conservativehome--2020-08-17--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Board of the Charity Commission – 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 .
Home Office – Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities “ HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services ( HMICFRS ) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales , fire and rescue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies .
It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends , challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement , and making performance information accessible .
The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales , and of all fire & rescue authorities in England ; providing the public with a clear , consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their local area.
” “ Joint Nature Conservation Committee ( JNCC ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair .
As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership , direction and effectiveness of JNCC in line with strategies and plans agreed with Defra and the Devolved Administrations .
You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee .
You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC , setting strategic and operational direction , ensuring good governance and , together with the Joint Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Environmental Standards Scotland will be established , initially , on a non-statutory basis from January 2021 .
It will transition to a statutory , independent body over the course of 2021 .
The Board will initially comprise of the Chair and two other members .
Once Environmental Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation , further board appointments are expected .
Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role , including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor ; selecting environmental concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; resolving these through agreement with public authorities , where possible ; and , highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.
” Time : 8-10 days per month initially , ~4 per month thereafter .
“ This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry , and who has a track record of board leadership , to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors .
The selected Board Chair will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors ’ recovery from Covid-19 , and long-term success thereafter .
To do so , the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry , business , a major charitable or cultural institution , or government.
” Time : Up to two days per month .
“ The Secretary of State for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport is seeking to appoint an outstanding individual to be Chair of the National Lottery Community Fund .
Applications are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Lottery Community Fund reflects the diverse society it serves .
The Fund is currently supporting communities across the UK to adjust to and recover from the coronavirus crisis .
It is also a time when the Fund has gone through a period of investment and development , making it well placed to deliver our ambitious plans to achieve the Fund ’ s purpose : supporting people and communities thrive .
The Fund has many of the building blocks in place to add even greater value to civil society and public life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is vital.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Charity Commission has a clear purpose : to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society .
To help us meet that purpose , fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity , and meet the challenges we face , in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital , Culture , Media and Sport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales .
A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020 .
This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission .
” “ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate : Her Majesty ’ s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ( HMCPSI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence about the operation , efficiency , and effectiveness of the public prosecutors ( the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) and the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO ) ) .
The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve , thereby strengthening the public ’ s trust in the prosecution process .
Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.
” “ The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards .
They are responsible for : identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards ; leading on the development of new standards ; and where necessary , providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards .
The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field , encompassing at least one of the following : leadership in a forensic , or related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment ; the regulatory process involving scientific standards ; or the criminal justice system.
” “ The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole , sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education .
The Commissioner ’ s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England .
The legislative basis for the office of Children ’ s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004 .
This establishes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six year tenure of the post holder .
The legislation relating to the Children ’ s Commissioner is permissive , allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children ’ s rights .
The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and , in general , can not conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.
” “ We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience , international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priority of Innovate UK , under a new Executive Chair , will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK ’ s innovation capacity and capability , taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget .
The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation ’ s position within key markets , providing impactful thought leadership to the UK ’ s innovation system .
As the pivotal funding body for business R & D , especially for start-ups and SMEs across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R & D and technologies of the future.
” Remuneration : £180,000 per annum base , up to £37,500 performance-related .

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities
“HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales, fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies. It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends, challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement, and making performance information accessible. The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales, and of all fire & rescue authorities in England; providing the public with a clear, consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their local area.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £175,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Joint Nature Conservation Committee – Chair
“Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Framework Document provides the legal, administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair. As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership, direction and effectiveness of JNCC in line with strategies and plans agreed with Defra and the Devolved Administrations. You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee. You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC, setting strategic and operational direction, ensuring good governance and, together with the Joint Committee, holding the executive to account.”
Time: 2.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,059 per annum.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Environmental Standards Scotland – Chair/Members
“Environmental Standards Scotland will be established, initially, on a non-statutory basis from January 2021. It will transition to a statutory, independent body over the course of 2021. The Board will initially comprise of the Chair and two other members. Once Environmental Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation, further board appointments are expected. Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role, including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation; resolving these through agreement with public authorities, where possible; and, highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.”
Time: 8-10 days per month initially, ~4 per month thereafter.
Remuneration: £300/£200 per diem.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
British Film Institute (BFI) – Chair
“This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry, and who has a track record of board leadership, to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors. The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors’ recovery from Covid-19, and long-term success thereafter. To do so, the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry, business, a major charitable or cultural institution, or government.”
Time: Up to two days per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 05 September
– – – – – – – – – –
National Lottery Community Fund – Chair of the Board
“The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is seeking to appoint an outstanding individual to be Chair of the National Lottery Community Fund. Applications are welcomed from underrepresented groups to ensure the National Lottery Community Fund reflects the diverse society it serves. The Fund is currently supporting communities across the UK to adjust to and recover from the coronavirus crisis. It is also a time when the Fund has gone through a period of investment and development, making it well placed to deliver our ambitious plans to achieve the Fund’s purpose: supporting people and communities thrive. The Fund has many of the building blocks in place to add even greater value to civil society and public life. Our contribution is as varied as it is vital.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 07 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Charity Commission – Board Member
“The Charity Commission has a clear purpose: to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society. To help us meet that purpose, fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity, and meet the challenges we face, in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP, wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020. This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission. ”
Time: Approx. 24 days per year.
Remuneration: £350 per diem plus expenses.
Closes: 13 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Forensic Science Regulator
“The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards. They are responsible for: identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards; leading on the development of new standards; and where necessary, providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards. The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field, encompassing at least one of the following: leadership in a forensic, or related, scientific discipline; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment; the regulatory process involving scientific standards; or the criminal justice system.”
Time: 3-4 days per week.
Remuneration: £96,000 per annum FTE.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September


conservativehome--2020-08-17--Ministers and Ofqual have hospital-passed the exam fiasco to universities and colleges

When we wrote this morning that the least bad course , for this year ’ s GCSEs and the pupils who took them , was to let teacher-predicted results stand , we were confident that the Government would do precisely that .
It has been evident from the moment that Ofqual published A-level appeal advice on Sunday morning , and then withdrew it that very evening , that Conservative backbench opinion would change .
Tory MPs were divided on what to do about the algorithm-issued A-level results in principle , but began to unite about what the Government should do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos , they reasoned , Ministers weren ’ t in control – and had lost any grip on an emerging triple problem that they might once have had .
This treble hurdle was , first , A-level appeal chaos .
Second , the GCSE results coming down the track later this week .
And third , the urgent need for schools to open up in only a few weeks ’ time .
It is true that by now empowering schools and pupils to pick the better of the algorithm or predicted results , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scene for some sixth forms and colleges to wax and others to wane .
This is because there will be winners and losers from a settlement in which there are more pupils going on to do A-level than were expected , as will be the case now .
The weaker institutions stand to lose – unless the Treasury bales them out , as will doubtless be the case to some extent , especially if many of them are further education colleges , given Ministers ’ focus on FE .
But this is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least bad course ” .
In essence , what Ministers now done is to transfer an educational problem driven by the scrapping of exams from the Education Department to schools and colleges .
Like Russell Crowe ’ s Jack Audrey in Master and Commander , they have cut their ship loose from the wreckage that was threatening to sink it .
We thought that they wouldn ’ t do so with A-levels , because results have already been issued .
We were wrong .
The same political logic has been applied , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Now I have students/parents in my DMs asking if they can give back the place at their 2nd choice uni and claim their place at their 1st choice , ” Sam Freedman tweeted in the wake of today ’ s announcement .
Expect more of that , and then some .
Obviously , Gavin Williamson , Boris Johnson and Nick Gibb will take flak in the coming days for it .
Nonetheless , our snap take is that , in crude terms , Ministers and Ofqual have picked up their problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleges .
There will now be hero institutions , such as Worcester College Oxford , that will accept all students with offers , regardless of their A-level results .
Hooray .
And there will be villain ones , presumably to be denounced as “ snobs ” , who will show less compassion , or cunning , or both – and will stick to the script .
Boo , hiss .
But the general effect of the move will be like that we may see in sixth forms and colleges , but more so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go .
Russell Group universities will hoover up better-qualified students .
Much will depend on overseas student numbers .
But don ’ t be surprised if we see the outcome that the cap was put in place to avoid – namely , pressure on the weaker higher education institutions .
Again , Rishi Sunak will haul out the taxpayer cheque book .
However , we can ’ t help wondering whether our old friend the law of unexpected consequences may apply .
Our columnist Neil O ’ Brien has made the case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Government sees this as part of its desire to “ level up ” .
Could the exam results crisis turn out to trigger such a process ?
Tomorrow , we will probe the question that the media , many voters , and MPs are inevitably asking : who ’ s to blame for this shambles ?
Ministers ?
Ofqual ?
Both ?
In Master and Commander , it ’ s not just wreckage that is cut loose .
One of the seamen , Wharley , drowns .
Which politicians or quangocrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?

When we wrote this morning that the least bad course, for this year’s GCSEs and the pupils who took them, was to let teacher-predicted results stand, we were confident that the Government would do precisely that.
It has been evident from the moment that Ofqual published A-level appeal advice on Sunday morning, and then withdrew it that very evening, that Conservative backbench opinion would change.
Tory MPs were divided on what to do about the algorithm-issued A-level results in principle, but began to unite about what the Government should do in practice.
If Ofqal was in chaos, they reasoned, Ministers weren’t in control – and had lost any grip on an emerging triple problem that they might once have had.
This treble hurdle was, first, A-level appeal chaos. Second, the GCSE results coming down the track later this week. And third, the urgent need for schools to open up in only a few weeks’ time.
It is true that by now empowering schools and pupils to pick the better of the algorithm or predicted results, Ministers and Ofqal may have set the scene for some sixth forms and colleges to wax and others to wane.
This is because there will be winners and losers from a settlement in which there are more pupils going on to do A-level than were expected, as will be the case now.
The weaker institutions stand to lose – unless the Treasury bales them out, as will doubtless be the case to some extent, especially if many of them are further education colleges, given Ministers’ focus on FE.
But this is one of the side-effects of taking that “least bad course”. In essence, what Ministers now done is to transfer an educational problem driven by the scrapping of exams from the Education Department to schools and colleges.
Like Russell Crowe’s Jack Audrey in Master and Commander, they have cut their ship loose from the wreckage that was threatening to sink it.
We thought that they wouldn’t do so with A-levels, because results have already been issued. We were wrong. The same political logic has been applied, despite the difficulties that this will now cause.
“Now I have students/parents in my DMs asking if they can give back the place at their 2nd choice uni and claim their place at their 1st choice,” Sam Freedman tweeted in the wake of today’s announcement.
Expect more of that, and then some. Obviously, Gavin Williamson, Boris Johnson and Nick Gibb will take flak in the coming days for it.
Nonetheless, our snap take is that, in crude terms, Ministers and Ofqual have picked up their problem and hospital-passed it to the universities and colleges.
There will now be hero institutions, such as Worcester College Oxford, that will accept all students with offers, regardless of their A-level results. Hooray.
And there will be villain ones, presumably to be denounced as “snobs”, who will show less compassion, or cunning, or both – and will stick to the script. Boo, hiss.
But the general effect of the move will be like that we may see in sixth forms and colleges, but more so. The cap on student numbers will go. Russell Group universities will hoover up better-qualified students.
Much will depend on overseas student numbers. But don’t be surprised if we see the outcome that the cap was put in place to avoid – namely, pressure on the weaker higher education institutions.
Again, Rishi Sunak will haul out the taxpayer cheque book. However, we can’t help wondering whether our old friend the law of unexpected consequences may apply.
Our columnist Neil O’Brien has made the case for a rebalancing of higher and further education. The Government sees this as part of its desire to “level up”. Could the exam results crisis turn out to trigger such a process?
Tomorrow, we will probe the question that the media, many voters, and MPs are inevitably asking: who’s to blame for this shambles? Ministers? Ofqual? Both?
In Master and Commander, it’s not just wreckage that is cut loose. One of the seamen, Wharley, drowns. Which politicians or quangocrats should now be dragged five fathoms deep?


conservativehome--2020-08-17--WATCH: Williamson – “I’m incredibly sorry for all those students who’ve been through this”

`` I 'm incredibly sorry for all those students who 've been through this '' Education Secretary Gavin Williamson says @ @ @ @ @ after it became apparent that many were getting grades `` they should n't have been @ @ @ @ @ pic.twitter.com/BgMtpDPXEW

"I'm incredibly sorry for all those students who've been through this"
Education Secretary Gavin Williamson says government changed course on grading after it became apparent that many were getting grades "they shouldn't have been getting" https://t.co/9yxmLebRZh pic.twitter.com/BgMtpDPXEW
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) August 17, 2020


conservativehome--2020-08-18--James Frayne: Our national political conversation is unrepresentative. Metro London is heard loud an

James Frayne: Our national political conversation is unrepresentative. Metro London is heard loud and clear. The provinces, scarcely at all.

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
“ The problem is this Government is so divisive ” .
I ’ ve heard this explanation a few times recently for the scale of hostile media attention and the ferocity of opposition online .
In one way , it ’ s an odd claim .
The Government does , after all , command an 80-seat majority – and completely dominates the English political scene .
How does such a demonstrably popular Government get criticised so widely for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And what can it do to portray the reality of its popular support ?
Let ’ s deal with the blindingly obvious first .
This Government is driving through Brexit ; changing immigration laws ; and governing while Scottish independence is becoming more popular .
The country was divided on Brexit on referendum day – and nothing has changed .
Many Remainers ’ anger is still raw and their hatred for the Prime Minister and other high profile Leavers drives an ongoing emotional reaction to everything this Government does .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon .
Immigration should be a different issue ; but while a clear majority of the country wants immigration reduced , it ’ s by far the most controversial issue in the public domain and provokes huge sensitivities .
As for Scotland , it ’ s fair to say a privately educated Southern Englishman is hardly the perfect Prime Minister but , honestly , what can be done about this ?
( Some will raise “ competence ” as a reason for division – on Coronavirus and exams etc – but I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary driver ) .
Yet there ’ s more to it than just the fact the Government has strong views on two contentious issues , while ultimately overseeing a further surge in support for the SNP .
One of the biggest problems is the fundamental lack of interest in politics amongst the Conservatives ’ new core vote .
The vast majority of the working class and lower middle class of provincial England are completely uninterested in politics .
They ’ re not active in the parties ; they don ’ t talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t write to local or national newspapers ; most importantly , they ’ re not politically active online .
In short , their views are almost never heard outside of elections , when they then dictate who goes into Downing Street .
It therefore feels like the national political conversation – and by extension the reality of the national opinion – is dominated by noisy , politically-obsessed middle class activists .
The seeming lack of political importance of those in provincial England is exacerbated by the antipathy that many middle class Remainers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve written before , it ’ s lucky that working class and lower middle class people don ’ t hear most of the political conversation as it shields them from this widespread contempt .
Their portrayal is of poorly-educated , parochial English nationalists who do boring and precarious work .
They ’ re portrayed as relics of an earlier age whose views will die out shortly , as they themselves die .
There ’ s a clear sense that these voters don ’ t have moral authority and don ’ t matter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , which I ’ ll make only in passing despite its importance , simce others have made this point for years : all the main media outlets , and the vast majority of commentators , live in London and its cultural and physical satellites or in the country ’ s biggest cities .
Those that choose and edit news output know very little about the towns and small cities of England or the people that live there .
There is now no truly authentic provincial English media outlet .
Why does it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the equivalent of an unelected dictatorship , particularly if the quiet mass of the public keeps voting for them ?
It matters for three related reasons .
Because it all infects media coverage and , even now , this matters over time .
If everyone talks about this Government as being essentially illegitimate , it will affect public opinion more broadly ( more on economic than cultural issues , I think ) .
Because it freaks out weak-minded backbenchers who spend too long on social media and who publicly panic about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it makes the Government second-guess its own relative popularity and therefore its likelihood of getting big things done .
Ministers need to think about how to get on the front foot again – how to show the extent of its public support in order to boost its own moral standing and its ability to get things done .
It needs to harness its provincial popularity – showing that these voters ’ views are moderate , mainstream and strongly felt ( all of which are true ) .
How should it go about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone , but here are brief suggestions .
First , return at the earliest opportunity to improving the “ liveability ” of provincial towns .
It ’ s impossible to criticise the Government for a loss of focus ; Coronavirus changed everything very early in their new term .
But they need to return to this soon .
It ’ s not just about improving the economic prospects of these places ; it ’ s also about making them nicer places to live .
This means not just boosting town centres , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public spaces , and reintroducing the festivals and events that have often withered and died .
( This sounds like a small thing , but it ’ s huge for people ) .
This will not only demonstrate to the country the provincial priorities of the Government , but it will also show these voters ’ primary concern – not nationalism and all the rest , but enjoying a decent quality of family life .
Second , relatively easy to do , find a way to give a voice to the best of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demonstrate a different face and accent to show that it now represents new places and new people .
They don ’ t all have to be promoted into Government ; there are plenty of roles they can play – from being placed on task forces and policy research teams , to being given CCHQ roles .
The Party should be reminding everyone through its spokespeople that it represents a new , mainstream majority .

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
“The problem is this Government is so divisive”. I’ve heard this explanation a few times recently for the scale of hostile media attention and the ferocity of opposition online.
In one way, it’s an odd claim. The Government does, after all, command an 80-seat majority – and completely dominates the English political scene. How does such a demonstrably popular Government get criticised so widely for being divisive? Why does it matter? And what can it do to portray the reality of its popular support?
Let’s deal with the blindingly obvious first. This Government is driving through Brexit; changing immigration laws; and governing while Scottish independence is becoming more popular. The country was divided on Brexit on referendum day – and nothing has changed. Many Remainers’ anger is still raw and their hatred for the Prime Minister and other high profile Leavers drives an ongoing emotional reaction to everything this Government does. It’s hard to see that changing any time soon.
Immigration should be a different issue; but while a clear majority of the country wants immigration reduced, it’s by far the most controversial issue in the public domain and provokes huge sensitivities. As for Scotland, it’s fair to say a privately educated southern Englishman is hardly the perfect Prime Minister but, honestly ,what can be done about this? (Some will raise “competence” as a reason for division – on Coronavirus and exams etc – but I don’t think that’s a primary driver).
Yet there’s more to it than just the fact the Government has strong views on two contentious issues, while ultimately overseeing a further surge in support for the SNP.
One of the biggest problems is the fundamental lack of interest in politics amongst the Conservatives’ new core vote. The vast majority of the working class and lower middle class of provincial England are completely uninterested in politics. They’re not active in the parties; they don’t talk about politics in daily life; they don’t write to local or national newspapers; most importantly, they’re not politically active online.
In short, their views are almost never heard outside of elections, when they then dictate who goes into Downing Street. It therefore feels like the national political conversation – and by extension the reality of the national opinion – is dominated by noisy, politically-obsessed middle class activists.
The seeming lack of political importance of those in provincial England is exacerbated by the antipathy that many middle class Remainers have for them. As I’ve written before, it’s lucky that working class and lower middle class people don’t hear most of the political conversation as it shields them from this widespread contempt. Their portrayal is of poorly-educated, parochial English nationalists who do boring and precarious work. They’re portrayed as relics of an earlier age whose views will die out shortly, as they themselves die. There’s a clear sense that these voters don’t have moral authority and don’t matter.
And this takes us to another related point, which I’ll make only in passing despite its importance, simce others have made this point for years: all the main media outlets, and the vast majority of commentators, live in London and its cultural and physical satellites or in the country’s biggest cities. Those that choose and edit news output know very little about the towns and small cities of England or the people that live there. There is now no truly authentic provincial English media outlet.
Why does it matter if the Conservative Party is treated as the equivalent of an unelected dictatorship, particularly if the quiet mass of the public keeps voting for them? It matters for three related reasons.
Because it all infects media coverage and, even now, this matters over time. If everyone talks about this Government as being essentially illegitimate, it will affect public opinion more broadly (more on economic than cultural issues, I think).
Because it freaks out weak-minded backbenchers who spend too long on social media and who publicly panic about the Government’s reputation.
And because it makes the Government second-guess its own relative popularity and therefore its likelihood of getting big things done.
Ministers need to think about how to get on the front foot again – how to show the extent of its public support in order to boost its own moral standing and its ability to get things done. It needs to harness its provincial popularity – showing that these voters’ views are moderate, mainstream and strongly felt (all of which are true). How should it go about this? Each would be worth many blogs alone, but here are brief suggestions.
First, return at the earliest opportunity to improving the “liveability” of provincial towns. It’s impossible to criticise the Government for a loss of focus; Coronavirus changed everything very early in their new term. But they need to return to this soon. It’s not just about improving the economic prospects of these places; it’s also about making them nicer places to live. This means not just boosting town centres, but also working with local councils to improve public spaces, and reintroducing the festivals and events that have often withered and died. (This sounds like a small thing, but it’s huge for people). This will not only demonstrate to the country the provincial priorities of the Government, but it will also show these voters’ primary concern – not nationalism and all the rest, but enjoying a decent quality of family life.
Second, relatively easy to do, find a way to give a voice to the best of the new MPs. The Party has to demonstrate a different face and accent to show that it now represents new places and new people. They don’t all have to be promoted into Government; there are plenty of roles they can play – from being placed on task forces and policy research teams, to being given CCHQ roles. The Party should be reminding everyone through its spokespeople that it represents a new, mainstream majority.


conservativehome--2020-08-18--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Board of the Charity Commission – and more


conservativehome--2020-08-18--The Education Secretary must lead school openings in less than a month. Which is why his Department

The Education Secretary must lead school openings in less than a month. Which is why his Department needs new leadership now.

Here are two early sketches of a first draft of history .
Their subject is the A-level and GCSE results multishambles .
The first pins responsibility on Ofqal and the second on Ministers .
The point to grasp at the start is that Ofqal is independent of government [ our italics ] .
It was set up under Labour in 2008 to replace the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority , which itself was set up under Labour in 1997 .
But which was an executive non-departmental public body of the Department for Education [ our italics again ] .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not under Ministerial control .
It is part of the quangoisation of Britain of which Daniel Hannan has so often complained , which seeks to “ take politics out of decision-making ” , and of which Andrew Lansley ’ s health reforms were a continuation .
In this view of events , Ofqal is bound to be compared with Public Health England – a product of those reforms which Matt Hancock is now poised to scrap .
Perhaps a better comparison would be with NHS England , which is run in effect not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Simon Stevens .
It therefore follows that neither Gavin Williamson nor Nick Gibb had the power to compel this body – with its Director of Policy and Strategic relations ; Associate Director of Strategic Policy and Risk ; Director of Strategic Relations , eleven press people and over 200 staff ( hat-tip : John Redwood ) – to divulge its algorithm .
But for all this mass of staff , there is a curious lack of educational know-how at the top of Ofqal .
Sally Collier , its Chief Regulator , served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its executive director , Julie Swan , worked at the Law Society .
Roger Taylor , its Chair , was a healthcare businessman and Financial Times journalist .
Perhaps this distance from schools explains a certain secretiveness .
It is claimed that Ofqal rejected approaches from the Royal Statistical Society , which wanted more transparency about its now notorious algorithm , but was rebuffed .
Gavin Williamson appears to have been preoccupied with school reopenings , and so to have handed over responsibility for dealing with this year ’ s results to Nick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government ; a man passionately committed to raising school standards , and a bit of a ConservativeHome hero .
Gibb warned Downing Street that this year ’ s results would create a rumpus because they would produce winners and losers without the mediating usual role of exams .
But , crucially , he didn ’ t tip it off about the altorighm .
This was because he hadn ’ t seen it .
Ofqal hadn ’ t shown it to him or to civil servants , and couldn ’ t be forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that turned out to be worthless .
Ofqal ’ s writ runs only in England .
But it is striking that Gibb and Williamson , like SNP Ministers in Scotland , Labour ones in Wales and a mix in Northern Ireland , were flying blind .
Williamson said yesterday that he saw the algorithm only last weekend .
However , England has an appeals process – unlike Scotland .
Williamson and Gibb ’ s first instinct was to use it , plus mock exams , as the basis for revising the A-level results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be “ no U-turn ” , “ no change ” .
Ofqal made Ministers ’ position impossible when it issued advice on the matter , over the weekend , and then withdrew it on the same day .
This was the cue for frantic discussions within it and Government about whether to seek to prop up the results or pull the plug on them .
The former course would have meant appeals for A-levels , which ConHome argued for yesterday , plus tweaking the algorithm , perhaps to ensure that no pupil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one grade .
At any rate , the decision was made to go with teacher predictions both for GCSE and A-level .
All in all , the moral of the story is the same as in heathcare with the Coronavirus .
Politics can ’ t be taken out of decision-making .
Ministers need more power , not less : because ultimately they – not Ofqal ’ s algorithm ; not “ the science ” – are responsible for decisions .
Ofqal should be scrapped or absorbed into the Education department .
This take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ofqal is not quite as independent of government as some are now suggesting .
Ed Balls argued yesterday on Twitter that Ministers will have set the overall framework for constraining grade inflation this year .
At any rate , Ministers should have seen the problem coming down the tracks .
As this site pointed out yesterday , the annual release of exam results is one of the biggest – if not the biggest – event in the Education Department ’ s annual cycle .
Sam Freedman , a former senior adviser to Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tweeted yesterday that Williamson and Gibb not seeing the data until last weekend is “ astonishing .
Even in a normal year we saw the data a few days before release .
How on earth did they not ask to see it ?
!
” According to this version of events , the conscientious , toiling Gibb – who was widely praised for his record by many of the MPs that ConHome has spoken to during the last few says – nonetheless lacks the bastardly sense of self-preservation more frequently found among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public fight with Ofqal , and clamour for sight of the algorithm , he and Williamson decided to sit it out and wait for the results .
The Scottish debacle threw them into a panic .
There was no final appeals process .
The Government decided in any event to tamper with what was in place to include “ valid mocks ” .
In sum , they failed to clear their lines with Ofqal ; had no durable definition of what a “ valid mock ” might be , hadn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be paid for – and only saw the results problem steaming down the tracks after it had created havoc in Scotland .
Gibb may be the most dedicated of Ministers .
And Williamson may be the ultimate “ good soldier ” – unfairly swotting up the blame , as he did over primary schools failing to open by the end of July , for decisions that were not ultimately made by him .
But the exams disaster , together with the further problems that yesterday ’ s necessary but consquential retreat will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Tory backbenchers , and with which ConHome is basically in agreement .
Which is that Boris Johnson appoints his senior Ministers on the basis of compliance , not competence – taking his cue from what he once claimed to be his favourite movie scene , “ the multiple retribution killings at the end of the Godfather ” .
Jeremy Hunt , Liam Fox , Damian Hinds , Geoffrey Cox – all these non-supporters or potential rivals have been sacked from Cabinet and sidelined .
There are no “ greybeards ” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith .
The co-Party Chairman in the Commons , Amanda Milling , is scarcely visible , since there are no elections this year .
A stronger Cabinet might include any of these , plus Mark Harper and Graham Brady , or a rehabilitated Sajid Javid and Andrea Leadsom .
Andrew Mitchell has proved that he can run a department , and it may be that enough time has passed to allow a return .
One of the most capable former Ministers on the backbenches is Damian Green .
We ’ ll return in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ministers and MPs who might move up , many of them women , rather than former ones who would add weight to an inexperiecned team .
But the general point holds : the Cabinet need some members with previous experience of running a department – inter alia , to deal with quangos like Ofqal .
Regardless of which version you prefer , the Education Secretary must lead school openings in roughly a fortnight .
Which is why the department needs new leadership .
You will choose which of the above versions you prefer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We add only one point .
That anyone claiming to know the full story today doesn ’ t really do so .
Time will bring clarity .
Schools will begin to return on September 1 or so – more or less a fortnight today .
Perhaps parents will need no encouragement to send their children back .
Maybe fear of Covid-19 is falling as death totals drop .
Perhaps teaching unions will no longer be able to find reasons for delay .
If so , Gavin Williamson will be able to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his department , schools or pupils .
But all may not run as smoothly , at least until furlough ends in late October .
That ’ s still more than two months away .
In which case , Education may lurch from one crisis to another – as argument rages in any event about the consequences of yesterday ’ s U-turn , with colleges and universities queueing up to demand new revisions and more money .
It is a cardinal principle of the Johnson/Cummings operation not to bow to media pressure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Williamson , who Number Ten rates highly for his political acumen .
“ Every piece of advice he ’ s given us privately has been right , ” one senior figure told ConHome recently .
But a Cabinet Minister who one week promises no U-turns one week , and the next week presides over one , is a Cabinet Minister with weakened authority .
Williamson ’ s real political strengths , which his critics are unwilling to concede , is as a wheeler-dealer insider operator .
The Prime Minister would gain from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader of the House , Jacob Rees-Mogg to a trade or finance post , and sent a Cabinet Minister to Education who knows how the wheels of government work .
Our candidate is Oliver Dowden .
It won ’ t happen , but it should .

Here are two early sketches of a first draft of history. Their subject is the A-level and GCSE results multishambles. The first pins responsibility on Ofqual and the second on Ministers.
The case against Ofqal
The point to grasp at the start is that Ofqual is independent of government [our italics]. It was set up under Labour in 2008 to replace the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which itself was set up under Labour in 1997. But which was an executive non-departmental public body of the Department for Education [our italics again].
In other words, Ofqual, crucially, is not under Ministerial control. It is part of the quangoisation of Britain of which Daniel Hannan has so often complained, which seeks to “take politics out of decision-making”, and of which Andrew Lansley’s health reforms were a continuation.
In this view of events, Ofqual is bound to be compared with Public Health England – a product of those reforms which Matt Hancock is now poised to scrap. Perhaps a better comparison would be with NHS England, which is run in effect not by Ministers but by its Chief Executive, Simon Stevens.
It therefore follows that neither Gavin Williamson nor Nick Gibb had the power to compel this body – with its Director of Policy and Strategic relations; Associate Director of Strategic Policy and Risk; Director of Strategic Relations, eleven press people and over 200 staff (hat-tip: John Redwood) – to divulge its algorithm.
But for all this mass of staff, there is a curious lack of educational know-how at the top of Ofqaul. Sally Collier, its Chief Regulator, served previously at the Crown Commercial Service. Its executive director, Julie Swan, worked at the Law Society. Roger Taylor, its Chair, was a healthcare businessman and Financial Times journalist.
Perhaps this distance from schools explains a certain secretiveness. It is claimed that Ofqaul rejected approaches from the Royal Statistical Society, which wanted more transparency about its now notorious algorithm, but was rebuffed.
Gavin Williamson appears to have been preoccupied with school reopenings, and so to have handed over responsibility for dealing with this year’s results to Nick Gibb – the most long-serving Minister in Government; a man passionately committed to raising school standards, and a bit of a ConservativeHome hero.
Gibb warned Downing Street that this year’s results would create a rumpus because they would produce winners and losers without the mediating usual role of exams. But, crucially, he didn’t tip it off about the altorighm. This was because he hadn’t seen it. Ofqual hadn’t shown it to him or to civil servants, and couldn’t be forced to.
It instead offered reassurances and briefings that turned out to be worthless. Ofqual’s writ runs only in England. But it is striking that Gibb and Williamson, like SNP Ministers in Scotland, Labour ones in Wales and a mix in Northern Ireland, were flying blind. Williamson said yesterday that he saw the algorithm only last weekend.
However, England has an appeals process – unlike Scotland. Williamson and Gibb’s first instinct was to use it, plus mock exams, as the basis for revising the A-level results. The Education Secretary insisted that there would be “no U-turn”, “no change”.
Ofqal made Ministers’ position impossible when it issued advice on the matter, over the weekend, and then withdrew it on the same day. This was the cue for frantic discussions within it and Government about whether to seek to prop up the results or pull the plug on them.
The former course would have meant appeals for A-levels, which ConHome argued for yesterday, plus tweaking the algorithm, perhaps to ensure that no pupil could be marked down by more than one grade. At any rate, the decision was made to go with teacher predictions both for GCSE and A-level.
All in all, the moral of the story is the same as in heathcare with the Coronavirus. Politics can’t be taken out of decision-making. Ministers need more power, not less: because ultimately they – not Ofqual’s algorithm; not “the science” – are responsible for decisions. Ofqual should be scrapped or absorbed into the Education department.
The case against Ministers
This take on events begins with the claim that Ofqual is not quite as independent of government as some are now suggesting. Ed Balls argued yesterday on Twitter that Ministers will have set the overall framework for constraining grade inflation this year.
At any rate, Ministers should have seen the problem coming down the tracks. As this site pointed out yesterday, the annual release of exam results is one of the biggest – if not the biggest – event in the Education Department’s annual cycle.
Sam Freedman, a former senior adviser to Michael Gove when the latter was Education Secretary, tweeted yesterday that Williamson and Gibb not seeing the data until last weekend is “astonishing. Even in a normal year we saw the data a few days before release. How on earth did they not ask to see it?!”
According to this version of events, the conscientious, toiling Gibb – who was widely praised for his record by many of the MPs that ConHome has spoken to during the last few says – nonetheless lacks the bastardly sense of self-preservation more frequently found among less noble politicians.
Rather than have a public fight with Ofqual, and clamour for sight of the algorithm, he and Williamson decided to sit it out and wait for the results. The Scottish debacle threw them into a panic. There was no final appeals process. The Government decided in any event to tamper with what was in place to include “valid mocks”.
In sum, they failed to clear their lines with Ofqual; had no durable definition of what a “valid mock” might be, hadn’t worked out a position on whether appeals should be paid for – and only saw the results problem steaming down the tracks after it had created havoc in Scotland.
Gibb may be the most dedicated of Ministers. And Williamson may be the ultimate “good soldier” – unfairly swotting up the blame, as he did over primary schools failing to open by the end of July, for decisions that were not ultimately made by him.
But the exams disaster, together with the further problems that yesterday’s necessary but consquential retreat will pose, supports a view increasingly common on the Tory backbenchers, and with which ConHome is basically in agreement.
Which is that Boris Johnson appoints his senior Ministers on the basis of compliance, not competence – taking his cue from what he once claimed to be his favourite movie scene, “the multiple retribution killings at the end of the Godfather”.
Jeremy Hunt, Liam Fox, Damian Hinds, Geoffrey Cox – all these non-supporters or potential rivals have been sacked from Cabinet and sidelined. There are no “greybeards” – no David Davis; no Iain Duncan Smith. The co-Party Chairman in the Commons, Amanda Milling, is scarcely visible, since there are no elections this year.
A stronger Cabinet might include any of these, plus Mark Harper and Graham Brady, or a rehabilitated Sajid Javid and Andrea Leadsom. Andrew Mitchell has proved that he can run a department, and it may be that enough time has passed to allow a return. One of the most capable former Ministers on the backbenches is Damian Green.
We’ll return in due course to some of the younger Ministers and MPs who might move up, many of them women, rather than former ones who would add weight to an inexperiecned team. But the general point holds: the Cabinet need some members with previous experience of running a department – inter alia, to deal with quangos like Ofqual.
Regardless of which version you prefer, the Education Secretary must lead school openings in roughly a fortnight. Which is why the department needs new leadership.
You will choose which of the above versions you prefer, or a mix of the two. We add only one point. That anyone claiming to know the full story today doesn’t really do so. Time will bring clarity.
Schools will begin to return on September 1 or so – more or less a fortnight today. Perhaps parents will need no encouragement to send their children back. Maybe fear of Covid-19 is falling as death totals drop. Perhaps teaching unions will no longer be able to find reasons for delay.
If so, Gavin Williamson will be able to stay on as Education Secretary without immediate consequences for his department, schools or pupils. But all may not run as smoothly, at least until furlough ends in late October. That’s still more than two months away.
In which case, Education may lurch from one crisis to another – as argument rages in any event about the consequences of yesterday’s U-turn, with colleges and universities queueing up to demand new revisions and more money.
It is a cardinal principle of the Johnson/Cummings operation not to bow to media pressure. In which case, they will stick with Williamson, who Number Ten rates highly for his political acumen. “Every piece of advice he’s given us privately has been right,” one senior figure told ConHome recently.
But a Cabinet Minister who one week promises no U-turns one week, and the next week presides over one, is a Cabinet Minister with weakened authority. Williamson’s real political strengths, which his critics are unwilling to concede, is as a wheeler-dealer insider operator.
The Prime Minister would gain from a small shuffle that moved Williamson to Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg to a trade or finance post, and sent a Cabinet Minister to Education who knows how the wheels of government work. Our candidate is Oliver Dowden. It won’t happen, but it should.


conservativehome--2020-08-18--Radical: While political leaders hide from confrontation, activists are winning the war on self-iden

Radical: While political leaders hide from confrontation, activists are winning the war on self-identification

Victoria Hewson is a solicitor and co-founder of Radical , a campaign for truth and freedom in the gender recognition debate .
She and Rebecca Lowe , her co-founder , alternate authorship of this column on trans , sex and gender issues .
Regardless of commitments about a summer announcement , Parliament went into recess without any further clarity from Liz Truss on the Government ’ s plans for reform of the Gender Recognition Act .
Nonetheless , there has been no let up in the debate .
It had been expected that the changes to the law that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have allowed people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis , or evidence of having lived for some time as a member of the opposite sex – would be abandoned by the current Westminster government .
In Scotland , reforms of the law to this effect in are still expected to proceed , after having been put on hold during the Covid crisis .
But the signs had been pretty clear for months that Westminster had decided against so-called “ self-ID ” for England and Wales .
In the weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists became ever more vocal in their efforts to mobilise support for self-ID .
Publications such as Pink News worked hard , misusing survey data ( and misrepresenting the current law ) , to try to create the impression of a country in which the vast majority of people favoured self-ID , and with it the ability for male-bodied transwomen to use women-only facilities .
As ever , mainstream-media reporting too often went along with this false narrative .
Perhaps the influence of these activist groups is one reason for the Government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as promised .
After all , government departments and quangos , from the Cabinet Office to the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) , have signed up to receive guidance and training from Stonewall , through its Diversity Champions programme – and Stonewall is a highly political organisation , which has been lobbying the Government particularly strongly on trans issues .
Transactivist talking points have also been adopted by representatives within the Conservative Party .
Many common examples of transactivist misinformation can be found in this piece by Crispin Blunt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ironically , in a section devoted to “ myth-busting ” .
So it would not be surprising if the Minister for Equalities has faced the pressure of opposition from within the party over her rethink on pushing forward with self-ID .
The EHRC itself joined the fray last week .
Not , however , as might have been hoped , to clarify and improve its guidance on the existing laws protecting women that have been the subject of widespread misunderstanding ( as seen in the Blunt and Pascoe piece referred to above ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another tendentious survey , and remonstrate with its respondents who didn ’ t support transwomen ’ s access to women-only spaces and services .
Whilst she acknowledged that a great majority of British people broadly support trans people ’ s rights to live free of discrimination , and do not consider themselves to be transphobic , Rebecca Hilsenrath , EHRC ’ s chief executive , also noted that “ people were found to be less supportive of trans people in specific situations ” .
The specific situations in question included women ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet far from acknowledging that there are good reasons , and legal support , for such views , Hilsenrath seems to consider that the people holding them need to be helped to change their minds , by bringing about a better “ level of understanding on the key facts surrounding the debate ” by “ both sides improving the level of discourse ” .
This seems , again , rather ironic considering the poor guidance the EHRC has published on the legal facts of the matter .
Indeed , although Hisenrath called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact-based dialogue on law and policy , it seems very clear what the EHRC considers to be the “ right ” outcome of any dialogue .
In a recent thoughtful piece for The Spectator , James Kirkup called for the Government to take the sting out of the issue by first publishing a “ drily technical ” announcement that : self-id would be dropped , tweaks made to existing processes regarding legal sex changes , to make them faster and cheaper ; and , proper clarity provided in guidance on single-sex provisions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ reconciling conflicting rights and addressing the woefully poor evidence-base on trans issues , should be kicked even further into the long grass , with a proper fact-finding ‘ further investigation ’ that must report before any major change can come ” .
Now , apart from the fact that what Kirkup considers would be an undramatic , “ technical ” announcement is , in effect , exactly what the trans lobby have been campaigning against – and publicly positing as a “ rolling back ” of trans rights – this calm approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with risks .
Conservative governments have not traditionally been good at making conservative appointments , and trans lobbyists and activists have excelled at capturing public bodies .
There is surely a serious risk , therefore , that any investigative commission , instead of fearlessly finding and reporting on the truth in medical and legal matters , would be susceptible to the same forces that have caused scientific papers to be withdrawn , and legal “ guidance ” to distort the law .
Certainly , however , there is no reason for Boris Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that matter , to get personally involved in the unedifying social-media gender wars .
But , it is also the case that they should not allow themselves to get caught up in the “ both sides are equal ” fallacy that the EHRC and others have been perpetuating .
Legal rights associated with sex have become a political matter , whether we like it or not , and a Conservative government should not hide from making necessary political decisions to acknowledge the reality of sex , and the legal and policy considerations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life , public bodies continue to adopt policies that are in conflict with current law .
Yet these decisions seem to undergo little or no consultation or scrutiny – until , as seen with the spate of legal action against guidance to schools , brave individuals stand up and challenge them .
NHS Lanarkshire recently announced an HR protocol , which effectively makes staff changing rooms mixed sex , included people who dress as the opposite gender for “ erotic pleasure ” under the umbrella of “ trans ” , and by claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues by “ not thinking ” of them as the gender they present .
A Labour MSP who tried to hold NHS Lanarkshire to account over this , and who questioned how a medical organisation could propagate the idea of a baby having its gender “ assigned at birth ” , was met with calls that she should be disciplined by her party .
These are the consequences of political leaders leaving the field .
Hiding behind a commission of experts , therefore , in order to avoid offending the groups of highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that field , would itself be a political decision , and one that seems unlikely to improve the quality of the debate .

Victoria Hewson is a solicitor and co-founder of Radical, a campaign for truth and freedom in the gender recognition debate. She and Rebecca Lowe, her co-founder, alternate authorship of this column on trans, sex and gender issues.
Regardless of commitments about a summer announcement, Parliament went into recess without any further clarity from Liz Truss on the Government’s plans for reform of the Gender Recognition Act. Nonetheless, there has been no let up in the debate.
It had been expected that the changes to the law that the May government had consulted on – which would have allowed people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis, or evidence of having lived for some time as a member of the opposite sex – would be abandoned by the current Westminster government.
In Scotland, reforms of the law to this effect in are still expected to proceed, after having been put on hold during the Covid crisis. But the signs had been pretty clear for months that Westminster had decided against so-called “self-ID” for England and Wales.
In the weeks before recess, however, trans rights activists became ever more vocal in their efforts to mobilise support for self-ID. Publications such as Pink News worked hard, misusing survey data (and misrepresenting the current law), to try to create the impression of a country in which the vast majority of people favoured self-ID, and with it the ability for male-bodied transwomen to use women-only facilities. As ever, mainstream-media reporting too often went along with this false narrative.
Perhaps the influence of these activist groups is one reason for the Government’s delay in confirming its position formally, as promised. After all, government departments and quangos, from the Cabinet Office to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), have signed up to receive guidance and training from Stonewall, through its Diversity Champions programme – and Stonewall is a highly political organisation, which has been lobbying the Government particularly strongly on trans issues.
Transactivist talking points have also been adopted by representatives within the Conservative Party. Many common examples of transactivist misinformation can be found in this piece by Crispin Blunt and Sue Pascoe, for instance – ironically, in a section devoted to “myth-busting”. So it would not be surprising if the Minister for Equalities has faced the pressure of opposition from within the party over her rethink on pushing forward with self-ID.
The EHRC itself joined the fray last week. Not, however, as might have been hoped, to clarify and improve its guidance on the existing laws protecting women that have been the subject of widespread misunderstanding (as seen in the Blunt and Pascoe piece referred to above). But, rather, to publish another tendentious survey, and remonstrate with its respondents who didn’t support transwomen’s access to women-only spaces and services.
Whilst she acknowledged that a great majority of British people broadly support trans people’s rights to live free of discrimination, and do not consider themselves to be transphobic, Rebecca Hilsenrath, EHRC’s chief executive, also noted that “people were found to be less supportive of trans people in specific situations”. The specific situations in question included women’s refuges and facilities such as public toilets.
Yet far from acknowledging that there are good reasons, and legal support, for such views, Hilsenrath seems to consider that the people holding them need to be helped to change their minds, by bringing about a better “level of understanding on the key facts surrounding the debate” by “both sides improving the level of discourse”.
This seems, again, rather ironic considering the poor guidance the EHRC has published on the legal facts of the matter. Indeed, although Hisenrath called for a constructive, tolerant, and fact-based dialogue on law and policy, it seems very clear what the EHRC considers to be the “right” outcome of any dialogue.
In a recent thoughtful piece for The Spectator, James Kirkup called for the Government to take the sting out of the issue by first publishing a “drily technical” announcement that: self-id would be dropped, tweaks made to existing processes regarding legal sex changes, to make them faster and cheaper; and, proper clarity provided in guidance on single-sex provisions. Then the “wider issues” of “reconciling conflicting rights and addressing the woefully poor evidence-base on trans issues, should be kicked even further into the long grass, with a proper fact-finding ‘further investigation’ that must report before any major change can come”.
Now, apart from the fact that what Kirkup considers would be an undramatic, “technical” announcement is, in effect, exactly what the trans lobby have been campaigning against – and publicly positing as a “rolling back” of trans rights – this calm approach seems sensible.
However, it comes with risks. Conservative governments have not traditionally been good at making conservative appointments, and trans lobbyists and activists have excelled at capturing public bodies. There is surely a serious risk, therefore, that any investigative commission, instead of fearlessly finding and reporting on the truth in medical and legal matters, would be susceptible to the same forces that have caused scientific papers to be withdrawn, and legal “guidance” to distort the law.
Certainly, however, there is no reason for Boris Johnson or Liz Truss, or Keir Starmer for that matter, to get personally involved in the unedifying social-media gender wars. But, it is also the case that they should not allow themselves to get caught up in the “both sides are equal” fallacy that the EHRC and others have been perpetuating.
Legal rights associated with sex have become a political matter, whether we like it or not, and a Conservative government should not hide from making necessary political decisions to acknowledge the reality of sex, and the legal and policy considerations that flow from that. In real life, public bodies continue to adopt policies that are in conflict with current law. Yet these decisions seem to undergo little or no consultation or scrutiny – until, as seen with the spate of legal action against guidance to schools, brave individuals stand up and challenge them.
NHS Lanarkshire recently announced an HR protocol , which effectively makes staff changing rooms mixed sex, included people who dress as the opposite gender for “erotic pleasure” under the umbrella of “trans”, and by claims that staff could be discriminating against trans colleagues by “not thinking” of them as the gender they present. A Labour MSP who tried to hold NHS Lanarkshire to account over this, and who questioned how a medical organisation could propagate the idea of a baby having its gender “assigned at birth”, was met with calls that she should be disciplined by her party.
These are the consequences of political leaders leaving the field. Hiding behind a commission of experts, therefore, in order to avoid offending the groups of highly engaged and influential activists who have occupied that field, would itself be a political decision, and one that seems unlikely to improve the quality of the debate.


conservativehome--2020-08-18--Meirion Jenkins: The lack of democratic accountability in Birmingham is worse than ever

Cllr Meirion Jenkins is the Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources on Birmingham City Council .
One good thing that politicians might say about Covid , is that it will provide an excuse for so many failures that have little to do with Covid , or were destined to fail long before the virus appeared .
And so it is with the Labour council in Birmingham .
With the Birmingham Commonwealth Games now less than two years away , audit committee had classified the athletes ’ village as a ‘ red risk ’ .
The athletes ’ village is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wholly within the control of Labour and , like most things that Labour ’ s Birmingham administration handles , it ’ s another shambles .
The village has now been cancelled .
Goodness knows how much this will cost the taxpayers in Birmingham through unrecoverable sunk costs .
According to the last business case , which increased the costs by £92 million , £226 million had already been spent by the end of March 2020 on this project .
The council chose to fund the village itself with no central government intervention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a view to making a turn on the property development .
It was just last December that Labour mysteriously rushed through the purchase of a National Express bus depot , refusing to allow scrutiny or call in of the decision on the grounds that it was urgent , despite paying eight times the budgeted price ( £16 million ) for the land .
Strangely , this ‘ vital ’ piece of land was not planned to be needed until the Games and , even then , was only to be used as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not at all clear whether it will be needed at all .
When the Games were taken on at short notice , the Conservative group suggested that the use of student accommodation would represent a lower risk and lower cost option , but the Labour leadership preferred the ‘ legacy ’ of the athletes ’ village .
This has now proved to be a disastrous decision and it will probably be student accommodation that meets a large part of the requirement .
The running of the council and lack of democratic accountability is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Full council and the elected members have now reached the point of being an irrelevance .
At the last council meeting ( Teams of course ) , we found ourselves debating a proposal to spend £7,000 on joining a special interest group , whilst the real decisions involving millions of pounds are taken secretly behind closed doors with no scrutiny allowed .
Lip service is paid to councillors but we are effectively prevented from doing the job that our residents elected us to do .
We have reached the stage where Labour cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t know what else the officers are hiding from us ” .
After the meeting when this comment was made and in a separate matter , it emerged that Birmingham had made a decision to pay £1,000 incentives to care homes to take patients regardless of their unknown Covid status .
This decision was made as an ‘ emergency decision ’ and therefore outside of the usual scrutiny process .
Senior members of the cabinet are also privately expressing frustration about lack of access to information and lack of consultation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in audit committee over the Labour administration ’ s continuing insistence on keeping audit committee in the dark .
I ’ m also not sure what I find the most remarkable : is it that the Leader of the council is not included in the group of officers that run the council , insofar as the exercise of emergency powers is concerned , or the fact that the Leader is happy to accept this situation ?
The emergency powers were designed to allow the council to take urgent actions and intended to last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most .
Four months on , we still don ’ t have the democratically elected leader of the council directly involved in the decisions deriving from the exercise of emergency powers .
I regret that many Labour members ( with some notable exceptions ) seem content with and motivated only by the status they associate with being a city councillor , but care little for the fact that the role is being diminished to the point of irrelevance .
Attempts by me and my colleagues to persuade them to do the right thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall on deaf ears .
Whilst online meetings can be useful when there is no alternative in a crisis , they are in no way a substitute for proper meetings .
Despite this , there is resistance from the Labour administration to re-convening even hybrid meetings , let alone a proper return to full accountability .
Labour Birmingham remains a fully paid up member of the anti-car club .
Even when John Lewis decided to close their flagship store in the Bull Ring and we saw press reports about how the city-centre driving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air zone blamed for closure ) , Labour stuck dogmatically to their plans to tax hard working motorists for bringing cars into the city .
To whatever extent the plan influenced the closure , it is hard to deny that anti-business / anti-car policies will discourage investment .
If the city centre is harder and less convenient to access , then this is bound to discourage shoppers and business people from visiting .
Labour seized on the Covid crisis to attempt to introduce a 20mph speed limit as a default throughout Birmingham .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this without the approval of the Grant Shapps , the Transport Secretary , and their request was turned down .
I wrote to him to object to Labour ’ s plans .
Ironically , new reports show that one of the areas with worst congestion ( and which is densely populated ) is Birmingham ’ s ring road ( e.g .
Dartmouth Circus ) .
If Labour are successful in implementing their new tax under the justification of clean air , then they will be moving extra cars and pollution to some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst .

Cllr Meirion Jenkins is the Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources on Birmingham City Council.
One good thing that politicians might say about Covid, is that it will provide an excuse for so many failures that have little to do with Covid, or were destined to fail long before the virus appeared. And so it is with the Labour council in Birmingham. With the Birmingham Commonwealth Games now less than two years away, audit committee had classified the athletes’ village as a ‘red risk’. The athletes’ village is the only part of the games that is wholly within the control of Labour and, like most things that Labour’s Birmingham administration handles, it’s another shambles.
The village has now been cancelled. Goodness knows how much this will cost the taxpayers in Birmingham through unrecoverable sunk costs. According to the last business case, which increased the costs by £92 million, £226 million had already been spent by the end of March 2020 on this project. The council chose to fund the village itself with no central government intervention, using a complex finance arrangement and with a view to making a turn on the property development. It was just last December that Labour mysteriously rushed through the purchase of a National Express bus depot, refusing to allow scrutiny or call in of the decision on the grounds that it was urgent, despite paying eight times the budgeted price (£16 million) for the land.
Strangely, this ‘vital’ piece of land was not planned to be needed until the Games and, even then, was only to be used as a depot. It’s now not at all clear whether it will be needed at all. When the Games were taken on at short notice, the Conservative group suggested that the use of student accommodation would represent a lower risk and lower cost option, but the Labour leadership preferred the ‘legacy’ of the athletes’ village. This has now proved to be a disastrous decision and it will probably be student accommodation that meets a large part of the requirement.
The running of the council and lack of democratic accountability is as troubling as ever in Birmingham. Full council and the elected members have now reached the point of being an irrelevance. At the last council meeting (Teams of course), we found ourselves debating a proposal to spend £7,000 on joining a special interest group, whilst the real decisions involving millions of pounds are taken secretly behind closed doors with no scrutiny allowed. Lip service is paid to councillors but we are effectively prevented from doing the job that our residents elected us to do.
We have reached the stage where Labour cabinet members have said in full council “we don’t know what else the officers are hiding from us”. After the meeting when this comment was made and in a separate matter, it emerged that Birmingham had made a decision to pay £1,000 incentives to care homes to take patients regardless of their unknown Covid status. This decision was made as an ‘emergency decision’ and therefore outside of the usual scrutiny process. Senior members of the cabinet are also privately expressing frustration about lack of access to information and lack of consultation on important decisions. Rows break out in audit committee over the Labour administration’s continuing insistence on keeping audit committee in the dark.
I’m also not sure what I find the most remarkable: is it that the Leader of the council is not included in the group of officers that run the council, insofar as the exercise of emergency powers is concerned, or the fact that the Leader is happy to accept this situation? The emergency powers were designed to allow the council to take urgent actions and intended to last just hours or a few days at most. Four months on, we still don’t have the democratically elected leader of the council directly involved in the decisions deriving from the exercise of emergency powers.
I regret that many Labour members (with some notable exceptions) seem content with and motivated only by the status they associate with being a city councillor, but care little for the fact that the role is being diminished to the point of irrelevance. Attempts by me and my colleagues to persuade them to do the right thing and protect the role of the councillor fall on deaf ears. Whilst online meetings can be useful when there is no alternative in a crisis, they are in no way a substitute for proper meetings. Despite this, there is resistance from the Labour administration to re-convening even hybrid meetings, let alone a proper return to full accountability.
Labour Birmingham remains a fully paid up member of the anti-car club. Even when John Lewis decided to close their flagship store in the Bull Ring and we saw press reports about how the city-centre driving tax might have influenced this ( Clean air zone blamed for closure ), Labour stuck dogmatically to their plans to tax hard working motorists for bringing cars into the city. To whatever extent the plan influenced the closure, it is hard to deny that anti-business / anti-car policies will discourage investment. If the city centre is harder and less convenient to access, then this is bound to discourage shoppers and business people from visiting.
Labour seized on the Covid crisis to attempt to introduce a 20mph speed limit as a default throughout Birmingham. Fortunately, they couldn’t do this without the approval of the Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, and their request was turned down. I wrote to him to object to Labour’s plans. Ironically, new reports show that one of the areas with worst congestion (and which is densely populated) is Birmingham’s ring road (e.g. Dartmouth Circus ). If Labour are successful in implementing their new tax under the justification of clean air, then they will be moving extra cars and pollution to some of the areas where air pollution is already worst.


conservativehome--2020-08-18--Labour’s hypocrisy over A Level results

Labour’s hypocrisy over A Level results

Almost every publication , including this site , has been critical of the Government ’ s U-turn on school exams in England .
Gavin Williamson ’ s decision to move from Ofqual ’ s model , which resulted in 40 per cent of predicted marks being downgraded , to teacher-assessed grades for A Levels and GCSEs ( unless the grades produced by the algorithm are higher ) caused chaos among students and teachers .
Now it ’ s universities who ’ ll have to deal with the consequences , given that many teenagers have different marks to before and want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As you might expect from the leader of the opposition , Keir Starmer has been scathing about the recent events .
On his Twitter feed he is particularly fond of one word – “ incompetent/ incompetence ” , which he has accused the Government of being seven times since Sunday ( heaven forbid there ’ s a thesaurus at Labour HQ ) .
After teacher-assessed grades ( predicted grades ) were accepted , he declared the changes a “ victory for the thousands of young people who have powerfully made their voices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s very easy for Labour to take the high road in these times , but its own position on exam results hasn ’ t been clear exactly .
In April , for instance , Angela Rayner , the party ’ s Deputy now , but Shadow Education Secretary then , criticised predicted grades , telling FE News : “ we have always said predicted grades are not always accurate , and can disproportionately affect the children who need the most support ” .
In August 2019 , she also said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vast majority of cases , and disadvantaged students in particular are losing out on opportunities on the basis of those inaccurate predictions.
” Similarly , Kate Green , the now Shadow Education Secretary , was sceptical about predicted grades – and argued for grades to be standardised in July : “ Labour has argued for years that predicted grades already create significant challenges for disadvantaged students , and without fair standardisation and appeals many more students could be unfairly affected by calculated grades .
The Government and Ofqual must urgently act to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disadvantaged backgrounds do not lose out under this system ” .
However , she has since called the results a “ farce that is incredibly cruel to young people ” , adding that teacher-assessed grades were the right way forward .
Indeed , she celebrated their implementation , Tweeting : “ Well done to all students , parents and teachers who have campaigned for this u-turn .
I am so pleased GCSE & A level results will be on basis of teacher assessment as you and @ UK Labour called for.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too , some have pointed out the party ’ s silence over results in Wales .
On Good Morning Britain , Rayner said the fact that 40 per cent of students had their marks downgraded was “ completely unfair ” and “ completely flawed ” .
Starmer , too , launched a video which said “ The Tories ’ incompetent handling of this year ’ s exams ” was “ robbing a generation of their future ” .
But given that 42 per cent of grades were downgraded in Wales , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the video about Welsh Labour robbing futures ?
For some Tory MPs , Labour ’ s complaints are too little , too late .
Robert Halfon , Chair of the Commons Education Select Committee , told me : the “ opposition parties mostly accepted the grading system that the Government and Ofqual had chosen , as did the trade unions .
It ’ s easier to jump on a bandwagon after the event , but there were very few who were actually calling this out from the beginning.
” His colleague Jonathan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As a member of the Select Committee , we had spoken with Ofqual , and as I remember there were no serious concerns raised other than making sure that grades would be handed out as fairly as possible in exceptional circumstances.
” Speaking of Starmer , he added “ [ he ] once again jumps on any bandwagon going .
We heard nothing from him in the build up to results day about the system ; in fact , the Shadow Education Minister , now Deputy Leader , was in favour of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again Sir Keir Starmer is more interested in trying to please the people of Twitter and the mainstream media.
” Perhaps the Labour leader knows more about “ incompetence ” than he thinks…

Almost every publication, including this site, has been critical of the Government’s U-turn on school exams in England.
Gavin Williamson’s decision to move from Ofqual’s model, which resulted in 40 per cent of predicted marks being downgraded, to teacher-assessed grades for A Levels and GCSEs (unless the grades produced by the algorithm are higher) caused chaos among students and teachers.
Now it’s universities who’ll have to deal with the consequences, given that many teenagers have different marks to before and want to change which one they go to.
As you might expect from the leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer has been scathing about the recent events. On his Twitter feed he is particularly fond of one word – “incompetent/ incompetence”, which he has accused the Government of being seven times since Sunday (heaven forbid there’s a thesaurus at Labour HQ).
After teacher-assessed grades (predicted grades) were accepted, he declared the changes a “victory for the thousands of young people who have powerfully made their voices heard this past week.”
Of course, it’s very easy for Labour to take the high road in these times, but its own position on exam results hasn’t been clear exactly.
In April, for instance, Angela Rayner, the party’s Deputy now, but Shadow Education Secretary then, criticised predicted grades, telling FE News:
“we have always said predicted grades are not always accurate, and can disproportionately affect the children who need the most support”.
In August 2019, she also said:
“Predicted grades are wrong in the vast majority of cases, and disadvantaged students in particular are losing out on opportunities on the basis of those inaccurate predictions.”
Similarly, Kate Green, the now Shadow Education Secretary, was sceptical about predicted grades – and argued for grades to be standardised in July:
“Labour has argued for years that predicted grades already create significant challenges for disadvantaged students, and without fair standardisation and appeals many more students could be unfairly affected by calculated grades. The Government and Ofqual must urgently act to ensure that young people from ethnic minority and disadvantaged backgrounds do not lose out under this system”.
However, she has since called the results a “farce that is incredibly cruel to young people”, adding that teacher-assessed grades were the right way forward.
Indeed, she celebrated their implementation, Tweeting: “Well done to all students, parents and teachers who have campaigned for this u-turn. I am so pleased GCSE & A level results will be on basis of teacher assessment as you and @UK Labour called for.”
For all the horror about England, too, some have pointed out the party’s silence over results in Wales.
On Good Morning Britain, Rayner said the fact that 40 per cent of students had their marks downgraded was “completely unfair” and “completely flawed”. Starmer, too, launched a video which said “The Tories’ incompetent handling of this year’s exams” was “robbing a generation of their future”.
But given that 42 per cent of grades were downgraded in Wales, as a result of a similar algorithm, where was the video about Welsh Labour robbing futures?
For some Tory MPs, Labour’s complaints are too little, too late.
Robert Halfon, Chair of the Commons Education Select Committee, told me: the “opposition parties mostly accepted the grading system that the Government and Ofqual had chosen, as did the trade unions. It’s easier to jump on a bandwagon after the event, but there were very few who were actually calling this out from the beginning.”
His colleague Jonathan Gullis echoed this sentiment, saying: “As a member of the Select Committee, we had spoken with Ofqual, and as I remember there were no serious concerns raised other than making sure that grades would be handed out as fairly as possible in exceptional circumstances.”
Speaking of Starmer, he added “[he] once again jumps on any bandwagon going. We heard nothing from him in the build up to results day about the system; in fact, the Shadow Education Minister, now Deputy Leader, was in favour of what Ofqual was doing. But once again Sir Keir Starmer is more interested in trying to please the people of Twitter and the mainstream media.”
Perhaps the Labour leader knows more about “incompetence” than he thinks…


conservativehome--2020-08-19--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Board of the Charity Commission – and more