conservativehome--2020-02-24--A storm over Heathrow threatens. Will the Prime Minister set a course for ‘Boris Island’?

One lesson Boris Johnson must be learning as Prime Minister , if he did not take it well enough as Mayor of London , is that big infrastructure projects have a habit of splitting a politician ’ s political coalition .
His decision to green-light the first phase of HS2 illustrates this .
The move was warmly welcomed by a portion of the Tory tribe , most prominently Andy Street and his campaign to hold on to the West Midlands mayoralty .
But it also met serious opposition , including from a section of the Party ’ s new cohort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he bitten that bullet , however , than he finds another whistling towards him in the form of Heathrow .
The Prime Minister ’ s record on this largely one of evasion .
Whilst Mayor he famously advocated building an entirely new airport in the Thames estuary , which inevitably came to be dubbed ‘ Boris Island ’ .
But at least some of his City Hall team take the cynical view that this was much more a device to allow Johnson to simultaneously look pro-expansion whilst opposing every practical means of increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his pledge to “ lie down in front of the bulldozers ” when Theresa May graciously gave him the chance to be out of the country during the key Commons vote on Heathrow .
Now he once again finds himself torn between two competing camps .
As George Trefgarne noted in a recent piece for this site , many senior London Conservatives are strongly against expansion .
Given the upcoming mayoral contest and the Party ’ s increasingly precarious position in the capital , that is not to be taken lightly .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that other Conservative MPs are heaping public pressure on the Prime Minister to press ahead with Heathrow expansion , and just as with HS2 there is also a well-established lobby – a ‘ Heathrow-industrial complex ’ , if you like – which has built up around the current proposals .
With HS2 , at least , Johnson can shift a lot of the blame to his predecessors .
For the minute he could do the same with Heathrow , which was authorised by the previous Parliament .
Yet if the Government ends up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight for the proposals , that will remove a lot of that distance and put the Prime Minister in an awkward spot .
Should that happen , it will raise an interesting question : will we hear any more about ‘ Boris Island ’ ?
After all , the man himself now sits at the apex of British politics .
There ’ s nothing and nobody to stop him at least setting the ball rolling on the idea , and one can see the appeal of building a new , 21st-century air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extra capacity , as opposed to alternatives involving relatively small increases .
If we don ’ t , it probably tells you everything you need to know about whether or not the ‘ Boris Bridge ’ to Northern Ireland will ever get built .

One lesson Boris Johnson must be learning as Prime Minister, if he did not take it well enough as Mayor of London, is that big infrastructure projects have a habit of splitting a politician’s political coalition.
His decision to green-light the first phase of HS2 illustrates this. The move was warmly welcomed by a portion of the Tory tribe, most prominently Andy Street and his campaign to hold on to the West Midlands mayoralty. But it also met serious opposition, including from a section of the Party’s new cohort of northern MPs.
No sooner had he bitten that bullet, however, than he finds another whistling towards him in the form of Heathrow.
The Prime Minister’s record on this largely one of evasion. Whilst Mayor he famously advocated building an entirely new airport in the Thames estuary, which inevitably came to be dubbed ‘Boris Island’. But at least some of his City Hall team take the cynical view that this was much more a device to allow Johnson to simultaneously look pro-expansion whilst opposing every practical means of increasing capacity. Then he rowed back on his pledge to “lie down in front of the bulldozers” when Theresa May graciously gave him the chance to be out of the country during the key Commons vote on Heathrow.
Now he once again finds himself torn between two competing camps. As George Trefgarne noted in a recent piece for this site, many senior London Conservatives are strongly against expansion. Given the upcoming mayoral contest and the Party’s increasingly precarious position in the capital, that is not to be taken lightly.
But this morning’s Daily Telegraph reports that other Conservative MPs are heaping public pressure on the Prime Minister to press ahead with Heathrow expansion, and just as with HS2 there is also a well-established lobby – a ‘Heathrow-industrial complex’, if you like – which has built up around the current proposals.
With HS2, at least, Johnson can shift a lot of the blame to his predecessors. For the minute he could do the same with Heathrow, which was authorised by the previous Parliament. Yet if the Government ends up having to go to the Supreme Court to fight for the proposals, that will remove a lot of that distance and put the Prime Minister in an awkward spot.
Should that happen, it will raise an interesting question: will we hear any more about ‘Boris Island’? After all, the man himself now sits at the apex of British politics. There’s nothing and nobody to stop him at least setting the ball rolling on the idea, and one can see the appeal of building a new, 21st-century air hub which could incorporate a lot of extra capacity, as opposed to alternatives involving relatively small increases.
If we don’t, it probably tells you everything you need to know about whether or not the ‘Boris Bridge’ to Northern Ireland will ever get built.


conservativehome--2020-02-28--More PPS appointments emerge

More PPS appointments emerge

There were 107 new Conservative MPs elected on December 12th .
They can be forgiven if they are yet to fully master the navigation and protocol of Parliament and the Government Departments in and around Whitehall .
Yet several of them have already been appointed Parliamentary Private Secretaries following the recent reshuffle of Ministerial posts .
Some regard the role of PPS as thankless .
It is unpaid .
Yet it does prohibit voting against or publicly criticising the Government .
As the Ministerial Code puts it , they are expected to “ avoid associating themselves with recommendations critical of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in private they are expected to pass on the criticism of their colleagues as well as seeking to placate such critics .
It is something of an apprenticeship .
They are subordinate , sometimes termed “ bag carriers ” , but they are in the room , seeing how the process works .
John Bercow mocked the role when in 2013 he told Gavin Williamson , then David Cameron ’ s PPS : “ Can I just say to the Prime Minister ’ s PPS , his role is to nod his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fetch and carry notes – no noise required.
” But now Williamson is the Education Secretary .
Where is Bercow ?
Several new appointees over the weekend are women .
That reflects assurances that Boris Johnson is keen to “ set the foundations ” for a gender-balanced Cabinet in the future .
The last time an official list of PPS appointments was published was last June , when Theresa May was Prime Minister .
At that stage , there were 34 of them .
I ’ m told an update will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is one for a Secretary of State and another for the general Ministerial team .
• Natalie Elphicke , the MP for Dover and Deal , is the PPS to the Ministers of Housing , Communities and Local Government [ pictured ] .
• Fay Jones , the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire , is the PPS to the Ministerial team at the Department for Environment , Food and Rural Affairs .
• Angela Richardson , the MP for Guildford , is the PPS to Ministers at the Department for Education .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stoke on Trent Central , is the PPS to Ministers at the Department for Business , Energy & Industrial Strategy .
• Jane Hunt , the MP for Loughborough , is the PPS to Ministers at the Cabinet Office .
• Sarah Atherton , the MP for Wrexham , is the PPS at the Wales Office .
• Ruth Edwards , the MP for Rushcliffe , is the PPS to the Secretary of State for Scotland .
Harry Cole , in the Mail on Sunday , reports that 14 new PPSs have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more names will emerge… In December it was announced that Trudy Harrison , the MP for Copeland , was appointed as the Prime Minister ’ s PPS .
• Jack Brereton , the MP for Stoke-on-Trent South , is the PPS to the Defence Secretary .
• James Cartlidge , the MP for South Suffolk , is the PPS to the Chancellor of the Exchequer .
• Siobhan Baillie , the MP for Stroud , is the PPS at the Ministry of Justice .
• Steve Double , the MP for St Austell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Health Secretary .
• Virginia Crosbie , the MP for Ynys Mon , is the PPS at the Department Health and Social Care .
• Andrew Lewer , the MP for Northampton South , is the PPS at the Home Office .
• Lucy Allan , the MP for Telford , is the PPS to the Leader of the House of Commons .

There were 107 new Conservative MPs elected on December 12th. They can be forgiven if they are yet to fully master the navigation and protocol of Parliament and the Government Departments in and around Whitehall. Yet several of them have already been appointed Parliamentary Private Secretaries following the recent reshuffle of Ministerial posts.
Some regard the role of PPS as thankless. It is unpaid. Yet it does prohibit voting against or publicly criticising the Government. As the Ministerial Code puts it, they are expected to “avoid associating themselves with recommendations critical of or embarrassing to the government”. But in private they are expected to pass on the criticism of their colleagues as well as seeking to placate such critics. It is something of an apprenticeship. They are subordinate, sometimes termed “bag carriers”, but they are in the room, seeing how the process works.
John Bercow mocked the role when in 2013 he told Gavin Williamson, then David Cameron’s PPS:
“Can I just say to the Prime Minister’s PPS, his role is to nod his head in the appropriate places, and to fetch and carry notes – no noise required.”
But now Williamson is the Education Secretary. Where is Bercow?
Several new appointees over the weekend are women. That reflects assurances that Boris Johnson is keen to “set the foundations” for a gender-balanced Cabinet in the future. The last time an official list of PPS appointments was published was last June, when Theresa May was Prime Minister. At that stage, there were 34 of them. I’m told an update will be published in due course. Usually, there is one for a Secretary of State and another for the general Ministerial team.
Recent announcements include:
Harry Cole, in the Mail on Sunday, reports that 14 new PPSs have been chosen, all women. So presumably more names will emerge…
In December it was announced that Trudy Harrison, the MP for Copeland, was appointed as the Prime Minister’s PPS.
UPDATE
A man has been appointed
Jack Brereton, the MP for Stoke-on-Trent South, is the PPS to the Defence Secretary.
UPDATE


conservativehome--2020-02-28--Council by-election results from yesterday and forthcoming contests

Labour 228 ( 52.2 per cent , -1.0 on 2019 ) Conservatives 188 ( 43.0 per cent , -3.8 ) Green Party 21 ( 4.8 per cent , +4.8 ) Lib Dems 1,607 ( 59.6 per cent , +26.3 on 2017 ) Conservatives 1,090 ( 40.4 per cent , -14.7 ) Labour 854 ( 54.1 per cent , -7.5 ) Conservatives 566 ( 35.8 per cent , +10.3 ) Green Party 69 ( 4.4 per cent , +4.4 ) Independent 57 ( 3.6 per cent , +3.6 ) Independent 34 ( 2.2 per cent , +2.2 ) Conservatives 1,430 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 488 ( 23.5 per cent , -12.7 ) Lib Dems 86 ( 4.1 per cent , +4.1 ) Green Party 59 ( 2.8 per cent , +2.8 ) UKIP 16 ( 0.8 per cent , +0.8 ) Independent 1,191 ( 47.9 per cent , +3.4 ) Labour 1,083 ( 43.6 per cent , -1.4 ) Conservatives 102 ( 4.1 per cent , +0.6 ) Lib Dems 57 ( 2.3 per cent , -1.0 ) Green Party 51 ( 2.1 per cent , -1.6 ) Plaid Cymru 189 ( 36.6 per cent , +36.6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , -10.7 ) Conservatives 78 ( 15.1 per cent , -5.0 ) Independent 51 ( 9.9 per cent , +9.9 ) Indepedent 43 ( 8.3 per cent , +8.3 ) Lib Dems 41 ( 7.9 per cent , +7.9 ) Independent 19 ( 3.7 per cent , +3.7 ) Green Party 9 ( 1.7 per cent , +1.7 )

Blaby – Millfield
Labour 228 (52.2 per cent, -1.0 on 2019) Conservatives 188 (43.0 per cent, -3.8) Green Party 21 (4.8 per cent, +4.8)
Labour hold.
Cambridgeshire – Duxford
Lib Dems 1,607 (59.6 per cent, +26.3 on 2017) Conservatives 1,090 (40.4 per cent, -14.7)
Lib Dems gain from Conservatives.
Cheshire East – Crewe South
Labour 854 (54.1 per cent, -7.5) Conservatives 566 (35.8 per cent, +10.3) Green Party 69 (4.4 per cent, +4.4) Independent 57 (3.6 per cent, +3.6) Independent 34 (2.2 per cent, +2.2)
Labour hold.
Hillingdon – Hillingdon East
Conservatives 1,430 (68.8 per cent, +9.1) Labour 488 (23.5 per cent, -12.7) Lib Dems 86 (4.1 per cent, +4.1) Green Party 59 (2.8 per cent, +2.8) UKIP 16 (0.8 per cent, +0.8)
Conservatives hold
Manchester – Clayton & Openshaw
Independent 1,191 (47.9 per cent, +3.4) Labour 1,083 (43.6 per cent, -1.4) Conservatives 102 (4.1 per cent, +0.6) Lib Dems 57 (2.3 per cent, -1.0) Green Party 51 (2.1 per cent, -1.6)
Independent gain from Labour.
South Cambridgeshire – Whittlesford
Conservatives 526 (55.2 per cent, -8.1) Lib Dems 427 (44.8 per cent, +30.3)
Conservatives hold.
Wrexham – Gwersyllt North
Plaid Cymru 189 (36.6 per cent, +36.6) Labour 87 (16.8 per cent, -10.7) Conservatives 78 (15.1 per cent, -5.0) Independent 51 (9.9 per cent, +9.9) Indepedent 43 (8.3 per cent, +8.3) Lib Dems 41 (7.9 per cent, +7.9) Independent 19 (3.7 per cent, +3.7) Green Party 9 (1.7 per cent, +1.7)
Plaid Cymru gain from Independent.
Forthcoming contests
March 10th
Wiltshire – Till and Wylye Valley (Conservative held)
March 12th
Highland – Eilean a’ Cheò (Independent held)
Stratford-on-Avon – Welford-on-Avon (Lib Dem held)
South Somerset – Parrett Ward (Lib Dem held)
Ashford – Park Farm North (Conservative held)
March 19th
Clackmannanshire – Clackmannanshire East (Conservative held)
Coventry- Upper Stoke Ward (Labour held)
Test Valley – Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams Ward (Conservative held)
Thanet – Newington Ward (Labour held)
March 26th


conservativehome--2020-02-28--The real question isn’t which airport we build, but how to get better at building anything

Infrastructure projects tend to be divisive , at least once you try to actually build them .
Most of them seem to end up fuelling battles between lobbies and advocates of competing schemes and affected interests .
But there is one issue which ought to unite the partisans of Heathrow , Gatwick , and ‘ Boris Island ’ , or indeed HS2 and the myriad alternative uses for its ballooning budget , and that is the urgent to try and ensure that at least something gets built .
There are a wide range of factors which appear to conspire to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which to embark on grands projets .
Our long tradition of private property rights means that the Government has never grown blasé about compulsory purchase , and an ever-more litigious culture – combined with a judiciary which has been slowing expanding the scope of judicial review – gives opponents plenty of opportunities to snarl up projects of national importance .
Add to that powerful lobbies and an increasingly rebellious legislature , as well as the sort of post-approval problems which have made HS2 so controversial , and it is perhaps no surprise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take full ownership of major infrastructure proposals in the way that ’ s necessary to bulldoze them through .
The question is , what to do about it ?
It ’ s unlikely that the Government will be able to find a cure for ‘ cost disease ‘ , an affliction which is by no means confined to the UK – although it could perhaps explore how ministerial decisions can lead to spiralling costs .
Nor is the political side necessarily any easier .
Any proposals to change the institutional architecture around infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s call for a Department of Infrastructure – must reckon with a difficult trade-off .
Either the move shifts decision-making away from political control ( not a great look for a Government theoretically exercised about the growth of un-elected power ) , or it will be of limited use if MPs and ministers continue to shy away from taking full ownership of long-term , controversial decisions .
One move might be to re-assess the wisdom of letting previous parliaments impose abstract yet legally-binding targets on their successors without grasping the actual implications of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister ’ s own NHS targets may become the next hurdle he trips on in court .

Infrastructure projects tend to be divisive, at least once you try to actually build them. Most of them seem to end up fuelling battles between lobbies and advocates of competing schemes and affected interests.
But there is one issue which ought to unite the partisans of Heathrow, Gatwick, and ‘Boris Island’, or indeed HS2 and the myriad alternative uses for its ballooning budget, and that is the urgent to try and ensure that at least something gets built.
There are a wide range of factors which appear to conspire to main Britain a particularly terrible country in which to embark on grands projets. Our long tradition of private property rights means that the Government has never grown blasé about compulsory purchase, and an ever-more litigious culture – combined with a judiciary which has been slowing expanding the scope of judicial review – gives opponents plenty of opportunities to snarl up projects of national importance.
Add to that powerful lobbies and an increasingly rebellious legislature, as well as the sort of post-approval problems which have made HS2 so controversial, and it is perhaps no surprise that successive governments tend to be reluctant to take full ownership of major infrastructure proposals in the way that’s necessary to bulldoze them through.
The question is, what to do about it? It’s unlikely that the Government will be able to find a cure for ‘cost disease‘, an affliction which is by no means confined to the UK – although it could perhaps explore how ministerial decisions can lead to spiralling costs.
Nor is the political side necessarily any easier. Any proposals to change the institutional architecture around infrastructure decisions – such as Stephen Hammond’s call for a Department of Infrastructure – must reckon with a difficult trade-off. Either the move shifts decision-making away from political control (not a great look for a Government theoretically exercised about the growth of un-elected power), or it will be of limited use if MPs and ministers continue to shy away from taking full ownership of long-term, controversial decisions.
One move might be to re-assess the wisdom of letting previous parliaments impose abstract yet legally-binding targets on their successors without grasping the actual implications of that for practical policy. Otherwise the Prime Minister’s own NHS targets may become the next hurdle he trips on in court.


conservativehome--2020-02-28--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibil

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Secretary of State , working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency , is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members .
The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds .
Applicants will need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills , knowledge and expertise .
Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero , climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.
” “ The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership ( LEP ) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans .
The Combined Authority and LEP strive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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.
” “ The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and passion to act as a champion for the area ’ s economic success .
The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders , while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government .
We want you to have a voice , make a difference and give something back to the region .
The Chair must come from the private sector ( Individuals can only be classed as private sector if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website ) .
” Time : Minimum one day per week on average .
“ As Chair of the STRB , you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body ; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State .
You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters that have been referred to it ; where necessary challenging existing assumptions ; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB ; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees… ” “ The Office of the Children ’ s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work .
It is a small organisation , but it has a loud voice and is highly respected .
The Children ’ s Commissioner ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and challenge to the Children ’ s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions .
The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals , with a wide breadth of experience , to join this Board , which meets quarterly in London .
Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children , particularly the most vulnerable , and be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work.
” “ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with substantial experience of leading complex , delivery focused organisations , to support the Home Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office .
They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department ’ s work through a fresh , independent , and external perspective .
You will work closely with ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year , after 10 years in post .
We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR ’ s staff .
This is a high profile and influential role , requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity .
Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity .
Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms .
This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.
” “ The Office for Nuclear Regulation ( ONR ) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK .
Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect , trust and confidence .
ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) who have principal responsibility for governance , finance and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Safety .
The Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director ( NED ) to the ONR Board.
” “ This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services , leading a sizeable and complex organisation .
There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role .
Under Andrew Bailey , the FCA has formulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organisation for the next phase of its development : a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers ; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified ; [ and ] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal , and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Environment Agency – Board Member
“The Secretary of State, working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency, is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members. The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds. Applicants will need to demonstrate they are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills, knowledge and expertise. Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero, climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.”
Time: Four days per month.
Remuneration: £350 per diem, reasonable expenses.
Closes: 25 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans. The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership, and through this latest round of appointments, have committed to achieve 50% female representation on the LEP board in 2020. Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term, we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background, experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence expenses.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Solent Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area’s economic success. The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders, while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government. We want you to have a voice, make a difference and give something back to the region. The Chair must come from the private sector (Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website).”
Time: Minimum one day per week on average.
Remuneration: ‘Reasonable expenses’.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
School Teachers’ Review Body – Chair
“As Chair of the STRB, you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State. You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it; where necessary challenging existing assumptions; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees…”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 01 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Children’s Commissioner’s Office – Advisory Board Member
“The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work. It is a small organisation, but it has a loud voice and is highly respected. The Children’s Commissioner’s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children’s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions. The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals, with a wide breadth of experience, to join this Board, which meets quarterly in London. Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children, particularly the most vulnerable, and be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work.”
Time: 3-4 meetings per year.
Remuneration: Reasonable expenses.
Closes: 03 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Non-Executive Directors
“We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) with substantial experience of leading complex, delivery focused organisations, to support the Home Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office. They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department’s work through a fresh, independent, and external perspective. You will work closely with ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.”
Time: “3 years”.
Remuneration: £15,000.
Closes: 08 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Budget Responsibility – Chair
“Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year, after 10 years in post. We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR’s staff. This is a high profile and influential role, requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity. Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity. Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term. There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms. This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.”
Time: Full- or part-time.
Remuneration: £158,762 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 19 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Nuclear Regulation – Security Non-Executive Director
“The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK. Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect, trust and confidence. ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) who have principal responsibility for governance, finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director (NED) to the ONR Board.”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 plus expenses.
Closes: 22 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Conduct Authority – Chief Executive
“This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services, leading a sizeable and complex organisation. There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role. Under Andrew Bailey, the FCA has formulated a transformation programme, to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development: a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified; [and] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal, and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Competitive.
Closes: 27 March


conservativehome--2020-02-28--As the coronavirus spreads, Hancock is endangered by twin perils – complacency and panic

Suppose neither the best nor the worst .
Imagine for a moment that the coronavirus turns out to have neither a high infection rate nor a high death rate – nor a low rate of either .
But is somewhere in the middle .
Which raises the question of what these rates actually are , to which the answer can only be that no-one knows for sure .
In today ’ s Daily Telegraph , Jeremy Warner quotes estimates from China of death rates to date varying from 0.8 per cent to two per cent .
He then offers an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five million deaths in Britain – “ a level of mortality that would change the face of the nation forever ” .
But let us stick to believing that the death rate will be nothing remotely as impactful , but that the virus none the less causes severe disruption – accentuated by the rumour factory that is social media , conspiracy theory , anti-politics and snowflakery or rather , if one takes a less severe view , by our culture ’ s lack of exposure to an event of this kind .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences .
The first will be supply chain disruption , which indeed is already happening .
The Asian stock market is having its worst week since 2011 .
Much of China ’ s economy has been in lockdown , and one estimate lops 1.5 per cent off its growth rate in the first quarter of this year .
Italy will surely tip into recession : it grew last year by only 0.2 per cent .
Germany ’ s condition is not much better .
The coronavirus will deepen the Eurozone ’ s problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bounce back , but there will be disruption to components , goods , and possibly food .
Not to mention ports , airports and travel .
The holiday trade abroad will be hit .
There is Brexit debate about No Deal – as Boris Johnson now doesn ’ t want us to call it .
The coronavirus has the capacity to have the effect of No Deal on steroids .
Incidentally , the virus may provoke an EU-wide response during transition , which would provoke a range of reactions in Britain .
Whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a Coronavirus Budget – in other words , one more expansionary than would otherwise be the case .
If Boris Johnson hankers after tearing up the present fiscal rules , he may have the cover to move .
Second , there is quarantine .
This ranges from a government-led shutdown of public activity , at one end of the range , to more schools , firms and other bodies closing spontaneously , at the other .
Matt Hancock says that closures of the first are “ a local decision based on various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some have already shut down .
Quarantine will have knock-on effects on productivity , shopping , exams , interaction with neighbours and home visits – not least to elderly and isolated people who rely on such visits , community nurses , social workers and so on .
There are conceivable effects on rubbish collection .
As for sport , cancellations are already here : Italy ’ s Six Nations game against Ireland has been called off .
The F.A.Cup Final might end up having to be played behind closed doors – as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
Concerts , theatre , cinema , festivals and cultural events will be affected .
Our third basket is government – and , in particular , the NHS .
Government activity became a Narnian winter during last year ’ s Brexit drama : it so consumed Westminster and Whitehall that almost nothing else moved .
The coronavirus has the potential to do the same .
Not to mention dominating the media for weeks and perhaps months to come .
A shutdown of government would be no bad thing , small statists and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you wish for .
The NHS is testing people who are returning from badly affected countries , and there is an isolation facility at Heathrow ( though not yet at other airports ) .
But the health service plainly wouldn ’ t have the capacity to handle a worst case scenario and would struggle with a medium case one .
For example , there is limited capability for testing .
That means clogged surgeries and cancelled operations at best .
The Government is presently relying on self-isolation , the use of 111 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people will feel , rightly or wrongly , that they can ’ t depend on advice over the phone .
And the use and abuse of A & E as an alternative to GP appointments is well established .
One can not be sure that the system will cope .
Which would have a knock-on effect of the virus spreading further .
Finally , borders .
We ’ ve already touched on ports , airports , travel – and , by extension , business abroad .
A rise in the number of migrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a spike in racist attacks .
ConservativeHome is striving , as it peers into the fog of Coronavirus uncertainty , to strike the right balance between the freedom to write more or less whatever we like , and the responsibility not to get the consequences of the virus out of proportion .
After all , not a single person in the country has yet died from it .
To give a sense of perspective , seasonal flu kills 600 people each year here in Britain .
If we struggle , one can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Department of Health , and the condition of the energetic , gregarious , capable Matt Hancock , whose task it is to oversee the Government ’ s “ contain , delay , research and mitigate ” strategy .
How can he escape being shipwrecked by those twin perils – complacency and panic ?
Under what conditions , for example , would he take the fateful decision to advise the closure of schools ?
When should he put the rockets under a public information campaign ?
There is political consensus on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to date .
That may not last .
Talking of consequences : could they knock Donald Trump ’ s re-election bid sideways ?
There is an upside to the virus – at least for online banking ; for internet activity of all kinds ; for the manufacturers of video games ; for firms who make surgical masks , wipes and gloves ; for single use plastics ; for scientists looking for funds for vaccines , for domestic tourism .
Traffic queues will ease if there are shutdowns .
And any slowdown will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , maybe , for house prices .
Any mass shutdown will bring ambiguities with it .
Families thrown more closely together – because children can ’ t go to school , or parents can ’ t get to work , or childcare isn ’ t there for the moment – may flourish as they rediscover leisure and conversation .
Or they may kick their heels with enforced boredom , and squabble over clean towels and sheets – and what to do with the rubbish .
Tipping could rise .
Pandemics produce weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movements , as people turn to God ; or , at the other end of the scale , orgiastic sex cults , as they fly for comfort amidst grief and death .
But remember : this is not yet a pandemic .
And may never become one .

Suppose neither the best nor the worst. Imagine for a moment that the coronavirus turns out to have neither a high infection rate nor a high death rate – nor a low rate of either. But is somewhere in the middle.
Which raises the question of what these rates actually are, to which the answer can only be that no-one knows for sure. In today’s Daily Telegraph, Jeremy Warner quotes estimates from China of death rates to date varying from 0.8 per cent to two per cent.
He then offers an “extraordinarly unlikely” upper estimate of five million deaths in Britain – “a level of mortality that would change the face of the nation forever”.
But let us stick to believing that the death rate will be nothing remotely as impactful, but that the virus none the less causes severe disruption – accentuated by the rumour factory that is social media, conspiracy theory, anti-politics and snowflakery or rather, if one takes a less severe view, by our culture’s lack of exposure to an event of this kind. There will be four main baskets of public consequences.
The first will be supply chain disruption, which indeed is already happening. The Asian stock market is having its worst week since 2011. Much of China’s economy has been in lockdown, and one estimate lops 1.5 per cent off its growth rate in the first quarter of this year. Italy will surely tip into recession: it grew last year by only 0.2 per cent. Germany’s condition is not much better. The coronavirus will deepen the Eurozone’s problems.
Both it and other economies may bounce back, but there will be disruption to components, goods, and possibly food. Not to mention ports, airports and travel. The holiday trade abroad will be hit.
There is Brexit debate about No Deal – as Boris Johnson now doesn’t want us to call it. The coronavirus has the capacity to have the effect of No Deal on steroids. Incidentally, the virus may provoke an EU-wide response during transition, which would provoke a range of reactions in Britain.
Whatever happens, there is now likely to be a Coronavirus Budget – in other words, one more expansionary than would otherwise be the case. If Boris Johnson hankers after tearing up the present fiscal rules, he may have the cover to move.
Second, there is quarantine. This ranges from a government-led shutdown of public activity, at one end of the range, to more schools, firms and other bodies closing spontaneously, at the other. Matt Hancock says that closures of the first are “a local decision based on various factors, including professional advice”. Some have already shut down.
Quarantine will have knock-on effects on productivity, shopping, exams, interaction with neighbours and home visits – not least to elderly and isolated people who rely on such visits, community nurses, social workers and so on. There are conceivable effects on rubbish collection.
As for sport, cancellations are already here: Italy’s Six Nations game against Ireland has been called off. The F.A.Cup Final might end up having to be played behind closed doors – as a Europa League game is already set to be. Concerts, theatre, cinema, festivals and cultural events will be affected.
Our third basket is government – and, in particular, the NHS. Government activity became a Narnian winter during last year’s Brexit drama: it so consumed Westminster and Whitehall that almost nothing else moved. The coronavirus has the potential to do the same. Not to mention dominating the media for weeks and perhaps months to come.
A shutdown of government would be no bad thing, small statists and libertarians may think. Be careful what you wish for. The NHS is testing people who are returning from badly affected countries, and there is an isolation facility at Heathrow (though not yet at other airports). But the health service plainly wouldn’t have the capacity to handle a worst case scenario and would struggle with a medium case one. For example, there is limited capability for testing.
That means clogged surgeries and cancelled operations at best. The Government is presently relying on self-isolation, the use of 111 and pods at hospitals. However, some people will feel, rightly or wrongly, that they can’t depend on advice over the phone. And the use and abuse of A & E as an alternative to GP appointments is well established. One cannot be sure that the system will cope. Which would have a knock-on effect of the virus spreading further.
Finally, borders. We’ve already touched on ports, airports, travel – and, by extension, business abroad. A rise in the number of migrant boats off Kent is conceivable. As is a spike in racist attacks.
ConservativeHome is striving, as it peers into the fog of Coronavirus uncertainty, to strike the right balance between the freedom to write more or less whatever we like, and the responsibility not to get the consequences of the virus out of proportion. After all, not a single person in the country has yet died from it. To give a sense of perspective, seasonal flu kills 600 people each year here in Britain.
If we struggle, one can only imagine the current state of play at the Department of Health, and the condition of the energetic, gregarious, capable Matt Hancock, whose task it is to oversee the Government’s “contain, delay, research and mitigate” strategy. How can he escape being shipwrecked by those twin perils – complacency and panic?
Under what conditions, for example, would he take the fateful decision to advise the closure of schools? When should he put the rockets under a public information campaign? There is political consensus on the Government’s handling of the coronavirus to date. That may not last. Talking of consequences: could they knock Donald Trump’s re-election bid sideways?
There is an upside to the virus – at least for online banking; for internet activity of all kinds; for the manufacturers of video games; for firms who make surgical masks, wipes and gloves; for single use plastics; for scientists looking for funds for vaccines, for domestic tourism. Traffic queues will ease if there are shutdowns. And any slowdown will be just fine and dandy for carbon emissions and, maybe, for house prices.
Any mass shutdown will bring ambiguities with it. Families thrown more closely together – because children can’t go to school, or parents can’t get to work, or childcare isn’t there for the moment – may flourish as they rediscover leisure and conversation. Or they may kick their heels with enforced boredom, and squabble over clean towels and sheets – and what to do with the rubbish. Tipping could rise.
Pandemics produce weird cultural outgrowths – booms in self-flagellatory ascetic movements, as people turn to God; or, at the other end of the scale, orgiastic sex cults, as they fly for comfort amidst grief and death. But remember: this is not yet a pandemic. And may never become one.


conservativehome--2020-02-28--Iain Dale: My knickers are for the many not the few

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN .
Sajid Javid ’ s personal statement on his resignation in the Commons on Wednesday was a masterpiece of the genre .
It had just enough ‘ meat ’ in it to interest the media and just enough light barbs for it to be seen as having a bit of a go at both the Prime Minister and Dominic Cummings .
But it was done in a light-hearted rather than a bruising way , which meant that he didn ’ t burn any boats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather guilty about how the whole thing was handled , and feels he ‘ owes one ’ to the former Chancellor .
I suspect that Javid will be back in the Cabinet at some point , although any other job would certainly be a comedown from that of Chancellor .
Having said that , Penny Mordaunt wasn ’ t too proud to accept the non-cabinet job of Paymaster General .
Surely it can ’ t be too long before she returns to the front rank .
The news that the courts are yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all sorts of ramifications .
It was of course about the future of the expansion of Heathrow Airport – which Boris Johnson has always wanted to thwart .
The Appeal Court said that the Government had ignored its own laws on climate change .
Hmmm .
The government isn ’ t going to take the matter to the Supreme Court – although Heathrow themselves might .
This is an incredibly difficult issue – given that yesterday ’ s decision will have sent out the message that Global Britain has been strangled at birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to start from here .
Heathrow is in entirely the wrong place .
If you were building a new hub airport , you certainly wouldn ’ t build it there .
Given the Prime Minister ’ s penchant for big , visionary transport infrastructure projects , I ’ d love to see him revive his Thames Estuary Airport project .
I doubt this will happen , though .
The trouble is that Gatwick or Birmingham will now try to step into the breach .
But the problem is that all the major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some of you may remember I used to own and run a political bookshop in Westminster called Politico ’ s .
We didn ’ t sell just books but had a nice line in political merchandise , too .
A couple of weeks ago I found some boxes of mugs which we used to sell in a barn I hadn ’ t been in for about ten years .
I ’ d already decided to start an online shop so people could order signed copies of my new book , so I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the store too ?
In only two weeks , I ’ ve sold more than a hundred of them , with the slogans “ Margaret Thatcher – now more than ever ” and “ New Labour & proud of it ” and “ Tory Tea ” .
It ’ s made me think that the political merchandising market isn ’ t being fully catered for at the moment , so I ’ m mulling over whether to devote some more time to developing it a bit more , and commissioning all sorts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At Politico ’ s we also did a nice line in political underwear – knickers with political slogans across the front : “ For the many , not the few ; “ A hand up , not a hand out ” , and my personal favourite , “ Things can only get wetter ” .
I did draw the line , though , when someone suggested we should commission some politically themed condoms .
Anyway , if you ’ d like to have a browse it ’ s here .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sussex , formerly known as Prince .
He now wants to be known as plain Harry .
Why not go the whole hog , and ask to be called Hazzer ?
He flew ( obvs ) back to the UK this week to speak at a conference in Edinburgh on tourism .
He did at least have the good grace to use the train to get to the Scottish capital .
I think most of us are sick and tired of him and his wife making the case for the climate emergency having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if we ’ re tired of that kind of hypocrisy , just wait until November when the COP 26 conference is being held in Glasgow .
I hope someone does a count of the private jets landing at Glasgow and Prestwick Airports .
Pass the sick-bag… I ’ ve just heard the UK ’ s entry for Eurovision this year .
It ’ s certainly a step up from the usual dirge that we enter .
The video is somewhat niche and centres on an old man going for an ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s nothing on the opening line of the song ’ s chorus : “ ” If you we ’ re a deep-sea diver , I ’ d give you my last breath ” .
Well , it ’ s a thought .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.
Sajid Javid’s personal statement on his resignation in the Commons on Wednesday was a masterpiece of the genre.
It had just enough ‘meat’ in it to interest the media and just enough light barbs for it to be seen as having a bit of a go at both the Prime Minister and Dominic Cummings. But it was done in a light-hearted rather than a bruising way, which meant that he didn’t burn any boats.
My suspicion is that Boris Johnson feels rather guilty about how the whole thing was handled, and feels he ‘owes one’ to the former Chancellor. I suspect that Javid will be back in the Cabinet at some point, although any other job would certainly be a comedown from that of Chancellor.
Having said that, Penny Mordaunt wasn’t too proud to accept the non-cabinet job of Paymaster General. Surely it can’t be too long before she returns to the front rank.
– – – – – – – – – –
The news that the courts are yet again thwarting a political decision will have all sorts of ramifications. It was of course about the future of the expansion of Heathrow Airport – which Boris Johnson has always wanted to thwart.
The Appeal Court said that the Government had ignored its own laws on climate change. Hmmm. The government isn’t going to take the matter to the Supreme Court – although Heathrow themselves might. This is an incredibly difficult issue – given that yesterday’s decision will have sent out the message that Global Britain has been strangled at birth.
No-one in their right mind would want to start from here. Heathrow is in entirely the wrong place. If you were building a new hub airport, you certainly wouldn’t build it there. Given the Prime Minister’s penchant for big, visionary transport infrastructure projects, I’d love to see him revive his Thames Estuary Airport project.
I doubt this will happen, though. The trouble is that Gatwick or Birmingham will now try to step into the breach. But the problem is that all the major international airlines want to be at Heathrow.
– – – – – – – – – –
Some of you may remember I used to own and run a political bookshop in Westminster called Politico’s. We didn’t sell just books but had a nice line in political merchandise, too.
A couple of weeks ago I found some boxes of mugs which we used to sell in a barn I hadn’t been in for about ten years. I’d already decided to start an online shop so people could order signed copies of my new book, so I thought, why not add these mugs to the store too?
In only two weeks, I’ve sold more than a hundred of them, with the slogans “Margaret Thatcher – now more than ever” and “New Labour & proud of it” and “Tory Tea”.
It’s made me think that the political merchandising market isn’t being fully catered for at the moment, so I’m mulling over whether to devote some more time to developing it a bit more, and commissioning all sorts of different items of political merchandise.
At Politico’s we also did a nice line in political underwear – knickers with political slogans across the front: “For the many, not the few; “A hand up, not a hand out”, and my personal favourite, “Things can only get wetter”.
I did draw the line, though, when someone suggested we should commission some politically themed condoms. Anyway, if you’d like to have a browse it’s here.
– – – – – – – – – –
Let’s have a word about the Duke of Sussex, formerly known as Prince. He now wants to be known as plain Harry. Why not go the whole hog, and ask to be called Hazzer?
He flew (obvs) back to the UK this week to speak at a conference in Edinburgh on tourism. He did at least have the good grace to use the train to get to the Scottish capital. I think most of us are sick and tired of him and his wife making the case for the climate emergency having flown to the venue by private jet.
But if we’re tired of that kind of hypocrisy, just wait until November when the COP 26 conference is being held in Glasgow. I hope someone does a count of the private jets landing at Glasgow and Prestwick Airports. Pass the sick-bag…
– – – – – – – – – –
I’ve just heard the UK’s entry for Eurovision this year. It’s certainly a step up from the usual dirge that we enter. The video is somewhat niche and centres on an old man going for an ice bath in a Scandi forest.
But that’s nothing on the opening line of the song’s chorus: “”If you we’re a deep-sea diver, I’d give you my last breath”. Well, it’s a thought.


conservativehome--2020-02-28--Robert Ward: Robust data is needed to defeat knife crime

There ’ s a dreary monotony to the response after each tragic loss of another young life to knife crime .
Politicians and talking heads express sympathy , brush quickly past solutions ( a nod to “ public health approach ” and “ Glasgow ” ) , assert it is NOT about the police ( “ you can ’ t arrest your way to a solution ” ) , then run out of time , to-ing and fro-ing on the number of things it is supposedly not about .
Dig beneath the public health approach and there ’ s little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease ” .
Solutions offered are pleas for more of the services that impact young people , cue blaming ‘ austerity ’ if it ’ s an opposition politician .
The truth is there ’ s no simple solution .
Root causes are complex and of long standing .
The good news is the public health approach is well suited to such a situation .
First applied in the United States , brought to Glasgow , and extended to the whole of Scotland in 2006 , it is a four-step process : define @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and protective factors ; formulate and test interventions ; scale up what works and stop doing what doesn ’ t .
According to the WHO World report on violence and health : “ Reliable data on violence are important , not only for planning and monitoring purposes , but also for advocacy .
Without information , there is little pressure on anyone to acknowledge or respond to the problem ” .
Relevant data is typically maintained by different agencies , so hard to access coherently .
The Youth Violence Commission warned the term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used without a proper understanding of what is required to effect lasting change .
Without good data you are fooling yourself .
This is a longstanding problem .
Although success is claimed in Glasgow , the confidence that this was a result of the work of the Violence Reduction Unit ( “ VRU ” ) is , according to a recent UK government document , questionable .
The initial flagship programme of the VRU , implemented in 2008 , was Glasgow ’ s Community Initiative to Reduce Violence .
Violent crime fell but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programme was discontinued in 2011 .
According to Doctor William Graham , a police commander in Glasgow at the time , having a more structured evaluation and data collection plan from the start could not only have helped with implementation , but also strengthened the case for further funding .
After 2012-13 , violent crime rose in London , but continued to fall in Strathclyde .
However , from the same report : “ Although the decreasing trends in violent crime and hospital admissions due to assault throughout Scotland are compelling , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly with any of the work of Scotland ’ s VRU ” .
There is a pattern of failure to gather and analyse data to judge effectiveness .
This isn ’ t the only weakness .
In Glasgow the VRU was set up by the police .
In the early years , there was a focus on custodial sentences , DNA processes , and finger-printing all knife carriers .
This moved on to a review of remand guidelines and changing sentencing recommendations on knife crime .
Enforcement created the space to give preventative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in London , the Mayor has set up a VRU and in Croydon we now have a Violence Reduction Network .
Both are led by former Labour councillors ; indeed , the Croydon network is currently little more than that .
Their adherence to the public health approach is weak .
The Mayor ’ s VRU made a perfunctory effort at step one of the approach , but projects aiming to address the issues , whilst well meaning , show little attempt at quantitative evidence gathering to enable a judgement of their effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are important because the threat changes constantly .
What worked yesterday , may not work today .
Drug distribution has evolved from crack houses to street delivery .
Control of the streets , irrelevant beforehand , became important , leading to opposing gangs fighting over turf .
Street distribution needs deliverers , sucking in younger and younger children .
Recently , stabbing victims have become less likely to report an incident , or even attend hospital , because they know this will identify them .
If we are not informed by systematic use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without success measures , we will spend money ineffectively .
We are left with traditional multi-agency working , delivering a scattergun of projects , selected on old information , the best sales pitch , and political favouritism .
That ’ s the public health approach in name only .
It ’ s a more expensive way of doing what we already were doing .
It is a betrayal of our young people and a waste of taxpayers ’ money .
It is another reason , if one were needed , to remove Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish to sharpen up their act too .

Cllr Robert Ward represents Selsdon and Addington Village Ward on Croydon Council.
There’s a dreary monotony to the response after each tragic loss of another young life to knife crime. Politicians and talking heads express sympathy, brush quickly past solutions (a nod to “public health approach” and “Glasgow”), assert it is NOT about the police (“you can’t arrest your way to a solution”), then run out of time, to-ing and fro-ing on the number of things it is supposedly not about.
Dig beneath the public health approach and there’s little more than “treat violence like a disease”. Solutions offered are pleas for more of the services that impact young people, cue blaming ‘austerity’ if it’s an opposition politician. The truth is there’s no simple solution. Root causes are complex and of long standing.
The good news is the public health approach is well suited to such a situation. First applied in the United States, brought to Glasgow, and extended to the whole of Scotland in 2006, it is a four-step process: define and measure the problem; identify risk and protective factors; formulate and test interventions; scale up what works and stop doing what doesn’t.
According to the WHO World report on violence and health:
“Reliable data on violence are important, not only for planning and monitoring purposes, but also for advocacy. Without information, there is little pressure on anyone to acknowledge or respond to the problem”.
Relevant data is typically maintained by different agencies, so hard to access coherently. The Youth Violence Commission warned the term ‘public health model’ is being used without a proper understanding of what is required to effect lasting change. Without good data you are fooling yourself.
This is a longstanding problem. Although success is claimed in Glasgow, the confidence that this was a result of the work of the Violence Reduction Unit (“VRU”) is, according to a recent UK government document, questionable. The initial flagship programme of the VRU, implemented in 2008, was Glasgow’s Community Initiative to Reduce Violence. Violent crime fell but it also fell in London. The programme was discontinued in 2011. According to Doctor William Graham, a police commander in Glasgow at the time, having a more structured evaluation and data collection plan from the start could not only have helped with implementation, but also strengthened the case for further funding.
After 2012-13, violent crime rose in London, but continued to fall in Strathclyde. However, from the same report:
“Although the decreasing trends in violent crime and hospital admissions due to assault throughout Scotland are compelling, it is not possible to link these reductions directly with any of the work of Scotland’s VRU”.
There is a pattern of failure to gather and analyse data to judge effectiveness.
This isn’t the only weakness. In Glasgow the VRU was set up by the police. In the early years, there was a focus on custodial sentences, DNA processes, and finger-printing all knife carriers. This moved on to a review of remand guidelines and changing sentencing recommendations on knife crime. Enforcement created the space to give preventative approaches a chance.
In contrast, in London, the Mayor has set up a VRU and in Croydon we now have a Violence Reduction Network. Both are led by former Labour councillors; indeed, the Croydon network is currently little more than that. Their adherence to the public health approach is weak. The Mayor’s VRU made a perfunctory effort at step one of the approach, but projects aiming to address the issues, whilst well meaning, show little attempt at quantitative evidence gathering to enable a judgement of their effectiveness.
Worse still, flexibility and objectivity are important because the threat changes constantly. What worked yesterday, may not work today. Drug distribution has evolved from crack houses to street delivery. Control of the streets, irrelevant beforehand, became important, leading to opposing gangs fighting over turf. Street distribution needs deliverers, sucking in younger and younger children. Recently, stabbing victims have become less likely to report an incident, or even attend hospital, because they know this will identify them.
If we are not informed by systematic use of current evidence – and choose projects without success measures, we will spend money ineffectively. We are left with traditional multi-agency working, delivering a scattergun of projects, selected on old information, the best sales pitch, and political favouritism.
That’s the public health approach in name only. It’s a more expensive way of doing what we already were doing. It is a betrayal of our young people and a waste of taxpayers’ money. It is another reason, if one were needed, to remove Mayor Khan in May. Some others might wish to sharpen up their act too.


conservativehome--2020-02-27--Patrick Hall: Ministers must act to prove that Britain is a world leader on green policy

Patrick Hall is a Researcher at Bright Blue and author of ‘ Global green giant ?
A policy story.
’ It seems that as of late , climate change has been the topic of concern on everyone ’ s minds .
And rightly so , too .
Never before have we faced an environmental challenge of such magnitude .
However , what is linked to climate change and of equal importance is the decline in global biodiversity .
Yet very few politicians and policymakers appear to be focusing on it .
Biodiversity refers to the number , variety , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been gradually declining worldwide since at least 1970 .
A recent report reviewed fifteen thousand scientific and government sources of information , the largest ever of its kind .
What it showed was that nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history .
There are many drivers of reduced biodiversity : changes in land and sea use , over fishing and hunting , pollution , invasive alien species , and yes , climate change .
The UK is a world leader in climate change mitigation , most recently shown through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to adopt a legal net zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050 .
But , there is a need and an opportunity to do the same for biodiversity – to become a ‘ global green giant ’ on conservation .
2020 is set to be a big year for biodiversity .
First , in October , China is to play host to the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties ( COP15 ) to the Convention on Biological Diversity – a multilateral , legally-binding treaty that focuses on the conservation of biodiversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a post-2020 global biodiversity framework will be established , which will set the international conservation agenda for the next decade .
Second , in November the UK , along with Italy , is playing host to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties 26 ( COP26 ) .
Through both , Britain has a chance to develop its partnership with China , approaching biodiversity and climate change from an aligned perspective .
Furthermore , the UK is presented with a unique opportunity to become both an international climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At COP26 , for example , the Government could announce a new Special Envoy for Climate Change and Biodiversity , which would be filled by the President of COP26 .
The Special Envoy should then seek to develop partnership and alignment with China on climate change and biodiversity .
At the same time , the UK could unveil at COP26 a new ‘ Global Nature Conservation Fund ’ of at least £1 billion per year from the existing , and future growth in , the UK Official Development Assistance budget .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest funder of global conservation efforts through our aid spending , in proportional terms , by a set date .
Protecting our oceans and seas , both around our shores but also around our Overseas Territories , is of fundamental importance .
They are important carbon sinks , and it is estimated that roughly a quarter of species on earth live in the oceans .
Human activities , particularly over fishing , has reduced the abundance of target species and genetic diversity .
The UK supports the impressive Blue Belt programme , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But those areas need stronger safeguards .
Banning bottom trawling in the Marine Protected Areas established , and increasing the minimum criteria for their management , are two pragmatic measures that would better conserve our marine environments .
The illegal wildlife trade ( IWT ) poses a serious threat to charismatic species worldwide .
As the world ’ s fourth most profitable criminal enterprise , the IWT is focused on mammals , reptiles , corals , birds , bony fish and others , increasing the risk of extinction of these taxa .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ curbing the IWT , more can – and needs to – be done .
For example , the Government should freeze UK-based assets of foreign citizens implicated in supporting the IWT , and ensure that large firms are obliged to monitor and prevent financial flows that could reasonably be related to the IWT .
As Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth for a few remaining months , the UK could also seek to establish a Commonwealth IWT information-sharing system similar to the EU-TWIX scheme .
This could be particularly effective , as countries such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kenya are Commonwealth members frequently implicated in the IWT .
But we don ’ t just need to look to halt biodiversity decline overseas , we need to do better at home too .
This could include , where appropriate , an urban nature corridor in every UK city , boosting R & D funding for sustainable agriculture , and getting every secondary school involved in the Government ’ s ambitious new tree planting campaign .
Plastic waste is a high-profile scourge on our environment .
Its toxicity has a negative impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discarded .
The UK should ban non-recyclable black plastic , which is just largely used by wholesalers and retailers for cosmetic reasons when displaying their products .
Littering is another unacceptable practice .
Elsewhere , in places such as Calgary and Singapore , littering attracts far stronger penalties than England ’ s £50-80 fixed penalty notice .
A minimum fixed penalty notice of £500 for littering should be introduced .
This year , the Government needs to show , through both domestic and foreign policies , that Britain really is a global green @ @

Patrick Hall is a Researcher at Bright Blue and author of ‘Global green giant? A policy story.’
It seems that as of late, climate change has been the topic of concern on everyone’s minds. And rightly so, too. Never before have we faced an environmental challenge of such magnitude.
However, what is linked to climate change and of equal importance is the decline in global biodiversity. Yet very few politicians and policymakers appear to be focusing on it.
Biodiversity refers to the number, variety, and variability of all living things. It has been gradually declining worldwide since at least 1970. A recent report reviewed fifteen thousand scientific and government sources of information, the largest ever of its kind. What it showed was that nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history.
There are many drivers of reduced biodiversity: changes in land and sea use, over fishing and hunting, pollution, invasive alien species, and yes, climate change.
The UK is a world leader in climate change mitigation, most recently shown through the UK being the first major economy to adopt a legal net zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050. But, there is a need and an opportunity to do the same for biodiversity – to become a ‘global green giant’ on conservation.
2020 is set to be a big year for biodiversity. First, in October, China is to play host to the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity – a multilateral, legally-binding treaty that focuses on the conservation of biodiversity. It is hoped and anticipated that a post-2020 global biodiversity framework will be established, which will set the international conservation agenda for the next decade.
Second, in November the UK, along with Italy, is playing host to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties 26 (COP26).
Through both, Britain has a chance to develop its partnership with China, approaching biodiversity and climate change from an aligned perspective. Furthermore, the UK is presented with a unique opportunity to become both an international climate and biodiversity leader in 2020 and beyond.
At COP26, for example, the Government could announce a new Special Envoy for Climate Change and Biodiversity, which would be filled by the President of COP26. The Special Envoy should then seek to develop partnership and alignment with China on climate change and biodiversity.
At the same time, the UK could unveil at COP26 a new ‘Global Nature Conservation Fund’ of at least £1 billion per year from the existing, and future growth in, the UK Official Development Assistance budget. Here, Britain should also pledge to be the biggest funder of global conservation efforts through our aid spending, in proportional terms, by a set date.
Protecting our oceans and seas, both around our shores but also around our Overseas Territories, is of fundamental importance. They are important carbon sinks, and it is estimated that roughly a quarter of species on earth live in the oceans. Human activities, particularly over fishing, has reduced the abundance of target species and genetic diversity.
The UK supports the impressive Blue Belt programme, expanding the number of Marine Protected Areas. But those areas need stronger safeguards. Banning bottom trawling in the Marine Protected Areas established, and increasing the minimum criteria for their management, are two pragmatic measures that would better conserve our marine environments.
The illegal wildlife trade (IWT) poses a serious threat to charismatic species worldwide. As the world’s fourth most profitable criminal enterprise, the IWT is focused on mammals, reptiles, corals, birds, bony fish and others, increasing the risk of extinction of these taxa. Whilst Britain has a strong record on curbing the IWT, more can – and needs to – be done.
For example, the Government should freeze UK-based assets of foreign citizens implicated in supporting the IWT, and ensure that large firms are obliged to monitor and prevent financial flows that could reasonably be related to the IWT. As Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth for a few remaining months, the UK could also seek to establish a Commonwealth IWT information-sharing system similar to the EU-TWIX scheme. This could be particularly effective, as countries such as South Africa, India, Mozambique, and Kenya are Commonwealth members frequently implicated in the IWT.
But we don’t just need to look to halt biodiversity decline overseas, we need to do better at home too.
This could include, where appropriate, an urban nature corridor in every UK city, boosting R&D funding for sustainable agriculture, and getting every secondary school involved in the Government’s ambitious new tree planting campaign.
Plastic waste is a high-profile scourge on our environment. Its toxicity has a negative impact on our soils when it is improperly discarded. The UK should ban non-recyclable black plastic, which is just largely used by wholesalers and retailers for cosmetic reasons when displaying their products. Littering is another unacceptable practice. Elsewhere, in places such as Calgary and Singapore, littering attracts far stronger penalties than England’s £50-80 fixed penalty notice. A minimum fixed penalty notice of £500 for littering should be introduced.
This year, the Government needs to show, through both domestic and foreign policies, that Britain really is a global green giant.


conservativehome--2020-02-27--Giving power to the judges. First Heathrow – next, the NHS.

Grant Shapps , the Secretary of State for Transport , has confirmed that the Government does not intend to appeal today ’ s defeat for Heathrow expansion in the Court of Appeal .
His statement puts quite a bit of effort into distancing the Government from the project altogether : “ We have always been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality , noise and climate change , as well as being privately financed , affordable , and delivered in the best interest of consumers.
” Yet for all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanction of the Commons and got a green light from Theresa May .
This has led to fresh complaints about judicial activism , although in this instance that ’ s harder to stand up as a ) the Commons hadn ’ t legislated to expand Heathrow and b ) it looks as if the Department for Transport was subject to some truly abominable legal advice regarding whether or not it needed to factor the Paris Agreement into its decision-making on the subject .
In a way , the ruling has actually done Boris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be needing to lie down in front of any bulldozers anytime soon .
But it does raise a couple of important questions .
The first is what to do about air capacity .
This can had already been kicked a long , long way down the road before the judge sent it clattering back to the Prime Minister ’ s feet .
He now has to choose an alternative way forward , and soon .
Has the hour finally come for ‘ Boris Island ‘ ?
Less immediately , but just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the tension between ministers ’ enthusiasm for signing up to grand , abstract targets – especially if they ’ re about to leave office and casting about for a legacy – and the detailed consequences of such pledges on practical policy-making .
Today ’ s defeat arose from the decision of a previous government to enshrine various environmental targets in law .
This is a habit our legislators are developing .
It allows governments to sound like they ’ re taking decisive action without them actually having to do anything , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the judges , whose proper role it is to enforce these laws , gain huge scope for intervening in policy decisions down the line .
If the Government were serious about rolling back the role of the courts in what it considers political decisions , it would urgently review such obligations and the legislative practices which give rise to them .
It would certainly not proceed with plans to start introducing legally-binding targets to the NHS , which will simply open up a vast new frontier for conflict between ministers and judges @

Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, has confirmed that the Government does not intend to appeal today’s defeat for Heathrow expansion in the Court of Appeal.
His statement puts quite a bit of effort into distancing the Government from the project altogether: “We have always been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable, and delivered in the best interest of consumers.”
Yet for all that, the Heathrow plan did have the sanction of the Commons and got a green light from Theresa May. This has led to fresh complaints about judicial activism, although in this instance that’s harder to stand up as a) the Commons hadn’t legislated to expand Heathrow and b) it looks as if the Department for Transport was subject to some truly abominable legal advice regarding whether or not it needed to factor the Paris Agreement into its decision-making on the subject.
In a way, the ruling has actually done Boris Johnson a favour – he won’t be needing to lie down in front of any bulldozers anytime soon. But it does raise a couple of important questions.
The first is what to do about air capacity. This can had already been kicked a long, long way down the road before the judge sent it clattering back to the Prime Minister’s feet. He now has to choose an alternative way forward, and soon. Has the hour finally come for ‘Boris Island‘?
Less immediately, but just as significantly, this fiasco puts a spotlight on the tension between ministers’ enthusiasm for signing up to grand, abstract targets – especially if they’re about to leave office and casting about for a legacy – and the detailed consequences of such pledges on practical policy-making.
Today’s defeat arose from the decision of a previous government to enshrine various environmental targets in law. This is a habit our legislators are developing. It allows governments to sound like they’re taking decisive action without them actually having to do anything, at least immediately.
But the result is that the judges, whose proper role it is to enforce these laws, gain huge scope for intervening in policy decisions down the line.
If the Government were serious about rolling back the role of the courts in what it considers political decisions, it would urgently review such obligations and the legislative practices which give rise to them. It would certainly not proceed with plans to start introducing legally-binding targets to the NHS, which will simply open up a vast new frontier for conflict between ministers and judges.


conservativehome--2020-02-27--A welcome fall in rough sleeping – but more accommodation is not enough for further progress

There is welcome news this morning , of a reduction in the number of people sleeping rough in England .
There were 4,266 people estimated to be sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2019 .
This is down by 411 people or nine per cent from last year and down ten per cent from the peak in 2017 .
But it is up by 2,498 people or 141 per cent since 2010 .
“ Today ’ s figures show that we are making promising progress , building on last year ’ s achievement which saw the first fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the first time in eight years .
“ It is a moral scandal that in 2020 so many people continue to sleep rough on the streets , and that is why I am determined to end the blight of rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament .
“ This confirms what I have seen since becoming Housing Secretary – that dedicated , targeted support backed by unparalleled levels of Government support is getting vulnerable people off the streets and into safe accommodation where they can turn their lives around .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work ends here .
I will not rest until we have eradicated rough sleeping , and I remain absolutely committed to ending this social ill once and for , which is why I welcome today ’ s appointment of Dame Louise Casey to lead an urgent review into the causes of rough sleeping , alongside an additional £236m to get people off the streets .
“ These measures will help ensure we help every rough sleeper in the country off the street by the end of this Parliament.
” All these estimates are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure for one particular night will be much lower than for the number that slept rough at one stage or another last year .
The BBC has put a figure on the latter of 28,000 – based on FOI requests to local authorities .
This should not be confused with the figure for homelessness as officially defined .
That includes people in temporary accommodation – hotels , hostels or ( usually low quality ) housing .
The latest figure for that , a “ snapshot ” from June 30th last year , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tally , we have squatters and sofa surfers .
A significant increase in the housing supply would increase choice , improve standards , and reduce rents .
That would be a great help .
But it would not solve the problem , especially for rough sleepers .
Often the difficulties they face include mental illness , drug addiction , alcoholism – or combinations of all three .
Many do not speak English .
It is highly likely that the situation has been improved by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 , a piece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Bob Blackman , the Conservative MP for Harrow East .
This required earlier intervention by local authorities to find alternative accommodation for those facing homelessness .
That is more sensible than waiting for the bailiffs to appear and then putting the family up in the nearest Premier Inn .
So that was about seeking to avert an emergency .
But it also obliged councils to provide some emergency relief – even if it is a single young man in good health – rather than just leave him to sleep on the streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as he was not a “ priority ” – once obliged to sleep on a park bench his circumstances would tend to deteriorate pretty quickly until he became a “ priority ” .
I realise that it is one thing for politicians to pass a law – another for it to work in practice .
Blackman himself has stressed on this site that the “ culture ” also needs to change .
For instance , councils have complained that the extra funding ( £73 million over four years ) for their new duties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ignores the point that leaving people to sleep rough has higher costs – not just for the NHS and the criminal justice system but also to local authorities – for adult social care as well as housing .
Dame Louise ’ s appointment to consider what more could be achieved is welcome .
The Troubled Families programme she ran has proved transformational – its results were a vindication despite earlier ill-judged criticism .
She also had significant success with the Rough Sleepers Unit that she ran during the Blair Government – though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accuracy of the statistics .
Offering rough sleepers a roof over their head is an important start .
But drifting in and out of scuzzy hostels will not provide the specialist help that is needed .
Local authorities should use their public health budgets far more effectively – so much of this substantial funding is currently wasted .
Many who need “ specialist housing ” – for instance , to get treatment for drug addiction ” – are instead placed in “ generic housing ” .
It is also important for the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal immigrants then this should be identified and they should be deported .
The police should also uphold the law if rough sleepers are seen taking drugs , engaged in threatening behaviour , or shoplifting .
Some may say this is harsh .
Is it more caring for the police to pass by on the other side ?
It is announced that “ the Government already investing £1.2 billion to tackle homelessness ” and that an extra £236 million is to be made available “ to get people off the streets.
” That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to over £55,000 for each of the 4,266 rough sleepers identified in the snapshot last year .
There is a lazy habit of justifying any spending announcement by calling it “ investment.
” There is already money sloshing around but it is not being used effectively – the Public Health ring fenced grant to local authorities this year is £3.1 billion .
The difficulty , as I mentioned above , is that not much of it produces any tangible benefit .
But it is quite true that ignoring the plight of rough sleepers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human cost .
I look forward to seeing what Dame Louise comes up with .
The Government should be commended for its leadership .
But the police and the local authorities already have the power and the money to do far more about this most obvious moral disgrace than is being done at present .

There is welcome news this morning, of a reduction in the number of people sleeping rough in England. There were 4,266 people estimated to be sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2019. This is down by 411 people or nine per cent from last year and down ten per cent from the peak in 2017. But it is up by 2,498 people or 141 per cent since 2010.
Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick MP:
“Today’s figures show that we are making promising progress, building on last year’s achievement which saw the first fall in the number of people sleeping rough for the first time in eight years.
“It is a moral scandal that in 2020 so many people continue to sleep rough on the streets, and that is why I am determined to end the blight of rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament.
“This confirms what I have seen since becoming Housing Secretary – that dedicated, targeted support backed by unparalleled levels of Government support is getting vulnerable people off the streets and into safe accommodation where they can turn their lives around.
“But this doesn’t mean our work ends here. I will not rest until we have eradicated rough sleeping, and I remain absolutely committed to ending this social ill once and for, which is why I welcome today’s appointment of Dame Louise Casey to lead an urgent review into the causes of rough sleeping, alongside an additional £236m to get people off the streets.
“These measures will help ensure we help every rough sleeper in the country off the street by the end of this Parliament.”
All these estimates are problematic. Of course, the snapshot figure for one particular night will be much lower than for the number that slept rough at one stage or another last year. The BBC has put a figure on the latter of 28,000 – based on FOI requests to local authorities.
This should not be confused with the figure for homelessness as officially defined. That includes people in temporary accommodation – hotels, hostels or (usually low quality) housing. The latest figure for that, a “snapshot” from June 30th last year, was 86,130. On top of that official tally, we have squatters and sofa surfers. A significant increase in the housing supply would increase choice, improve standards, and reduce rents. That would be a great help. But it would not solve the problem, especially for rough sleepers. Often the difficulties they face include mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism – or combinations of all three. Many do not speak English.
It is highly likely that the situation has been improved by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, a piece of private members legislation that was brought in by Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP for Harrow East. This required earlier intervention by local authorities to find alternative accommodation for those facing homelessness. That is more sensible than waiting for the bailiffs to appear and then putting the family up in the nearest Premier Inn. So that was about seeking to avert an emergency. But it also obliged councils to provide some emergency relief – even if it is a single young man in good health – rather than just leave him to sleep on the streets. Before, they could refuse help as he was not a “priority” – once obliged to sleep on a park bench his circumstances would tend to deteriorate pretty quickly until he became a “priority”.
I realise that it is one thing for politicians to pass a law – another for it to work in practice. Blackman himself has stressed on this site that the “culture” also needs to change. For instance, councils have complained that the extra funding (£73 million over four years) for their new duties under this Act is not sufficient. That ignores the point that leaving people to sleep rough has higher costs – not just for the NHS and the criminal justice system but also to local authorities – for adult social care as well as housing.
Dame Louise’s appointment to consider what more could be achieved is welcome. The Troubled Families programme she ran has proved transformational – its results were a vindication despite earlier ill-judged criticism.
She also had significant success with the Rough Sleepers Unit that she ran during the Blair Government – though even then there were arguments about the accuracy of the statistics.
Offering rough sleepers a roof over their head is an important start. But drifting in and out of scuzzy hostels will not provide the specialist help that is needed. Local authorities should use their public health budgets far more effectively – so much of this substantial funding is currently wasted. Many who need “specialist housing” – for instance, to get treatment for drug addiction” – are instead placed in “generic housing”.
It is also important for the law to unheld. If rough sleepers are illegal immigrants then this should be identified and they should be deported. The police should also uphold the law if rough sleepers are seen taking drugs, engaged in threatening behaviour, or shoplifting. Some may say this is harsh. Is it more caring for the police to pass by on the other side?
It is announced that “the Government already investing £1.2 billion to tackle homelessness” and that an extra £236 million is to be made available “to get people off the streets.” That £236 million figure is huge – equivalent to over £55,000 for each of the 4,266 rough sleepers identified in the snapshot last year. There is a lazy habit of justifying any spending announcement by calling it “investment.” There is already money sloshing around but it is not being used effectively – the Public Health ring fenced grant to local authorities this year is £3.1 billion. The difficulty, as I mentioned above, is that not much of it produces any tangible benefit. But it is quite true that ignoring the plight of rough sleepers means a significant financial as well as human cost.
I look forward to seeing what Dame Louise comes up with. The Government should be commended for its leadership. But the police and the local authorities already have the power and the money to do far more about this most obvious moral disgrace than is being done at present.


conservativehome--2020-02-27--WATCH: “We will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets”. Gove’s statement on the nego

WATCH: “We will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets”. Gove’s statement on the negotiations.

“ We will not accept nor agree to any obligations where our laws are aligned with the EU or the @ @ @ @ @ The government is outlining its strategy for post-Brexit talks On fishing – “ we will @ @ @ @ @ waters to access to EU markets ” https : //t.co/w5JWjBOx9Z pic.twitter.com/IhSNKjb24E

“We will not accept nor agree to any obligations where our laws are aligned with the EU or the EU’s institutions”
The government is outlining its strategy for post-Brexit talks
On fishing – “we will not link access to our waters to access to EU markets”https://t.co/w5JWjBOx9Z pic.twitter.com/IhSNKjb24E
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 27, 2020