conservativehome--2020-01-16--Profile: Mark Spencer – the power behind the reshuffle and the man who disciplined the Brexit rebels

The reshuffle is coming up and Mark Spencer , the Chief Whip , will be a pivotal figure in deciding who gets what .
In July 2019 he helped Boris Johnson to construct his first government , working in secret with him for a week or ten days before the result of the Tory leadership race was announced , planning with the help of a white board how to purge and replace Theresa May ’ s team .
Spencer ’ s appointment as Chief Whip was revealed on the new leader ’ s first day , and met with broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regards him as a thoroughly decent person , friendly and approachable .
In the press , he was described , accurately enough , as “ a relative unknown ” , and he has since contrived to remain one of the least known major players at Westminster .
One can not help admiring the sheer paucity of published information about this farmer from Nottinghamshire .
As Chief Whip he had to cope with the huge difficulties of running a minority Government , and was soon at the heart of an exceptionally painful business : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Conservative whip from 21 rebels , including nine former Cabinet ministers , who were legislating to rule out a no deal Brexit .
It seemed to many Conservatives that the party was destroying itself by expelling such redoubtable figures as Kenneth Clarke , Dominic Grieve , Sir Oliver Letwin and Sir Nicholas Soames .
The decision to take such ruthless action was made in Downing Street , where plans were being made and the groundwork laid for a general election fought on the slogan “ Get Brexit Done ” .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going into such a contest with a number of candidates who had no intention of getting Brexit done , and would vote against a future Conservative government on the issue .
As one of Johnson ’ s closest colleagues points out , in March 2019 , when four Cabinet ministers abstained rather than vote against an earlier measure preventing a no deal Brexit , and were not sacked for their act of defiance , the party ’ s poll ratings fell , because voters realised May was not serious about getting Brexit done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ induced queasiness in many Conservatives , and at a meeting of the 1922 Committee , a backbencher told Johnson the expulsions should not go ahead .
Johnson replied that he could not interfere in whipping matters , and Spencer , who had done the Prime Minister ’ s bidding , maintained a straight face .
A close observer of the Chief Whip during this fraught period praises him for never getting “ frazzled or ratty or ragged ” , and suggests that his agricultural experience was of value when carrying out “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of our colleagues ” : Not all the 21 MPs were put down .
Spencer instituted a “ snakes and ladders ” programme , whereby if they started voting with the Government , they could climb a ladder and regain the whip , whereas if they continued defiant , they slid down a snake and had no chance of rehabilitation .
According to The Times , Ten of the rebels regained the whip , four of whom stood in the election and held their seats , while 11 left the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Liberal Democrats or independents , all of whom lost .
Spencer will now be working on the reshuffle expected next month .
In the words of the source quoted earlier , he will be When David Cameron and George Osborne were running the Government , Osborne took a close interest in junior ministerial appointments , which Margaret Thatcher used to leave to the Chief Whip , whose power depends in large part on the control of patronage .
But the hope of future patronage is likewise the main means by which a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has so far shown himself keenly aware of which aspirants to ministerial office have demonstrated loyalty to himself , and which have not .
Spencer is a natural loyalist .
Some MPs think he carries this too far .
A senior backbencher compared him unfavourably to two previous Chief Whips : But one could say that Spencer has conducted matters admirably , by restoring the discipline which showed that the Conservatives would indeed get Brexit done .
To achieve that , a certain straightforwardness and practicality were required .
Next Monday he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a farming family in Nottinghamshire in 1970 , went to the local state school , Colonel Frank Seely , at Calverton , and then to Shuttleworth Agricultural College in Bedfordshire , before joining the family farm , a business into which his own children have followed him .
Farmers Weekly recently reported that it was through getting involved in the National Federation of Young Farmers ’ Clubs , of which he became chairman in 1999 , that Spencer got drawn into politics : In 2001 he stood and failed for Nottinghamshire County Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gedling District Council and in 2005 he also managed to become a county councillor .
Here evidently was a man of energy who liked being involved in public life .
In 2010 he stood as parliamentary candidate in Sherwood , in Nottinghamshire , and took the seat off Labour by 214 votes .
So Spencer has experience of fighting a marginal , though his majority rose in 2019 to 16,186 .
All eight county seats in Nottinghamshire are now in Conservative hands , including Mansfield , next to Sherwood , won in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work as campaign manager for Spencer .
The three borough seats in Nottingham remain firmly Labour .
In his maiden speech Spencer said : But there is nothing of the outlaw about Spencer , and the most heartfelt passages in his speech came later , when he said tougher measures were needed to clamp down on anti-social behaviour , “ so that local residents are well protected from the abusive and intimidatory activity of unscrupulous members of the public.
” On the rare occasions Spencer has attracted interest and indeed opprobrium in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing up for stern measures , as when he observed of a man with learning difficulties who had been sanctioned after turning up four minutes late for a job interview : But one can not accuse Spencer of courting publicity by spouting extravagant views .
Mike Sassi , until recently editor of The Nottingham Post , told ConHome : In 2016 Spencer became a junior whip , and he has remained in the Whips ’ Office ever since .
In a rare moment of outspokenness he sympathised on Twitter with Coleen Rooney after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her friends was betraying her to the press .
According to Spencer , Millions of people will agree with Spencer that this would be deeply frustrating .
One suspects that in the forthcoming reshuffle , practical ability , and the ability to keep one ’ s mouth shut , will be valued above theatrical gifts .
The Prime Minister does not need to recruit people like himself .
He needs ministers who can deliver .
In Spencer , whom he did not know well before appointing him , he has found a Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of unshowy worth .
Not the least of the paradoxes of the Johnson government is that it intends to be thoroughly professional .

The reshuffle is coming up and Mark Spencer, the Chief Whip, will be a pivotal figure in deciding who gets what.
In July 2019 he helped Boris Johnson to construct his first government, working in secret with him for a week or ten days before the result of the Tory leadership race was announced, planning with the help of a white board how to purge and replace Theresa May’s team.
Spencer’s appointment as Chief Whip was revealed on the new leader’s first day, and met with broad approval in the parliamentary party, which regards him as a thoroughly decent person, friendly and approachable.
In the press, he was described, accurately enough, as “a relative unknown”, and he has since contrived to remain one of the least known major players at Westminster. One cannot help admiring the sheer paucity of published information about this farmer from Nottinghamshire.
As Chief Whip he had to cope with the huge difficulties of running a minority Government, and was soon at the heart of an exceptionally painful business: the withdrawal at the start of September of the Conservative whip from 21 rebels, including nine former Cabinet ministers, who were legislating to rule out a no deal Brexit.
It seemed to many Conservatives that the party was destroying itself by expelling such redoubtable figures as Kenneth Clarke, Dominic Grieve, Sir Oliver Letwin and Sir Nicholas Soames.
The decision to take such ruthless action was made in Downing Street, where plans were being made and the groundwork laid for a general election fought on the slogan “Get Brexit Done”.
The Prime Minister saw there was no point going into such a contest with a number of candidates who had no intention of getting Brexit done, and would vote against a future Conservative government on the issue.
As one of Johnson’s closest colleagues points out, in March 2019, when four Cabinet ministers abstained rather than vote against an earlier measure preventing a no deal Brexit, and were not sacked for their act of defiance, the party’s poll ratings fell, because voters realised May was not serious about getting Brexit done.
The withdrawal of the whip nevertheless induced queasiness in many Conservatives, and at a meeting of the 1922 Committee, a backbencher told Johnson the expulsions should not go ahead.
Johnson replied that he could not interfere in whipping matters, and Spencer, who had done the Prime Minister’s bidding, maintained a straight face.
A close observer of the Chief Whip during this fraught period praises him for never getting “frazzled or ratty or ragged”, and suggests that his agricultural experience was of value when carrying out “the rather horrible but necessary surgical excision of a number of our colleagues”:
“A farmer will unsentimentally recognise that a lame ewe needs to be put down.”
Not all the 21 MPs were put down. Spencer instituted a “snakes and ladders” programme, whereby if they started voting with the Government, they could climb a ladder and regain the whip, whereas if they continued defiant, they slid down a snake and had no chance of rehabilitation.
According to The Times,
“Mr Spencer warned the rebels that he had sole discretion about whether to allow an appeal against their expulsion. He also insisted that the original decision was justified to restore discipline. ‘For too long the Conservative government has been hampered by those who believe that the normal rules of party politics do not apply to them,’ he said.”
Ten of the rebels regained the whip, four of whom stood in the election and held their seats, while 11 left the party for good, five of whom stood as Liberal Democrats or independents, all of whom lost.
Spencer will now be working on the reshuffle expected next month. In the words of the source quoted earlier, he will be
“advising the Prime Minister which of the bulls should be retained and which of the clapped out old milkers should be sent to the abattoir.”
When David Cameron and George Osborne were running the Government, Osborne took a close interest in junior ministerial appointments, which Margaret Thatcher used to leave to the Chief Whip, whose power depends in large part on the control of patronage.
But the hope of future patronage is likewise the main means by which a Prime Minister induces loyalty, and Johnson has so far shown himself keenly aware of which aspirants to ministerial office have demonstrated loyalty to himself, and which have not.
Spencer is a natural loyalist. Some MPs think he carries this too far. A senior backbencher compared him unfavourably to two previous Chief Whips:
“He does not seem willing or able to stand up to Downing Street. He seems to lack the guile and experience of the dark arts of a Gavin Williamson or an Andrew Mitchell.”
But one could say that Spencer has conducted matters admirably, by restoring the discipline which showed that the Conservatives would indeed get Brexit done. To achieve that, a certain straightforwardness and practicality were required.
Next Monday he will be 50. He was born into a farming family in Nottinghamshire in 1970, went to the local state school, Colonel Frank Seely, at Calverton, and then to Shuttleworth Agricultural College in Bedfordshire, before joining the family farm, a business into which his own children have followed him.
Farmers Weekly recently reported that it was through getting involved in the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs, of which he became chairman in 1999, that Spencer got drawn into politics:
“His children are involved in their local YFC and Mr Spencer says it was the federation that inspired his political career. “‘I still think of myself as a farmer, I like to think that I’ve still got a little bit of farming, although I don’t get a lot of time to do it, but I think Young Farmers pulled me into politics slowly. “‘You sort of get drawn into young people’s issues, whether that is housing, rural transport, the issues around access into agriculture, succession planning, so you find yourself moving from thinking about rugby and socialising and drawn into those small ‘p’ political issues,’ he says.”
In 2001 he stood and failed for Nottinghamshire County Council, in 2003 he got elected to Gedling District Council and in 2005 he also managed to become a county councillor.
Here evidently was a man of energy who liked being involved in public life. In 2010 he stood as parliamentary candidate in Sherwood, in Nottinghamshire, and took the seat off Labour by 214 votes.
So Spencer has experience of fighting a marginal, though his majority rose in 2019 to 16,186. All eight county seats in Nottinghamshire are now in Conservative hands, including Mansfield, next to Sherwood, won in 2017 by Ben Bradley, who used to work as campaign manager for Spencer. The three borough seats in Nottingham remain firmly Labour.
In his maiden speech Spencer said:
“Many Members will be aware of Sherwood forest and its legends, and of all that Sherwood is famous for, so they will not be surprised to know that I am not the most famous person from Sherwood. That honour probably goes to Robin Hood. Like Robin Hood, I have a desire to counter over-taxation, to protect the most vulnerable in society, and to make sure that oppressive government does not bring misery on the people.”
But there is nothing of the outlaw about Spencer, and the most heartfelt passages in his speech came later, when he said tougher measures were needed to clamp down on anti-social behaviour, “so that local residents are well protected from the abusive and intimidatory activity of unscrupulous members of the public.”
On the rare occasions Spencer has attracted interest and indeed opprobrium in the press, it tends to be by standing up for stern measures, as when he observed of a man with learning difficulties who had been sanctioned after turning up four minutes late for a job interview:
“It is important that those who are seeking employment learn the discipline of timekeeping, which is an important part of securing and keeping a job.”
But one cannot accuse Spencer of courting publicity by spouting extravagant views. Mike Sassi, until recently editor of The Nottingham Post, told ConHome:
“Unfortunately Mr Spencer is not someone who spends much time in the local media. “He rarely courted us at The Post, although he did return our calls and was usually helpful. Obviously he was most talkative about rural issues. But he generally kept his head down – outside of appearances on the BBC East Midlands Politics Show. “I used to see him delivering produce from his family farm, in the local villages – but less so in recent years.”
In 2016 Spencer became a junior whip, and he has remained in the Whips’ Office ever since. In a rare moment of outspokenness he sympathised on Twitter with Coleen Rooney after she thought she had discovered which of her friends was betraying her to the press. According to Spencer,
“Coleen would make an excellent whip. Have to say my respect for her has grown enormously. Shouldn’t underestimate how frustrating it must be living in constant public view, knowing someone you trust is talking to the media.”
Millions of people will agree with Spencer that this would be deeply frustrating. One suspects that in the forthcoming reshuffle, practical ability, and the ability to keep one’s mouth shut, will be valued above theatrical gifts.
The Prime Minister does not need to recruit people like himself. He needs ministers who can deliver. In Spencer, whom he did not know well before appointing him, he has found a Chief Whip who will recommend for preferment MPs of unshowy worth.
Not the least of the paradoxes of the Johnson government is that it intends to be thoroughly professional.


conservativehome--2020-01-16--Garvan Walshe: The shooting down of a civilian flight does Iran’s rulers more harm than the assassin

Garvan Walshe: The shooting down of a civilian flight does Iran’s rulers more harm than the assassination of Soleimani

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party .
He runs TRD Policy .
This is the Islamic Revolution ’ s Gerald Ratner moment .
The mullahs ’ rule is based on three articles of faith that time turned into lies : that Iran is a democracy ; that the people who run it are holy men ; and that Iran is besieged by enemies against whom an expensive military industrial complex must be maintained to ensure that Iran ’ s enemies are fighting “ over there ” in Lebanon , Syria and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
Qasem Soleimani led that the sharp end of that military industrial complex : the Revolutionary Guards ( IRGC ) , established to protect the revolution from a regular Army considered loyal to the Shah , converted into a huge force that managed the proxy forces Iran used to build influence across the region , and fight an undeclared war against the United States , Saudi Arabia and Israel .
His assassination was merely a spectacular coup in an ongoing conflict .
The downing of Ukrainian Airlines flight PS752 has become the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rigging of the presidential election in 2009 to give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term in office .
It is a mistake to compare the death of Soleimani with a terrorist leader like Osama bin Laden or drug kingpin “ El Chapo ” Guzmán .
They were in charge of autonomous organisations .
Soleimani , for all his bravado , was the servant of of an institutionalised theocracy now entering its fifth decade .
America ’ s public bragging about killing him may have required some equally spectacular revenge , but the Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off course by the removal of one general , however skilled .
Their “ response ” has been to plug the gap in the IRGC command structure , exploit his funeral for propaganda purposes , and otherwise continue to pursue what they see as Iranian interests .
They tried to divert Iraqi anger , which had been mounting against Iran , towards the United States , but this was taking advantage of the backlash against the assassination to pursue the long-term goal of expelling US troops .
The assassination also gave Iran cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which had outlived its usefulness to them once the Trump Administration withdrew from it .
These should not be understood as responses or retaliation , but the Iranians learning from the ancient American proverb : “ if life gives you lemons , make lemonade.
” The fog of war has started to obscure the formal act of spectacular retaliation : the use of ballistic missiles ( as opposed to rockets ) to attack American bases in Iraq .
One story has it that the Iranians warned the Iraqis who warned the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another that the CIA had picked up intelligence , and dispersed a warning to troops in theatre ; a third that the attack caught troops off-guard , giving them 15 minutes to wake up and run to the base ’ s bomb shelters .
Certainly , the narrative that Iran conducted an attack designed to avoid casualties , as though it were the IRA phoning in a coded warning to Waterloo train station , is too neat .
Messages could be passed to the US , but how could they be sure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be taken seriously ?
Is it wise to rely on a military bureaucracy to transmit the warning to the right place in time ?
( Answer : No ) Even if a casualty-free attack had been the plan , it was a plan with a significant risk of going wrong , and provoking a spectacular counter-attack from the United States .
It was in this atmosphere that a jumpy air-defence commander gave the order to fire twice at the Ukrainian Airlines jet , killing all on board , and provoking the fateful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man whose video first provided external evidence that a missile hit the plane has been taken in for questioning ) .
The incident has now been tossed into the crucible of Iranian politics , a system where in December the regime killed 1,500 people protesting against the government .
Iran is twice divided : between the people and the regime establishment ; and within the establishment between hardline and reformist factions , which the Supreme Leader must balance .
His own politics are adamantine , but he has to allow reform some success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reformists so much power that they actually reform the system .
The reformist president Hassan Rouhani has proved too weak , shifting opposition from within the system back out onto the streets .
Thus Rouhani ’ s call for a special inquiry into events surrounding the shooting down of the airliner ( think of something more like a French-style investigating magistrate than a British public inquiry , because the presiding judge would have the power to put people in prison ) both to exact revenge against the Revolutionary Guards , whom he accuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nuclear détente which was to bring economic relief ; and also to show the furious public the system can deliver if the “ right people ” are put in charge .
How far the inquiry will be allowed to go is a matter for the Supreme Leader .
Restrict it too much , and it will be clocked for a whitewash .
Allow it to do its work and it might take down too many of his own supporters .
This explains the apparently bizarre situation where the President and Foreign minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the plane .
The message they hope to send is that it ’ s not their part of the system that shot it down .
But the message received is that the system has admitted it ’ s run by lying crooks who cover up murder .
And it is when regimes admit their own lies that they are at their most fragile .

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party. He runs TRD Policy.
This is the Islamic Revolution’s Gerald Ratner moment. The mullahs’ rule is based on three articles of faith that time turned into lies: that Iran is a democracy; that the people who run it are holy men; and that Iran is besieged by enemies against whom an expensive military industrial complex must be maintained to ensure that Iran’s enemies are fighting “over there” in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, not over here in Iran itself.
Qasem Soleimani led that the sharp end of that military industrial complex: the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), established to protect the revolution from a regular Army considered loyal to the Shah, converted into a huge force that managed the proxy forces Iran used to build influence across the region, and fight an undeclared war against the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel. His assassination was merely a spectacular coup in an ongoing conflict.
The downing of Ukrainian Airlines flight PS752 has become the most serious threat to the regime since the rigging of the presidential election in 2009 to give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term in office.
It is a mistake to compare the death of Soleimani with a terrorist leader like Osama bin Laden or drug kingpin “El Chapo” Guzmán. They were in charge of autonomous organisations. Soleimani, for all his bravado, was the servant of of an institutionalised theocracy now entering its fifth decade. America’s public bragging about killing him may have required some equally spectacular revenge, but the Iranian system is too robust to be thrown off course by the removal of one general, however skilled.
Their “response” has been to plug the gap in the IRGC command structure, exploit his funeral for propaganda purposes, and otherwise continue to pursue what they see as Iranian interests. They tried to divert Iraqi anger, which had been mounting against Iran, towards the United States, but this was taking advantage of the backlash against the assassination to pursue the long-term goal of expelling US troops. The assassination also gave Iran cover to further breach the JCPOA nuclear deal, which had outlived its usefulness to them once the Trump Administration withdrew from it. These should not be understood as responses or retaliation, but the Iranians learning from the ancient American proverb: “if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”
The fog of war has started to obscure the formal act of spectacular retaliation: the use of ballistic missiles (as opposed to rockets) to attack American bases in Iraq. One story has it that the Iranians warned the Iraqis who warned the United States about it hours in advance; another that the CIA had picked up intelligence, and dispersed a warning to troops in theatre; a third that the attack caught troops off-guard, giving them 15 minutes to wake up and run to the base’s bomb shelters.
Certainly, the narrative that Iran conducted an attack designed to avoid casualties, as though it were the IRA phoning in a coded warning to Waterloo train station, is too neat. Messages could be passed to the US, but how could they be sure, particularly in this administration, that they would be taken seriously? Is it wise to rely on a military bureaucracy to transmit the warning to the right place in time? (Answer: No) Even if a casualty-free attack had been the plan, it was a plan with a significant risk of going wrong, and provoking a spectacular counter-attack from the United States.
It was in this atmosphere that a jumpy air-defence commander gave the order to fire twice at the Ukrainian Airlines jet, killing all on board, and provoking the fateful cover-up by the authorities (the unfortunate man whose video first provided external evidence that a missile hit the plane has been taken in for questioning). The incident has now been tossed into the crucible of Iranian politics, a system where in December the regime killed 1,500 people protesting against the government.
Iran is twice divided: between the people and the regime establishment; and within the establishment between hardline and reformist factions, which the Supreme Leader must balance. His own politics are adamantine, but he has to allow reform some success as a safety valve, without yielding reformists so much power that they actually reform the system. The reformist president Hassan Rouhani has proved too weak, shifting opposition from within the system back out onto the streets.
Thus Rouhani’s call for a special inquiry into events surrounding the shooting down of the airliner (think of something more like a French-style investigating magistrate than a British public inquiry, because the presiding judge would have the power to put people in prison) both to exact revenge against the Revolutionary Guards, whom he accuses of jailing his brother, and sabotaging the nuclear détente which was to bring economic relief; and also to show the furious public the system can deliver if the “right people” are put in charge.
How far the inquiry will be allowed to go is a matter for the Supreme Leader. Restrict it too much, and it will be clocked for a whitewash. Allow it to do its work and it might take down too many of his own supporters.
This explains the apparently bizarre situation where the President and Foreign minister are accusing their own government of lying about the plane. The message they hope to send is that it’s not their part of the system that shot it down. But the message received is that the system has admitted it’s run by lying crooks who cover up murder. And it is when regimes admit their own lies that they are at their most fragile.


conservativehome--2020-01-16--Greg Hands: Crime will be the central issue in this year’s election for Mayor of London

Greg Hands is the MP for Chelsea and Fulham .
I am delighted to have been asked by Shaun Bailey himself to be his Campaign Chairman for this year ’ s Mayoral election .
I have known Shaun well since 2007 , and have always been a fan of this very different politician , a man who really wants to do the job as Mayor of London .
The General Election result highlighted what I have been seeing on the doorstep for many months , a complex and fluid change in the way Londoners are voting .
The election turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London for the Conservatives .
We lost a fantastic MP in Zac Goldsmith which will leave the Commons a poorer place and many outstanding candidates didn ’ t quite make it over the line .
However , our gains in Kensington ( Felicity Buchan ) and Carshalton ( Elliott Colburn ) were significant for our future hopes in London .
The failure of Labour and the Lib Dems to make real inroads will be cause for concern for them ahead of the Greater London Assembly and Mayoral campaigns next year .
The warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big wigs in City Hall .
With the General Election out the way and as Brexit falls away from the public ’ s mindset , Sadiq Khan ’ s abysmal record on crime , housing , and the environment will be filling up the column inches .
Never has a Mayor gone into a re-election campaign with such a poor record of delivery .
Knife crime continues to plague our streets , yet Khan has failed to act , saying it will take a decade to turn things around .
147 people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest level since 2008 .
But instead of moving resources to the Police , Khan wastes London ’ s resources on press officers .
On housing , Khan has managed to grind all house building to a halt due to his ideological position and hatred of developers .
And he fundamentally failed to call out Jeremy Corbyn on anti-Semitism , something that should shame him and his team .
The need for change = Shaun In Shaun Bailey , the Conservative Party has chosen a true Londoner .
He is a black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in the shadow of Grenfell Tower .
A man who has had to grind his entire life to make a living and raise his family .
In his early 20s he found himself homeless , sofa surfing with friends and family .
He chose a career of helping young people avoid a life of crime and has served the people of London as a Greater London Assembly member .
Shaun is probably one of the most sincere and genuine people in politics .
He has no dreams of grandeur , he just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to have affordable homes for our young people , he wants a clean environment for our children , and he wants safer streets for everyone , now .
Crime will play a central part in the Mayoral election .
The heart-breaking stories that we read about on a daily basis will not go away anytime soon .
With a lack of City Hall interest and leadership , our streets , our homes , and our communities do not feel safe places to be .
This is not limited to the inner-city areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Harrow to Bromley and everywhere in between .
There were three knife crime murders in Fulham last year , in my constituency .
Shaun ’ s plan is one of zero tolerance , tougher sentences for those caught with acid or a knife , a record amount of police on the streets with money already available in City Hall , and ending the fights that are raging on our streets .
It is Shaun ’ s strength of character , and understanding of what is happening under the radar on our streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am looking forward to working with Shaun to build his campaign , tell his story , and sell his plan to people across London .
We need to end Khan ’ s miserable tenure on 7th May and turn City Hall into a machine that delivers for Londoners .

Greg Hands is the MP for Chelsea and Fulham.
I am delighted to have been asked by Shaun Bailey himself to be his Campaign Chairman for this year’s Mayoral election.
I have known Shaun well since 2007, and have always been a fan of this very different politician, a man who really wants to do the job as Mayor of London.
The General Election result highlighted what I have been seeing on the doorstep for many months, a complex and fluid change in the way Londoners are voting. The election turned out to be a mixed picture in London for the Conservatives. We lost a fantastic MP in Zac Goldsmith which will leave the Commons a poorer place and many outstanding candidates didn’t quite make it over the line.
However, our gains in Kensington (Felicity Buchan) and Carshalton (Elliott Colburn) were significant for our future hopes in London. The failure of Labour and the Lib Dems to make real inroads will be cause for concern for them ahead of the Greater London Assembly and Mayoral campaigns next year.
Lack of delivery in City Hall
The warning signs should by flashing loudly for Labour big wigs in City Hall. With the General Election out the way and as Brexit falls away from the public’s mindset, Sadiq Khan’s abysmal record on crime, housing, and the environment will be filling up the column inches. Never has a Mayor gone into a re-election campaign with such a poor record of delivery.
Knife crime continues to plague our streets, yet Khan has failed to act, saying it will take a decade to turn things around. 147 people were murdered in the capital last year, the highest level since 2008. But instead of moving resources to the Police, Khan wastes London’s resources on press officers. On housing, Khan has managed to grind all house building to a halt due to his ideological position and hatred of developers. And he fundamentally failed to call out Jeremy Corbyn on anti-Semitism, something that should shame him and his team.
The need for change = Shaun
In Shaun Bailey, the Conservative Party has chosen a true Londoner. He is a black, working class guy, who grew up in the shadow of Grenfell Tower. A man who has had to grind his entire life to make a living and raise his family. In his early 20s he found himself homeless, sofa surfing with friends and family. He chose a career of helping young people avoid a life of crime and has served the people of London as a Greater London Assembly member.
Shaun is probably one of the most sincere and genuine people in politics. He has no dreams of grandeur, he just wants to deliver for Londoners. He wants to have affordable homes for our young people, he wants a clean environment for our children, and he wants safer streets for everyone, now.
Crime will play a central part in the Mayoral election. The heart-breaking stories that we read about on a daily basis will not go away anytime soon. With a lack of City Hall interest and leadership, our streets, our homes, and our communities do not feel safe places to be. This is not limited to the inner-city areas, this is something that is felt from Harrow to Bromley and everywhere in between. There were three knife crime murders in Fulham last year, in my constituency.
Shaun’s plan is one of zero tolerance, tougher sentences for those caught with acid or a knife, a record amount of police on the streets with money already available in City Hall, and ending the fights that are raging on our streets. It is Shaun’s strength of character, and understanding of what is happening under the radar on our streets, that will make the difference.
Conclusion
I am looking forward to working with Shaun to build his campaign, tell his story, and sell his plan to people across London. We need to end Khan’s miserable tenure on 7th May and turn City Hall into a machine that delivers for Londoners.


conservativehome--2020-01-17--Council by-election result from yesterday and forthcoming contests

Labour 865 ( 39.7 per cent , -1.1 on 2016 ) Conservatives 647 ( 29.7 per cent , -6.2 ) @ @ @ @ @ per cent , +12.1 ) Green Party 179 ( 8.2 per cent , -4.8 )

Bristol – Brislington East
Labour 865 (39.7 per cent, -1.1 on 2016) Conservatives 647 (29.7 per cent, -6.2) Lib Dems 480 (22.3 per cent, +12.1) Green Party 179 (8.2 per cent, -4.8)
Labour hold.
Forthcoming contests
January 23rd
Brent – Alperton (Labour held)
Brent – Barnhill (Two vacancies. Both Labour held)
Brent – Wembley Central (Labour held)
Dumfries and Galloway – Mid Galloway and Wigtown West (Conservative held)


conservativehome--2020-01-17--Matt Kilcoyne: We can save our high streets by slashing the red tape holding them back

Matt Kilcoyne is Head Of Communications at the Adam Smith Institute .
Westminster is obsessed with the High Street .
For many , they ’ re the embodiment of the soul of the community .
Their faded glory , following the rise of out-of-town complexes and now online shopping , strikes a symbolic blow to their local community .
While it would be neither possible nor desirable to shut down the supermarkets or close off the internet , we can do something to return life to where we live .
Little-known red tape contained in the National Planning Policy Framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more broadly , from adapting to the modern age .
To fix the problem of shop closures and loss of community life in our town centres , we need to totally rethink town planning .
For years in my hometown of Wrexham – which thanks to the newly elected Sarah Atherton is a proud Conservative seat now – I would wander down the high street , witnessing shops shutting down .
I watched as people no longer make the drive into town , and instead just nip into the supermarket complexes on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could create an atmosphere with public art and pot plants , but in reality there just weren ’ t the people there to sustain the shops down the old shopping streets .
Truth is , the town centre just isn ’ t where people work anymore , and it ’ s been decades since they lived there .
Governments of all stripes have failed to grasp the problem .
Think about heading to the high street for your average Brit : driving through traffic , finding a place to park , walking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want , dealing with other customers and the weather , and sometimes getting cash out because they don ’ t accept card .
If you ’ re buying online , you don ’ t have to do any of those .
It ’ s often cheaper too because of the economies of scale offered by online services , the lack of rent they have to pay without physical stores , and the fact they don ’ t have to send goods back and forth to their shops before getting them to you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all stripes at all levels have thrown good money after bad at pet projects at local levels promising to boost footfall .
This has been coupled with renewed demands for business rate reform , which would largely benefit landlords rather than retailers .
There have also been calls to tax online businesses , forgetting that this is just increasing people ’ s cost of living .
Central government demands grand plans from the local level that have to last decades .
While companies and shops react in real time to millions of purchases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from above and electoral cycles that don ’ t easily match up .
Plans are based on evidence gathered around a year or two before publication , and local authorities are in constant political flux with a third of the council being reelected on three out of every four years .
A ten-year plan is liable to be at odds with the policy direction of a new administration within a year or two of its adoption , or sometimes even before its adoption .
That ’ s before you even think about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to , because we have a one-size-fits-all national planning framework that actually ends up suiting next to no-one .
A lack of central control can actually be a good thing when it comes to local planning .
I know , that seems utterly counter-intuitive and I know it ’ ll irk a few councillor readers – but I ’ m sorry , it is true and we ’ ve done the research .
The Adam Smith Institute ’ s latest paper , ‘ High Street Heist ’ , authored by town planner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home and abroad .
In the UK , Walker analyses high street planning in Milton Keynes , Stone , and Aylesbury .
All three are Conservative seats but only one , Aylesbury , has got it right .
To keep the other two long-term , Tories will need to learn the lessons from the latter .
Aylesbury has been creative with the definition of a town centre after its local plan for 2013-2033 was rejected in 2014 ( it remains un-adopted ) .
What has followed is the adoption of a strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development .
Shops are allowed throughout the town , rather than being arbitrarily restricted to a single high street .
It has also meant that shops , cafes , recreational spaces , and community hubs can all set up around houses as they spring up , so organic communities are again being created where people live and work .
Retail is supported not through subsidy , but because it ’ s what consumers want and where they want it .
Make it easier to have people living above and on our streets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and back again too , and we ’ ll have a vibrant economy that meets the demands we place on it as consumers and citizens .
If this model was rolled out across the country we could break the yolk of big landlords and make ourselves a nation of cafe owners and shopkeepers , running businesses that people actually want to visit .
“ Whose streets ?
” , the socialists ask on their unending marches .
“ Our streets ” should be the reply .
Owned by the many millions of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left to decay .
It ’ s time to remove the red tape that ’ s strangling Britain ’ s high streets and hand them back to this nation of shopkeepers .

Matt Kilcoyne is Head Of Communications at the Adam Smith Institute.
Westminster is obsessed with the High Street. For many, they’re the embodiment of the soul of the community. Their faded glory, following the rise of out-of-town complexes and now online shopping, strikes a symbolic blow to their local community.
While it would be neither possible nor desirable to shut down the supermarkets or close off the internet, we can do something to return life to where we live.
Little-known red tape contained in the National Planning Policy Framework has prevented high streets, and retail more broadly, from adapting to the modern age. To fix the problem of shop closures and loss of community life in our town centres, we need to totally rethink town planning.
For years in my hometown of Wrexham – which thanks to the newly elected Sarah Atherton is a proud Conservative seat now – I would wander down the high street, witnessing shops shutting down. I watched as people no longer make the drive into town, and instead just nip into the supermarket complexes on the outskirts.
The Council acted as if they could create an atmosphere with public art and pot plants, but in reality there just weren’t the people there to sustain the shops down the old shopping streets. Truth is, the town centre just isn’t where people work anymore, and it’s been decades since they lived there.
Governments of all stripes have failed to grasp the problem. Think about heading to the high street for your average Brit: driving through traffic, finding a place to park, walking to the shop, looking for what you want, dealing with other customers and the weather, and sometimes getting cash out because they don’t accept card.
If you’re buying online, you don’t have to do any of those. It’s often cheaper too because of the economies of scale offered by online services, the lack of rent they have to pay without physical stores, and the fact they don’t have to send goods back and forth to their shops before getting them to you.
Time after time, politicians of all stripes at all levels have thrown good money after bad at pet projects at local levels promising to boost footfall. This has been coupled with renewed demands for business rate reform, which would largely benefit landlords rather than retailers. There have also been calls to tax online businesses, forgetting that this is just increasing people’s cost of living.
Central government demands grand plans from the local level that have to last decades. While companies and shops react in real time to millions of purchases by customers, councils react to diktat from above and electoral cycles that don’t easily match up. Plans are based on evidence gathered around a year or two before publication, and local authorities are in constant political flux with a third of the council being reelected on three out of every four years.
A ten-year plan is liable to be at odds with the policy direction of a new administration within a year or two of its adoption, or sometimes even before its adoption. That’s before you even think about the impact of national elections – and you have to, because we have a one-size-fits-all national planning framework that actually ends up suiting next to no-one.
A lack of central control can actually be a good thing when it comes to local planning. I know, that seems utterly counter-intuitive and I know it’ll irk a few councillor readers – but I’m sorry, it is true and we’ve done the research.
The Adam Smith Institute’s latest paper, ‘High Street Heist’, authored by town planner Thomas Walker, looks at best practice at home and abroad. In the UK, Walker analyses high street planning in Milton Keynes, Stone, and Aylesbury. All three are Conservative seats but only one, Aylesbury, has got it right. To keep the other two long-term, Tories will need to learn the lessons from the latter.
Aylesbury has been creative with the definition of a town centre after its local plan for 2013-2033 was rejected in 2014 (it remains un-adopted).
What has followed is the adoption of a strategy to maximise the space available for commercial development. Shops are allowed throughout the town, rather than being arbitrarily restricted to a single high street. It has also meant that shops, cafes, recreational spaces, and community hubs can all set up around houses as they spring up, so organic communities are again being created where people live and work. Retail is supported not through subsidy, but because it’s what consumers want and where they want it.
Make it easier to have people living above and on our streets, to change commercial buildings to office space and back again too, and we’ll have a vibrant economy that meets the demands we place on it as consumers and citizens.
If this model was rolled out across the country we could break the yolk of big landlords and make ourselves a nation of cafe owners and shopkeepers, running businesses that people actually want to visit.
“Whose streets?”, the socialists ask on their unending marches. “Our streets” should be the reply. Owned by the many millions of us. Vibrant and alive, rather than left to decay. It’s time to remove the red tape that’s strangling Britain’s high streets and hand them back to this nation of shopkeepers.


conservativehome--2020-01-17--Claire Coutinho: The booming FinTech sector can help those on low incomes

The UK ’ s FinTech sector is booming .
Investment into UK FinTech – new technology to improve financial services – is at record highs , accounting for over a third of all investment into the sector in Europe .
Last year , London had more people working in FinTech and a greater number of venture-capital investment deals than any other city in the world .
Companies like Monzo , Revolut and Starling are some of the great financial success stories of the post-2008 era .
Amidst this surge in technology , a new Policy Exchange report suggests , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undercurrent working against Britain ’ s lowest earners – and to develop a financial services market which works for the traditionally underserved .
This is no small problem .
There are an estimated 10 million people , largely on low incomes , who are under-served by their bank .
This has led to a chronic poverty premium with a higher overall cost of banking and poor-quality insurance and savings products for people on the lowest incomes .
Lack of access to affordable credit has driven people towards high-cost short-term loans .
For our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machine can quickly spiral into an endless cycle of crushing debt .
And although successive governments have made progress in tackling the systemic drivers of problem debt , more needs to be done for people on low incomes .
Low income customers are not well served , in part because they tend to be loss-making under the traditional banking model .
But unburdened by the legacy costs of older banking providers , FinTech providers can and do see low-income consumers as sought after , valuable customers .
This gives them the ability and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tailored and cheaper services .
Policy Exchange ’ s report , Fintech for all , sets out a series of ambitious solutions to help encourage the development of FinTech services and products for people on low incomes .
For example , the Government could look to open up the “ Help to Save ” scheme to FinTech providers .
This saving scheme allows certain people entitled to Working Tax Credit or receiving Universal Credit to get a bonus of 50p for every £1 they save over four years .
Allowing FinTech firms to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovative saving tools , such as “ rounding up ” their everyday transactions and putting the difference in a savings account .
Other tools include using AI to predict future financial commitments and the optimum amount for low income customers to save each month .
Another of its ideas is for the Government to fund Universal Credit Banking Vouchers .
Banks could reclaim vouchers funded by the largest providers of personal current accounts if low income customers banked with them .
This could inject sorely needed competition for low income customers into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our best FinTech innovators to develop new products designed especially for them .
The good news is there is some countrywide support in the Conservative Party for fresh thinking in this area .
Gareth Davies , MP for Grantham and Richard Holden , MP for North West Durham are two fellow newly elected Tory MPs who also contributed to this report .
Many more of our new and older intake are passionate about effecting real change in left-behind communities .
They too should consider carefully the opportunities presented by our thriving FinTech sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system would allow those on low incomes to fully share in the advances in banking services as they continue to develop .
From access to affordable credit , bespoke budgeting tools , savings and insurance products , a new wave of FinTech offerings could transform the way we approach Financial Inclusion in the UK and ultimately lead to low income individuals getting the banking services they want and need .
The UK FinTech industry presents an exciting growth opportunity for our economy to push new boundaries in technology and to allow access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We must support these changemakers if we are truly to unleash Britain ’ s potential at home and on the world stage .

Claire Coutinho is MP for East Surrey.
The UK’s FinTech sector is booming. Investment into UK FinTech – new technology to improve financial services – is at record highs, accounting for over a third of all investment into the sector in Europe. Last year, London had more people working in FinTech and a greater number of venture-capital investment deals than any other city in the world. Companies like Monzo, Revolut and Starling are some of the great financial success stories of the post-2008 era.
Amidst this surge in technology, a new Policy Exchange report suggests, there is an opportunity to address a long-standing undercurrent working against Britain’s lowest earners – and to develop a financial services market which works for the traditionally underserved.
This is no small problem. There are an estimated 10 million people, largely on low incomes, who are under-served by their bank. This has led to a chronic poverty premium with a higher overall cost of banking and poor-quality insurance and savings products for people on the lowest incomes.
Lack of access to affordable credit has driven people towards high-cost short-term loans. For our lowest income households, a broken washing machine can quickly spiral into an endless cycle of crushing debt.
And although successive governments have made progress in tackling the systemic drivers of problem debt, more needs to be done for people on low incomes. Low income customers are not well served, in part because they tend to be loss-making under the traditional banking model.
But unburdened by the legacy costs of older banking providers, FinTech providers can and do see low-income consumers as sought after, valuable customers. This gives them the ability and incentive to provide more accessible, more tailored and cheaper services.
Policy Exchange’s report, Fintech for all, sets out a series of ambitious solutions to help encourage the development of FinTech services and products for people on low incomes. For example, the Government could look to open up the “Help to Save” scheme to FinTech providers. This saving scheme allows certain people entitled to Working Tax Credit or receiving Universal Credit to get a bonus of 50p for every £1 they save over four years.
Allowing FinTech firms to participate could allow customers to benefit from innovative saving tools, such as “rounding up” their everyday transactions and putting the difference in a savings account. Other tools include using AI to predict future financial commitments and the optimum amount for low income customers to save each month.
Another of its ideas is for the Government to fund Universal Credit Banking Vouchers. Banks could reclaim vouchers funded by the largest providers of personal current accounts if low income customers banked with them. This could inject sorely needed competition for low income customers into the banking market, increasing the incentive for our best FinTech innovators to develop new products designed especially for them.
The good news is there is some countrywide support in the Conservative Party for fresh thinking in this area. Gareth Davies, MP for Grantham and Richard Holden, MP for North West Durham are two fellow newly elected Tory MPs who also contributed to this report. Many more of our new and older intake are passionate about effecting real change in left-behind communities. They too should consider carefully the opportunities presented by our thriving FinTech sector.
After all, an inclusive banking system would allow those on low incomes to fully share in the advances in banking services as they continue to develop. From access to affordable credit, bespoke budgeting tools, savings and insurance products, a new wave of FinTech offerings could transform the way we approach Financial Inclusion in the UK and ultimately lead to low income individuals getting the banking services they want and need.
The UK FinTech industry presents an exciting growth opportunity for our economy to push new boundaries in technology and to allow access to good quality financial services for all. We must support these changemakers if we are truly to unleash Britain’s potential at home and on the world stage.


conservativehome--2020-01-17--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Tees Valley Local Enterprise

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

Seven years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
Since then , the figures have varied , and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts .
Nonetheless , it remains the case that , since it took office in 2010 , our Party has punched beneath its weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don ’ t apply in the same number as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ This is an exciting time for the National Infrastructure Commission .
The NIC was created in 2015 and became an Executive Agency of HM Treasury in 2017 .
After the successful publication of the National Infrastructure Assessment in July 2018 , the NIC is now looking to the future .
A new strategy is in development , to take us to the next National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support and drive this growth we are seeking to appoint one new Non-Executive Member to our Oversight Board .
The role of the National Infrastructure Commission ’ s Oversight Board is to ensure that the NIC is managed and governed appropriately , operates within its financial and operational delegation limits and has effective governance arrangements in place.
” “ Parliament ’ s Information Authority is seeking to recruit a Non-Executive Director to join them for meetings related to the Parliamentary Estate , our building information and data , and the Restoration and Renewal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful candidate would attend up to 15 meetings per year , including quarterly Authority meetings , additional Authority meetings related to the programme or associated work and to join other associated discussions as required .
The 15 days to include all preparatory work for those meetings.
” “ The Greater Lincolnshire LEP works with the public , private and voluntary sectors to drive sustainable economic growth .
We help our businesses increase productivity and innovation , create new employment opportunities , and develop infrastructure solutions that support this .
We are the voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the economic interests of the area are properly represented .
We believe that Greater Lincolnshire is alive with opportunities and a truly great place to live , work and do business and is emerging as the intelligent choice for investors.
” Time : Around four days per month .
“ CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry .
CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met .
CITB seeks to create the culture and conditions that will deliver new ways of working , embracing new technologies , creating a demand in construction for more skills , new skills and higher level skills .
CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.
” “ The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board .
They will guide and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing confident , clear and consistent leadership .
They will also lead the Agency ’ s relationship with the Secretary of State for Housing , Communities and Local Government , who they will meet on a regular basis .
The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England , helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England ’ s core mission .
The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per week .
“ The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership ( LEP ) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans .
The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership , and through this latest round of appointments , have committed to achieve 50 % female representation on the LEP board in 2020 .
Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term , we are looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a strong private sector background , experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale .
”

Seven years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
Since then, the figures have varied, and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that, since it took office in 2010, our Party has punched beneath its weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
National Infrastructure Commission – Non-Executive Member
“This is an exciting time for the National Infrastructure Commission. The NIC was created in 2015 and became an Executive Agency of HM Treasury in 2017. After the successful publication of the National Infrastructure Assessment in July 2018, the NIC is now looking to the future. A new strategy is in development, to take us to the next National Infrastructure Assessment in 2023, and to support and drive this growth we are seeking to appoint one new Non-Executive Member to our Oversight Board. The role of the National Infrastructure Commission’s Oversight Board is to ensure that the NIC is managed and governed appropriately, operates within its financial and operational delegation limits and has effective governance arrangements in place.”
Time: 1-2 days per quarter.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 17 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Information Authority – Non-Executive Director
“Parliament’s Information Authority is seeking to recruit a Non-Executive Director to join them for meetings related to the Parliamentary Estate, our building information and data, and the Restoration and Renewal programme. It is expected that the successful candidate would attend up to 15 meetings per year, including quarterly Authority meetings, additional Authority meetings related to the programme or associated work and to join other associated discussions as required. The 15 days to include all preparatory work for those meetings.”
Time: Up to 15 meetings a year.
Remuneration: £9,000 per annum plus reasonable travel expenses.
Closes: 19 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Greater Lincolnshire LEP works with the public, private and voluntary sectors to drive sustainable economic growth. We help our businesses increase productivity and innovation, create new employment opportunities, and develop infrastructure solutions that support this. We are the voice of the local business community, ensuring that the economic interests of the area are properly represented. We believe that Greater Lincolnshire is alive with opportunities and a truly great place to live, work and do business and is emerging as the intelligent choice for investors.”
Time: Around four days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 20 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Construction Industry Training Board – Board Trustee
“CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry. CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy, and works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met. CITB seeks to create the culture and conditions that will deliver new ways of working, embracing new technologies, creating a demand in construction for more skills, new skills and higher level skills. CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.”
Time: Around 16 hours per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 28 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Homes England – Chair
“The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board. They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident, clear and consistent leadership. They will also lead the Agency’s relationship with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who they will meet on a regular basis. The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England, helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England’s core mission. The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming…”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £95,000 per annum.
Closes: 31 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans. The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership, and through this latest round of appointments, have committed to achieve 50% female representation on the LEP board in 2020. Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term, we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background, experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence expenses.
Closes: 29 February


conservativehome--2020-01-17--Maximum flexibility – the Government’s starting assumption in post-Brexit negotiations

As we reach that point in January when it definitely is too late to say “ Happy New Year ” any more , and the one-month mark since the election has rolled by , it seems a natural moment to explore where the new Government goes from here on its most pressing issue .
What ’ s next on the Brexit front ?
First , there ’ s the question of fulfilling that iconic pledge : Get Brexit Done .
The Withdrawal Agreement Bill is with the Lords , having stormed through the newly-elected Commons – not surprisingly , given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot box .
While it is yet to pass , the progress of the Bill in itself shouldn ’ t be downplayed .
As recently as a few weeks ago , it was possible that this country would never leave the EU at all .
If getting Brexit done is the first priority , the second should be ensuring that it is widely communicated that it has actually happened , at long last .
There ’ s already an effort underway to try to claim that it is somehow impossible to ‘ do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of leaving the institutions of the EU won ’ t really count , because political debate and change arising from leaving will continue .
This is bogus – obviously , exiting the EU means fulfilling the promise to do so ; if it did not , those opposed to leaving wouldn ’ t be so bothered about it happening – but the spin effort has a reason behind it .
The hope in hardcore Remainer/Rejoiner circles is that they can disillusion those who voted Leave and/or for Boris Johnson through bitter experience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and so they fervently hope to discredit it by arguing it is a broken promise .
I doubt that the Government would actively choose to have the media discussion largely framed , weirdly , through the lens of whether Big Ben should Bong as Brexit happens or not , but their main hope will be that everyone knows that Brexit is happening at that time , on that day , as promised .
So Brexit can indeed be done .
And it ’ s simply inaccurate to talk of the entire future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU , hammering out trade deals around the world , re-establishing and re-learning ways to govern ourselves in a host of repatriated areas of sovereignty – as amounting to it somehow not happening .
Rather , those are the key elements of post-Brexit life ; the fact that democratic self-government needs work and takes time is not a case for having stayed in the EU , it is part of what the goal of ‘ Taking Back Control ’ always meant .
Much of the Government ’ s policy for life after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unknown .
Some is still being developed , some will be influenced by changes at the top ( including the reshuffle and potential Whitehall re-organisation ) , and some is sensibly kept under wraps ahead of sensitive negotiations .
It is nonetheless possible to glean a few things from what the Government has and hasn ’ t done so far .
Overall , the signs point to a continuation of the strategy which distinguishes this administration from its predecessor : the belief in practice , not just rhetoric , that successful negotiation rests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursue a tough alternative .
That position is sometimes misunderstood , and more often misrepresented .
Remember all the bombastic claims that Boris Johnson couldn ’ t possibly get a new deal , that he wasn ’ t even interested in trying to do so , and even that he actively desired No Deal ?
And yet his approach worked to avoid exactly that outcome .
Extending that logic from the autumn to today means the Government retains the willingness to march out of transition without a deal , and intends to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
The size of the majority , and the new popular electoral mandate , bolster that position .
They also weaken the routes by which it is possible to breach deadlines while avoiding the blame – it ’ s hard when one has a majority of 80 to argue that a Hung Parliament forced you into delay , for example .
It might at a push be possible , if both sides have signed a workable future relationship deal before the December deadline , to see some sort of new timetable established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new brand ( an implementation period , perhaps ? )
– but it ’ s hard to see that being acceptable unless it were brief , strictly time limited , delineated from ‘ transition ’ , and explicitly for the sole purpose of putting the technicalities of an already-agreed future relationship in place .
At the same time , as Stephen Booth recently suggested on this site , there may be an agreement to bundle together the various other deadlines currently scattered through the year – for tricky talks on fishing , financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reschedule them for the end of 2020 , too .
‘ Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed ’ , as somebody once said .
After the failure to properly assess the risks of different schedules in the previous round of negotiations , expect Westminster to be far more robust in fighting for its preferred timetable this time .
So what sort of relationship will the UK seek ?
That is bound up with the time available .
The EU ’ s preference , naturally , would be to argue that a short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ akin to continued membership – ongoing compliance with existing EU law and continued ‘ dynamic alignment ’ with new measures .
The UK ’ s interests , and the bitter lessons of political experience under Theresa May , argue for the opposite – not starting with the monolith of EU membership and shaving bits off apologetically here and there , but starting from the assumption of maximum flexibility and agreeing to compromise on that where absolutely necessary .
That would be the route by which the back-up alternative – a UK economy designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – is easiest to achieve .
And therefore it is the most productive way to encourage an agreement instead .
It would also , of course , allow the newly-elected Government to frame the negotiations in less apologetic terms than May : self-government is an opportunity , not a risk to be limited , and compromises which the EU might seek are concessions to be won from the UK .
There are signs of the groundwork being laid for such an approach .
The Government ’ s rejection of amendments to the Withdrawal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver one particular outcome or another from negotiations is a sensible start .
If the proponents of those amendments haven ’ t yet got it , ministers have no intention of starting talks with their hands bound or their position compromised .
We see similar provisions being made for maximum flexibility elsewhere , too .
The new Agriculture Bill does not include a legislative ban on new trade deals varying the standards applied to food imports , for example , which had been demanded by the NFU , among others .
Likewise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself proposes to give ministers the power to issue regulations telling courts ( below the Supreme Court , which already has this power ) to disregard ECJ and EU case law on a range of potential issues .
That has an obvious implication – the transition period provides for stability and continuity in the authority of EU law over the UK , but if we really need to then we can start to loosen some of those constraints early .
The Government hopes , and works on the assumption that , the talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it retains the right to make provision for the UK to best serve its interests if they do not work out , and rightly so .
It will be worth watching carefully to see how forthcoming legislation like the Immigration Bill might reflect this approach ; or , for that matter , if the Budget will contain any measures which could be seen as preparing the UK to compete more energetically with its EU neighbours .
While Brussels sometimes talks as if the UK ought to gratefully sign up to compliance and alignment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all fronts , the fact is that now , more than ever , it is aware of the risk and challenge of a divergent competitor on its doorstep .
The EU knew that Philip Hammond was unlikely to seriously prepare for such an outcome , and that the Parliamentary numbers were not there even if he wanted to do so .
Now he is gone and there is a Commons majority , backing a Government which is willing to act if needed .
That was evident as a factor in Angela Merkel ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week about Brexit as a ‘ wake-up call ’ to the EU to become more competitive .
Even Mark Carney recently argued that the UK must make the most of its advantage in financial services by retaining flexibility and regulatory self-government .
The implication of all this – the timescale , the preparation of an alternative , the retention of the right to diverge – is that the priority is getting an agreement in good time , without excessive sacrifice of control .
That points to a simpler , looser relationship , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first , how would the UK then make the most of its newfound flexibility in terms of domestic regulation and taxation , and negotiation of new trade deals ?
And second , how would it mitigate the impact on sectors which could lose out as a result – particularly those with complex international supply-chains stretching into the EU , which are fearful of delays and costs from customs complexity ?
It is perhaps no coincidence that the other benefit of prioritising a swift agreement is that the Government gains more time to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well before the next election .

As we reach that point in January when it definitely is too late to say “Happy New Year” any more, and the one-month mark since the election has rolled by, it seems a natural moment to explore where the new Government goes from here on its most pressing issue. What’s next on the Brexit front?
First, there’s the question of fulfilling that iconic pledge: Get Brexit Done. The Withdrawal Agreement Bill is with the Lords, having stormed through the newly-elected Commons – not surprisingly, given the extraordinary mandate it won at the ballot box.
While it is yet to pass, the progress of the Bill in itself shouldn’t be downplayed. As recently as a few weeks ago, it was possible that this country would never leave the EU at all.
If getting Brexit done is the first priority, the second should be ensuring that it is widely communicated that it has actually happened, at long last. There’s already an effort underway to try to claim that it is somehow impossible to ‘do’ Brexit – that even the act of leaving the institutions of the EU won’t really count, because political debate and change arising from leaving will continue.
This is bogus – obviously, exiting the EU means fulfilling the promise to do so; if it did not, those opposed to leaving wouldn’t be so bothered about it happening – but the spin effort has a reason behind it. The hope in hardcore Remainer/Rejoiner circles is that they can disillusion those who voted Leave and/or for Boris Johnson through bitter experience. Get Brexit Done proved a compelling message, and so they fervently hope to discredit it by arguing it is a broken promise.
I doubt that the Government would actively choose to have the media discussion largely framed, weirdly, through the lens of whether Big Ben should Bong as Brexit happens or not, but their main hope will be that everyone knows that Brexit is happening at that time, on that day, as promised.
So Brexit can indeed be done. And it’s simply inaccurate to talk of the entire future thereafter – negotiating a new relationship with the EU, hammering out trade deals around the world, re-establishing and re-learning ways to govern ourselves in a host of repatriated areas of sovereignty – as amounting to it somehow not happening.
Rather, those are the key elements of post-Brexit life; the fact that democratic self-government needs work and takes time is not a case for having stayed in the EU, it is part of what the goal of ‘Taking Back Control’ always meant.
Much of the Government’s policy for life after EU membership is as yet unpublished and unknown. Some is still being developed, some will be influenced by changes at the top (including the reshuffle and potential Whitehall re-organisation), and some is sensibly kept under wraps ahead of sensitive negotiations.
It is nonetheless possible to glean a few things from what the Government has and hasn’t done so far.
Overall, the signs point to a continuation of the strategy which distinguishes this administration from its predecessor: the belief in practice, not just rhetoric, that successful negotiation rests on the availability of and willingness to pursue a tough alternative.
That position is sometimes misunderstood, and more often misrepresented. Remember all the bombastic claims that Boris Johnson couldn’t possibly get a new deal, that he wasn’t even interested in trying to do so, and even that he actively desired No Deal? And yet his approach worked to avoid exactly that outcome.
Extending that logic from the autumn to today means the Government retains the willingness to march out of transition without a deal, and intends to hold to the deadline of the end of 2020. The size of the majority, and the new popular electoral mandate, bolster that position. They also weaken the routes by which it is possible to breach deadlines while avoiding the blame – it’s hard when one has a majority of 80 to argue that a Hung Parliament forced you into delay, for example.
It might at a push be possible, if both sides have signed a workable future relationship deal before the December deadline, to see some sort of new timetable established – a mutually agreed fudging under a new brand (an implementation period, perhaps?) – but it’s hard to see that being acceptable unless it were brief, strictly time limited, delineated from ‘transition’, and explicitly for the sole purpose of putting the technicalities of an already-agreed future relationship in place.
At the same time, as Stephen Booth recently suggested on this site, there may be an agreement to bundle together the various other deadlines currently scattered through the year – for tricky talks on fishing, financial services equivalence, and data – and reschedule them for the end of 2020, too. ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, as somebody once said. After the failure to properly assess the risks of different schedules in the previous round of negotiations, expect Westminster to be far more robust in fighting for its preferred timetable this time.
So what sort of relationship will the UK seek? That is bound up with the time available. The EU’s preference, naturally, would be to argue that a short 11-month negotiation window ought to encourage something akin to continued membership – ongoing compliance with existing EU law and continued ‘dynamic alignment’ with new measures.
The UK’s interests, and the bitter lessons of political experience under Theresa May, argue for the opposite – not starting with the monolith of EU membership and shaving bits off apologetically here and there, but starting from the assumption of maximum flexibility and agreeing to compromise on that where absolutely necessary.
That would be the route by which the back-up alternative – a UK economy designed to out-compete the EU through swift divergence – is easiest to achieve. And therefore it is the most productive way to encourage an agreement instead. It would also, of course, allow the newly-elected Government to frame the negotiations in less apologetic terms than May: self-government is an opportunity, not a risk to be limited, and compromises which the EU might seek are concessions to be won from the UK.
There are signs of the groundwork being laid for such an approach. The Government’s rejection of amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement Bill which would require it to deliver one particular outcome or another from negotiations is a sensible start. If the proponents of those amendments haven’t yet got it, ministers have no intention of starting talks with their hands bound or their position compromised.
We see similar provisions being made for maximum flexibility elsewhere, too. The new Agriculture Bill does not include a legislative ban on new trade deals varying the standards applied to food imports, for example, which had been demanded by the NFU, among others.
Likewise, Clause 26 of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill itself proposes to give ministers the power to issue regulations telling courts (below the Supreme Court, which already has this power) to disregard ECJ and EU case law on a range of potential issues.
That has an obvious implication – the transition period provides for stability and continuity in the authority of EU law over the UK, but if we really need to then we can start to loosen some of those constraints early. The Government hopes, and works on the assumption that, the talks will be productive and constructive – but it retains the right to make provision for the UK to best serve its interests if they do not work out, and rightly so.
It will be worth watching carefully to see how forthcoming legislation like the Immigration Bill might reflect this approach; or, for that matter, if the Budget will contain any measures which could be seen as preparing the UK to compete more energetically with its EU neighbours.
While Brussels sometimes talks as if the UK ought to gratefully sign up to compliance and alignment – some would say obeisance – on all fronts, the fact is that now, more than ever, it is aware of the risk and challenge of a divergent competitor on its doorstep.
The EU knew that Philip Hammond was unlikely to seriously prepare for such an outcome, and that the Parliamentary numbers were not there even if he wanted to do so. Now he is gone and there is a Commons majority, backing a Government which is willing to act if needed.
That was evident as a factor in Angela Merkel’s remarks to the Financial Times this week about Brexit as a ‘wake-up call’ to the EU to become more competitive. Even Mark Carney recently argued that the UK must make the most of its advantage in financial services by retaining flexibility and regulatory self-government.
The implication of all this – the timescale, the preparation of an alternative, the retention of the right to diverge – is that the priority is getting an agreement in good time, without excessive sacrifice of control.
That points to a simpler, looser relationship, which would itself raise two huge questions: first, how would the UK then make the most of its newfound flexibility in terms of domestic regulation and taxation, and negotiation of new trade deals? And second, how would it mitigate the impact on sectors which could lose out as a result – particularly those with complex international supply-chains stretching into the EU, which are fearful of delays and costs from customs complexity?
It is perhaps no coincidence that the other benefit of prioritising a swift agreement is that the Government gains more time to address both of those questions through its actions well before the next election.


conservativehome--2020-01-17--Job vacancy: ConservativeHome seeks a Deputy Editor

The UK ’ s most influential Conservative-supporting news and analysis website seeks a new full-time Deputy Editor .
This is a rare opportunity to take on a senior role in a fast-developing outlet at a very exciting time for the site and centre right political journalism .
The ideal candidate will be a skilled writer , with political insight and experience , capable of turning their hand to the varied tasks involved in planning and producing a daily high-quality online publication .
Responsibilities of the role include , but are not limited to : • Writing daily news , opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK politics ; • Commissioning and editing articles from outside contributors ; • Supporting the Editor in planning and producing ConservativeHome content , and maintaining quality and consistency in output ; • Aiding the Editor in the management of a small and experienced team of journalists ; • Fulfilling Duty Editor shifts ( these include the production of a comprehensive round-up of the morning ’ s newspapers and our morning newsletter for 9am , and require an early start ; the Deputy Editor would normally do around two such shifts a week ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party Conference and providing expert analysis at ConservativeHome events ; • The ability to prioritise and work under pressure .
• Journalistic experience .
You will have written for established print or online outlets , produced a blog for yourself or an organisation , ghost-written newspaper articles for others , or similar .
You know how to develop an argument , and what is and is not a story .
• Drive and initiative .
You are full of ideas for stories and articles , and are able to work independently , reacting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the basis of your own judgement .
We mostly work remotely .
• Political knowledge/experience .
You are excited by political events , have excellent contacts , and are keen to develop further .
Perhaps you have already worked in a Westminster newsroom , campaign team or Parliamentary office .
• Understanding and experience of social media , particularly Twitter .
• Sympathy with the values and aims of ConservativeHome .
Very competitive , dependent on experience and ability .
The role would start as soon as feasibly possible , dependent upon the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close at 6pm on Monday 20th January , with interviews to take place in London very shortly afterwards .
To apply , please send a one-page cover letter and a CV to development @ conservativehome .
com Links to examples of writing , social media output and broadcast experience are welcome , within reason , to illustrate skills and experience .

The UK’s most influential Conservative-supporting news and analysis website seeks a new full-time Deputy Editor. This is a rare opportunity to take on a senior role in a fast-developing outlet at a very exciting time for the site and centre right political journalism.
The ideal candidate will be a skilled writer, with political insight and experience, capable of turning their hand to the varied tasks involved in planning and producing a daily high-quality online publication.
Responsibilities of the role include, but are not limited to:
Writing daily news, opinion and analysis articles on the subject of UK politics;
Commissioning and editing articles from outside contributors;
Supporting the Editor in planning and producing ConservativeHome content, and maintaining quality and consistency in output;
Aiding the Editor in the management of a small and experienced team of journalists;
Fulfilling Duty Editor shifts (these include the production of a comprehensive round-up of the morning’s newspapers and our morning newsletter for 9am, and require an early start; the Deputy Editor would normally do around two such shifts a week);
Chairing ConservativeHome events at Conservative Party Conference and providing expert analysis at ConservativeHome events;
Representing ConservativeHome in the broadcast media;
Managing social media channels.
Key skills, experience and qualities
Excellent written English.
The ability to prioritise and work under pressure.
Journalistic experience. You will have written for established print or online outlets, produced a blog for yourself or an organisation, ghost-written newspaper articles for others, or similar. You know how to develop an argument, and what is and is not a story.
Drive and initiative. You are full of ideas for stories and articles, and are able to work independently, reacting to events and following editorial instructions on the basis of your own judgement. We mostly work remotely.
Political knowledge/experience. You are excited by political events, have excellent contacts, and are keen to develop further. Perhaps you have already worked in a Westminster newsroom, campaign team or Parliamentary office.
Understanding and experience of social media, particularly Twitter.
Sympathy with the values and aims of ConservativeHome.
Desirable skills, experience and qualities
Experience of using WordPress.
Experience of managing and supporting junior colleagues.
Video editing skills.
Broadcast media and/or podcasting experience.
Salary
Very competitive, dependent on experience and ability.
Start date and interviews
The role would start as soon as feasibly possible, dependent upon the successful candidate’s availability. Applications close at 6pm on Monday 20th January, with interviews to take place in London very shortly afterwards.
Applications
To apply, please send a one-page cover letter and a CV to development@conservativehome. com
Links to examples of writing, social media output and broadcast experience are welcome, within reason, to illustrate skills and experience.