09-30--Ben Roback: Whoever won yesterday’s travesty of a presidential debate in America, it certainly wasn’

Ben Roback: Whoever won yesterday’s travesty of a presidential debate in America, it certainly wasn’t the voters

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
Did you stay up to watch last night ’ s presidential debate ?
It ’ s impossible : you can ’ t have done , because no presidential debate took place last night .
Shouting took place .
Arguing happened .
Insults were thrown .
Accusations were levelled .
Chris Wallace , the moderator , was hardly a rose between two thorns .
He did very little moderating .
In many ways , he was given an impossible task – it looked at times like he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Short of a remote control fitted with a mute button , there was no silencin either Donald Trump or Joe Biden .
The president likes to describe CNN as a poster child of the “ fake news media ” when its pejorative coverage shines a bad light on him .
But neither Republicans nor Democrats will be pleased to see the verdict of Jake Tapper , that channel ’ s Chief Washington Correspondent : “ That was a hot mess .
Inside a dumpster fire .
Inside a train wreck .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen .
It wasn ’ t even a debate .
It was a disgrace.
” Revere , fear or abhor CNN , it was hard to disagree with Tapper ’ s conclusion .
The President entered the stage in Ohio on the back foot .
Were voters heading to the polls tomorrow , the outlook points to something of a blue wave .
Joe Biden leads in key swing states like Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , Michigan and Arizona , with at least five more – Florida , Ohio , Iowa , Georgia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this column pondered whether the terms of the debate for the election might change drastically by November .
At the time , we were deeply entrenched in police relations and race riots .
We are now focussed on race again , but amidst the unexpected curveballs of the President ’ s leaked tax returns , a vacant Supreme Court seat , and with it the future of Roe vs. Wade .
This most unpredictable of elections is not going to become any more stable any time soon .
The 2020 election dynamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the only guarantee is uncertainty .
And so to the debate .
Anyone expecting a serious discussion about the future of America will have gone to bed both tired and disappointed .
That seems , at best , curious and , at worst , deeply disappointing , given the tipping point at which the country finds itself .
The President who is inaugurated on Wednesday 20 January 2021 ( we expect ) faces a long and growing list of domestic and international challenges .
First , a country at increasing odds with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America beats faster as tensions deepen between communities .
It seemed genuinely staggering that in a presidential debate , one candidate – the incumbent no less – had to be asked “ are you willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups ?
” Consider that for a moment .
The President ’ s answer rightly caused consternation and concern for anyone who thinks that the fallout from the election outcome could spill over onto the streets of an increasingly armed America .
“ Proud boys , stand back and stand by.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ describes the Proud Boys as representing “ an unconventional strain of right-wing extremism .
The Biden campaign ’ s response was swift .
Second , healing the wounds of Covid-19 and averting further health and economic crises .
The President surprised many by declaring himself pro-mask , and even pulling one from his blazer pocket .
It was a shrewd move that kneecapped Biden , who ’ d accused him of doubting the science .
But , in true Trump fashion , it was swiftly followed by doubts over the recommendations of Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Trump tactic ?
Shock and awe .
Chaos and confusion .
Third , accepting the outcome of the election .
America is not a country of coups .
The peaceful transfer of power is enis enshrined in the core of American society .
For now .
Because the President has made a habit of casting doubt over the veracity of the election process and outcome , should it produce anything other than a handsome Trump victory .
During last night ’ s debate , he again floated the notion that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court .
Hence the GOP drive to jam Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination through with haste .
The 2020 election seems destined for the courts – so we could be looking well into 2021 before we get a definitive result .
Can anyone have really ‘ won ’ a debate that took place in this way ?
It feels wrong to decipher a ‘ winner ’ from last night ’ s events .
It was certainly not the watching voters .
More than three-quarters of those who saw it felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent ) with over two-thirds ( 69 per cebt ) annoyed by it ( CBS/YouGov ) .
The President sought to bully and dominate like he did – rightly or wrongly , but ultimately so successfully in 2016 .
The Biden campaign , scarred by the affect it had on Hillary Clinton , pursued a different approach .
Trump spent most of the debate looking at Biden and cutting him off wherever possible .
At times , Biden fought fire with fire , but his goal was clearly to try to appear the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this approach seemed overly passive .
So Biden rarely looked at the President and mostly addressed the moderator or spoke down the camera , seeking to engage the American people directly .
After over an hour of cross-talk that bordered on two angry relatives shouting at each other across the dining room table , it is a wonder any of the American public were still watching .
It makes for an unedifying prospect as one looks ahead to the two remaining debates on 15 and 22 October .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
Did you stay up to watch last night’s presidential debate? It’s impossible: you can’t have done, because no presidential debate took place last night. Shouting took place. Arguing happened. Insults were thrown. Accusations were levelled.
Chris Wallace, the moderator, was hardly a rose between two thorns. He did very little moderating. In many ways, he was given an impossible task – it looked at times like he was trying to nail jelly to the wall. Short of a remote control fitted with a mute button, there was no silencin either Donald Trump or Joe Biden.
The president likes to describe CNN as a poster child of the “fake news media” when its pejorative coverage shines a bad light on him. But neither Republicans nor Democrats will be pleased to see the verdict of Jake Tapper, that channel’s Chief Washington Correspondent: “That was a hot mess. Inside a dumpster fire. Inside a train wreck. That was the worst debate I have ever seen. It wasn’t even a debate. It was a disgrace.” Revere, fear or abhor CNN, it was hard to disagree with Tapper’s conclusion.
The President entered the stage in Ohio on the back foot. Were voters heading to the polls tomorrow, the outlook points to something of a blue wave. Joe Biden leads in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona, with at least five more – Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia and North Carolina – toss-ups.
In June, this column pondered whether the terms of the debate for the election might change drastically by November. At the time, we were deeply entrenched in police relations and race riots. We are now focussed on race again, but amidst the unexpected curveballs of the President’s leaked tax returns, a vacant Supreme Court seat, and with it the future of Roe vs. Wade.
This most unpredictable of elections is not going to become any more stable any time soon. The 2020 election dynamic could be upended at any moment. and the only guarantee is uncertainty.
And so to the debate.
Anyone expecting a serious discussion about the future of America will have gone to bed both tired and disappointed. That seems, at best, curious and, at worst, deeply disappointing, given the tipping point at which the country finds itself. The President who is inaugurated on Wednesday 20 January 2021 (we expect) faces a long and growing list of domestic and international challenges.
First, a country at increasing odds with itself over race relations. The heart of America beats faster as tensions deepen between communities.
It seemed genuinely staggering that in a presidential debate, one candidate – the incumbent no less – had to be asked “are you willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups?” Consider that for a moment.
The President’s answer rightly caused consternation and concern for anyone who thinks that the fallout from the election outcome could spill over onto the streets of an increasingly armed America. “Proud boys, stand back and stand by.” The Fighting Anti-Semitism and Hate organisation describes the Proud Boys as representing “an unconventional strain of right-wing extremism. The Biden campaign’s response was swift.
Second, healing the wounds of Covid-19 and averting further health and economic crises. The President surprised many by declaring himself pro-mask, and even pulling one from his blazer pocket. It was a shrewd move that kneecapped Biden, who’d accused him of doubting the science.
But, in true Trump fashion, it was swiftly followed by doubts over the recommendations of Anthony Fauci and the Centers for Diseases Control. The Trump tactic? Shock and awe. Chaos and confusion.
Third, accepting the outcome of the election. America is not a country of coups. The peaceful transfer of power is enis enshrined in the core of American society.
For now. Because the President has made a habit of casting doubt over the veracity of the election process and outcome, should it produce anything other than a handsome Trump victory. During last night’s debate, he again floated the notion that the result might need to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence the GOP drive to jam Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination through with haste. The 2020 election seems destined for the courts – so we could be looking well into 2021 before we get a definitive result.
Can anyone have really ‘won’ a debate that took place in this way ? It feels wrong to decipher a ‘winner’ from last night’s events. It was certainly not the watching voters. More than three-quarters of those who saw it felt the tone was negative (83 per cent) with over two-thirds (69 per cebt) annoyed by it (CBS/YouGov).
The President sought to bully and dominate like he did – rightly or wrongly, but ultimately so successfully in 2016. The Biden campaign, scarred by the affect it had on Hillary Clinton, pursued a different approach.
Trump spent most of the debate looking at Biden and cutting him off wherever possible. At times, Biden fought fire with fire, but his goal was clearly to try to appear the adult in the room.
At times, this approach seemed overly passive. So Biden rarely looked at the President and mostly addressed the moderator or spoke down the camera, seeking to engage the American people directly.
After over an hour of cross-talk that bordered on two angry relatives shouting at each other across the dining room table, it is a wonder any of the American public were still watching. It makes for an unedifying prospect as one looks ahead to the two remaining debates on 15 and 22 October.


conservativehome--2020-09-30--WATCH: Before Prime Minister’s Questions, Hoyle accuses Ministers of treating the Commons with conte

WATCH: Before Prime Minister’s Questions, Hoyle accuses Ministers of treating the Commons with contempt

`` I look to the government to rebuild the trust with this House and not treat it with the contempt @ @ @ @ @ Lindsay Hoyle makes statement ahead of government ’ s emergency coronavirus powers debate and says @ @ @ @ @ amendmenthttps : //t.co/xpfjt3uGyX # PMQs pic.twitter.com/lr1lPK1L4v

"I look to the government to rebuild the trust with this House and not treat it with the contempt it has shown"
Speaker Lindsay Hoyle makes statement ahead of government’s emergency coronavirus powers debate and says he won't select Brady amendmenthttps://t.co/xpfjt3uGyX #PMQs pic.twitter.com/lr1lPK1L4v
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 30, 2020