conservativehome--2020-11-25--Ryan Bourne: Calm down, stay cool – and drop this talk of tax rises. It’s too early to know how ever

Ryan Bourne: Calm down, stay cool – and drop this talk of tax rises. It’s too early to know how everything will settle down.

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
I feel as if I am stuck in some mid-2010s time warp .
Rishi Sunak will today update us on how much the Government has splurged during this Covid-ridden year and what it intends to spend next year .
But commentators are already pivoting to sizing up what deficit reduction will eventually be needed , and whether tax rises or spending cuts should fill the future fiscal hole .
That conversation will be spurred today by the Office for Budget Responsibility updating its guesstimates of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy ’ s potential , and so the “ structural deficit ” to deal with .
Welcome to the Austerity Wars 2.0 .
As I ’ ve said before , all this debate is massively premature .
Yes , this pandemic has caused masses of government borrowing—producing a deficit of 21 percent of GDP or around £400 billion , according to the Resolution Foundation .
But we are ( still ) in a once-in-a-half-century pandemic where we have knowingly kept shuttered swathes of the economy and paid people to sit at home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” next year , in the sense that the vaccines ending the pandemic will bring furlough to a close , make Covid-19 test and tracing redundant , and see the end of the inoculation and PPE scrambles .
Like demobilisation at the end of war , so the government will de-Covidise its budget with drastic cuts to virus-related expenditure .
Likewise , as things re-open , tax revenues will ascend again .
So , the deficit will fall .
But anyone who claims they know what level it will settle at , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to re-achieve pre-Covid borrowing levels , is , quite frankly , talking poppycock – including the Office for Budget Responsibility .
None of us , nor them , really have a clue what the long-term impact of this crisis will be on the economy .
Will a whole bunch of industries shrink permanently now that the risk of government shutdown orders in future pandemics is understood ?
Will people stick with online retail and eat out less than they did ?
Will professionals work from home more , transforming parts of inner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand for socialising and “ the old life on speed , ” with a roaring 20s to come , as after the Spanish Flu ?
Without knowing all this , nobody can say what demands on public service spending will be or how tax revenues will perform over the next five years .
Add in the uncertainty of whether there will be a Brexit deal , and the underlying budget position for Sunak is pretty much unknowable today – the whole reason , remember , that the Chancellor is only delivering a one-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of uncertainty , note that various independent forecasters have predicted that UK government borrowing in 2021 could be anywhere from £102 billion up to £273 billion .
That ’ s a bigger range than the actual unprecedented borrowing of 2009/10 .
So we need to take whatever comes out of the OBR ’ s economic and fiscal outlook today with gallons of salt .
Their forecasts have already proven unduly pessimistic , with borrowing outturns from April through October a massive £76.5 billion lower than they were expecting .
Nor , historically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessing the growth potential of the UK economy exiting a deep crisis .
Back in 2010 , remember , the OBR predicted a return to robust productivity growth , meaning George Osborne ’ s strict spending limits were predicted to eliminate the structural deficit as early as 2015 .
That didn ’ t happen , despite spending levels being delivered as planned .
So it ’ s baffling why think-tanks are taking the OBR assessments today as truth , and outlining “ fiscal repair ” measures of £40 billion to be delivered from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants significant tax rises on everyone earning over £20,000 , for example .
Why not just calm down a bit , and see how things shake out ?
My central assumption is indeed that there will be a bit of a hit to our growth potential from living through this crisis , pushing the structural deficit up .
And , obviously , if the Government keeps NHS spending higher and permanently raises Universal Credit generosity even after the pandemic ends , on top of recent announcements on defence spending and the “ green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prospect of future deficit reduction less likely .
But it ’ s the underlying economy that still has the biggest impact on the public finances , and that should be our focus right now .
Indeed , in talking up the need for restraint , the Chancellor , the OBR , and others may be unwittingly damaging our recovery prospects .
Tell people big tax hikes are coming , and they begin thinking their permanent incomes will be lower because the economy ’ s prospects are weaker .
Of course , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make clear to bond markets that the government is aware of the need for fiscal discipline in the longer-term .
But what does he think headlines telling people to “ prepare for tax pain next year ” achieve ?
As Julian Jessop asked , wisely , on Twitter , what should that preparation look like ?
“ Increase savings ?
Cut investment ?
Dump assets ?
Don ’ t start that new business ?
” How is that helpful given where we are ?
Rather than lasering in on the deficit as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for now if the debate stayed focused on how to achieve a strong recovery .
Whether they help or hinder the economic rebound should be the metric by which we judge almost all new spending and tax choices today , as well as regulatory policy .
Anything that we can do to ensure the vaccine roll-out goes as smoothly and quickly as possible , for example , will produce a huge economic stimulus .
Bringing forward the end of pandemic restrictions by just one month could generate tens of billions in value .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to stop talking as if spending measures are something wholly independent of our recovery prospects .
The whole public sector pay debate , for example , has been tiresome in focusing on whether the Government can afford to raise public sector pay , or whether it is fair too , rather than about how setting pay rates will affect the jobs recovery .
A more disaggregated analysis would surely conclude that raising pay in areas of the public realm under severe strain due to Covid is highly desirable to ensure good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is justified in areas where public sector productivity has plunged due to home working .
Yet , sadly , thinking through how spending or tax policy affects our growth potential is not where public discourse is .
Instead , people are already fighting the last war , battling over shaping the narrative on whether another round of spending cuts are desirable , or else buttering us up for yet higher taxes despite the historically high burden even before Covid-19 hit .
The biggest 2010s economic policy mistake was not austerity , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being fatalistic about growth .
Let ’ s not do the time warp again .

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
I feel as if I am stuck in some mid-2010s time warp. Rishi Sunak will today update us on how much the Government has splurged during this Covid-ridden year and what it intends to spend next year.
But commentators are already pivoting to sizing up what deficit reduction will eventually be needed, and whether tax rises or spending cuts should fill the future fiscal hole. That conversation will be spurred today by the Office for Budget Responsibility updating its guesstimates of how far the pandemic will permanently impair the economy’s potential, and so the “structural deficit” to deal with. Welcome to the Austerity Wars 2.0.
As I’ve said before, all this debate is massively premature. Yes, this pandemic has caused masses of government borrowing—producing a deficit of 21 percent of GDP or around £400 billion, according to the Resolution Foundation. But we are (still) in a once-in-a-half-century pandemic where we have knowingly kept shuttered swathes of the economy and paid people to sit at home.
There will obviously be “deficit reduction” next year, in the sense that the vaccines ending the pandemic will bring furlough to a close, make Covid-19 test and tracing redundant, and see the end of the inoculation and PPE scrambles. Like demobilisation at the end of war, so the government will de-Covidise its budget with drastic cuts to virus-related expenditure. Likewise, as things re-open, tax revenues will ascend again. So, the deficit will fall.
But anyone who claims they know what level it will settle at, and so what “needs to be done” to re-achieve pre-Covid borrowing levels, is, quite frankly, talking poppycock – including the Office for Budget Responsibility.
None of us, nor them, really have a clue what the long-term impact of this crisis will be on the economy. Will a whole bunch of industries shrink permanently now that the risk of government shutdown orders in future pandemics is understood? Will people stick with online retail and eat out less than they did? Will professionals work from home more, transforming parts of inner cities? Or is there a pent-up demand for socialising and “the old life on speed,” with a roaring 20s to come, as after the Spanish Flu?
Without knowing all this, nobody can say what demands on public service spending will be or how tax revenues will perform over the next five years. Add in the uncertainty of whether there will be a Brexit deal, and the underlying budget position for Sunak is pretty much unknowable today – the whole reason, remember, that the Chancellor is only delivering a one-year spending review.
To see the scale of uncertainty, note that various independent forecasters have predicted that UK government borrowing in 2021 could be anywhere from £102 billion up to £273 billion. That’s a bigger range than the actual unprecedented borrowing of 2009/10.
So we need to take whatever comes out of the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook today with gallons of salt. Their forecasts have already proven unduly pessimistic, with borrowing outturns from April through October a massive £76.5 billion lower than they were expecting. Nor, historically, have they had a stellar record in assessing the growth potential of the UK economy exiting a deep crisis.
Back in 2010, remember, the OBR predicted a return to robust productivity growth, meaning George Osborne’s strict spending limits were predicted to eliminate the structural deficit as early as 2015. That didn’t happen, despite spending levels being delivered as planned.
So it’s baffling why think-tanks are taking the OBR assessments today as truth, and outlining “fiscal repair” measures of £40 billion to be delivered from 2023 onwards already. The Resolution Foundation wants significant tax rises on everyone earning over £20,000, for example.
Why not just calm down a bit, and see how things shake out? My central assumption is indeed that there will be a bit of a hit to our growth potential from living through this crisis, pushing the structural deficit up. And, obviously, if the Government keeps NHS spending higher and permanently raises Universal Credit generosity even after the pandemic ends, on top of recent announcements on defence spending and the “green industrial revolution,” then this makes the prospect of future deficit reduction less likely. But it’s the underlying economy that still has the biggest impact on the public finances, and that should be our focus right now.
Indeed, in talking up the need for restraint, the Chancellor, the OBR, and others may be unwittingly damaging our recovery prospects. Tell people big tax hikes are coming, and they begin thinking their permanent incomes will be lower because the economy’s prospects are weaker.
Of course, the Chancellor is trying to balance risks, and make clear to bond markets that the government is aware of the need for fiscal discipline in the longer-term. But what does he think headlines telling people to “prepare for tax pain next year” achieve? As Julian Jessop asked, wisely, on Twitter, what should that preparation look like? “Increase savings? Cut investment? Dump assets? Don’t start that new business?” How is that helpful given where we are?
Rather than lasering in on the deficit as a target, it would be better for now if the debate stayed focused on how to achieve a strong recovery. Whether they help or hinder the economic rebound should be the metric by which we judge almost all new spending and tax choices today, as well as regulatory policy. Anything that we can do to ensure the vaccine roll-out goes as smoothly and quickly as possible, for example, will produce a huge economic stimulus. Bringing forward the end of pandemic restrictions by just one month could generate tens of billions in value.
But even beyond getting that right, we need to stop talking as if spending measures are something wholly independent of our recovery prospects. The whole public sector pay debate, for example, has been tiresome in focusing on whether the Government can afford to raise public sector pay, or whether it is fair too, rather than about how setting pay rates will affect the jobs recovery. A more disaggregated analysis would surely conclude that raising pay in areas of the public realm under severe strain due to Covid is highly desirable to ensure good retention and recruitment, whereas pay restraint is justified in areas where public sector productivity has plunged due to home working.
Yet, sadly, thinking through how spending or tax policy affects our growth potential is not where public discourse is. Instead, people are already fighting the last war, battling over shaping the narrative on whether another round of spending cuts are desirable, or else buttering us up for yet higher taxes despite the historically high burden even before Covid-19 hit. The biggest 2010s economic policy mistake was not austerity, but that the focus on it led us to being fatalistic about growth. Let’s not do the time warp again.


conservativehome--2020-11-25--Daniel Hannan: It would be unfair to pupils in England to cancel exams next year

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
The cancellation of exams this year was bad news for all involved .
It was unfair to those students who would have won high grades without an artificial boost .
It was prejudicial to past and future cohorts .
It was a nightmare for universities , which were presented with an administrative headache .
It was a disaster for Ofqual , which failed to rise to its first serious challenge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ calamitous for Gavin Williamson , who got the blame .
Whether that blame was merited is beside the point ( I argued on ConHome at the time that the exams débâcle was an example of ministers having “ responsibility without power ” , because voters blame them rather than the state agencies that they simultaneously demand be “ free from political interference ” ) .
The fact is that we stumbled into a terrible situation , closing our schools despite children not normally contracting or passing on serious Covid symptoms , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of least resistance .
Now we know better .
Yet – and I find my fingers trembling with incredulity as I type these words – we look like walking into the same mistake again , only this time without the excuse of having acted blindly .
The Labour administration in Cardiff has cancelled GCSEs and A-levels for 2021 .
The SNP administration in Edinburgh has cancelled National 5 exams ( which are very roughly equivalent to GCSEs ) and says it will decide in February whether to go ahead with Highers .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all exams will go ahead , albeit a few weeks later to allow schools to make up for lost time .
That line might yet hold .
But it seems just as likely that , as has happened again and again during the epidemic , the devolved assemblies will push the Tories into a more extreme position than they want .
Various ideas are being floated that would allow Williamson to climb down while pretending to have kept his promise – some combination of exams and teacher assessment , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core subjects such as English , maths and science .
All these ideas should be resisted – for the sake of employers , the Conservative Party ’ s reputation and , above all , the students themselves .
It is notable that the strongest pressure for cancelling ( or decaffeinating ) public exams comes from people who were already against them before Covid .
Progressive educationalists – what Michael Gove called the Blob – have always seen national exams as intolerably stressful .
It is true that exams can be stressful .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be blunt instruments .
But no one has come up with a better way to gauge the abilities of students across the nation in a consistent way .
Continuous assessment is not a uniform measure .
Teachers would be , so to speak , marking their own homework ( for once the metaphor seems apt ) .
We accept this logic for most other acquired skills .
Music grades , a driving licence , a foreign language diploma – all require an externally invigilated exam .
How could we not apply it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which will determine where students complete their education or what they say in their first job interview ?
Of course , not everyone who is against holding exams next year wants them abolished forever .
Some argue that it is simply unfair to go ahead given how many kids have had their educations disrupted – not just by the effective loss of much of last term , but by repeated interruptions in this one , as bubbles or even entire year-groups are sent home when a pupil tests positive .
That criticism begs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be right to send healthy children home because of a virus which poses next to no risk to young people .
It would make more sense to withdraw potentially vulnerable members of staff and let children carry on as normal .
We have not taken that route ; but we can at least now offer priority vaccination to teachers and other staff who might be at risk , and let school life resume in full – plays , sports , no masks .
More seriously , though , who can doubt , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ’ s exams would have given schools a much-needed sense of focus ?
We had plenty of space , and other countries managed .
Of all the things that 2020 has revealed , the most shocking is the vast distance between ambitious and unambitious schools .
Good state schools ( and most private schools ) tried to run something close to a normal schedule , with online assemblies , music lessons , sports days , the works .
Bad ones sent out desultory work sheets and , in some cases , refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a question of resources – a Zoom lesson costs nothing – but of motivation .
By and large , the schools which were least willing to teach online last term have been the quickest to send kids home this term .
And in many cases , the pupils being sent home are those who can least afford the disruption .
Cancelling exams , in other words , serves to widen the attainment gap .
Some schools treat Covid as a challenge , others as an excuse .
And , though there are good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorer communities are often in the second category .
If exams are cancelled or curtailed , which schools are likeliest to take their foot off the accelerator ?
It won ’ t be Winchester or Westminster , will it ?
I argued that this term should start in August , but that proved impossible because the interests of the producers were elevated above those of the consumers .
We could , if lost time really is the objection to 2021 ’ s exams going ahead , shorten the Easter holidays and pay teachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , either way , we owe it to our teenagers to let them compete fairly for the qualifications that other year-groups acquired .
We keep saying that we will “ put children first ” but , so far during this lockdown , we have done nothing of the kind .
They have suffered enough .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
The cancellation of exams this year was bad news for all involved. It was unfair to those students who would have won high grades without an artificial boost. It was prejudicial to past and future cohorts. It was a nightmare for universities, which were presented with an administrative headache. It was a disaster for Ofqual, which failed to rise to its first serious challenge. And, of course, it was calamitous for Gavin Williamson, who got the blame.
Whether that blame was merited is beside the point (I argued on ConHome at the time that the exams débâcle was an example of ministers having “responsibility without power”, because voters blame them rather than the state agencies that they simultaneously demand be “free from political interference”). The fact is that we stumbled into a terrible situation, closing our schools despite children not normally contracting or passing on serious Covid symptoms, and then scrapping exams because it seemed the line of least resistance.
Now we know better. Yet – and I find my fingers trembling with incredulity as I type these words – we look like walking into the same mistake again, only this time without the excuse of having acted blindly. The Labour administration in Cardiff has cancelled GCSEs and A-levels for 2021. The SNP administration in Edinburgh has cancelled National 5 exams (which are very roughly equivalent to GCSEs) and says it will decide in February whether to go ahead with Highers.
In England, the stated position is still that all exams will go ahead, albeit a few weeks later to allow schools to make up for lost time. That line might yet hold. But it seems just as likely that, as has happened again and again during the epidemic, the devolved assemblies will push the Tories into a more extreme position than they want.
Various ideas are being floated that would allow Williamson to climb down while pretending to have kept his promise – some combination of exams and teacher assessment, for example, or full GCSEs going ahead only in core subjects such as English, maths and science. All these ideas should be resisted – for the sake of employers, the Conservative Party’s reputation and, above all, the students themselves.
It is notable that the strongest pressure for cancelling (or decaffeinating) public exams comes from people who were already against them before Covid. Progressive educationalists – what Michael Gove called the Blob – have always seen national exams as intolerably stressful.
It is true that exams can be stressful. It is true, too, that they can be blunt instruments. But no one has come up with a better way to gauge the abilities of students across the nation in a consistent way. Continuous assessment is not a uniform measure. Teachers would be, so to speak, marking their own homework (for once the metaphor seems apt).
We accept this logic for most other acquired skills. Music grades, a driving licence, a foreign language diploma – all require an externally invigilated exam. How could we not apply it to something as fundamental as the qualifications which will determine where students complete their education or what they say in their first job interview?
Of course, not everyone who is against holding exams next year wants them abolished forever. Some argue that it is simply unfair to go ahead given how many kids have had their educations disrupted – not just by the effective loss of much of last term, but by repeated interruptions in this one, as bubbles or even entire year-groups are sent home when a pupil tests positive.
That criticism begs the question. It surely cannot be right to send healthy children home because of a virus which poses next to no risk to young people. It would make more sense to withdraw potentially vulnerable members of staff and let children carry on as normal. We have not taken that route; but we can at least now offer priority vaccination to teachers and other staff who might be at risk, and let school life resume in full – plays, sports, no masks.
More seriously, though, who can doubt, in retrospect, that going ahead with this year’s exams would have given schools a much-needed sense of focus? We had plenty of space, and other countries managed.
Of all the things that 2020 has revealed, the most shocking is the vast distance between ambitious and unambitious schools. Good state schools (and most private schools) tried to run something close to a normal schedule, with online assemblies, music lessons, sports days, the works. Bad ones sent out desultory work sheets and, in some cases, refused to mark them. This was not a question of resources – a Zoom lesson costs nothing – but of motivation. By and large, the schools which were least willing to teach online last term have been the quickest to send kids home this term. And in many cases, the pupils being sent home are those who can least afford the disruption.
Cancelling exams, in other words, serves to widen the attainment gap. Some schools treat Covid as a challenge, others as an excuse. And, though there are good and honourable exceptions, the schools serving poorer communities are often in the second category. If exams are cancelled or curtailed, which schools are likeliest to take their foot off the accelerator? It won’t be Winchester or Westminster, will it?
I argued that this term should start in August, but that proved impossible because the interests of the producers were elevated above those of the consumers. We could, if lost time really is the objection to 2021’s exams going ahead, shorten the Easter holidays and pay teachers a bonus for the extra work. But, either way, we owe it to our teenagers to let them compete fairly for the qualifications that other year-groups acquired.
We keep saying that we will “put children first” but, so far during this lockdown, we have done nothing of the kind. They have suffered enough.


conservativehome--2020-11-25--David Simmonds: Cutting early intervention in children’s services would cost more in the long term

David Simmonds is the MP for Ruislip , Northwood and Pinner Throughout this pandemic , government has extended support for children and families .
From furlough , to uplifting Universal Credit , to rolling out the holiday food and activities programme for future school holidays , to keeping vulnerable children learning throughout the pandemic .
These have been appropriate and important interventions .
However , the foundations upon which we seek to strengthen and support families are growing increasingly unstable .
Councils are at the forefront of delivering life-changing support keeping children safe and families strong .
They are duty-bound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children within their families , insofar as this is safe and in the child ’ s best interests .
They are also required to deliver a balanced budget .
Before this pandemic , the challenges facing local government finances and rising need for support meant that Children ’ s Services were placing a significant and unsustainable pressure on local authority budgets .
At a time when funding was falling , councils were being asked to do more and not less .
This has only been exacerbated by COVID-19 and despite additional resources from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an acute cash flow problem developing in the sector that means the measures required to balance budgets in year will have a long term impact on children .
Leading children ’ s charities have also reported recently that those areas the government has promised to ‘ level up ’ are amongst those where funding for children ’ s services has fallen the fastest .
These also happen to be communities where indicators of demand for children ’ s services such as rates of domestic abuse , parental mental ill-health , and free school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up people and places must mean investing in children and families .
As a former Cabinet Member for Children ’ s Services , I know the true potential of children ’ s services : providing relationship support to help keep families together , helping new mothers struggling to adjust to parenthood , working with families and communities to protect children from abuse or neglect , giving children in the care system a second chance at a happy and safe childhood , and care leavers a supported transition into independent living .
I also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in local government are taking right now as they try to balance the books .
They will be thinking about where they can deliver dramatic savings as they have in most years of the past decade .
The 2019 Conservative Manifesto committed this Government to champion family hubs .
It is exactly this type of provision that is needed , but that councils find impossibly difficult to fund as there is no duty or resource to do so .
Perversely , this inability to fund early intervention will increase costs to the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems go unaided until urgent and crisis-based intervention is required , adding pressure on other services such as the police and A & E .
The life-long human and financial costs associated with childhood trauma can be significant – we ought to reinvigorate our collective efforts to prevent this .
Councils have done an incredible job of maintaining support by a combination of creative partnerships with other councils , charities , and the private sector , but as we see in adult social care , rising costs and market conditions are creating significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this path with the numbers of children in care the highest they have been for several decades and rising still , and the cost of care placements skyrocketing as demand outstrips supply ; and as costs have risen we have not seen a corresponding improvement in outcomes .
Helping families is core to who we are as Conservatives .
As a former Local Government Minister , the Chancellor will be very aware of pressures on council budgets .
I recently spoke with a number of Conservative colleagues heading Children ’ s Services in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the difficulty of the challenge before them and they were all too aware of the cost of failure .
But they were also proud in the knowledge that every day their teams are doing the best they can in unenviable circumstances for their families and vulnerable children .
The Spending Review is Rishi Sunak ’ s moment to deliver urgently needed investment to place children ’ s services on a sustainable footing .
If we are to build back better for children and families we need to stabilise the foundations .
Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand with families through the tough times ahead and turnaround the outcomes of vulnerable children .

David Simmonds is the MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Throughout this pandemic, government has extended support for children and families. From furlough, to uplifting Universal Credit, to rolling out the holiday food and activities programme for future school holidays, to keeping vulnerable children learning throughout the pandemic. These have been appropriate and important interventions. However, the foundations upon which we seek to strengthen and support families are growing increasingly unstable.
Councils are at the forefront of delivering life-changing support keeping children safe and families strong. They are duty-bound to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their families, insofar as this is safe and in the child’s best interests. They are also required to deliver a balanced budget. Before this pandemic, the challenges facing local government finances and rising need for support meant that Children’s Services were placing a significant and unsustainable pressure on local authority budgets. At a time when funding was falling, councils were being asked to do more and not less. This has only been exacerbated by COVID-19 and despite additional resources from government during the pandemic, there is an acute cash flow problem developing in the sector that means the measures required to balance budgets in year will have a long term impact on children.
Leading children’s charities have also reported recently that those areas the government has promised to ‘level up’ are amongst those where funding for children’s services has fallen the fastest. These also happen to be communities where indicators of demand for children’s services such as rates of domestic abuse, parental mental ill-health, and free school meal eligibility are the highest. Levelling up people and places must mean investing in children and families.
As a former Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, I know the true potential of children’s services: providing relationship support to help keep families together, helping new mothers struggling to adjust to parenthood, working with families and communities to protect children from abuse or neglect, giving children in the care system a second chance at a happy and safe childhood, and care leavers a supported transition into independent living. I also know the impossibly difficult decisions that colleagues in local government are taking right now as they try to balance the books.
They will be thinking about where they can deliver dramatic savings as they have in most years of the past decade. The 2019 Conservative Manifesto committed this Government to champion family hubs. It is exactly this type of provision that is needed, but that councils find impossibly difficult to fund as there is no duty or resource to do so. Perversely, this inability to fund early intervention will increase costs to the public sector in the long run as emerging problems go unaided until urgent and crisis-based intervention is required, adding pressure on other services such as the police and A&E. The life-long human and financial costs associated with childhood trauma can be significant – we ought to reinvigorate our collective efforts to prevent this.
Councils have done an incredible job of maintaining support by a combination of creative partnerships with other councils, charities, and the private sector, but as we see in adult social care, rising costs and market conditions are creating significant headwinds. We are already well down this path with the numbers of children in care the highest they have been for several decades and rising still, and the cost of care placements skyrocketing as demand outstrips supply; and as costs have risen we have not seen a corresponding improvement in outcomes.
Helping families is core to who we are as Conservatives. As a former Local Government Minister, the Chancellor will be very aware of pressures on council budgets. I recently spoke with a number of Conservative colleagues heading Children’s Services in local government. They were each honest about the difficulty of the challenge before them and they were all too aware of the cost of failure. But they were also proud in the knowledge that every day their teams are doing the best they can in unenviable circumstances for their families and vulnerable children. The Spending Review is Rishi Sunak’s moment to deliver urgently needed investment to place children’s services on a sustainable footing. If we are to build back better for children and families we need to stabilise the foundations. Only then will we truly be able to stand with families through the tough times ahead and turnaround the outcomes of vulnerable children.


conservativehome--2020-11-24--The new Covid-19 vaccines: what we know so far

Just a month ago , it was hard to feel optimistic about the battle with Coronavirus .
Many countries around the world were struggling to find a way out , and the UK ’ s main exit strategy – test and trace – was facing a myriad of operational challenges .
You could be forgiven for thinking that we ’ d be stuck in lockdown forever .
But all that changed several weeks ago when Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they had created the first successful vaccine for protecting against the virus .
Soon after , Moderna and Oxford University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written before , these are unprecedented scientific developments that deserve their own film one day .
The Government also deserves huge credit for its belief in vaccines .
Early on it secured 350 million doses from seven different vaccine candidates , in a gamble that seems – at this stage – to have paid off .
Without further ado , we look at some of the details around the current ones , and when they can be expected to roll out .
• None Early analysis suggests the vaccine is 95 per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Government has ordered 40 million doses , and expects to receive 10 million by the end of this year , which will protect five million people .
The majority of doses are expected in the first half of 2021 .
• None The Government is waiting for Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency ( MHRA ; the independent regulator ) to assess the vaccine .
It could be approved as soon as this week , and the NHS has reportedly been told to prepare for mass vaccinations from December 1 .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at minus 70 degrees celsius , and you need two doses of it .
• None The Moderna vaccine is 94.5 per cent effective , and was tested in a trial that included many high risk and elderly people .
• None The Government has ordered five million doses , which means the NHS will be able to vaccinate 2.5 million people • None If the vaccine is approved by regulators , then it could be delivered to the UK and Europe in spring 2021 .
• None The vaccine can be stored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature of most freezers , and can stay for up to 30 days in a standard fridge .
The dose is three times larger than Pfizer ’ s and you need two doses .
• None Oxford University and AstraZeneca found in their study that when participants were given a half-sized dose and full-sized second dose , they were 90 per cent protected from Covid-19 .
• None The Government has ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine .
There are currently four million doses ready to go , but the vaccine has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to happen • None Although the Oxford vaccine has a lower efficacy than Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna ’ s , it is much easier to store – as it can be left at fridge temperature – meaning it can be distributed throughout the world .
• None The first people to get the vaccines will be care home residents and staff , as well as people over 80 .
The Government then plans to offer the vaccine to everyone else based on age , from oldest to youngest , by spring 2021 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with underlying health conditions and from ethnic minority backgrounds will be prioritised .
• None The NHS is recruiting 30,000 volunteers to help administer the jabs .
What we don ’ t know so far : • None Whether the vaccines prevent disease transmission ( i.e .
can someone who has had the vaccine pass Covid-19 onto others ) .
Some suspect that the vaccines will be able to reduce the duration and level of infectiousness , but it remains to be seen how this impacts on community transmission .
• None How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine ( other than the initial dose ) .
It is not known how long immunity lasts .
Perhaps we will move to a model similar to flu jabs , whereby vulnerable groups get a new one each year .
• None Whether we will need everyone vaccinated .
Much of this depends on how vaccines affect transmission .
If they stop or significantly reduces Covid-19 infection , then not as many people should need vaccinations .
Lastly , here is a list of the vaccines the Government has ordered so far @

Just a month ago, it was hard to feel optimistic about the battle with Coronavirus. Many countries around the world were struggling to find a way out, and the UK’s main exit strategy – test and trace – was facing a myriad of operational challenges. You could be forgiven for thinking that we’d be stuck in lockdown forever.
But all that changed several weeks ago when Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they had created the first successful vaccine for protecting against the virus. Soon after, Moderna and Oxford University had breakthroughs too.
As ConservativeHome has written before, these are unprecedented scientific developments that deserve their own film one day. The Government also deserves huge credit for its belief in vaccines. Early on it secured 350 million doses from seven different vaccine candidates, in a gamble that seems – at this stage – to have paid off. Without further ado, we look at some of the details around the current ones, and when they can be expected to roll out.
Pfizer-BioNTech
Early analysis suggests the vaccine is 95 per cent effective in preventing Covid.
The Government has ordered 40 million doses, and expects to receive 10 million by the end of this year, which will protect five million people. The majority of doses are expected in the first half of 2021.
The Government is waiting for Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA; the independent regulator) to assess the vaccine. It could be approved as soon as this week, and the NHS has reportedly been told to prepare for mass vaccinations from December 1.
The vaccine has to be stored at minus 70 degrees celsius, and you need two doses of it.
It costs £15 per dose.
Moderna
The Moderna vaccine is 94.5 per cent effective, and was tested in a trial that included many high risk and elderly people.
The Government has ordered five million doses, which means the NHS will be able to vaccinate 2.5 million people
If the vaccine is approved by regulators, then it could be delivered to the UK and Europe in spring 2021.
The vaccine can be stored for six months at -20C, the temperature of most freezers, and can stay for up to 30 days in a standard fridge. The dose is three times larger than Pfizer’s and you need two doses.
It costs £25 per dose
Oxford University and AstraZeneca
Oxford University and AstraZeneca found in their study that when participants were given a half-sized dose and full-sized second dose, they were 90 per cent protected from Covid-19.
The Government has ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine. There are currently four million doses ready to go, but the vaccine has to be approved, which is expected to happen in the coming weeks.
Although the Oxford vaccine has a lower efficacy than Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna’s, it is much easier to store – as it can be left at fridge temperature – meaning it can be distributed throughout the world.
It costs £3 per dose.
Some other details:
The first people to get the vaccines will be care home residents and staff, as well as people over 80. The Government then plans to offer the vaccine to everyone else based on age, from oldest to youngest, by spring 2021. It has not been decided whether people with underlying health conditions and from ethnic minority backgrounds will be prioritised.
The NHS is recruiting 30,000 volunteers to help administer the jabs.
What we don’t know so far:
Whether the vaccines prevent disease transmission (i.e. can someone who has had the vaccine pass Covid-19 onto others). Some suspect that the vaccines will be able to reduce the duration and level of infectiousness, but it remains to be seen how this impacts on community transmission.
How many times someone will need to have a vaccine (other than the initial dose). It is not known how long immunity lasts. Perhaps we will move to a model similar to flu jabs, whereby vulnerable groups get a new one each year.
Whether we will need everyone vaccinated. Much of this depends on how vaccines affect transmission. If they stop or significantly reduces Covid-19 infection, then not as many people should need vaccinations.
Lastly, here is a list of the vaccines the Government has ordered so far:


conservativehome--2020-11-26--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – and

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – 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 .
“ As the independent regulator of public appointments made by ministers in the UK and Welsh governments , the Commissioner ’ s statutory functions are set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019 .
The Order in Council also sets out those bodies and posts that are within the Commissioner ’ s regulatory remit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to provide independent assurance that public appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments , including the Principles of Public Appointments .
The new Commissioner will need to work closely with a number of stakeholders including ( but not limited to ) UK and Welsh Government Ministers , Chairs of public bodies , senior officials/accounting officers in departments and officials in the Cabinet Office ’ s Public Appointments Policy team.
” “ We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee ’ s task of recommending designs for United Kingdom coins , official medals , seals and decorations .
The new chair will be responsible for leading numismatic design in the United Kingdom , collaborating closely with Government departments , the Royal Household and the Royal Mint .
This role will involve leading all aspects of new and innovative ways of commemorating events , individuals and symbology of national significance in numismatic form .
The chair of the RMAC will lead and guide meetings of the committee , reaching consensus on various design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other government departments and the Crown on artistic excellence in design .
The RMAC chair is responsible for leading the committee in an ethical manner , acting impartially , ensuring effective governance and excellence in delivery.. ” “ The Prime Minister ’ s Council for Science and Technology ( CST ) is the Government ’ s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments .
It is co-chaired by the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions , and in building a robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the UK , post Covid .
The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser ( GCSA ) .
” Bank of England – External Member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FPC is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system .
The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability .
The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ The Steering Board ’ s role is to : advise on external drivers , strategic direction and development of targets , within the framework of the UK Space Agency ’ s objectives , BEIS and wider Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer ; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance , including process of setting of targets and performance against them ; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency ’ s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk ; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As an FE Adviser , you will work as part of a team with the FE Commissioner , Deputy FE Commissioners and other Advisers .
FE Advisers are generally either finance or curriculum and quality specialists and we are looking for candidates from both backgrounds to help grow our team .
In this exciting and demanding role you will support colleges through carrying out Diagnostic Assessments , designed to help them to improve the quality of education for learners , strengthen financial resilience , improve the quality of leadership and reduce the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrated part of the Department for Education ( DfE ) ’ s overall approach to intervention , within the context of the ESFA case management approach .
As such you will work closely with teams within ESFA , as well as the wider DfE and Ofsted.
” Time : Up to 200 days per annum .
“ The Panel Chair will provide strategic direction and oversight for the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales .
Developing and maintaining a close relationship with the Minister and key members of the Welsh agricultural sector is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role .
The Panel Chair need not be an expert in the field of agriculture , he or she must have senior level experience in the private , public or voluntary sector .
The Panel Chair will have the following strategic leadership responsibilities : lead the formulation of the Panel ’ s strategy and business plans , monitoring in-year performance and examining change proposals with rigour to maintain delivery ; ensure issues are brought forward in a timely manner for effective resolution ; ensure that the Panel ’ s decisions are informed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided by the Welsh Ministers and Welsh Government officials… ” “ The Sports Grounds Safety Authority ( SGSA ) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body , The Football Licensing Authority .
The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government ’ s independent advisor on sports grounds safety .
The three core functions of the SGSA are : to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification ; provide strategic support for sports grounds , governing bodies and others , both in the UK and internationally ; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance , particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds ( Green Guide ) .
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ This Government is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework , and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper .
This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation , leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector .
All of this is likely to provide a challenging task for a new Chair of the regulator .
The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor ( and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers ) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board .
The OPA Board Chair sets the Board ’ s agenda and has a personal role in advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA .
The Chair is responsible for : providing advice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strategic direction , objectives and risks , business performance and governance arrangements ; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance , delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management ; ensuring that the Board is effective , including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs , and making recommendations on areas of development , typically through an annual board effectiveness review ; and when considering re-appointments… ” “ The mission of the Financial Reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transparency and integrity in business .
These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs , create prosperity and generate economic growth .
The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries .
The FRC also sets standards for accounting , auditing and actuarial work .
As the UK ’ s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors , and takes action where necessary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and audit .
It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.
” “ UK Shared Business Services Ltd ( UK SBS ) is a non-profit making company limited by shares .
It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money .
The Company provides HR & Payroll , Finance , Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business , Energy & Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) , UK Research and Innovation ( UKRI ) and other public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting , interesting and challenging time for UK SBS ; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation , delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Commissioner for Public Appointments
“As the independent regulator of public appointments made by ministers in the UK and Welsh governments, the Commissioner’s statutory functions are set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. The Order in Council also sets out those bodies and posts that are within the Commissioner’s regulatory remit. The Commissioner’s primary role is to provide independent assurance that public appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, including the Principles of Public Appointments. The new Commissioner will need to work closely with a number of stakeholders including (but not limited to) UK and Welsh Government Ministers, Chairs of public bodies, senior officials/accounting officers in departments and officials in the Cabinet Office’s Public Appointments Policy team.”
Time: 2 days per week on average.
Remuneration: £56,000 per annum.
Closes: 24 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Royal Mint Advisory Committee – Chair
“We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, who will play a central role in the committee’s task of recommending designs for United Kingdom coins, official medals, seals and decorations. The new chair will be responsible for leading numismatic design in the United Kingdom, collaborating closely with Government departments, the Royal Household and the Royal Mint. This role will involve leading all aspects of new and innovative ways of commemorating events, individuals and symbology of national significance in numismatic form. The chair of the RMAC will lead and guide meetings of the committee, reaching consensus on various design proposals and ultimately advise HM Treasury, other government departments and the Crown on artistic excellence in design. The RMAC chair is responsible for leading the committee in an ethical manner, acting impartially, ensuring effective governance and excellence in delivery..”
Time: Six meetings per annum.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 27 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Space Agency – Non-Executive Members/Audit Chair
“The Steering Board’s role is to: advise on external drivers, strategic direction and development of targets, within the framework of the UK Space Agency’s objectives, BEIS and wider Government objectives; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance, including process of setting of targets and performance against them; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency’s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 20/22 days per annum.
Remuneration: £8,000/10,000 per annum honorarium.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Further Education Commissioner’s Team – Adviser
“As an FE Adviser, you will work as part of a team with the FE Commissioner, Deputy FE Commissioners and other Advisers. FE Advisers are generally either finance or curriculum and quality specialists and we are looking for candidates from both backgrounds to help grow our team. In this exciting and demanding role you will support colleges through carrying out Diagnostic Assessments, designed to help them to improve the quality of education for learners, strengthen financial resilience, improve the quality of leadership and reduce the risk of interventions… You will work as an integrated part of the Department for Education (DfE)’s overall approach to intervention, within the context of the ESFA case management approach. As such you will work closely with teams within ESFA, as well as the wider DfE and Ofsted.”
Time: Up to 200 days per annum.
Remuneration: £600 per diem.
Closes: 02 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Agricultural Advisory Panel (Wales) – Chair
“The Panel Chair will provide strategic direction and oversight for the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales. Developing and maintaining a close relationship with the Minister and key members of the Welsh agricultural sector is a crucial part of the Chair’s role. The Panel Chair need not be an expert in the field of agriculture, he or she must have senior level experience in the private, public or voluntary sector. The Panel Chair will have the following strategic leadership responsibilities: lead the formulation of the Panel’s strategy and business plans, monitoring in-year performance and examining change proposals with rigour to maintain delivery; ensure issues are brought forward in a timely manner for effective resolution; ensure that the Panel’s decisions are informed and fair, taking proper account of guidance provided by the Welsh Ministers and Welsh Government officials…”
Time: Minimum 12 days per annum.
Remuneration: £300 per diem plus reasonable expenses.
Closes: 04 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Sports Grounds Safety Authority – Chair
“The Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body, The Football Licensing Authority. The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government’s independent advisor on sports grounds safety. The three core functions of the SGSA are: to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and Wales to allow them to permit spectators to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification; provide strategic support for sports grounds, governing bodies and others, both in the UK and internationally; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance, particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (Green Guide).”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £36,260 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 08 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulator of Social Housing – Chair
“This Government is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly. The Regulator plays a key role in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework, and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper. This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation, leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector. All of this is likely to provide a challenging task for a new Chair of the regulator. The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more challenging times, whilst ensuring that going forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £65,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 13 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Oil & Pipeline Agency – Chair
“The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor (and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board. The OPA Board Chair sets the Board’s agenda and has a personal role in advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA. The Chair is responsible for: providing advice to the Sponsor and wider MOD on OPA’s strategic direction, objectives and risks, business performance and governance arrangements; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance, delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management; ensuring that the Board is effective, including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs, and making recommendations on areas of development, typically through an annual board effectiveness review; and when considering re-appointments…”
Time: 30 days per week.
Remuneration: £27,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Reporting Council – Chair
“The mission of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is to promote transparency and integrity in business. These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs, create prosperity and generate economic growth. The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries. The FRC also sets standards for accounting, auditing and actuarial work. As the UK’s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors, and takes action where necessary, to promote the quality of corporate reporting and audit. It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.”
Time: 1.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Shared Business Services Ltd – Chair
“UK Shared Business Services Ltd (UK SBS) is a non-profit making company limited by shares. It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money. The Company provides HR & Payroll, Finance, Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and other public sector clients. It is recognised by the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting, interesting and challenging time for UK SBS; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation, delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age.”
Time: Max 36 days per annum.
Remuneration: £575 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January


conservativehome--2020-11-26--Sunak opts to suck it and see

Sunak opts to suck it and see

We must be thankful that no-one is forecasting that Government borrowing will rise to record levels this year .
Or Rishi Sunak wouldn ’ t have been in a position to announce that Government spending will rise at its fastest rate for 15 years .
Apologies for the sarcasm – which isn ’ t aimed at the Chancellor ’ s measures , but is meant instead to provide an introduction to the thinking behind them .
One response to a ballooning deficit is to cut the rate of growth of spending .
That ’ s what the Coalition did after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent of GDP .
The Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting a peak of 19 per this year .
But Sunak ’ s response is to raise the rate of spending .
Why ?
Because in 2010 George Osborne judged the deficit to be structural ( he was right ) , and his successor judges this one to be exceptional ( he ’ s right , too ) .
It is almost entirely a product of the pandemic and what has followed .
It is in this context that the OBR forecasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent this year and unemployment to hit 2.6 million next year .
In these circumstances , the Chancellor has found it impossible to produce the four year spending review he hoped for , and has been forced to issue one for a single year instead .
Furthermore , his statement was only one side of the tax and spending coin .
Today , we got the spending .
In the Spring , we will get the Budget – and the tax .
Given all this , it will be very odd if Sunak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to raise revenue quickly .
The foundation of his measures today appears to be : suck it and see .
Broadly speaking , the spending package suggests that the Chancellor is going for growth .
That ’ s the logic of the infrastructure spending , the coming review of regulation , the new northern bank and the enlarged Restart programme .
The Levelling-Up Fund is a classic Treasury exercise in the English centralist tradition , with its central feature of bids from the provinces to Westminster for money .
So it is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On that point , Sunak announced “ extra flexibility for Council Tax and Adult Social Care precept ” .
Local authorities will like that , council taxpayers not so much .
It ’ s worth stressing that the OBR ’ s forecasts , like all such animals , shouldn ’ t be taken too seriously .
Our columnist Ryan Bourne debunked its record on this site earlier this week .
If you walk down the sunny side of the street , you will smack your lips at the thought of a Roaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumers spend , the hospitality sector booms and people pile into holidays abroad .
And it may be that post-Covid changes even out for the better , with a shift in activity and spending from city centres to the suburbs and countryside , together with music , art , theatre and all the rest of it .
That might not be such a bad things for towns and their centres , at which the new Levelling Up Fund is partly aimed .
Our columnist James Frayne believes they are a core concern for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
If on the other hand you stick to the shady side , you will point to the economic equivalent of Long Covid : fearsome economic and social bills for damaged mental health , postponed operations , lost educational opportunities .
All that is a big minus for levelling-up – because it ’ s the disabled , poor and disadvantaged who have been hit hardest by restrictions and lockdowns , especially if they work in the private sector .
The background in recent years is not encouraging .
Since the financial crash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at more than 2.6 per cent a year .
That suggests recovery may be sticky .
Sunak ’ s persuasive manner , grip of detail and spare eloquence have served him well during this crisis .
Others holding his post would not have survived roughly ten major finance annoucements in less than a year .
It ’ s not as though he hasn ’ t sometimes had to recast his plans – as in October , when he pumped more money into his Job Support Scheme .
And if the economics of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sometimes a bit odd .
If the Government ’ s overall plan in the short-term is expansionary , why raise the minimum wage but curb public sector pay ?
If spending on nearly everything else is rising , why crack down on the 0.7 per cent aid spend ?
Doing so because you think aid is wasted or the target is wasteful is one thing .
But that wasn ’ t the basis of Sunak ’ s decision – since , after all , he said that the Government intends to return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscal situation allows ” .
The Chancellor also left a big unresolved question hanging in the air .
What will the Government do about the Universal Credit uplift ?
Will it be extended or not ?
The sense of a statement with contradictory messages was picked up Rob Covile of the Centre for Policy Studies .
( The Treasury would do well when the Budget approaches to look at its supply side ideas . )
“ Feels slightly like Treasury couldn ’ t decide whether the message was ‘ tighten belts ’ or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he tweeted .
“ So we ’ re getting two or three minutes of each in turn.
” That first element in the Chancellor ’ s statement , plus the OBR ’ s horrid short-term forecasts , comes at a bad time for the Government .
For tomorrow , the toughened tiering details are announced .
Lots of Conservative MPs won ’ t like them .
The detail of which tiers apply in which areas will be published , too .
Many Tory MPs will like those even less .
Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the Covid Recovery Group will say that the economic damage of restrictions is so severe that the Commons should not vote for more – at least , without an impact assessment .
They may not be alone .
“ These measures may be a short-term strategy , but they can not be a long-term one , ” Jeremy Wright declared in the Commons during the recent debate on the lockdown regulations .
He and Edward Timpson ( another ex-Minister ) plus other MPs backed the Government but , sounded a cautionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sufficient to rally the doubters round ?
Or will they take a leaf from the book of Theresa May , who savaged the regulations during the same debate ?
We shall see – but Ministers are not helping themselves by dodging requests for that impact assessment , urged by this site and others , and the subject of a dogged campaign by Mel Stride , Chair of the Treasury Select Committee .
All in all , Sunak is shaping up to go for growth .
Good for him .
Nonetheless , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and when the economy rebounds .
Brady and company are less patient .

We must be thankful that no-one is forecasting that Government borrowing will rise to record levels this year. Or Rishi Sunak wouldn’t have been in a position to announce that Government spending will rise at its fastest rate for 15 years.
Apologies for the sarcasm – which isn’t aimed at the Chancellor’s measures, but is meant instead to provide an introduction to the thinking behind them.
One response to a ballooning deficit is to cut the rate of growth of spending. That’s what the Coalition did after 2010, when the deficit hit seven per cent of GDP.
The Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting a peak of 19 per this year. But Sunak’s response is to raise the rate of spending. Why?
Because in 2010 George Osborne judged the deficit to be structural (he was right), and his successor judges this one to be exceptional (he’s right, too).
It is almost entirely a product of the pandemic and what has followed. It is in this context that the OBR forecasts the economy to shrink by 11 per cent this year and unemployment to hit 2.6 million next year.
In these circumstances, the Chancellor has found it impossible to produce the four year spending review he hoped for, and has been forced to issue one for a single year instead.
Furthermore, his statement was only one side of the tax and spending coin. Today, we got the spending. In the Spring, we will get the Budget – and the tax.
Given all this, it will be very odd if Sunak turns up then with large-scale tax rises to raise revenue quickly. The foundation of his measures today appears to be: suck it and see.
Broadly speaking, the spending package suggests that the Chancellor is going for growth. That’s the logic of the infrastructure spending, the coming review of regulation, the new northern bank and the enlarged Restart programme.
The Levelling-Up Fund is a classic Treasury exercise in the English centralist tradition, with its central feature of bids from the provinces to Westminster for money. So it is in a country with relatively few local taxes.
On that point, Sunak announced “extra flexibility for Council Tax and Adult Social Care precept”. Local authorities will like that, council taxpayers not so much.
It’s worth stressing that the OBR’s forecasts, like all such animals, shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Our columnist Ryan Bourne debunked its record on this site earlier this week.
If you walk down the sunny side of the street, you will smack your lips at the thought of a Roaring Twenties effect, as employment recovers, consumers spend, the hospitality sector booms and people pile into holidays abroad.
And it may be that post-Covid changes even out for the better, with a shift in activity and spending from city centres to the suburbs and countryside, together with music, art, theatre and all the rest of it.
That might not be such a bad things for towns and their centres, at which the new Levelling Up Fund is partly aimed. Our columnist James Frayne believes they are a core concern for provincial voters, and government listens to him.
If on the other hand you stick to the shady side, you will point to the economic equivalent of Long Covid: fearsome economic and social bills for damaged mental health, postponed operations, lost educational opportunities.
All that is a big minus for levelling-up – because it’s the disabled, poor and disadvantaged who have been hit hardest by restrictions and lockdowns, especially if they work in the private sector.
The background in recent years is not encouraging. Since the financial crash exploded, we haven’t grown at more than 2.6 per cent a year. That suggests recovery may be sticky.
Sunak’s persuasive manner, grip of detail and spare eloquence have served him well during this crisis. Others holding his post would not have survived roughly ten major finance annoucements in less than a year.
It’s not as though he hasn’t sometimes had to recast his plans – as in October, when he pumped more money into his Job Support Scheme.
And if the economics of his strategy are straightforward enough, its politics was sometimes a bit odd. If the Government’s overall plan in the short-term is expansionary, why raise the minimum wage but curb public sector pay?
If spending on nearly everything else is rising, why crack down on the 0.7 per cent aid spend? Doing so because you think aid is wasted or the target is wasteful is one thing.
But that wasn’t the basis of Sunak’s decision – since, after all, he said that the Government intends to return to 0.7 per cent “when the fiscal situation allows”.
The Chancellor also left a big unresolved question hanging in the air. What will the Government do about the Universal Credit uplift? Will it be extended or not?
The sense of a statement with contradictory messages was picked up Rob Covile of the Centre for Policy Studies. (The Treasury would do well when the Budget approaches to look at its supply side ideas.)
“Feels slightly like Treasury couldn’t decide whether the message was ‘tighten belts’ or ‘we’re still spending’,” he tweeted. “So we’re getting two or three minutes of each in turn.”
That first element in the Chancellor’s statement, plus the OBR’s horrid short-term forecasts, comes at a bad time for the Government.
For tomorrow, the toughened tiering details are announced. Lots of Conservative MPs won’t like them. The detail of which tiers apply in which areas will be published, too. Many Tory MPs will like those even less.
Graham Brady, Steve Baker, Mark Harper, and the Covid Recovery Group will say that the economic damage of restrictions is so severe that the Commons should not vote for more – at least, without an impact assessment.
They may not be alone. “These measures may be a short-term strategy, but they cannot be a long-term one,” Jeremy Wright declared in the Commons during the recent debate on the lockdown regulations.
He and Edward Timpson (another ex-Minister) plus other MPs backed the Government but, sounded a cautionary note.
Will the prospect of vaccines be sufficient to rally the doubters round? Or will they take a leaf from the book of Theresa May, who savaged the regulations during the same debate?
We shall see – but Ministers are not helping themselves by dodging requests for that impact assessment, urged by this site and others, and the subject of a dogged campaign by Mel Stride, Chair of the Treasury Select Committee.
All in all, Sunak is shaping up to go for growth. Good for him. Nonetheless, he must watch and wait to see how and when the economy rebounds. Brady and company are less patient.


conservativehome--2020-11-26--Stephen Booth: Agreeing to disagree on the trickiest parts of the UK-EU deal may be the best way for

Stephen Booth: Agreeing to disagree on the trickiest parts of the UK-EU deal may be the best way forward. For now.

Stephen Booth is Head of the Britain in the World Project at Policy Exchange .
A UK-EU trade deal is said to be 95 per cent there .
However , it seems that every passing week has promised to be the “ crunch ” point that will mark the breakthrough .
An agreement is probably more likely than not , but the last five per cent is always the trickiest bit .
Ursula von der Leyen , President of the European Commission , confirmed yesterday that it is the three familiar issues of fishing , governance and the level playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps one of the biggest is that the EU , and Emmanuel Macron in particular , misjudges the UK mood and refuses to yield on fishing .
It may be macro-economically insignificant to the wider UK economy , but it is particularly important for communities in Scotland and therefore the politics of the Union .
The Prime Minister must be able to claim a victory on the issue .
The two sides are reportedly discussing whether review clauses and transitional arrangements can ease the path to an agreement .
One suggestion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its current fishing quota for several years , after which the arrangements would be reviewed .
In practice , this would not necessarily present a major concession from the UK , since it does not currently have a big enough fleet to catch all the quota in its waters .
According to the latest available statistics , EU vessels landed an annual average of 790,000 tonnes of fish in UK waters , while UK boats landed 546,000 tonnes in domestic waters and a further 94,000 tonnes in EU waters .
Therefore , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK with additional quota immediately and time to increase the capabilities of its domestic fleet .
The question is what happens at the end of any transitional period .
The UK would want to move to annual negotiations .
The EU negotiating team is apparently willing to consider the concept of a transitional period , but only if a review clause was linked to the broader UK-EU economic relationship .
Another idea is that a review mechanism might establish the possibility of imposing tariffs on trade in goods if Britain no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s terms on level playing field areas such as state aid .
The obvious risk is that these issues simply return to destabilise the wider trade relationship in the years to come .
It would be better to settle these issues now , but agreeing to disagree may be the only way through at this point .
At this late stage , negotiators have no doubt mapped out a multiple of technical fixes that could be employed .
This is now about political decisions and choreography .
With difficult compromises required , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clock in the hope the other would give ground .
And compromises will inevitably leave some constituencies on both sides unhappy .
Reducing the time available for any grievances to fester is not necessarily unhelpful to politicians ’ efforts to ensure a deal sticks at home .
Both sides had previously insisted that a deal had to be reached in October in order to allow for the process of ratification and , just as importantly , to provide traders with details of the new rules and processes they will need to operate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within and by the EU is often done at the last minute and , all along , the only genuine deadline has been the December 31 , when the transition period is due to end .
Nevertheless , with little over a month to go until the new year , time is actually running out .
If a political deal is done in the next week or so , there are procedural challenges to ensuring it is in force by the January 1 .
On the EU side , time is needed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the text .
The agreement is likely to be defined as a “ mixed agreement ” , which means that it covers powers conferred exclusively to the EU institutions and those reserved by the member states .
This means that a deal must be ratified by EU leaders , the European Parliament and every national , and in some cases regional , parliament .
EU leaders can defer national ratification until next year by agreeing to “ provisionally apply ” any deal .
However , the European Parliament must consent by year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on December 28 .
MEPs might complain about the timetable but would not be expected to scupper a deal .
On the UK side , we don ’ t yet know exactly what the parliamentary process will look like .
David Frost previously told the House of Lords EU Select Committee that the Government ’ s assumption is that “ there will have to be primary legislation for at least some elements ” of the agreement .
Civil servants are reportedly drawing up a “ future relationship bill ” , which will need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the year .
It is noteworthy that there is apparently a debate within the Shadow Cabinet on whether to back a deal or abstain .
However , this is more about internal Labour Party politics , since abstentions would not hinder the passage of a deal .
Implementing primary legislation would be amendable but it is unlikely that the Labour Party would have the votes required to do so .
It has been suggested by some that the economic difference between the likely “ thin ” trade deal on offer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so in the end no deal might be the more politically palatable option for the Government .
Only time will tell .
However , this Government explicitly sought a “ Canada-style ” deal from the outset of the negotiations , accepting that some friction on UK-EU trade was worth exchanging for greater independence over UK regulatory and trade policy .
The economic benefit of a so-called “ thin ” deal – provided that the compromises on fishing and governance are acceptable – is that it would provide for tariff-free trade , which remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automotive , chemicals and agriculture .
Equally , while there is unlikely to be a formal implementation period for a deal , if both sides are invested in the agreement , a pragmatic approach can be taken to border checks and greater priority given to the free flow of trade .
This goodwill would also help to resolve the disputes over the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol .
A deal might provide a platform for greater engagement and cooperation in the future .
Or it might need to be revisited in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a no deal would likely result in further immediate and bitter negotiations on the fallout .
It would probably suit the UK and the EU to draw a line and move on , for now .

Stephen Booth is Head of the Britain in the World Project at Policy Exchange.
A UK-EU trade deal is said to be 95 per cent there. However, it seems that every passing week has promised to be the “crunch” point that will mark the breakthrough.
An agreement is probably more likely than not, but the last five per cent is always the trickiest bit. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, confirmed yesterday that it is the three familiar issues of fishing, governance and the level playing field that remain unresolved.
Risks remain. Perhaps one of the biggest is that the EU, and Emmanuel Macron in particular, misjudges the UK mood and refuses to yield on fishing. It may be macro-economically insignificant to the wider UK economy, but it is particularly important for communities in Scotland and therefore the politics of the Union. The Prime Minister must be able to claim a victory on the issue.
The two sides are reportedly discussing whether review clauses and transitional arrangements can ease the path to an agreement. One suggestion is that the EU could retain part of its current fishing quota for several years, after which the arrangements would be reviewed.
In practice, this would not necessarily present a major concession from the UK, since it does not currently have a big enough fleet to catch all the quota in its waters. According to the latest available statistics, EU vessels landed an annual average of 790,000 tonnes of fish in UK waters, while UK boats landed 546,000 tonnes in domestic waters and a further 94,000 tonnes in EU waters. Therefore, a transition period could make sense, providing the UK with additional quota immediately and time to increase the capabilities of its domestic fleet.
The question is what happens at the end of any transitional period. The UK would want to move to annual negotiations. The EU negotiating team is apparently willing to consider the concept of a transitional period, but only if a review clause was linked to the broader UK-EU economic relationship.
Another idea is that a review mechanism might establish the possibility of imposing tariffs on trade in goods if Britain no longer wanted to abide by the agreement’s terms on level playing field areas such as state aid. The obvious risk is that these issues simply return to destabilise the wider trade relationship in the years to come. It would be better to settle these issues now, but agreeing to disagree may be the only way through at this point.
At this late stage, negotiators have no doubt mapped out a multiple of technical fixes that could be employed. This is now about political decisions and choreography.
With difficult compromises required, it has suited both sides to run down the clock in the hope the other would give ground. And compromises will inevitably leave some constituencies on both sides unhappy. Reducing the time available for any grievances to fester is not necessarily unhelpful to politicians’ efforts to ensure a deal sticks at home.
Both sides had previously insisted that a deal had to be reached in October in order to allow for the process of ratification and, just as importantly, to provide traders with details of the new rules and processes they will need to operate under next year. However, deal-making within and by the EU is often done at the last minute and, all along, the only genuine deadline has been the December 31, when the transition period is due to end.
Nevertheless, with little over a month to go until the new year, time is actually running out. If a political deal is done in the next week or so, there are procedural challenges to ensuring it is in force by the January 1.
On the EU side, time is needed for so-called “legal scrubbing” and translation of the text. The agreement is likely to be defined as a “mixed agreement”, which means that it covers powers conferred exclusively to the EU institutions and those reserved by the member states. This means that a deal must be ratified by EU leaders, the European Parliament and every national, and in some cases regional, parliament.
EU leaders can defer national ratification until next year by agreeing to “provisionally apply” any deal. However, the European Parliament must consent by year end and is planning an emergency session on December 28. MEPs might complain about the timetable but would not be expected to scupper a deal.
On the UK side, we don’t yet know exactly what the parliamentary process will look like. David Frost previously told the House of Lords EU Select Committee that the Government’s assumption is that “there will have to be primary legislation for at least some elements” of the agreement. Civil servants are reportedly drawing up a “future relationship bill”, which will need parliamentary approval at breakneck speed before the end of the year.
It is noteworthy that there is apparently a debate within the Shadow Cabinet on whether to back a deal or abstain. However, this is more about internal Labour Party politics, since abstentions would not hinder the passage of a deal. Implementing primary legislation would be amendable but it is unlikely that the Labour Party would have the votes required to do so.
It has been suggested by some that the economic difference between the likely “thin” trade deal on offer and no deal is not that significant, so in the end no deal might be the more politically palatable option for the Government. Only time will tell.
However, this Government explicitly sought a “Canada-style” deal from the outset of the negotiations, accepting that some friction on UK-EU trade was worth exchanging for greater independence over UK regulatory and trade policy.
The economic benefit of a so-called “thin” deal – provided that the compromises on fishing and governance are acceptable – is that it would provide for tariff-free trade, which remains important for certain sectors, such as automotive, chemicals and agriculture.
Equally, while there is unlikely to be a formal implementation period for a deal, if both sides are invested in the agreement, a pragmatic approach can be taken to border checks and greater priority given to the free flow of trade. This goodwill would also help to resolve the disputes over the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
A deal might provide a platform for greater engagement and cooperation in the future. Or it might need to be revisited in the event of future disputes. However, a no deal would likely result in further immediate and bitter negotiations on the fallout. It would probably suit the UK and the EU to draw a line and move on, for now.