conservativehome--2020-12-01--Today’s Covid tiers vote. The Government is treating Conservative MPs like fools.

Keir Starmer is cranking up the pressure .
Last time round , Labour voted for lockdown .
Today , Labour is poised to abstain on tiers .
The party has a cover story about the hospitality sector and tiering effects , but it is not the point : its leader wants to distance Labour from the Government ’ s policy .
Boris Johnson is offering a further compensation package , but this is unlikely to change Starmer ’ s intent .
Nonethless , the tiering plan will pass .
There are 364 Conservative MPs , and the majority of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evening .
Which gives troubled backbenchers a certain freedom , since they knows that , if they vote otherwise , England won ’ t be thrown into chaos , leaving it with no legal framework within which to contain Covid .
So how should they vote ?
There is good news and bad news .
The good news is that Boris Johnson no longer plans to hold another vote on the present tiering at Eastertime or thereabouts .
He has written to Tory MPs saying that the regulations which govern it will expire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasonable compromise as far as Parliamentary scutiny is concerned .
For by then , we will have evidence of the degree to which the tiering has continued to lower Covid-19 rates .
Raghib Ali has argued on this site that this was happening before the present lockdown under the previous tiers , as have others .
The bad news is that the Government ’ s published cost-benefit analysis contains no costs and so calculates no benefits ( in a nutshell ) .
On costs , it says simply that “ it is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take if restrictions in place were not sufficient to prevent exponential growth or in the absence of restrictions entirely ” .
The analysis simply cites figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility already published .
Which might be fair enough – were it not reported in today ’ s Times that “ the government has drawn up a secret dossier detailing the impact of coronavirus on the economy , with a dozen sectors rated “ red ” and facing significant job cuts and revenue losses .
Furthermore , the Government has already issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during this pandemic , at least in healthcare rather than monetary terms .
The Department of Health set out “ scenarios ” in a publication during the summer .
“ The estimates represent a point in time , using evidence from the initial months of the pandemic to model scenarios going forwards , ” its report , Direct and Indirect Impacts of Covid-19 on Excess Deaths and Morbidity , said ( not “ predictions ” , please note ) .
It concluded that “ the direct Covid-19 deaths account for the majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken into account , the estimates for the health impacts from a lockdown and lockdown induced recession are greater in terms of QALYs [ quality-adjusted life years ] than the direct Covid-19 deaths ” .
Starmer may deploy our familiar companion , the Humble Address , to try and put the “ secret dossier ” – including a “ Covid-19 sectoral impacts dashboard ” – into the public domain .
The Government claims that “ the document referred to contains publicly available information ” .
At any rate , our columnist Neil O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this site earlier this week that “ the difficulty [ with a cost-benefit analysis ] is knowing what the counterfactual should be “ .
The Government offers a solution to this problem in its official publication : namely , simply to assume the worst .
“ Against an alternative of allowing the NHS to be overwhelmed , the introduction of the tiering measures delivers very high health benefits across three of the four categories of health impact ( with the fourth being unclear ) , ” it says .
But tiering measures at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
– one of the main questions MPs must ponder today .
Answer comes there none , and the totality of the evidence , including the long drawn-out saga of when a Treasury estimate is or isn ’ t a forecast , suggests that the Government believes Conservative MPs can ’ t be trusted to draw sensible conclusions if all the available evidence is published .
To borrow an old phrase of David Cameron ’ s , his successor is “ treating people like fools ” – which is unlikely to improve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tory backbenchers .
And if that ’ s what Ministers think of them , why should voters do otherwise ?
If Tory backbenchers now feel like firing a shot across the Government ’ s bows this afternoon , we can scarcely blame them .

Keir Starmer is cranking up the pressure. Last time round, Labour voted for lockdown. Today, Labour is poised to abstain on tiers. The party has a cover story about the hospitality sector and tiering effects, but it is not the point: its leader wants to distance Labour from the Government’s policy. Boris Johnson is offering a further compensation package, but this is unlikely to change Starmer’s intent.
Nonethless, the tiering plan will pass. There are 364 Conservative MPs, and the majority of them will support it in the lobbies this evening. Which gives troubled backbenchers a certain freedom, since they knows that, if they vote otherwise, England won’t be thrown into chaos, leaving it with no legal framework within which to contain Covid.
So how should they vote? There is good news and bad news. The good news is that Boris Johnson no longer plans to hold another vote on the present tiering at Eastertime or thereabouts. He has written to Tory MPs saying that the regulations which govern it will expire on February 3.
That seems a reasonable compromise as far as Parliamentary scutiny is concerned. For by then, we will have evidence of the degree to which the tiering has continued to lower Covid-19 rates. Raghib Ali has argued on this site that this was happening before the present lockdown under the previous tiers, as have others.
The bad news is that the Government’s published cost-benefit analysis contains no costs and so calculates no benefits (in a nutshell). On costs, it says simply that “it is not possible to know…what path the economy would take if restrictions in place were not sufficient to prevent exponential growth or in the absence of restrictions entirely”.
The analysis simply cites figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility already published. Which might be fair enough – were it not reported in today’s Times that “the government has drawn up a secret dossier detailing the impact of coronavirus on the economy, with a dozen sectors rated “red” and facing significant job cuts and revenue losses.
Furthermore, the Government has already issued a document estimates of costs and benefits during this pandemic, at least in healthcare rather than monetary terms. The Department of Health set out “scenarios” in a publication during the summer.
“The estimates represent a point in time, using evidence from the initial months of the pandemic to model scenarios going forwards,” its report, Direct and Indirect Impacts of Covid-19 on Excess Deaths and Morbidity, said (not “predictions”, please note).
It concluded that “the direct Covid-19 deaths account for the majority of all excess deaths•However, when morbidity is taken into account, the estimates for the health impacts from a lockdown and lockdown induced recession are greater in terms of QALYs [quality-adjusted life years] than the direct Covid-19 deaths”.
Starmer may deploy our familiar companion, the Humble Address, to try and put the “secret dossier” – including a “Covid-19 sectoral impacts dashboard” – into the public domain. The Government claims that “the document referred to contains publicly available information”.
At any rate, our columnist Neil O’Brien worried in his column on this site earlier this week that “the difficulty [with a cost-benefit analysis] is knowing what the counterfactual should be“. The Government offers a solution to this problem in its official publication: namely, simply to assume the worst.
“Against an alternative of allowing the NHS to be overwhelmed, the introduction of the tiering measures delivers very high health benefits across three of the four categories of health impact (with the fourth being unclear),” it says. But tiering measures at what level, and of what kind? – one of the main questions MPs must ponder today.
Answer comes there none, and the totality of the evidence, including the long drawn-out saga of when a Treasury estimate is or isn’t a forecast, suggests that the Government believes Conservative MPs can’t be trusted to draw sensible conclusions if all the available evidence is published.
To borrow an old phrase of David Cameron’s, his successor is “treating people like fools” – which is unlikely to improve the already fragile relations between Downing Street and Tory backbenchers. And if that’s what Ministers think of them, why should voters do otherwise? If Tory backbenchers now feel like firing a shot across the Government’s bows this afternoon, we can scarcely blame them.


conservativehome--2020-12-01--A tale of two cities. The Conservative Government has had smooth relations with Liverpool – less so

A tale of two cities. The Conservative Government has had smooth relations with Liverpool – less so with Manchester.

When the first lockdown began , on March 23rd , I don ’ t recall a single local authority expressing opposition .
Even some of the more extreme measures – such as keeping the great majority of pupils away from school – went unchallenged .
Local elections were cancelled with scarcely a shrug .
Naturally , financial compensation was a subject keenly discussed .
But on the substance , there was overwhelming support for restrictions .
The only dispute was how they could go further .
For instance , in my own borough of Hammersmith and Fulham , the parks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was accepted that this was counterproductive .
The mood is very different now .
Council leaders are routinely challenging the “ tier ” their area has been put in , regarding it as unduly onerous .
Yet within these parameters , there are some stark variations .
Even before the current lockdown was announced I found that most Conservative council leaders felt restrictions had gone too far .
As they become more exasperated they are increasingly speaking out in public .
My understanding is that Conservative MPs contemplating rebellion are usually emboldened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But often it has been Labour councils which have faced demands from the Government for the tightest controls .
Conservatives are more likely to live in towns and villages where the population is more spread out .
Labour voters tend to inhabit the bustling cities .
It is scarcely surprising that the virus is a greater risk to communities in the latter group .
There is an appreciation that making an announcement is easy but that implementation is a bit more tricky .
So the active support of local authorities is important .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the big cities has varied .
Consider the cases of Manchester and Liverpool .
Andy Burnham is the directly elected Mayor of Greater Manchester – he is a “ Metro Mayor ” whose empire , or “ combined authority ” , covers not just Manchester City Council but ten local authorities .
His behaviour has been frankly duplicitous and exasperating for Ministers .
Did he feel restrictions were too tight or too loose ?
He managed to say both at the same time .
There would be staged showdowns for the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this period of crisis .
Then we have Joe Anderson , the directly elected Mayor of Liverpool , who has put partisan politics aside .
His conclusion is that the Government is justified in applying unprecedented restrictions .
He might be wrong , of course .
As with all of us , personal experience will have an impact – his brother Bill died of coronavirus in October .
What can ’ t be disputed is his good faith in working with the Government .
Not only in acquiescing to restrictions but also in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City – which is now to be applied elsewhere .
Reflecting on the political context , this is rather remarkable .
Where in England are the Conservative most hated ?
Surely , one would have to say Liverpool – that city synonymous with socialist militancy .
Margaret Thatcher backed Michael Heseltine ’ s regeneration efforts for the City , after the Toxteth riots .
But the Scousers never appeared to be overcome with gratitude .
Then , in 2004 , there was more trouble when a young Conservative MP called Boris Johnson was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A leader in The Spectator had claimed Liverpudlians were “ hooked on grief ” .
Johnson was the Editor – although he hadn ’ t actually written the piece .
Anyway , here we are .
Of today ’ s vote by MPs regarding the new rules , Anderson ’ s vitriol is reserved for those Tory MPs contemplating voting against the Government .
He says : “ When I hear this fella arguing we should let covid rip , this little pipsqueak , I say to him , you come up here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Royal Liverpool Hospital and you see the people that are dying and then tell us we should just allow this to continue and not have a tier structure .
You have a shift carrying the bodies up to the mortuary .
“ Come up here and talk to the doctors , and nurses like the one who had to ring me at quarter to ten on a Friday night to tell me my brother had died .
You do a shift with them , Steve Baker.
” “ You have to put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the number one priority .
Then , of course , the economy is important .
But , first of all , what are you if you don ’ t prioritise lives ?
” That is hugely unfair to Baker and the other “ lockdown sceptics.
” The premise that the tighter the controls we have , the more lives we save , is disputed .
It is not a question of being indifferent to death .
Still , at least the Government know where they are with Anderson – while Sir Keir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enter , eventually resolving to abstain .
Government sources I have spoken to , at the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government , do not wish to overstate Liverpool ’ s exceptionalism .
“ Some of the local government leaders in Manchester have privately been good to work with , ” I ’ m assured .
Sir Richard Leese , the Leader of Manchester City Council , has a personally “ amicable ” relationship with the Government .
It is Burnham ’ s “ grandstanding ” that has been the difficulty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Perhaps we have hit what marathon-runners call ‘ the wall ’ : that moment , around 20 miles into the course , when the stored energy in our muscles runs out , forcing us to a walk .
The end is in sight , but our accumulated exhaustion weighs us down.
” General opposition to restrictions is still a minority opinion – though a growing minority .
More of a challenge for the Government are the objections regarding consistency .
Why are we in Tier Three when we have fewer cases than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two ?
Why have we gone up to Tier Two when our number of cases have gone down from when we were in Tier One ?
Why is x allowed when y is not ?
A Deltapoll survey for the Mail on Sunday found that 37 per cent felt their local tier “ too high ” , 56 per cent thought it “ about right ” and only eight per cent “ too low ” .
Another response to that survey indicated that while 43 per cent of us are in Tier Three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel that we should be in Tier Three .
No doubt as the vaccines and the Vitamin D pills are distributed , the emergency will ease .
As we crank up to elections in May , the normal tribal loyalties and hostilities will reassert themselves .
Yet in the time being , we have the irony , that while the Government has managed to dismay so many of their supporters , the Mayor of Liverpool could hardly be more vociferous in backing their cause .

When the first lockdown began, on March 23rd, I don’t recall a single local authority expressing opposition. Even some of the more extreme measures – such as keeping the great majority of pupils away from school – went unchallenged. Local elections were cancelled with scarcely a shrug. Naturally, financial compensation was a subject keenly discussed. But on the substance, there was overwhelming support for restrictions. The only dispute was how they could go further. For instance, in my own borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, the parks were closed for a while – until it was accepted that this was counterproductive.
The mood is very different now. Council leaders are routinely challenging the “tier” their area has been put in, regarding it as unduly onerous.
Yet within these parameters, there are some stark variations. Even before the current lockdown was announced I found that most Conservative council leaders felt restrictions had gone too far. As they become more exasperated they are increasingly speaking out in public. My understanding is that Conservative MPs contemplating rebellion are usually emboldened by council leaders in their constituencies.
But often it has been Labour councils which have faced demands from the Government for the tightest controls. Conservatives are more likely to live in towns and villages where the population is more spread out. Labour voters tend to inhabit the bustling cities. It is scarcely surprising that the virus is a greater risk to communities in the latter group. There is an appreciation that making an announcement is easy but that implementation is a bit more tricky. So the active support of local authorities is important. Here the response of the Labour leaders in the big cities has varied.
Consider the cases of Manchester and Liverpool. Andy Burnham is the directly elected Mayor of Greater Manchester – he is a “Metro Mayor” whose empire, or “combined authority”, covers not just Manchester City Council but ten local authorities. His behaviour has been frankly duplicitous and exasperating for Ministers. Did he feel restrictions were too tight or too loose? He managed to say both at the same time. There would be staged showdowns for the media but a lack of serious leadership during this period of crisis.
Then we have Joe Anderson, the directly elected Mayor of Liverpool, who has put partisan politics aside. His conclusion is that the Government is justified in applying unprecedented restrictions. He might be wrong, of course. As with all of us, personal experience will have an impact – his brother Bill died of coronavirus in October. What can’t be disputed is his good faith in working with the Government. Not only in acquiescing to restrictions but also in applying the mass testing pilot to his City – which is now to be applied elsewhere.
Reflecting on the political context, this is rather remarkable. Where in England are the Conservative most hated? Surely, one would have to say Liverpool – that city synonymous with socialist militancy. Margaret Thatcher backed Michael Heseltine’s regeneration efforts for the City, after the Toxteth riots. But the Scousers never appeared to be overcome with gratitude. Then, in 2004, there was more trouble when a young Conservative MP called Boris Johnson was sent to the City to apologise. A leader in The Spectator had claimed Liverpudlians were “hooked on grief”. Johnson was the Editor – although he hadn’t actually written the piece.
Anyway, here we are. Of today’s vote by MPs regarding the new rules, Anderson’s vitriol is reserved for those Tory MPs contemplating voting against the Government. He says:
“When I hear this fella arguing we should let covid rip, this little pipsqueak, I say to him, you come up here and work as a porter in the Royal Liverpool Hospital and you see the people that are dying and then tell us we should just allow this to continue and not have a tier structure. You have a shift carrying the bodies up to the mortuary.
“Come up here and talk to the doctors, and nurses like the one who had to ring me at quarter to ten on a Friday night to tell me my brother had died. You do a shift with them, Steve Baker.”
“You have to put the lives of people first. It’s the number one priority. Then, of course, the economy is important. But, first of all, what are you if you don’t prioritise lives?”
That is hugely unfair to Baker and the other “lockdown sceptics.” The premise that the tighter the controls we have, the more lives we save, is disputed. It is not a question of being indifferent to death. Still, at least the Government know where they are with Anderson – while Sir Keir Starmer makes calculations about which division lobby to enter, eventually resolving to abstain.
Government sources I have spoken to, at the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government, do not wish to overstate Liverpool’s exceptionalism. “Some of the local government leaders in Manchester have privately been good to work with,” I’m assured. Sir Richard Leese, the Leader of Manchester City Council, has a personally “amicable” relationship with the Government. It is Burnham’s “grandstanding” that has been the difficulty.
As Daniel Hannan has said:
“Perhaps we have hit what marathon-runners call ‘the wall’: that moment, around 20 miles into the course, when the stored energy in our muscles runs out, forcing us to a walk. The end is in sight, but our accumulated exhaustion weighs us down.”
General opposition to restrictions is still a minority opinion – though a growing minority. More of a challenge for the Government are the objections regarding consistency. Why are we in Tier Three when we have fewer cases than a neighbouring area which is in Tier Two? Why have we gone up to Tier Two when our number of cases have gone down from when we were in Tier One? Why is x allowed when y is not? A Deltapoll survey for the Mail on Sunday found that 37 per cent felt their local tier “too high”, 56 per cent thought it “about right” and only eight per cent “too low”. Another response to that survey indicated that while 43 per cent of us are in Tier Three, only 25 per cent of us feel that we should be in Tier Three.
No doubt as the vaccines and the Vitamin D pills are distributed, the emergency will ease. As we crank up to elections in May, the normal tribal loyalties and hostilities will reassert themselves. Yet in the time being, we have the irony, that while the Government has managed to dismay so many of their supporters, the Mayor of Liverpool could hardly be more vociferous in backing their cause.


conservativehome--2020-12-01--The 53 Conservative MPs who voted against the Government’s tiers plan

The tellers for the Noes were Steve Baker and Robert Syms .
15 Labour MPs also voted against the motion @ @ @ @ @ MPs .
And two independents – Jeremy Corbyn and Julian Lewis .
*Also voted Aye @ @ @ @ @

Afriyie, Adam
Ahmad Khan, Imran
Brady, Graham
Bridgen, Andrew
Bristow, Paul
Chope, Christopher
Clark, Greg
Daly, James
Davies, Philip
Davis, David
Djanogly, Jonathan
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duncan Smith, Ian
Francois, Mark
Fysh, Mark
Gillan, Cheryl
Green, Chris
Green, Damian
Griffiths, Kate
Harper, Mark
Hollobone, Philip
Jones, David
Knight, Julian
Largan, Robert
Latham, Pauline
Loder, Chris
Loughton, Tim
Mackinlay, Craig
Mangnall, Anthony
McCartney, Karl
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Merriman, Huw
Moore, Robbie
Morris, Anne-Marie
Neill, Bob
Pawsey, Mark
Redwood, John
Robinson, Mary
Rossindell, Andrew
Smith, Henry
Spencer, Ben
Swayne, Desmond
Tracey, Craig
Tugendhat, Tom
Vickers, Matt
Wakeford, Christian
Walker, Charles
Wallis, Jamie*
Warburton, David
Wragg, William
Wright, Jeremy (pictured)
The tellers for the Noes were Steve Baker and Robert Syms.
15 Labour MPs also voted against the motion.
As did eight DUP MPs.
And two independents – Jeremy Corbyn and Julian Lewis.
*Also voted Aye, and so abstained.


conservativehome--2020-12-01--WATCH: Johnson – “The virus has been contained but has not been eradicated.”

“ While the virus has been contained , it has not been eradicated ” Opening the debate on the latest @ @ @ @ @ , PM Boris Johnson says despite progress , the NHS “ remains under pressure ” @ @ @ @

“While the virus has been contained, it has not been eradicated”
Opening the debate on the latest Covid tier restrictions for England, PM Boris Johnson says despite progress, the NHS “remains under pressure”https://t.co/QsJNZJTHKa pic.twitter.com/FGX0AKJdWj
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 1, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-01--The Government publishes its plan to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act

A couple of weeks ago , we looked at the question of repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and suggested it might be an important litmus test for how much Dominic Cumming ’ s departure affected the Government ’ s willingness to pick important , but arcane , constitutional battles .
I then raised the issue with Jacob Rees-Mogg in the Moggcast , and was assured that progress on the issue was being made and that returning to discretionary elections was on the agenda ( it was , after all , a manifesto commitment ) .
And lo !
This morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is indeed publishing today a bill to repeal the FTPA .
According to the ‘ senior Government sources ’ quoted by the paper it does sound as though Ministers have elected to take the purist option I outlined in my piece : “ seeking to restore the power to go to the country conferred by royal prerogative ” .
According to the paper , Boris Johnson sees this as part of a wider battle to reassert traditional parts of the political constitution against outside encroachment – and as of a piece with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draft Bill is now available online , and the truth of these claims is plain to see in the first three clauses : 2 Revival of prerogative powers to dissolve Parliament and to call a new Parliament ( 1 ) The powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament that were exercisable by virtue of Her Majesty ’ s prerogative immediately before the commencement of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 are exercisable again , as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never been enacted .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 1 ) , the powers relating to the calling of a new Parliament include powers to order the issue of— ( a ) writs of summons to attend the House of Lords , and ( b ) writs for parliamentary elections ( see rule 3 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 ) .
A court of law may not question— ( a ) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section 2 , ( b ) any decision or purported decision relating to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the limits or extent of those powers.
” If successful , passing this Bill would mean that no future coalition of opposition and backbench MPs could ever hope to usurp the Executive and bypass the checks and balances of our parliamentary system the way Oliver Letwin and his confederates attempted to do .
Whether or not Clause 3 will be protection enough against the Supreme Court , in light of their evident willingness to innovate , remains to be seen .
The Government has clearly learned from the defeat of previous ‘ ouster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ purported ” decisions – thus aiming to shoot the fox of judges who have circumvented previous such attempts by claiming that the decisions they quashed fell outside ouster clause laid down by Parliament .
Even as we speak , the Lords anew constitutional reality conjured up in Miller II .
Might this Bill be amended to shield future prorogations behind Article IX and restore their status as proceedings in Parliament ?

A couple of weeks ago, we looked at the question of repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and suggested it might be an important litmus test for how much Dominic Cumming’s departure affected the Government’s willingness to pick important, but arcane, constitutional battles.
I then raised the issue with Jacob Rees-Mogg in the Moggcast, and was assured that progress on the issue was being made and that returning to discretionary elections was on the agenda (it was, after all, a manifesto commitment).
And lo! This morning’s Times reports that the Government is indeed publishing today a bill to repeal the FTPA. According to the ‘senior Government sources’ quoted by the paper it does sound as though Ministers have elected to take the purist option I outlined in my piece: “seeking to restore the power to go to the country conferred by royal prerogative”.
According to the paper, Boris Johnson sees this as part of a wider battle to reassert traditional parts of the political constitution against outside encroachment – and as of a piece with his conflict with the Supreme Court.
The draft Bill is now available online, and the truth of these claims is plain to see in the first three clauses:
1 Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is repealed. 2 Revival of prerogative powers to dissolve Parliament and to call a new Parliament (1) The powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new
Parliament that were exercisable by virtue of Her Majesty’s prerogative immediately before the commencement of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 are exercisable again, as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never been enacted. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the powers relating to the calling of a new Parliament include powers to order the issue of— (a) writs of summons to attend the House of Lords, and (b) writs for parliamentary elections (see rule 3 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983). 3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers A court of law may not question— (a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section 2, (b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or (c) the limits or extent of those powers.”
If successful, passing this Bill would mean that no future coalition of opposition and backbench MPs could ever hope to usurp the Executive and bypass the checks and balances of our parliamentary system the way Oliver Letwin and his confederates attempted to do.
Whether or not Clause 3 will be protection enough against the Supreme Court, in light of their evident willingness to innovate, remains to be seen. The Government has clearly learned from the defeat of previous ‘ouster clauses’ by making sure it encompasses “purported” decisions – thus aiming to shoot the fox of judges who have circumvented previous such attempts by claiming that the decisions they quashed fell outside ouster clause laid down by Parliament.
Even as we speak, the Lords anew constitutional reality conjured up in Miller II. Might this Bill be amended to shield future prorogations behind Article IX and restore their status as proceedings in Parliament?


conservativehome--2020-12-02--Hannan becomes the Conservative Party’s International Ambassador

Our columnist is one of three new appointments .
• Neil O ’ Brien becomes Vice Chairman for Thinktank Relations/Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party Policy Board .
• Nickie Aiken , is to be Vice Chairman for Women and Affiliate Groups • And Hannan becomes International Ambassador .
We don ’ t know of any others and so will refer to him as the International Ambassador until or unless we learn otherwise .
• O ’ Brien , who is a former Director of Policy Exchange , will deal with the think tanks , and knows the milieu well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Member of Parliament for Havant , falls the responsibility of relations with the Conservative Policy Forum and , it would seem , his colleagues .
• At one level , Dan ’ s appointment signifies the obvious : that the Party is looking beyond the EU for new relationships .
At another , it recognises his experience in establishing these within Europe itself , as one of the main instigators of the European Conservatives and Reformists , who have non-EU as well as EU members .
Here ’ s the list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee Rowley , MP for North East Derbyshire , Deputy Chairman – assisting the Co-Chairman with Blue Wall Engagement .
• Nickie Aiken , MP for Cities of London and Westminster , Vice Chairman for Women and Affiliate Groups .
• Andrew Bowie , MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine , Vice Chairman for Youth Engagement and Northern Ireland .
• Sir David Evennett , MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford , Vice Chairman for Business Engagement .
• Caroline Johnson , MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham , Vice Chairman for Disabilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Vice Chairman for Backbencher policy and the Conservative Policy Forum/Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party Policy Board .
• Neil O ’ Brien , MP for Harborough , Oadby and Wigston , Vice Chairman for Thinktank Relations/Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party Policy Board .
• Daniel Hannan , former Member of the European Parliament for South East England , International Ambassador .
• Peter Gibson , MP for Darlington , PPS to the Party Co-Chairman .

Our columnist is one of three new appointments.
Neil O’Brien becomes Vice Chairman for Thinktank Relations/Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party Policy Board.
Nickie Aiken, is to be Vice Chairman for Women and Affiliate Groups
And Hannan becomes International Ambassador. We don’t know of any others and so will refer to him as the International Ambassador until or unless we learn otherwise.
–
O’Brien, who is a former Director of Policy Exchange, will deal with the think tanks, and knows the milieu well.
To Alan Mak, the co-Chairman, falls the responsibility of relations with the Conservative Policy Forum and, it would seem, his colleagues.
At one level, Dan’s appointment signifies the obvious: that the Party is looking beyond the EU for new relationships. At another, it recognises his experience in establishing these within Europe itself, as one of the main instigators of the European Conservatives and Reformists, who have non-EU as well as EU members.
–
Here’s the list of Deputy and Vice-Chairmen in full:


An Eton mess

This week , Eton has found itself the subject of immense media scrutiny after it dismissed a teacher for posting a “ controversial ” video on Youtube .
Titled “ The Patriarchy Paradox ” , it was created and narrated by Will Knowland , an English teacher at the school , who made strong statements about the role of men and women in society , and challenged the fashionable notion that differences between the sexes are “ socially constructed ” .
Knowland ’ s 33-minute online lecture was intended for Eton ’ s “ Perspectives ” curriculum , designed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause something of a fire .
According to Lord Waldegrave , Provost of Eton College , who has since defended the dismissal of Knowland in the national press , the following events took place : • there were suggestions that it broke the Equality Act and the Education ( Independent Schools Standards ) Regulations ; • the school then consulted an independent barrister , who said “ that this was indeed so ” ; • Henderson asked and then instructed Knowland to temporarily take the video down while “ a way forward could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do this on six occasions ; • after further investigations , including a panel hearing , it was decided that Knowland ’ s “ persistent refusal to accept a reasonable – indeed inevitable – instruction from the Head Master in such an important matter amounted to gross misconduct which should result in dismissal.
” No doubt the school hoped the matter would be resolved after that .
But Knowland has since started a crowdfunder to challenge his dismissal , which has raised tens of thousands of pounds .
He has the support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils , who have written a strongly worded letter to Waldegrave , citing their “ grave ” concerns about free speech .
A total of 2,100 from the Eton community have called for Knowland ’ s reinstatement and there are reports that alumni will stop donations to the school if it does not do this .
And so , Eton has something of a rather messy time ahead , all the while Knowland ’ s video has done rather well out of the debacle ( picking up 68,000 views at the time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this matter , morally and legally ?
And what does it mean for wider society ?
The first thing to say is that it ’ s not obvious what Eton ’ s legal team found to be in breach of the Equality Act .
Knowland bulldozes his way into the topic of gender differences , and makes contentious statements , such as “ regarding the vote , women have always had it at the local level “ .
But is it any more shocking than the other opinions that Knowland tries to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , be subjected to the same rules for accusing men of “ toxic masculinity ” ?
I think we all know the answer .
John Bald , a former Ofsted inspector and Chairman of the Conservative Education Society from 2018-2020 , tells me that he can not see anything in Knowland ’ s video that could make it an offence .
“ He is not harassing or discriminating against anyone , and neither is the school .
It is not presenting his views as fact ” .
A solicitor in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down to the age of the pupils , saying : “ Children might not be able to distinguish [ views that society found unacceptable ] .
” Doing nothing could have left the school open to an investigation from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
” But anyone watching Knowland ’ s video would struggle to see how pupils need to be shielded from it .
Knowland ’ s main “ crime ” seems to be advancing the position that men and women are neurologically different , which – I should reiterate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has certainly fulfilled that function ) .
Even so , it is strange that this causes so much controversy given that it is supported by a huge amount of evidence .
As a psychology graduate , I have experienced first hand the censoriousness and denial around this topic , so it doesn ’ t surprise me that Knowland has caused offence .
But it does ask big questions of the Equality Act , and whether it needs to be changed , if it is now illegal to say men and women are different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reason Eton fired Knowland was fear about wider societal backlash .
In another part of the Etonian students ’ letter , they accuse the school of “ seeking to protect its new image as politically progressive at the expense of one of its own ” , which appears to rather hit the nail on the head .
In a world where Etonian politicians are constantly derided for their privilege , is it any wonder the school wants to project a more morally conscious image ?
So much so that is now overreacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In doing so , Eton has not made matters easier for itself .
It has , in fact , found itself inadvertently thrown into the culture wars , inviting questions about whether it is yet another institutional victim of wokeness .
In truth , what happens next , from whether Knowland wins his case to the school ’ s principles on what opinions are acceptable , has huge implications for us all .

This week, Eton has found itself the subject of immense media scrutiny after it dismissed a teacher for posting a “controversial” video on Youtube.
Titled “The Patriarchy Paradox”, it was created and narrated by Will Knowland, an English teacher at the school, who made strong statements about the role of men and women in society, and challenged the fashionable notion that differences between the sexes are “socially constructed”.
Knowland’s 33-minute online lecture was intended for Eton’s “Perspectives” curriculum, designed to spark debate, although he seemed to cause something of a fire.
According to Lord Waldegrave, Provost of Eton College, who has since defended the dismissal of Knowland in the national press, the following events took place:
Simon Henderson, Eton’s headmaster, received complaints about the video;
there were suggestions that it broke the Equality Act and the Education (Independent Schools Standards) Regulations;
the school then consulted an independent barrister, who said “that this was indeed so”;
Henderson asked and then instructed Knowland to temporarily take the video down while “a way forward could be explored”
Knowland refused to do this on six occasions;
after further investigations, including a panel hearing, it was decided that Knowland’s “persistent refusal to accept a reasonable – indeed inevitable – instruction from the Head Master in such an important matter amounted to gross misconduct which should result in dismissal.”
No doubt the school hoped the matter would be resolved after that. But Knowland has since started a crowdfunder to challenge his dismissal, which has raised tens of thousands of pounds.
He has the support of the Free Speech Union, and Eton pupils, who have written a strongly worded letter to Waldegrave, citing their “grave” concerns about free speech. A total of 2,100 from the Eton community have called for Knowland’s reinstatement and there are reports that alumni will stop donations to the school if it does not do this.
And so, Eton has something of a rather messy time ahead, all the while Knowland’s video has done rather well out of the debacle (picking up 68,000 views at the time of writing).
But who is right on this matter, morally and legally? And what does it mean for wider society?
The first thing to say is that it’s not obvious what Eton’s legal team found to be in breach of the Equality Act. Knowland bulldozes his way into the topic of gender differences, and makes contentious statements, such as “regarding the vote, women have always had it at the local level“. But is it any more shocking than the other opinions that Knowland tries to counter? Would a radical feminist, for example, be subjected to the same rules for accusing men of “toxic masculinity”? I think we all know the answer.
John Bald, a former Ofsted inspector and Chairman of the Conservative Education Society from 2018-2020, tells me that he cannot see anything in Knowland’s video that could make it an offence. “He is not harassing or discriminating against anyone, and neither is the school. It is not presenting his views as fact”.
A solicitor in The Times suggests part of the issue might down to the age of the pupils, saying: “Children might not be able to distinguish [views that society found unacceptable].” Doing nothing could have left the school open to an investigation from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.” But anyone watching Knowland’s video would struggle to see how pupils need to be shielded from it.
Knowland’s main “crime” seems to be advancing the position that men and women are neurologically different, which – I should reiterate, was designed to provoke debate (and has certainly fulfilled that function). Even so, it is strange that this causes so much controversy given that it is supported by a huge amount of evidence. As a psychology graduate, I have experienced first hand the censoriousness and denial around this topic, so it doesn’t surprise me that Knowland has caused offence. But it does ask big questions of the Equality Act, and whether it needs to be changed, if it is now illegal to say men and women are different.
Deep down I suspect part of the reason Eton fired Knowland was fear about wider societal backlash. In another part of the Etonian students’ letter, they accuse the school of “seeking to protect its new image as politically progressive at the expense of one of its own”, which appears to rather hit the nail on the head. In a world where Etonian politicians are constantly derided for their privilege, is it any wonder the school wants to project a more morally conscious image? So much so that is now overreacts over the idea of innate gender differences.
In doing so, Eton has not made matters easier for itself. It has, in fact, found itself inadvertently thrown into the culture wars, inviting questions about whether it is yet another institutional victim of wokeness. In truth, what happens next, from whether Knowland wins his case to the school’s principles on what opinions are acceptable, has huge implications for us all.


conservativehome--2020-12-02--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Schools Adjudicator – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” “ As an FE Adviser , you will work as part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 crucial part of the Chair ’ s role .
The Panel Chair need not be an expert in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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… ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) .
” “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ) .
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
“ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
“ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on areas of development , typically through an annual board effectiveness review ; and when considering re-appointments… ” “ The Pensions Regulator ( TPR ) is the public body that protects workplace pensions in the UK .
TPR works with employers and those running pension schemes so that people can save safely for their retirement .
TPR aims to be a strong , visible regulator that builds people ’ s confidence in pensions .
TPR is a public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) .
It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brighton .
TPR works closely with the Financial Conduct Authority , which regulates personal pension schemes , and with other public bodies .
TPR is responsible for : protecting people ’ s savings in workplace pensions ; improving the way that workplace pension schemes are run ; reducing the risk of pension schemes ending up in the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) ; making sure employers balance the needs of their defined benefit pension scheme with growing their business ; making sure employers enrol their staff into a pension scheme and pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automatic enrolment ’ ) .
” “ Applications are encouraged from all sections of the community to help ensure that the Sport England board is representative of the diverse society it serves .
Sport England is a government-funded Non-Departmental Public Body and National Lottery distributor .
It is responsible for supporting , growing and advocating for grassroots sport and physical activity in England in line with its statutory objectives as set out in its Royal Charter .
Its vision is to ensure that everyone , regardless of their age , background or level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sport and physical activity and it takes its strategic lead from the government ’ s sport and physical activity strategy Sporting Future : A New Strategy for an Active Nation .
The Chair will be responsible for overseeing the final stages of implementation of Sport England ’ s current Towards an Active Nation strategy ( 2017-2021 ) , and the final stages of development and roll-out of its new strategy for 2021-2025 , in close collaboration with the Deputy Chair , Chief Executive , and Executive Team.
” Time : Up to 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action where necessary , to promote the quality of corporate reporting 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 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) 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.
” “ With rapid progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Highways England are modernising and transforming the strategic road network .
They need to demonstrate that they can meet the government ’ s commitment to zero carbon and within its committed timescales .
They also need to exploit the full potential of the digital revolution , both in their delivery , and in communications with road users and stakeholders .
That is why HE are now delivering £27.4 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025 to improve the road network ( RIS2 ) .
This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You would be joining Highways England at an exciting time , with the opportunity to help shape the future of the organisation and ensure its continued success .
This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for the immediate supply chain , technology and workplace transformation Highways England faces.
” 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ Schools Adjudicators are office holders appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to make decisions about a range of matters relating to publicly funded schools in England .
They are statutory office holders appointed under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 .
The main function of the Schools Adjudicators is to rule on objections to and referrals about determined school admission arrangements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involves establishing whether or not arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions and if they do not conform , in what respect they do not conform… There are currently ten Schools Adjudicators , including the Chief Schools Adjudicator .
They are appointed for their ability to act impartially , independently and objectively .
Their role is to look afresh at all cases referred to them and consider each case on its merits in the light of the legislation , the Statutory Guidance for Decision Makers on Statutory Proposals and the School Admissions @ @ @

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
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: 02 December
– – – – – – – – – –
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
– – – – – – – – – –
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: 06 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
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pension Agency – Chair
“The Pensions Regulator (TPR) is the public body that protects workplace pensions in the UK. TPR works with employers and those running pension schemes so that people can save safely for their retirement. TPR aims to be a strong, visible regulator that builds people’s confidence in pensions. TPR is a public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It has around 750 staff and is based in Brighton. TPR works closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates personal pension schemes, and with other public bodies. TPR is responsible for: protecting people’s savings in workplace pensions; improving the way that workplace pension schemes are run; reducing the risk of pension schemes ending up in the Pension Protection Fund (PPF); making sure employers balance the needs of their defined benefit pension scheme with growing their business; making sure employers enrol their staff into a pension scheme and pay money into it (known as ‘automatic enrolment’).”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £73,840 per annum.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Sport England – Chair
“Applications are encouraged from all sections of the community to help ensure that the Sport England board is representative of the diverse society it serves. Sport England is a government-funded Non-Departmental Public Body and National Lottery distributor. It is responsible for supporting, growing and advocating for grassroots sport and physical activity in England in line with its statutory objectives as set out in its Royal Charter. Its vision is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their age, background or level of ability feels able to engage in sport and physical activity and it takes its strategic lead from the government’s sport and physical activity strategy Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation. The Chair will be responsible for overseeing the final stages of implementation of Sport England’s current Towards an Active Nation strategy (2017-2021), and the final stages of development and roll-out of its new strategy for 2021-2025, in close collaboration with the Deputy Chair, Chief Executive, and Executive Team.”
Time: Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum.
Closes: 21 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
– – – – – – – – – –
Highways England – Chair
“With rapid progress in the development of new technologies, Highways England are modernising and transforming the strategic road network. They need to demonstrate that they can meet the government’s commitment to zero carbon and within its committed timescales. They also need to exploit the full potential of the digital revolution, both in their delivery, and in communications with road users and stakeholders. That is why HE are now delivering £27.4 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025 to improve the road network (RIS2). This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps England moving. You would be joining Highways England at an exciting time, with the opportunity to help shape the future of the organisation and ensure its continued success. This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for the immediate supply chain, technology and workplace transformation Highways England faces.”
Time: 24/27 days per annum
Remuneration: £25,000 per annum/plus £3,000 for chairing.
Closes: 08 January
– – – – – – – – – –
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: 11 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Schools Adjudicator
“Schools Adjudicators are office holders appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to make decisions about a range of matters relating to publicly funded schools in England. They are statutory office holders appointed under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The main function of the Schools Adjudicators is to rule on objections to and referrals about determined school admission arrangements of all state funded schools; this involves establishing whether or not arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions and if they do not conform, in what respect they do not conform… There are currently ten Schools Adjudicators, including the Chief Schools Adjudicator. They are appointed for their ability to act impartially, independently and objectively. Their role is to look afresh at all cases referred to them and consider each case on its merits in the light of the legislation, the Statutory Guidance for Decision Makers on Statutory Proposals and the School Admissions Code.”
Time: Part-time.
Remuneration: £355 per diem/£58 per hour.
Closes: 29 January


Trust

Many Conservative MPs have a yearning to be Prime Minister – perhaps most ; maybe all – but who would really want to be Boris Johnson now ?
His scientific advisers want tighter tiers .
Lots of Tory MPs – and Ministers – want looser ones .
Many of those with English seats aren ’ t opposed to tiering in principle , but are furious about it in practice , believing that their constituency is in too restrictive a tier .
Keir Starmer wants anything that will harm the Government .
In Brussels , the EU is pushing for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his ( unsurprisingly ) .
In Edinburgh , Nicola Sturgeon is pressing for a second independence referendum ( invariably ) .
The media scrags Ministers for mistakes over Covid without acknowledging achievements .
The Parliamentary Party is experiencing a culture change – partly accrued slowly over time , partly speeded by general election gains .
The rise of lobbyocracy , the decline of patronage , the effect of the Covid restrictions on Parliament , the rise of the WhatsApp group : all help to make many MPs as much constituency champions as party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual constituencies , at least in the short-term ; not so good for the needs of the country as a whole , and downright bad for the whips and for Johnson himself .
It is significant that if the internal Conservative opposition has a leader , he ’ s the Chairman of the 1922 Committee .
We say all that as a necessary preface to the next point : the Government has handled some aspects of dealing with Covid badly ( we await the inevitable inquiry ) , and the Prime Minister is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he might do .
Part of the problem is structural , which can be corrected ( for example , Downing Street needs a senior MP as part of the team to deal with MPs ) , but part is personal .
Like most of the rest of us , Johnson ’ s weaknesses are a mirror image of his strengths and these , unsurprisingly , are showing up .
What in the best of times comes over as inspiration , bounce , likeability and an unwillingness to be constrained by anything so unpoetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more testing times – as slapdashery , promising the moon , telling his listeners what they want to hear , and carelessness with detail .
We cite only one example , small but telling , from yesterday ’ s Commons debate .
The Prime Minister said that “ the virus has been contained , it has not been eradicated ” .
John Spellar picked him up , and suggested that eradication is all but impossible .
The policy aim should be containtment – not eradication .
Johnson agreed .
An ambiguity , maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MPs are anxious .
If the objective of the policy isn ’ t clear in Johnson ’ s mind , how can it possibly succeed ?
To put it bluntly , many of those who voted with the Government yesterday fear that Johnson is making it up as he goes along .
( By the way , Matt Hancock has talked of “ suppressing ” the virus .
Suppression is not the same as containment . )
The Government raised expectations yesterday that many MPs will find their constituency moved out of Tier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 .
“ Will the Prime Minister commit to a more local tiering system , so that the hard work of my constituents is rewarded ?
” Mark Jenkinson , Workington ’ s MP , asked him yesterday .
“ Yes , indeed , ” Johnson replied – and he bent over backwards to reassure Greg Clark and Edward Leigh , who intervened on him to make the case for their seat moving down a tier .
“ We want to be as granular as possible as we go forward , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested that Tory MPs are being played .
“ I look across the House to Members who think that perhaps , in two weeks , their area is going to drop down a tier just before Christmas .
Let us see , ” he said .
And indeed we will , one way or the other .
The sunlit uplands view is that the vaccines will duly arrive , Covid will diminish , a Brexit trade deal will be struck that suits Britain , the Government will settle down , and the exceptional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in retrospect to have marked the high point of rebellion .
And Johnson ’ s approval ratings will move up .
The rainswept downlands take is that the turbulence of the Parliamentary Party – of which all those new research groups are a sign – indicate that Ministers will have difficulty in getting through measures vital to Downing Street , even with a majority of 80 .
For example : would Tory MPs vote through big tax rises ?
55 Conservative votes against the Government last night , plus more abstentions , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was enough to have wiped out the majority had all the other parties opposed the provisions .
We would put it in the medium range of expectations – smaller than it might have been but too large for comfort to Number One .
Our members ’ panel may feel the sympathy for the Prime Minister ’ s position that we expressed earlier .
If so , it is not enough to rescue him from a negative rating .
Fifty-four per cent of it believes that he is handling the virus badly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally from 63 per cent last month , which marked the lowest total yet .
This month ’ s is the second lowest .
Thirty-nine per cent of respondents believe that Government is dealing with Covid well ; 53 per cent badly .
Those figures are almost exactly the same as last month .
Meanwhile , 77 per cent support Sunak ’ s economic plans – which is both an overwhelming majority and a new low .
Last month , the Chancellor scored 83 per cent .
That ’ s not really a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about , but it may be that the Autumn Statement worried a few respondents at the margins .

Many Conservative MPs have a yearning to be Prime Minister – perhaps most; maybe all – but who would really want to be Boris Johnson now?
His scientific advisers want tighter tiers. Lots of Tory MPs – and Ministers – want looser ones. Many of those with English seats aren’t opposed to tiering in principle, but are furious about it in practice, believing that their constituency is in too restrictive a tier.
Keir Starmer wants anything that will harm the Government. In Brussels, the EU is pushing for a trade deal on its terms rather than his (unsurprisingly). In Edinburgh, Nicola Sturgeon is pressing for a second independence referendum (invariably). The media scrags Ministers for mistakes over Covid without acknowledging achievements.
The Parliamentary Party is experiencing a culture change – partly accrued slowly over time, partly speeded by general election gains. The rise of lobbyocracy, the decline of patronage, the effect of the Covid restrictions on Parliament, the rise of the WhatsApp group: all help to make many MPs as much constituency champions as party animals.
That’s good for individual constituencies, at least in the short-term; not so good for the needs of the country as a whole, and downright bad for the whips and for Johnson himself. It is significant that if the internal Conservative opposition has a leader, he’s the Chairman of the 1922 Committee.
We say all that as a necessary preface to the next point: the Government has handled some aspects of dealing with Covid badly (we await the inevitable inquiry), and the Prime Minister is dealing with Tory MPs less well than he might do.
Part of the problem is structural, which can be corrected (for example, Downing Street needs a senior MP as part of the team to deal with MPs), but part is personal. Like most of the rest of us, Johnson’s weaknesses are a mirror image of his strengths and these, unsurprisingly, are showing up.
What in the best of times comes over as inspiration, bounce, likeability and an unwillingness to be constrained by anything so unpoetic as the facts comes over – in more testing times – as slapdashery, promising the moon, telling his listeners what they want to hear, and carelessness with detail.
We cite only one example, small but telling, from yesterday’s Commons debate. The Prime Minister said that “the virus has been contained, it has not been eradicated”. John Spellar picked him up, and suggested that eradication is all but impossible. The policy aim should be containtment – not eradication. Johnson agreed.
An ambiguity, maybe. But you will see why Conservative MPs are anxious. If the objective of the policy isn’t clear in Johnson’s mind, how can it possibly succeed? To put it bluntly, many of those who voted with the Government yesterday fear that Johnson is making it up as he goes along. (By the way, Matt Hancock has talked of “suppressing” the virus. Suppression is not the same as containment.)
The Government raised expectations yesterday that many MPs will find their constituency moved out of Tier Three and into Tier Two by December 17. “Will the Prime Minister commit to a more local tiering system, so that the hard work of my constituents is rewarded?” Mark Jenkinson, Workington’s MP, asked him yesterday.
“Yes, indeed,” Johnson replied – and he bent over backwards to reassure Greg Clark and Edward Leigh, who intervened on him to make the case for their seat moving down a tier. “We want to be as granular as possible as we go forward,” the Prime Minister also said.
Keir Starmer suggested that Tory MPs are being played. “I look across the House to Members who think that perhaps, in two weeks, their area is going to drop down a tier just before Christmas. Let us see,” he said. And indeed we will, one way or the other.
The sunlit uplands view is that the vaccines will duly arrive, Covid will diminish, a Brexit trade deal will be struck that suits Britain, the Government will settle down, and the exceptional circumstances of the virus will be seen in retrospect to have marked the high point of rebellion. And Johnson’s approval ratings will move up.
The rainswept downlands take is that the turbulence of the Parliamentary Party – of which all those new research groups are a sign – indicate that Ministers will have difficulty in getting through measures vital to Downing Street, even with a majority of 80. For example: would Tory MPs vote through big tax rises?
55 Conservative votes against the Government last night, plus more abstentions, was the biggest Covid-related revolt so far. It was enough to have wiped out the majority had all the other parties opposed the provisions. We would put it in the medium range of expectations – smaller than it might have been but too large for comfort to Number One.
Our members’ panel may feel the sympathy for the Prime Minister’s position that we expressed earlier. If so, it is not enough to rescue him from a negative rating. Fifty-four per cent of it believes that he is handling the virus badly. That’s a bit of a rally from 63 per cent last month, which marked the lowest total yet.
This month’s is the second lowest. Thirty-nine per cent of respondents believe that Government is dealing with Covid well; 53 per cent badly. Those figures are almost exactly the same as last month. Meanwhile, 77 per cent support Sunak’s economic plans – which is both an overwhelming majority and a new low.
Last month, the Chancellor scored 83 per cent. That’s not really a big enough difference to make a fuss about, but it may be that the Autumn Statement worried a few respondents at the margins.


conservativehome--2020-12-02--The 53 Conservative MPs who voted against the Government’s tiers plan


conservativehome--2020-12-02--Robert Halfon: The political parties are stuck in the Dark Ages

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow , a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman , Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists .
If I were a chief executive or chair of a major political party in Britain , I would have this book , Footsoldiers : Political Party Membership in the 21st Century by Tim Bale , Monica Poletti and Paul Webb , pride of place on my desk – and I would also send a copy to every local constituency party association chair in the country .
This book tells you more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the reasons why they join – and quit – than anything you will hear from the usual commentators .
Each chapter not only goes through the qualitative information , but has reams of data and surveys to evidence the claims .
Footsoldiers confounds a few stereotypes , too .
For example , the average age of a member of the Conservative Party is 57 ( not in the late 60s as is often reported ) .
Moreover , the Labour Party ’ s average membership age is 54 – just a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and yet , it is only the Conservatives that are always described as having an aged member base .
Interestingly , we learn that 77 percent of Labour Party members are middle class – a fact that may surprise those who imagine the party as a mass , working class , political movement .
What Bale , Poletti and Webb also show , in a really thoughtful way , is why people join political parties .
Motivations to join comprises purposive incentives , material incentives and solidarity incentives .
As I understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join a political party for ideological reasons , for a sense of belonging and/or a belief that , either they will benefit from their membership , or from their chosen political party running the country .
The authors also go a long way to reason the recent revival of membership which had , until recently , gone through a significant decline .
As Footsoldiers explains , this trend can be put down to members thinking that they would have greater democratic say over decision-making and over the leadership , by selecting a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve always thought that the surviving political parties are stuck in the Dark Ages .
They operate like enormous , 1970s ’ main-frame computers , whilst most people have moved to the individuality of mobile phones and apps .
Although central to joining will be ideological reasons , too often parties let their members down by not providing value for money , in terms of their membership , and by a lack of opportunity to make real decisions , such as the selection of parliamentary candidates , in debates at party conferences or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive boards .
Only two-fifths of members feel that their membership has lived up to their expectations and one-third would like more say over the democratic processes .
If parties are to be brought into the twenty-first century and retain their membership ( and there is an important chapter on why members quit ) , not only should their supporters be involved at every level of decision-making , in every reach of the party , but so , too , should they receive beneficial services to ensure that their investment is worthwhile .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like a modern trade union .
So , if , for example , a person were to join the Conservative Party , first , they would have meaningful votes at Party Conference ; second , they would have a say in the selection of senior representatives on the party board ; but , third , like a trade union , they would receive significant returns and benefits .
Party membership could offer discounts on the cost of living .
For example , members could be looked after with personal insurance schemes should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give every new Conservative Party member a “ fuel card ” upon enrolment , to give them a helping hand with petrol prices ?
Or , how about granting every new young Conservative a free bus or train pass , entitling them to discounted travel for one year ?
This is very different to offering someone a “ Nandos ” -type loyalty card which anyone can get for a variety of retail and food outlets .
We need to take substantive action to ensure that people really feel they are making an ideological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help shape policy , whilst offering services that make a material difference to their lives .
Footsoldiers also touches on the issue as to why members leave .
Often , the party ’ s administration is so poor that a significant amount of memberships ( one in seven of leavers ) simply lapse , as members forget to renew .
An important point is made that this is entirely solvable , were political parties to spend as much money on the recruitment and retention of members , as they currently do on investment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research .
Herein lies the problem ; in recent times , members are all too often seen as the icing on the cake , rather than the cake itself .
If political parties are to survive and flourish , this outlook has to change ; and a first step on that path would be to understand what is really going on with party membership , and to read this book .

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow, a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists.
If I were a chief executive or chair of a major political party in Britain, I would have this book, Footsoldiers: Political Party Membership in the 21st Century by Tim Bale, Monica Poletti and Paul Webb, pride of place on my desk – and I would also send a copy to every local constituency party association chair in the country.
This book tells you more about the demographics of party members, and the reasons why they join – and quit – than anything you will hear from the usual commentators. Each chapter not only goes through the qualitative information, but has reams of data and surveys to evidence the claims.
Footsoldiers confounds a few stereotypes, too. For example, the average age of a member of the Conservative Party is 57 (not in the late 60s as is often reported). Moreover, the Labour Party’s average membership age is 54 – just a few years away from that of the Tories – and yet, it is only the Conservatives that are always described as having an aged member base. Interestingly, we learn that 77 percent of Labour Party members are middle class – a fact that may surprise those who imagine the party as a mass, working class, political movement.
What Bale, Poletti and Webb also show, in a really thoughtful way, is why people join political parties. Motivations to join comprises purposive incentives, material incentives and solidarity incentives. As I understand it, a person may choose to join a political party for ideological reasons, for a sense of belonging and/or a belief that, either they will benefit from their membership, or from their chosen political party running the country.
The authors also go a long way to reason the recent revival of membership which had, until recently, gone through a significant decline. As Footsoldiers explains, this trend can be put down to members thinking that they would have greater democratic say over decision-making and over the leadership, by selecting a new leader, for instance.
I’ve always thought that the surviving political parties are stuck in the Dark Ages. They operate like enormous, 1970s’ main-frame computers, whilst most people have moved to the individuality of mobile phones and apps.
Although central to joining will be ideological reasons, too often parties let their members down by not providing value for money, in terms of their membership, and by a lack of opportunity to make real decisions, such as the selection of parliamentary candidates, in debates at party conferences or in voting for the party’s executive boards. Only two-fifths of members feel that their membership has lived up to their expectations and one-third would like more say over the democratic processes.
If parties are to be brought into the twenty-first century and retain their membership (and there is an important chapter on why members quit), not only should their supporters be involved at every level of decision-making, in every reach of the party, but so, too, should they receive beneficial services to ensure that their investment is worthwhile.
Political parties could be, in essence, like a modern trade union. So, if, for example, a person were to join the Conservative Party, first, they would have meaningful votes at Party Conference; second, they would have a say in the selection of senior representatives on the party board; but, third, like a trade union, they would receive significant returns and benefits.
Party membership could offer discounts on the cost of living. For example, members could be looked after with personal insurance schemes should they need them. Why not automatically give every new Conservative Party member a “fuel card” upon enrolment, to give them a helping hand with petrol prices? Or, how about granting every new young Conservative a free bus or train pass, entitling them to discounted travel for one year?
This is very different to offering someone a “Nandos”-type loyalty card which anyone can get for a variety of retail and food outlets. We need to take substantive action to ensure that people really feel they are making an ideological difference, that their opinions matter and help shape policy, whilst offering services that make a material difference to their lives.
Footsoldiers also touches on the issue as to why members leave. Often, the party’s administration is so poor that a significant amount of memberships (one in seven of leavers) simply lapse, as members forget to renew. An important point is made that this is entirely solvable, were political parties to spend as much money on the recruitment and retention of members, as they currently do on investment into the “air war” and research.
Herein lies the problem; in recent times, members are all too often seen as the icing on the cake, rather than the cake itself. If political parties are to survive and flourish, this outlook has to change; and a first step on that path would be to understand what is really going on with party membership, and to read this book.