conservativehome--2020-01-21--Stephen Booth: We’re about to take back control – but what do we want to do with it?

The UK is leaving the EU in two weeks ’ time but , as Mark Wallace noted recently on this site , “ much of the Government ’ s policy for life after EU membership is as yet unpublished and unknown.
” What we probably can say we know is that this Government will prioritise the ability to diverge from EU rules in the future over securing the best possible EU market access after the transition period ends in January 2021 .
In other words , its priority will be to “ take back control ” .
As I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade negotiations over the next 11 months will be important and the specific details will matter for individual sectors and firms .
Nevertheless , whatever the exact form our new trade relationship with the EU takes , it will mean greater freedom for the UK to set its own course on matters of trade , regulation and immigration .
The question is what the UK should do with this independence .
The Prime Minister yesterday outlined the broad shape of the UK ’ s new immigration regime .
“ By putting people before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attract the best talent from around the world , wherever they may be , ” he said .
Immigration is arguably the policy area in which it will be easiest to reach a new post-Brexit consensus .
There is already evidence to suggest that the prospect of the Government regaining the ability to fully control who can legally work and live in the UK is changing attitudes .
According to YouGov , prior to the 2016 referendum “ Immigration and Asylum ” ranked above “ Health ” , “ Crime ” , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the issue voters thought the most important facing the country .
It has now completely slipped down the public ’ s list of priorities .
Theoretically , EU membership did not prevent the UK from attracting the brightest and the best from the rest of the world , but the political reality was that an almost unlimited supply of labour from Europe meant that policy towards the rest of the world became too restrictive .
Many UK industries will still be reliant on lower-skilled labour and future governments may differ in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and how much of this to leave to the market .
But the UK will have far greater flexibility to tailor policy to prefer higher skills , which , all things being equal , is likely to be more economically productive .
Withdrawal from the EU provides a necessity and an opportunity to illustrate that the UK is “ open for business ” .
While some EU regulation has liberalised trade across the single market , the UK must now consider how it might alter existing EU rules it has inherited , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and also ensure domestic legislation is geared towards maximising the UK ’ s competitive position .
Financial services are one of the UK ’ s natural strengths and a crucial part of the economy , contributing seven per cent of economic output and 23 per cent of UK service exports .
There are several examples of financial regulations the UK would have approached differently independently of the EU .
For instance , the EU ’ s Solvency II rules for insurance firms do not adequately reflect a UK market where insurers tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-term savings , such as annuities , than in many other EU countries .
UK regulators have resorted to cumbersome “ workarounds ” , but instead the Government should prioritise reforming the rules to allow the sector to more effectively channel funds towards long-term investment , such as the infrastructure projects beloved of the new administration .
The bankers ’ bonus cap is another example of how EU policymaking can go awry .
The cap was introduced under the EU ’ s implementation of the global Basel III banking rules on capital requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not for the laissez-faire reasons often assumed .
The UK was actually leading the calls to enable national regulators to impose tougher capital requirements on their banks , against resistance from France and Germany , which feared that higher capital thresholds might expose their banks ’ fragility in the wake of the eurozone crisis .
The result was a fudge , which the European Parliament felt compelled to adorn with the bonus cap .
Ultimately , the cap did little to curb the problem it sought to solve : ending excessive remuneration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival financial hubs , such as Hong Kong , Singapore and New York , do not have a cap on bonuses ; the rule therefore acts as a drag on UK competitiveness .
An independent trade policy represents a different challenge and opportunity .
It is unlikely that , in and of themselves , new trade deals will radically transform UK GDP in the short-term .
However , Brexit or no Brexit , it is vital that the UK diversifies its economic relationships away from Europe .
It was Angela Merkel who pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent of the global population and produced only 25 per cent of global GDP , but that it accounted for almost 50 per cent of global social expenditure .
We know that the first two figures are only bound to fall , due to demographics , and reducing the third will be incredibly difficult for European politicians already fearful of a populist wave .
The UK will lose the EU ’ s mass but will gain flexibility with new and old trade partners .
It must ensure that it uses its new-found suppleness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start on positioning itself for the global economy of the future .
Ultimately , what I am describing are examples of the choices the UK can make as a self-governing national democracy .
I suspect that the increased scrutiny , accountability and responsibility that flows from this change of circumstances will be the greatest benefit of Brexit , although this is of course unquantifiable .
With greater freedom and independence comes opportunity but also greater risks .
Elections will be higher stakes , as any government with a majority can steer the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good or bad .
But no longer can the EU be blamed , rightly or wrongly , for the nation ’ s ills .
We will all be forced to up our game .

Stephen Booth is Acting Director of Open Europe.
The UK is leaving the EU in two weeks’ time but, as Mark Wallace noted recently on this site, “much of the Government’s policy for life after EU membership is as yet unpublished and unknown.” What we probably can say we know is that this Government will prioritise the ability to diverge from EU rules in the future over securing the best possible EU market access after the transition period ends in January 2021. In other words, its priority will be to “take back control”.
As I have argued in previous columns, the UK-EU trade negotiations over the next 11 months will be important and the specific details will matter for individual sectors and firms. Nevertheless, whatever the exact form our new trade relationship with the EU takes, it will mean greater freedom for the UK to set its own course on matters of trade, regulation and immigration. The question is what the UK should do with this independence.
The Prime Minister yesterday outlined the broad shape of the UK’s new immigration regime. “By putting people before passports, we will be able to attract the best talent from around the world, wherever they may be,” he said. Immigration is arguably the policy area in which it will be easiest to reach a new post-Brexit consensus. There is already evidence to suggest that the prospect of the Government regaining the ability to fully control who can legally work and live in the UK is changing attitudes. According to YouGov, prior to the 2016 referendum “Immigration and Asylum” ranked above “Health”, “Crime”, “Environment” and the “Economy” as the issue voters thought the most important facing the country. It has now completely slipped down the public’s list of priorities.
Theoretically, EU membership did not prevent the UK from attracting the brightest and the best from the rest of the world, but the political reality was that an almost unlimited supply of labour from Europe meant that policy towards the rest of the world became too restrictive. Many UK industries will still be reliant on lower-skilled labour and future governments may differ in their view on the appropriate scale of immigration, and how much of this to leave to the market. But the UK will have far greater flexibility to tailor policy to prefer higher skills, which, all things being equal, is likely to be more economically productive.
Withdrawal from the EU provides a necessity and an opportunity to illustrate that the UK is “open for business”. While some EU regulation has liberalised trade across the single market, the UK must now consider how it might alter existing EU rules it has inherited, diverge from EU rules in the future, and also ensure domestic legislation is geared towards maximising the UK’s competitive position.
Financial services are one of the UK’s natural strengths and a crucial part of the economy, contributing seven per cent of economic output and 23 per cent of UK service exports. There are several examples of financial regulations the UK would have approached differently independently of the EU. For instance, the EU’s Solvency II rules for insurance firms do not adequately reflect a UK market where insurers tend to play a bigger role in providing long-term savings, such as annuities, than in many other EU countries. UK regulators have resorted to cumbersome “workarounds”, but instead the Government should prioritise reforming the rules to allow the sector to more effectively channel funds towards long-term investment, such as the infrastructure projects beloved of the new administration.
The bankers’ bonus cap is another example of how EU policymaking can go awry. The cap was introduced under the EU’s implementation of the global Basel III banking rules on capital requirements. The UK opposed the cap but not for the laissez-faire reasons often assumed. The UK was actually leading the calls to enable national regulators to impose tougher capital requirements on their banks, against resistance from France and Germany, which feared that higher capital thresholds might expose their banks’ fragility in the wake of the eurozone crisis. The result was a fudge, which the European Parliament felt compelled to adorn with the bonus cap. Ultimately, the cap did little to curb the problem it sought to solve: ending excessive remuneration and incentives to take risk. Meanwhile, rival financial hubs, such as Hong Kong, Singapore and New York, do not have a cap on bonuses; the rule therefore acts as a drag on UK competitiveness.
An independent trade policy represents a different challenge and opportunity. It is unlikely that, in and of themselves, new trade deals will radically transform UK GDP in the short-term. However, Brexit or no Brexit, it is vital that the UK diversifies its economic relationships away from Europe. It was Angela Merkel who pointed out that Europe had only seven per cent of the global population and produced only 25 per cent of global GDP, but that it accounted for almost 50 per cent of global social expenditure. We know that the first two figures are only bound to fall, due to demographics, and reducing the third will be incredibly difficult for European politicians already fearful of a populist wave. The UK will lose the EU’s mass but will gain flexibility with new and old trade partners. It must ensure that it uses its new-found suppleness in order to give itself a head start on positioning itself for the global economy of the future.
Ultimately, what I am describing are examples of the choices the UK can make as a self-governing national democracy. I suspect that the increased scrutiny, accountability and responsibility that flows from this change of circumstances will be the greatest benefit of Brexit, although this is of course unquantifiable.
With greater freedom and independence comes opportunity but also greater risks. Elections will be higher stakes, as any government with a majority can steer the country on a radically different course, for good or bad. But no longer can the EU be blamed, rightly or wrongly, for the nation’s ills. We will all be forced to up our game.


conservativehome--2020-01-21--Building the Blue Wall: North East Derbyshire

This week we are looking at the prospects for building a Blue Wall in those constituencies where the Red Wall was broken in the General Election last month .
The way we are pursuing this is to consider some of the pioneers – the Conservative MPs who gained traditional Labour seats at the 2017 General Election .
Of particular interest is whether Conservative support in their areas has been consolidated by gaining more local councillors .
Yesterday we started with Walsall North , won by Eddie Hughes in 2017 .
Today it is the turn of North East Derbyshire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same day .
Rowley ’ s majority in 2017 was 2,861 .
Last month it had increased to 12,876 .
This means that on a uniform swing it would be Labour ’ s 151st target seat for next time .
In other words , unlikely to be a target at all , given that Labour needs to gain 124 seats for an overall majority of one .
“ Targeting ” too many more than that number would risk the concept losing its meaning .
This does create a problem of success for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it easier to gain the attention of Ministers when special pleading is concerned .
Or of CCHQ , when it comes to funding and other campaigning back up .
Rowley will continue to have the mentality that he represents a marginal seat .
That is prudent in these volatile times – even though the simple mathematics shows that his seat is now rather on the safe side .
Last year ’ s council election saw heavy Conservative losses in England overall .
But in North East Derbyshire it was all smiling faces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gained control of the Council from Labour , picking up 13 seats .
This was the first time the Conservatives have been in power there since the local authority was formed in 1973 .
The campaigning message was robust and unapologetic .
“ Killamarsh Conservatism ” .
Rowley wrote about it for us at the time : “ Enough of the split-the-difference , milquetoast , managerial mush which has bedevilled our national picture for too long .
A Conservatism which places hard work , aspiration and ambition at the centre of everything , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life and properly values a sense of community.
” The Labour councillors had become complacent and out of touch .
Many had been there for years and did not bother to campaign .
They just collected their allowances with a sense of entitlement and agreed to whatever the officials wanted .
This resulted in housing developments being pushed through without genuine consultation .
Labour had failed to adjust to how politics has become more transactional , less deferential .
By contrast , the Conservatives were actively looking for opportunities to campaign – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have been ignored in the past .
There would be a psychological , cultural change as Conservatives posters appeared in places that had never seen them before .
North East Derbyshire Conservative Association membership is up from 44 before the 2017 General Election to 250 now .
Rowley holds village meetings .
He would “ top and tail ” the letters asking people along while watching TV in the background .
Despite these personalised invitations , the number that would turn up would be small .
However , people appreciated being asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting might still contact him with casework – which Rowley actively procures .
Social media is used a lot but there is discipline in sticking to local issues .
Effort and money is spent on reaching constituents on Facebook ( via which he reaches 3,500 of them ) tracking and promoting messages so that they reach locals rather than those elsewhere .
I can see that having cheerful community news items provided by MPs makes sense .
The decline in local newspapers leaves a gap .
Politically combative messages might be regarded as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it leaves Conservatives avoiding the broader ideological arguments .
Socialist fallacies are left unchallenged .
If Conservative MPs are constantly demanding increased public spending in their constituencies where does that broader Conservative message in favour of free enterprise , individual liberty , and lower taxation ?
Winning the Council does present its own challenges .
Can the Council engage with people in a way that would make new housing popular ?
What if the Council does something that Rowley disagrees with ?
The next push will be the Police and Crime Commissioner elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this position from Labour .
Angelique Foster , the Conservative candidate , is from North East Derbyshire .
The initial goodwill for the Conservatives has come about through Labour neglect .
That has given the Conservatives an opportunity to prove themselves as vigorous local champions .
Thus far they would seem to be doing so .

This week we are looking at the prospects for building a Blue Wall in those constituencies where the Red Wall was broken in the General Election last month. The way we are pursuing this is to consider some of the pioneers – the Conservative MPs who gained traditional Labour seats at the 2017 General Election. Of particular interest is whether Conservative support in their areas has been consolidated by gaining more local councillors. Yesterday we started with Walsall North, won by Eddie Hughes in 2017. Today it is the turn of North East Derbyshire, a seat gained by Lee Rowley on the same day.
Rowley’s majority in 2017 was 2,861. Last month it had increased to 12,876. This means that on a uniform swing it would be Labour’s 151st target seat for next time. In other words, unlikely to be a target at all, given that Labour needs to gain 124 seats for an overall majority of one. “Targeting” too many more than that number would risk the concept losing its meaning. This does create a problem of success for Rowley. Holding a marginal seat does make it easier to gain the attention of Ministers when special pleading is concerned. Or of CCHQ, when it comes to funding and other campaigning back up. Rowley will continue to have the mentality that he represents a marginal seat. That is prudent in these volatile times – even though the simple mathematics shows that his seat is now rather on the safe side.
Last year’s council election saw heavy Conservative losses in England overall. But in North East Derbyshire it was all smiling faces, whooping and cheers. The Conservatives gained control of the Council from Labour, picking up 13 seats. This was the first time the Conservatives have been in power there since the local authority was formed in 1973. The campaigning message was robust and unapologetic. “Killamarsh Conservatism”. Rowley wrote about it for us at the time:
“Enough of the split-the-difference, milquetoast, managerial mush which has bedevilled our national picture for too long. A Conservatism which places hard work, aspiration and ambition at the centre of everything, which seeks to protect and enhance quality of life and properly values a sense of community.”
The Labour councillors had become complacent and out of touch. Many had been there for years and did not bother to campaign. They just collected their allowances with a sense of entitlement and agreed to whatever the officials wanted. This resulted in housing developments being pushed through without genuine consultation. Labour had failed to adjust to how politics has become more transactional, less deferential.
By contrast, the Conservatives were actively looking for opportunities to campaign – for instance in parish council by-elections which might have been ignored in the past. There would be a psychological, cultural change as Conservatives posters appeared in places that had never seen them before.
North East Derbyshire Conservative Association membership is up from 44 before the 2017 General Election to 250 now. Rowley holds village meetings. He would “top and tail” the letters asking people along while watching TV in the background. Despite these personalised invitations, the number that would turn up would be small. However, people appreciated being asked. Some of those who missed the meeting might still contact him with casework – which Rowley actively procures.
Social media is used a lot but there is discipline in sticking to local issues. Effort and money is spent on reaching constituents on Facebook (via which he reaches 3,500 of them) tracking and promoting messages so that they reach locals rather than those elsewhere.
I can see that having cheerful community news items provided by MPs makes sense. The decline in local newspapers leaves a gap. Politically combative messages might be regarded as offputting. The only problem is that it leaves Conservatives avoiding the broader ideological arguments. Socialist fallacies are left unchallenged. If Conservative MPs are constantly demanding increased public spending in their constituencies where does that broader Conservative message in favour of free enterprise, individual liberty, and lower taxation?
Winning the Council does present its own challenges. Can the Council engage with people in a way that would make new housing popular? What if the Council does something that Rowley disagrees with?
The next push will be the Police and Crime Commissioner elections. The Conservatives are hoping to gain this position from Labour. Angelique Foster, the Conservative candidate, is from North East Derbyshire.
The initial goodwill for the Conservatives has come about through Labour neglect. That has given the Conservatives an opportunity to prove themselves as vigorous local champions . Thus far they would seem to be doing so.


conservativehome--2020-01-22--Jess Phillips, Masked Singer?

Jess Phillips, Masked Singer?

There ’ s a type of modern politician who “ tells it like it is ” – or at least as they see it .
And who doesn ’ t play the game by the conventional rules .
Think of Nigel Farage .
Or George Galloway .
Or from the main parties the following : Ann Widdecombe , John Prescott , Nadine Dorries , Ken Livingstone…and Boris Johnson .
Jess Phillips either fits into this category or likes to think she does .
But all those on that list above , with the exception of Livingstone , have served on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And he was Mayor of London .
The odds were therefore always against Phillips making progress in Labour ’ s leadership election .
Without that experience , our take is that she had to stand for a very clearly-defined policy platform to break through .
It ’ s very difficult to see what that was .
She was clearly a candidate of the non-hard left , but didn ’ t really flesh out that position : she got noticed mainly for U-turning over rejoining the EU .
Phillips is clearly passionate about homelessness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prospectus .
Maybe she will now knuckle down , as Johnson had to do for a period , to work on the party ’ s front bench .
And maybe not .
Insofar as Phillips stands for something other than telling it as she sees it , this seems to be claiming moral superiority over the Conservatives – on the ground that they are a bunch of out-of-touch toffs , while she is an authentic woman of the people .
Leave aside for a moment the to-and-fro about her middle class background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point is that this type of politics is out of date – exploded by the Tory breach of the Blue Wall , and the visibility of new Conservative working class MPs .
And of old ones like Eddie Hughes , who seconded the Queen ’ s Speech .
Phillips will have to do more to break through .
Maybe it will be to take clearer and bigger policy positions as backbencher .
Perhaps it will be to toil away as Shadow Minister for Something-or-Other .
Maybe it will be neither – and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ed Balls and now ( see above ) Alan Johnson , her future is Reality TV .

There’s a type of modern politician who “tells it like it is” – or at least as they see it. And who doesn’t play the game by the conventional rules. Think of Nigel Farage. Or George Galloway. Or from the main parties the following: Ann Widdecombe, John Prescott, Nadine Dorries, Ken Livingstone…and Boris Johnson.
Jess Phillips either fits into this category or likes to think she does. But all those on that list above, with the exception of Livingstone, have served on their party’s front bench. And he was Mayor of London.
The odds were therefore always against Phillips making progress in Labour’s leadership election. Without that experience, our take is that she had to stand for a very clearly-defined policy platform to break through. It’s very difficult to see what that was. She was clearly a candidate of the non-hard left, but didn’t really flesh out that position: she got noticed mainly for U-turning over rejoining the EU. Phillips is clearly passionate about homelessness but that single issue alone is not a prospectus.
Maybe she will now knuckle down, as Johnson had to do for a period, to work on the party’s front bench. And maybe not.
Insofar as Phillips stands for something other than telling it as she sees it, this seems to be claiming moral superiority over the Conservatives – on the ground that they are a bunch of out-of-touch toffs, while she is an authentic woman of the people.
Leave aside for a moment the to-and-fro about her middle class background. What’s more to the point is that this type of politics is out of date – exploded by the Tory breach of the Blue Wall, and the visibility of new Conservative working class MPs. And of old ones like Eddie Hughes, who seconded the Queen’s Speech.
Phillips will have to do more to break through. Maybe it will be to take clearer and bigger policy positions as backbencher. Perhaps it will be to toil away as Shadow Minister for Something-or-Other. Maybe it will be neither – and that, as for Dorries, Widdecombe, Ed Balls and now (see above) Alan Johnson, her future is Reality TV.


conservativehome--2020-01-22--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Migration Advisory Committee

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Migration Advisory Committee – and more

Seven years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
Since then , the figures have varied , and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts .
Nonetheless , it remains the case that , since it took office in 2010 , our Party has punched beneath its weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don ’ t apply in the same number as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ Parliament ’ s Information Authority is seeking to recruit a Non-Executive Director to join them for meetings related to the Parliamentary Estate , our building information and data , and the Restoration and Renewal programme .
It is expected that the successful candidate would attend up to 15 meetings per year , including quarterly Authority meetings , additional Authority meetings related to the programme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associated discussions as required .
The 15 days to include all preparatory work for those meetings.
” “ The Greater Lincolnshire LEP works with the public , private and voluntary sectors to drive sustainable economic growth .
We help our businesses increase productivity and innovation , create new employment opportunities , and develop infrastructure solutions that support this .
We are the voice of the local business community , ensuring that the economic interests of the area are properly represented .
We believe that Greater Lincolnshire is alive with opportunities and a truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do business and is emerging as the intelligent choice for investors.
” Time : Around four days per month .
“ CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry .
CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy , and works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met .
CITB seeks to create the culture and conditions that will deliver new ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating a demand in construction for more skills , new skills and higher level skills .
CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.
” “ The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board .
They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident , clear and consistent leadership .
They will also lead the Agency ’ s relationship with the Secretary of State for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who they will meet on a regular basis .
The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England , helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England ’ s core mission .
The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming… ” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Northern Ireland Office ( NIO ) is seeking to appoint a Lead Non-Executive Director to its Management Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Board Member , the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department ’ s Audit and Risk Committee .
The successful candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2020 .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office .
They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice , support , constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department ’ s work.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area ’ s economic success .
The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders , while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government .
We want you to have a voice , make a difference and give something back to the region .
The Chair must come from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website ) .
” Time : Minimum one day per week on average .
“ The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee .
The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC ’ s work and is responsible for overseeing the operation and output of the Committee , in collaboration with the Home Office Secretariat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ hands-on ” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat .
The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee , across the Secretariat and with government departments.
” “ The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership ( LEP ) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans .
The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership , and through this latest round of appointments , have committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the LEP board in 2020 .
Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term , we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background , experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale .
”

Seven years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
Since then, the figures have varied, and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that, since it took office in 2010, our Party has punched beneath its weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Information Authority – Non-Executive Director
“Parliament’s Information Authority is seeking to recruit a Non-Executive Director to join them for meetings related to the Parliamentary Estate, our building information and data, and the Restoration and Renewal programme. It is expected that the successful candidate would attend up to 15 meetings per year, including quarterly Authority meetings, additional Authority meetings related to the programme or associated work and to join other associated discussions as required. The 15 days to include all preparatory work for those meetings.”
Time: Up to 15 meetings a year.
Remuneration: £9,000 per annum plus reasonable travel expenses.
Closes: 19 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Greater Lincolnshire LEP works with the public, private and voluntary sectors to drive sustainable economic growth. We help our businesses increase productivity and innovation, create new employment opportunities, and develop infrastructure solutions that support this. We are the voice of the local business community, ensuring that the economic interests of the area are properly represented. We believe that Greater Lincolnshire is alive with opportunities and a truly great place to live, work and do business and is emerging as the intelligent choice for investors.”
Time: Around four days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 20 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Construction Industry Training Board – Board Trustee
“CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry. CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy, and works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met. CITB seeks to create the culture and conditions that will deliver new ways of working, embracing new technologies, creating a demand in construction for more skills, new skills and higher level skills. CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.”
Time: Around 16 hours per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 28 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Homes England – Chair
“The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board. They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident, clear and consistent leadership. They will also lead the Agency’s relationship with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who they will meet on a regular basis. The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England, helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England’s core mission. The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming…”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £95,000 per annum.
Closes: 31 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Office – Lead Non-Executive Director
“The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) is seeking to appoint a Lead Non-Executive Director to its Management Board. In addition to his/her responsibilities as a Board Member, the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department’s Audit and Risk Committee. The successful candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2020. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office. They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice, support, constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department’s work.”
Time: Approx. 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £12,500 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 03 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Solent Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area’s economic success. The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders, while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government. We want you to have a voice, make a difference and give something back to the region. The Chair must come from the private sector (Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website).”
Time: Minimum one day per week on average.
Remuneration: ‘Reasonable expenses’.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Migration Advisory Committee – Chair
“The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee. The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC’s work and is responsible for overseeing the operation and output of the Committee, in collaboration with the Home Office Secretariat. To date, the MAC has operated “hands-on” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat. The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee, across the Secretariat and with government departments.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans. The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership, and through this latest round of appointments, have committed to achieve 50% female representation on the LEP board in 2020. Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term, we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background, experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence expenses.
Closes: 29 February


conservativehome--2020-01-22--Johnson’s philosophy owes far more to Oakeshott than to Scruton

“ Why are you a conservative ?
” Many of us are somehow sure we are conservative , but find the answer to that question ( which itself sounds unconservative ) hard to put into words , and tend to defer any attempt to do so .
Roger Scruton never seemed to have the slightest difficulty expounding the conservative case , and often did so in such a way as to cause maximum offence to those who disagreed with him .
He was a man of astounding eloquence , happy , as he himself once put it , Many eminent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his death earlier this month , and some have suggested he leaves an irreplaceable gap , with conservatives in this country deprived of their last philosopher .
This is ridiculous .
There is a kind of conservative journalist who revels in thinking of himself ( most of them are male ) as a victim , struggling to gain a hearing in a world dominated by authoritarian liberals who brook no dissent and impose their stifling orthodoxy through the universities , the BBC and the rest of the media .
One may note in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somehow contrive to pour forth , despite their persecution by the liberals , a constant stream of articles and other forms of comment .
For them , it is natural to regard the death of Scruton , champion of high culture and of foxhunting , as confirmation that his pessimistic rural conservatism , which in their eyes is the only conservatism , is now pretty much extinct .
This kind of thinking is centuries old .
Nor is it without truth .
The Dissolution of the Monasteries , the French Revolution and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have filled conservatives with an understandable sense of doom .
Pessimistic conservatives are never without evidence for their beliefs .
When the country is prospering , an ignoble triumphalism becomes apparent , as old customs are carried away by a tide of new money splashed about by new men who have no reverence for the past and no idea how to behave .
When things are going badly , the pessimist sees his belief that the world is going to hell in a handcart confirmed .
But such pessimism is not the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greatest conservative philosopher of modern times , leaves one feeling bucked and amused , not despondent , even when he is exposing , as in his great essay Rationalism in Politics ( 1947 ) , the predicament of that fashionable figure , the Rationalist : Oakeshott does not give answers , but what conservative expects answers ?
We do not want to be told what to do , or to pretend , with insufferable omniscience , that we have developed a system of ideas – an ideology – which is equal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know in every circumstance what in logic is the correct thing to do .
Instead we immerse ourselves in a tradition of behaviour .
As Oakeshott says , Against that dictum can be quoted isolated examples of people who came from unprofessional backgrounds yet reached the top .
But even they learned much from colleagues steeped in the profession in question .
Oakeshott describes life as it is actually lived , rather than life as it might be lived if it conformed to abstract principles .
The present Prime Minister is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he learned much , and was educated at colleges – Eton and Balliol – which have long prepared their pupils for public life , and which have sought continually , as great institutions do , to modernise themselves , so as to remain at the centre of national life .
Johnson is a good debater in part because from an early age he took pleasure in debating , often in an intensely competitive spirit , against his contemporaries .
Already he was practising politics , on minor stages where mistakes did not matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which swept him to victory .
He had the grave fault of being unwilling to prepare himself for these contests anything like as thoroughly as he should have done .
In vain his teachers tried to correct this fault .
Johnson instead developed , to an unusual degree , a capacity to think on his feet , and to use what information he had managed to scrape together at the last moment .
He grew prepared for being unprepared , and this lent his performances an ease and spontaneity which delighted audiences , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should have been worked out in advance .
The most dangerous moments for a Prime Minister are generally those when something unexpected happens , and he or she has to decide very quickly how to react .
Johnson will undoubtedly get some of these decisions wrong , but at least he will not be frightened of having to make up his mind in a hurry , on the basis of inadequate information .
Rationalists , as defined by Oakeshott , detest him .
They think he has no right to have done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for he has refused to work everything out from first principles to which he clings with rigid correctness through thick and thin , but has instead allowed the flexible development of a strategy founded on experience , circumstance , instinct and intuition .
He has put himself in a position where he can change his mind , because he does not suffer from the delusion that he has discovered the one true path .
At this point the pessimist retorts that all Prime Ministers , and all governments , let you down in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
But consider this remark by David Hume ( 1711-1776 ) , quoted by Ian Gilmour in his admirable work The Body Politic , published in 1969 : The determination of the Johnson Conservatives to steal Labour ’ s clothes , to talk in the Labour style about the importance of equality , could also end in their making “ converts of themselves by their hypocrisy ” .
And that will annoy the Rationalists even more .
It will seem so unfair that the hypocrite Johnson should somehow turn out to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters than Jeremy Corbyn ever was .
Johnson did not , as editor of The Spectator , publish more than a handful of pieces by Scruton , and is neither a foxhunter nor a pessimist .
He is a Conservative who has won both a referendum and a general election , and if he can avoid degenerating into a technocrat , could turn out to be the most Oakeshottian Prime Minister this country has known .

“Why are you a conservative?” Many of us are somehow sure we are conservative, but find the answer to that question (which itself sounds unconservative) hard to put into words, and tend to defer any attempt to do so.
Roger Scruton never seemed to have the slightest difficulty expounding the conservative case, and often did so in such a way as to cause maximum offence to those who disagreed with him. He was a man of astounding eloquence, happy, as he himself once put it,
“to write rude and disgraceful things about the intellectual establishment… I was free to say some really enjoyable and unpleasant things and thereby give pleasure to others.”
Many eminent figures have paid tribute to him since his death earlier this month, and some have suggested he leaves an irreplaceable gap, with conservatives in this country deprived of their last philosopher.
This is ridiculous. There is a kind of conservative journalist who revels in thinking of himself (most of them are male) as a victim, struggling to gain a hearing in a world dominated by authoritarian liberals who brook no dissent and impose their stifling orthodoxy through the universities, the BBC and the rest of the media.
One may note in passing that many of these Tory pessimists somehow contrive to pour forth, despite their persecution by the liberals, a constant stream of articles and other forms of comment.
For them, it is natural to regard the death of Scruton, champion of high culture and of foxhunting, as confirmation that his pessimistic rural conservatism, which in their eyes is the only conservatism, is now pretty much extinct.
This kind of thinking is centuries old. Nor is it without truth. The Dissolution of the Monasteries, the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution are among the events which have filled conservatives with an understandable sense of doom.
Pessimistic conservatives are never without evidence for their beliefs. When the country is prospering, an ignoble triumphalism becomes apparent, as old customs are carried away by a tide of new money splashed about by new men who have no reverence for the past and no idea how to behave.
When things are going badly, the pessimist sees his belief that the world is going to hell in a handcart confirmed.
But such pessimism is not the only form of conservatism. Michael Oakeshott, the greatest conservative philosopher of modern times, leaves one feeling bucked and amused, not despondent, even when he is exposing, as in his great essay Rationalism in Politics (1947), the predicament of that fashionable figure, the Rationalist:
“Like a man whose only language is Esperanto, he has no means of knowing that the world did not begin in the 20th century.”
Oakeshott does not give answers, but what conservative expects answers? We do not want to be told what to do, or to pretend, with insufferable omniscience, that we have developed a system of ideas – an ideology – which is equal to every eventuality, and will enable us to know in every circumstance what in logic is the correct thing to do.
Instead we immerse ourselves in a tradition of behaviour. As Oakeshott says,
“the Rationalist never understands that it takes about two generations of practice to learn a profession; indeed, he does everything he can to destroy the possibility of such an education, believing it to be mischievous.”
Against that dictum can be quoted isolated examples of people who came from unprofessional backgrounds yet reached the top. But even they learned much from colleagues steeped in the profession in question. Oakeshott describes life as it is actually lived, rather than life as it might be lived if it conformed to abstract principles.
The present Prime Minister is the son of a politician, from whom he learned much, and was educated at colleges – Eton and Balliol – which have long prepared their pupils for public life, and which have sought continually, as great institutions do, to modernise themselves, so as to remain at the centre of national life.
Johnson is a good debater in part because from an early age he took pleasure in debating, often in an intensely competitive spirit, against his contemporaries. Already he was practising politics, on minor stages where mistakes did not matter, could indeed provoke gales of laughter which swept him to victory.
He had the grave fault of being unwilling to prepare himself for these contests anything like as thoroughly as he should have done. In vain his teachers tried to correct this fault.
Johnson instead developed, to an unusual degree, a capacity to think on his feet, and to use what information he had managed to scrape together at the last moment.
He grew prepared for being unprepared, and this lent his performances an ease and spontaneity which delighted audiences, while annoying those who thought everything could and should have been worked out in advance.
The most dangerous moments for a Prime Minister are generally those when something unexpected happens, and he or she has to decide very quickly how to react.
Johnson will undoubtedly get some of these decisions wrong, but at least he will not be frightened of having to make up his mind in a hurry, on the basis of inadequate information.
Rationalists, as defined by Oakeshott, detest him. They think he has no right to have done as well as he has done, for he has refused to work everything out from first principles to which he clings with rigid correctness through thick and thin, but has instead allowed the flexible development of a strategy founded on experience, circumstance, instinct and intuition.
He has put himself in a position where he can change his mind, because he does not suffer from the delusion that he has discovered the one true path.
At this point the pessimist retorts that all Prime Ministers, and all governments, let you down in the end. And that is quite true. But consider this remark by David Hume (1711-1776), quoted by Ian Gilmour in his admirable work The Body Politic, published in 1969:
“The Tories have been so long obliged to talk in the republican style, that they seem to have made converts of themselves by their hypocrisy, and to have embraced the sentiments, as well as language, of their adversaries.”
The determination of the Johnson Conservatives to steal Labour’s clothes, to talk in the Labour style about the importance of equality, could also end in their making “converts of themselves by their hypocrisy”.
And that will annoy the Rationalists even more. It will seem so unfair that the hypocrite Johnson should somehow turn out to be more truly on the side of Labour voters than Jeremy Corbyn ever was.
Johnson did not, as editor of The Spectator, publish more than a handful of pieces by Scruton, and is neither a foxhunter nor a pessimist.
He is a Conservative who has won both a referendum and a general election, and if he can avoid degenerating into a technocrat, could turn out to be the most Oakeshottian Prime Minister this country has known.


conservativehome--2020-01-22--Daniel Hannan: I wave farewell to the EU in my last column for this site as an MEP

Daniel Hannan is an MEP for South-East England , and a journalist , author , and broadcaster .
His most recent book is What Next : How to Get the Best from Brexit .
This is it : the last column I ’ ll write for ConservativeHome as an MEP .
We were supposed to leave the EU at the end of March 2019 .
Then at the end of June .
Then at the end of October .
Now , at last , it is happening .
In nine days ’ time , we ’ ll be out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ If this were played upon a stage now , ” says the poet , “ I could condemn it as an improbable fiction.
” The rise in the Conservative Party ’ s vote from 8.8 per cent at the European election in May ( our worst ever result ) to 43.6 per cent less than eight months later has no precedent .
If anyone foresaw the turbulence , the vertiginous swings , the sudden reversals that followed the Brexit vote , they kept very quiet .
I certainly didn ’ t .
Several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely off-guard .
The first was the radicalisation of many Remainers .
Euro-federalism had never really been a thing in Britain .
To be sure , there were plenty of people who thought we should stay in the EU , but their reasoning had a pragmatic , faute-de-mieux quality .
The usual argument for staying in was along the lines of “ Yes , the EU may be expensive , remote , meddlesome and all the rest of it , but we ’ re in now , and pulling out would be disruptive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt a visceral loyalty to Brussels , who responded emotionally to the 12-star flag , who identified as European , was tiny – until the referendum .
When people see the same issue leading the news day after day , though , they begin to take sides .
As time passes , the side they have taken starts to become a part of their identity .
In due course , they polarise , taking up harder and harder positions , more from tribal instinct than from changed circumstances .
It happened on both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but mainly after it .
Leavers who had argued for years for “ a common market not a common government ” were suddenly arguing that a common market was “ not Brexit ” .
Reluctant Remainers became passionate Europeans : the blue-and-gold flag , largely unseen in the UK before the campaign , began to flap at rallies .
The handful of us who tried to argue for an EFTA-style compromise were shot down by both sides .
The radicalisation of the Remainers was the more striking .
Until 2016 , most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I used to wince , during the 1990s , when Eurosceptic meetings were attended by angry , shouty people dressed as John Bull .
After 2016 , though , there was a polar switch .
All of a sudden , the angry , shouty people were standing outside Parliament in blue-and-gold berets .
The second thing I failed to foresee was Theresa May ’ s charmless and inert premiership .
In the immediate aftermath of the result , the almost universal assumption was that the Government would be led by someone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I suspect the tone would have been very different .
There would have been no sulkiness about recognising the rights of EU nationals in the UK .
There would , I am pretty sure , have been a swift but soft Brexit , reflecting the narrowness of the vote .
But the new Prime Minister had no room for manoeuvre .
Having voted Remain , she had to prove her credentials .
She therefore overcompensated , digging in on relatively trivial issues – the timeframe , for example – while conceding on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Again and again , she insisted on making the whole negotiation about border control – sacrificing even sovereignty to that end .
By the final days of her premiership , she was so desperate to get her deal through the Commons that she was conceding a second referendum .
My third miscalculation was failing to see how well Corbyn would do in the 2017 general election .
It never occurred to me that the country would vote for a Marxist who sided against Britain in every quarrel .
It is worth asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disqualifications that counted against Jezza in 2019 were on display in 2017 : his support for Hamas and the IRA , his anti-patriotism , his links with anti-Semites , his unaffordable spending pledges .
Why didn ’ t he lose in the same way ?
Two reasons : first , he fought the 2017 election promising to respect the referendum result ; second , he was against Theresa May .
Which brings me to my fourth mistake .
I assumed that , after that election defeat , the Prime Minister would stand down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have left with her party ’ s thanks ringing in her ears .
But , incredibly , she refused to budge .
We were thus stuck with an anti-Brexit majority in parliament , an incapable Prime Minister and an EU that couldn ’ t believe its luck .
While all this was going on , the norms and precedents that sustained our system of government began to break down .
Completely outré ideas – that referendums don ’ t count unless an absolute majority of eligible voters back something , that Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous promises to respect the verdict were void – began to be voiced , not just by online nutters , but by Labour MPs , columnists , academics and peers .
When the Speaker of the Commons disregarded his officials to rule in a flagrantly partisan way , a large minority the country cheered .
By the time May finally stepped down , I was concerned about the future of our parliamentary democracy .
How long ago all that seems now .
Boris Johnson revived his party ’ s fortunes , won a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Brexit Bill has been passed , the Stormont assembly is back up and running and an ambitious democratic programme is being put before MPs .
Six months ago , just before Johnson was elected , I called in this slot for the democratisation of our administrative state , and suggested putting Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings in charge .
That is now happening .
When I think that it might have happened in 2016 , and that we might have been spared the anguish of the intervening 43 months , I almost @ @ @ @

Daniel Hannan is an MEP for South-East England, and a journalist, author, and broadcaster. His most recent book is What Next: How to Get the Best from Brexit.
This is it: the last column I’ll write for ConservativeHome as an MEP. We were supposed to leave the EU at the end of March 2019. Then at the end of June. Then at the end of October. Now, at last, it is happening. In nine days’ time, we’ll be out.
What an extraordinary three years. “If this were played upon a stage now,” says the poet, “I could condemn it as an improbable fiction.” The rise in the Conservative Party’s vote from 8.8 per cent at the European election in May (our worst ever result) to 43.6 per cent less than eight months later has no precedent. If anyone foresaw the turbulence, the vertiginous swings, the sudden reversals that followed the Brexit vote, they kept very quiet.
I certainly didn’t. Several things that happened after 2016 caught me completely off-guard. The first was the radicalisation of many Remainers. Euro-federalism had never really been a thing in Britain. To be sure, there were plenty of people who thought we should stay in the EU, but their reasoning had a pragmatic, faute-de-mieux quality. The usual argument for staying in was along the lines of “Yes, the EU may be expensive, remote, meddlesome and all the rest of it, but we’re in now, and pulling out would be disruptive”. The number of people who felt a visceral loyalty to Brussels, who responded emotionally to the 12-star flag, who identified as European, was tiny – until the referendum.
When people see the same issue leading the news day after day, though, they begin to take sides. As time passes, the side they have taken starts to become a part of their identity. In due course, they polarise, taking up harder and harder positions, more from tribal instinct than from changed circumstances.
It happened on both sides – partly during the campaign, but mainly after it. Leavers who had argued for years for “a common market not a common government” were suddenly arguing that a common market was “not Brexit”. Reluctant Remainers became passionate Europeans: the blue-and-gold flag, largely unseen in the UK before the campaign, began to flap at rallies. The handful of us who tried to argue for an EFTA-style compromise were shot down by both sides.
The radicalisation of the Remainers was the more striking. Until 2016, most of the loons had been on my side. I used to wince, during the 1990s, when Eurosceptic meetings were attended by angry, shouty people dressed as John Bull. After 2016, though, there was a polar switch. All of a sudden, the angry, shouty people were standing outside Parliament in blue-and-gold berets.
The second thing I failed to foresee was Theresa May’s charmless and inert premiership. In the immediate aftermath of the result, the almost universal assumption was that the Government would be led by someone who had voted Leave. Had that happened, I suspect the tone would have been very different. There would have been no sulkiness about recognising the rights of EU nationals in the UK. There would, I am pretty sure, have been a swift but soft Brexit, reflecting the narrowness of the vote.
But the new Prime Minister had no room for manoeuvre. Having voted Remain, she had to prove her credentials. She therefore overcompensated, digging in on relatively trivial issues – the timeframe, for example – while conceding on important ones, such as trade policy. Again and again, she insisted on making the whole negotiation about border control – sacrificing even sovereignty to that end. By the final days of her premiership, she was so desperate to get her deal through the Commons that she was conceding a second referendum.
My third miscalculation was failing to see how well Corbyn would do in the 2017 general election. It never occurred to me that the country would vote for a Marxist who sided against Britain in every quarrel.
It is worth asking what happened. After all, the disqualifications that counted against Jezza in 2019 were on display in 2017: his support for Hamas and the IRA, his anti-patriotism, his links with anti-Semites, his unaffordable spending pledges. Why didn’t he lose in the same way? Two reasons: first, he fought the 2017 election promising to respect the referendum result; second, he was against Theresa May.
Which brings me to my fourth mistake. I assumed that, after that election defeat, the Prime Minister would stand down. Had she done so, she would have left with her party’s thanks ringing in her ears. But, incredibly, she refused to budge. We were thus stuck with an anti-Brexit majority in parliament, an incapable Prime Minister and an EU that couldn’t believe its luck.
While all this was going on, the norms and precedents that sustained our system of government began to break down. Completely outré ideas – that referendums don’t count unless an absolute majority of eligible voters back something, that Russian agents had tipped the result, that previous promises to respect the verdict were void – began to be voiced, not just by online nutters, but by Labour MPs, columnists, academics and peers. When the Speaker of the Commons disregarded his officials to rule in a flagrantly partisan way, a large minority the country cheered. By the time May finally stepped down, I was concerned about the future of our parliamentary democracy.
How long ago all that seems now. Boris Johnson revived his party’s fortunes, won a stunning victory and restored normal government, The Brexit Bill has been passed, the Stormont assembly is back up and running and an ambitious democratic programme is being put before MPs.
Six months ago, just before Johnson was elected, I called in this slot for the democratisation of our administrative state, and suggested putting Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings in charge.
That is now happening. When I think that it might have happened in 2016, and that we might have been spared the anguish of the intervening 43 months, I almost want to weep.


conservativehome--2020-01-22--Ryan Bourne: The perils awaiting Conservatives who seek to reduce inequality

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Inequalities of wealth and income in the U.K. are bad and the Conservatives should embrace left-wing policies to reduce them .
So concludes Tim Pitt , a former adviser to Savid Javid and Philip Hammond , writing for the Social Market Foundation .
As with most Tory egalitarian calls , Thatcherites are his boogeymen .
One Nation Conservatives have always cared about inequalities threatening our political and social fabric , he says , but were “ drowned out ” by economic liberals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pitt considers the authoritative evidence in : inequality hinders social mobility , impairs long-term economic growth , and undermines political stability .
The growth-chasing , equal opportunity-declaring Thatcherites were thus wrong on their own terms .
It is time to Make Economic Conservatism One Nation Again .
Much ( besides this potted history ) perturbed me in Pitt ’ s essay : the constant conflation of income and wealth inequality , the very partial reading of empirical literatures , and the shifting yardsticks to judge whether inequality is “ too high ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparisons are used , showing the UK at the high end ; for wealth inequality , no cross-country comparisons are forthcoming ( hint : the UK has unspectacular levels of wealth inequality internationally , with a Gini coefficient lower than in Germany , Sweden or Denmark ) .
But Pitt ignores the fundamental disagreement most economic liberals have with him about how to think about an income or wealth distribution .
He talks about these as if they are themselves independent variables , that can both be easily manipulated and which then determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Nobel prize winning economist , I think this gets the story about inequality , and what it means , back-to-front .
When we talk of “ inequality , ” what we are really describing is a snapshot , summary statistic of the distribution of wealth or income across the economy .
This is itself shaped by millions of past and present trades , investment , business , and education decisions , inheritances , policies , demographic trends and more .
“ Inequality , ” then , “ is not so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social processes , as a consequence , ” as Deaton explains .
Three implications follow from this pretty uncontroversial observation .
First , that inequality can not be denounced “ good ” or “ bad ” per se , without assessing what has caused it .
Second , that “ solutions ” to inequality are not created equal .
Some might unpick bad causes , such as ill-gotten gains from cronyism ; others might deter activity enriching us all .
Third , saying “ reducing inequality ” is central to your economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a willingness to trade-off other economic goals , whether reducing poverty , raising growth , or more .
Take a cross-country example .
According to Credit Suisse , Sweden , the U.S. and Russia all have near-identical levels of wealth inequality ( Gini coefficients of 86.5 , 85.2 , and 87.5 , respectively ) .
This shows that wealth inequality is a useless metric for any reasonable conception of economic health .
But thinking through the causes is illuminating .
In Sweden , high wealth inequality is driven in part by a hugely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean the middle-classes have much less relative need and means ( due to high taxes ) to save and build up private assets .
That government entitlements are non-heritable ( relatively more of the poor ’ s wealth being tied up in them ) also tends to widen measured private wealth inequality further .
So though a big welfare state might reduce income inequality , it tends to increase private wealth inequality .
In the U.S. , high levels of wealth inequality are instead driven significantly by income inequality , in turn arising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sports stars , and CEOs often lead “ winners take all ” markets , earning high incomes and building up assets .
Yes , this is not the whole story .
There ’ s cronyism and lack of competition in some markets too .
But it should go without saying that this is a far less significant driver than in Russia , where wealth inequality often reflects corruption ( indeed , very high wealth inequality is common in crony-capitalist economies ) .
By not analysing what drives inequality ( in the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making big policy mistakes in reducing it .
Does Pitt really think wealth inequality in Sweden is as worrisome as Russia , and necessitates similar responses ?
Surely not .
Blanket denouncements ( inequality bad , equality good ) make one susceptible both to ignoring obvious follow-up questions and to wishful thinking about solutions .
If income and wealth inequality are “ too high , ” as Pitt claims , then what are the right levels ?
If reducing inequality would , in his utopia , be a central aim of government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against other goals ?
He calls for more redistribution , for example .
But what if this widened wealth inequality while lowering income inequality ?
Consider another pertinent example .
A government social insurance system for social care would widen wealth inequality , by protecting the assets of wealthier social care users with much higher life expectancies .
Would Pitt reject this policy given this consequence ?
Or would other considerations dominate ?
To avoid such tough questions , egalitarians tend to reach for bad cross-country studies suggesting that reducing inequality is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower inequality is “ good for growth ” is central to Pitt ’ s particular case .
Now , there are big problems with this degree of aggregation and ignoring within-country stories .
China has become much more unequal as it has liberalised , but this has clearly been good , on net .
In other countries , rising cronyism has seen both growth-sapping while widening inequality .
Generalising across countries in terms of implications for policy is therefore very dangerous .
Delve deep into the underlying OECD paper and you see already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this paper finds inequality and growth negatively statistically associated .
But the results make clear this is about inequality between the poorest and the middle-classes .
The paper explicitly says : “ no evidence is found that those with high incomes pulling away from the rest of the population harms growth.
” Yet Pitt ’ s policy prescriptions are highly focused on taxing the rich more .
One Nation Tory-types likewise reach for economic explanations for Brexit and Donald Trump , buying into the idea this “ rise of populism ” is caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Britain really less stable today than during the 1970s industrial strife , when inequality was lower ?
That ’ s subjective .
But we are certainly happier today .
Again , such sweeping statements about equality ’ s benefits are pretty dangerous as a guide .
Historically , mass mobilisation war , communism , state failure and plague have been necessary to cause big reductions in economic inequality .
This hardly seems likely to improve political stability .
In all then , Pitt ’ s arguments for a new Tory egalitarianism are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key driver of slow growth or political dysfunction here is weak .
And in failing to analyse inequality as the end result of complex economic forces , his proposed policy agenda seems muddled , at best , and highly risky at worst .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Inequalities of wealth and income in the U.K. are bad and the Conservatives should embrace left-wing policies to reduce them. So concludes Tim Pitt, a former adviser to Savid Javid and Philip Hammond, writing for the Social Market Foundation.
As with most Tory egalitarian calls, Thatcherites are his boogeymen. One Nation Conservatives have always cared about inequalities threatening our political and social fabric, he says, but were “drowned out” by economic liberals from the 1980s onwards. Now, Pitt considers the authoritative evidence in: inequality hinders social mobility, impairs long-term economic growth, and undermines political stability. The growth-chasing, equal opportunity-declaring Thatcherites were thus wrong on their own terms. It is time to Make Economic Conservatism One Nation Again.
Much (besides this potted history) perturbed me in Pitt’s essay: the constant conflation of income and wealth inequality, the very partial reading of empirical literatures, and the shifting yardsticks to judge whether inequality is “too high”. On income, for example, OECD comparisons are used, showing the UK at the high end; for wealth inequality, no cross-country comparisons are forthcoming (hint: the UK has unspectacular levels of wealth inequality internationally, with a Gini coefficient lower than in Germany, Sweden or Denmark).
But Pitt ignores the fundamental disagreement most economic liberals have with him about how to think about an income or wealth distribution. He talks about these as if they are themselves independent variables, that can both be easily manipulated and which then determine other economic outcomes. Like Angus Deaton, the Nobel prize winning economist, I think this gets the story about inequality, and what it means, back-to-front.
When we talk of “inequality,” what we are really describing is a snapshot, summary statistic of the distribution of wealth or income across the economy. This is itself shaped by millions of past and present trades, investment, business, and education decisions, inheritances, policies, demographic trends and more. “Inequality,” then, “is not so much a cause of economic, political, and social processes, as a consequence,” as Deaton explains.
Three implications follow from this pretty uncontroversial observation. First, that inequality cannot be denounced “good” or “bad” per se, without assessing what has caused it. Second, that “solutions” to inequality are not created equal. Some might unpick bad causes, such as ill-gotten gains from cronyism; others might deter activity enriching us all. Third, saying “reducing inequality” is central to your economic platform, causes be damned, shows a willingness to trade-off other economic goals, whether reducing poverty, raising growth, or more.
Take a cross-country example. According to Credit Suisse, Sweden, the U.S. and Russia all have near-identical levels of wealth inequality (Gini coefficients of 86.5, 85.2, and 87.5, respectively). This shows that wealth inequality is a useless metric for any reasonable conception of economic health. But thinking through the causes is illuminating.
In Sweden, high wealth inequality is driven in part by a hugely expansive welfare state. Generous government entitlements mean the middle-classes have much less relative need and means (due to high taxes) to save and build up private assets. That government entitlements are non-heritable (relatively more of the poor’s wealth being tied up in them) also tends to widen measured private wealth inequality further. So though a big welfare state might reduce income inequality, it tends to increase private wealth inequality.
In the U.S., high levels of wealth inequality are instead driven significantly by income inequality, in turn arising from a globalised economy. Top entrepreneurs, sports stars, and CEOs often lead “winners take all” markets, earning high incomes and building up assets. Yes, this is not the whole story. There’s cronyism and lack of competition in some markets too. But it should go without saying that this is a far less significant driver than in Russia, where wealth inequality often reflects corruption (indeed, very high wealth inequality is common in crony-capitalist economies).
By not analysing what drives inequality (in the UK or elsewhere), you therefore risk making big policy mistakes in reducing it. Does Pitt really think wealth inequality in Sweden is as worrisome as Russia, and necessitates similar responses? Surely not. Blanket denouncements (inequality bad, equality good) make one susceptible both to ignoring obvious follow-up questions and to wishful thinking about solutions.
If income and wealth inequality are “too high,” as Pitt claims, then what are the right levels? If reducing inequality would, in his utopia, be a central aim of government, then how would he weigh its pursuit against other goals? He calls for more redistribution, for example. But what if this widened wealth inequality while lowering income inequality?
Consider another pertinent example. A government social insurance system for social care would widen wealth inequality, by protecting the assets of wealthier social care users with much higher life expectancies. Would Pitt reject this policy given this consequence? Or would other considerations dominate?
To avoid such tough questions, egalitarians tend to reach for bad cross-country studies suggesting that reducing inequality is “win-win.” One OECD paper claiming that lower inequality is “good for growth” is central to Pitt’s particular case.
Now, there are big problems with this degree of aggregation and ignoring within-country stories. China has become much more unequal as it has liberalised, but this has clearly been good, on net. In other countries, rising cronyism has seen both growth-sapping while widening inequality. Generalising across countries in terms of implications for policy is therefore very dangerous.
Delve deep into the underlying OECD paper and you see already how confusion can reign. Yes, this paper finds inequality and growth negatively statistically associated. But the results make clear this is about inequality between the poorest and the middle-classes. The paper explicitly says: “no evidence is found that those with high incomes pulling away from the rest of the population harms growth.” Yet Pitt’s policy prescriptions are highly focused on taxing the rich more.
One Nation Tory-types likewise reach for economic explanations for Brexit and Donald Trump, buying into the idea this “rise of populism” is caused by inequality breeding political instability. But is Britain really less stable today than during the 1970s industrial strife, when inequality was lower? That’s subjective. But we are certainly happier today. Again, such sweeping statements about equality’s benefits are pretty dangerous as a guide. Historically, mass mobilisation war, communism, state failure and plague have been necessary to cause big reductions in economic inequality. This hardly seems likely to improve political stability.
In all then, Pitt’s arguments for a new Tory egalitarianism are unconvincing. Evidence that inequality is a key driver of slow growth or political dysfunction here is weak. And in failing to analyse inequality as the end result of complex economic forces, his proposed policy agenda seems muddled, at best, and highly risky at worst.


conservativehome--2020-01-22--Building the Blue Wall: Mansfield

Building the Blue Wall: Mansfield

On Monday it was Walsall North .
Yesterday it was North East Derbyshire .
Today we turn to Mansfield in our series on some of the early success stories of constituencies where the Red Wall has been demolished .
This was another of the small number of seats the Conservatives gained in England in 2017 .
In 2015 there had been a Labour majority of over 5,000 .
But two years later this had been overturned .
Ben Bradley gained the seat for the Conservatives with a majority of 1,057 .
Then last month his majority increased to 16,306 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a marginal seat .
It is now Labour ’ s 200th target seat .
Yet this was a seat that Labour had held since 1922 .
It was a coal mining constituency – although being in Nottinghamshire these were working miners during the 1984 strike led by Arthur Scargill .
All that took place well before Bradley was born .
The decline in trade union membership is linked to the erosion in support for the Labour Party .
So coming in as a young MP in 2017 , representing such unfamiliar Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bradley .
Many of his new colleagues will now have the equivalent experience .
The traditional technique used by the Lib Dems to build up their strength was to start with gaining council seats – using “ pavement politics ” with lots of hyper local campaigns .
That would then provide a solid basis to win a Parliamentary seat .
The challenge for many of the new Tory MPs is to do this in reverse .
They have been elected with perhaps only a small number of plucky volunteers to assist them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ MP for West Bromwich West , does not have a single Conservative councillor in his constituency .
I suppose there are advantages about a clean slate .
He can talent spot among energetic and capable people , with a Conservative allegiance , who would like to take on the role .
But it is certainly a challenge .
Progress in council elections in Mansfield has been complicated by splits in the anti-Labour vote .
There is a group of independents on the Council – in the past an independent has been returned as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also polled well here – including in the 2015 General Election when they got 25 per cent of the vote .
In the 2015 local elections , there were two UKIP councillors elected in Mansfield , 16 Mansfield independents .
None for the Conservatives .
Full Council elections were held again last May , which was bad timing .
But the Conservatives did pick up a couple of seats .
They hope for a more dramatic breakthrough next year when it comes to county council seats .
Conservative Party membership in the constituency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 to around 250 now .
“ We ’ ve got lots of MPs now who don ’ t have a foundation in their local councils , but it ’ s possible to work backwards and use your national platform to win locally .
Many issues cross over both roles and you can campaign very effectively , or at least show what could be done if only there were Conservative Councillors to help you .
One of the big challenges , where Conservatives haven ’ t been visible for a long time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explaining what your local Party is about .
That ’ s a brand that can carry your local candidates a long way too , if you ’ re campaigning with one voice.
” When it comes to social media , Bradley feels it is important not just to transmit but also to respond – sometimes robustly when he is attacked by his opponents .
Despite representing many former Labour voters , Bradley does not favour a half-hearted Conservative message designed to placate those with residual socialist sympathies .
On issues like crime and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want tougher action .
Some aspects of the “ culture wars ” have traction – there is indignation at the way that freedom of speech is threatened and that baffling jargon is demanded rather than plain speaking .
The cost of living is particularly important for families on tight budgets – so lower Council Tax , Income Tax , and National Insurance would be important .
Bradley hopes that free trade deals after Brexit will result in lower grocery and clothing bills .
Transport is important – his constituents tend to be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popularity of Boris Johnson , the unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn , and the impatience to deliver a proper Brexit , were all significant electoral factors in Mansfield as elsewhere .
But there has been something deeper happening for many years before that .
Labour has been alienating the voters for a long time .
More recently the Conservatives have been winning their trust .

On Monday it was Walsall North. Yesterday it was North East Derbyshire. Today we turn to Mansfield in our series on some of the early success stories of constituencies where the Red Wall has been demolished. This was another of the small number of seats the Conservatives gained in England in 2017. In 2015 there had been a Labour majority of over 5,000. But two years later this had been overturned. Ben Bradley gained the seat for the Conservatives with a majority of 1,057. Then last month his majority increased to 16,306. That means nobody can claim it is still a marginal seat. It is now Labour’s 200th target seat. Yet this was a seat that Labour had held since 1922. It was a coal mining constituency – although being in Nottinghamshire these were working miners during the 1984 strike led by Arthur Scargill. All that took place well before Bradley was born. The decline in trade union membership is linked to the erosion in support for the Labour Party.
So coming in as a young MP in 2017, representing such unfamiliar Conservative territory, must have been daunting for Bradley. Many of his new colleagues will now have the equivalent experience. The traditional technique used by the Lib Dems to build up their strength was to start with gaining council seats – using “pavement politics” with lots of hyper local campaigns. That would then provide a solid basis to win a Parliamentary seat. The challenge for many of the new Tory MPs is to do this in reverse. They have been elected with perhaps only a small number of plucky volunteers to assist them. Shaun Bailey, the newly returned Conservative MP for West Bromwich West, does not have a single Conservative councillor in his constituency. I suppose there are advantages about a clean slate. He can talent spot among energetic and capable people, with a Conservative allegiance, who would like to take on the role. But it is certainly a challenge.
Progress in council elections in Mansfield has been complicated by splits in the anti-Labour vote. There is a group of independents on the Council – in the past an independent has been returned as the directly elected Mayor. UKIP has also polled well here – including in the 2015 General Election when they got 25 per cent of the vote. In the 2015 local elections, there were two UKIP councillors elected in Mansfield, 16 Mansfield independents. None for the Conservatives. Full Council elections were held again last May, which was bad timing. But the Conservatives did pick up a couple of seats. They hope for a more dramatic breakthrough next year when it comes to county council seats. Conservative Party membership in the constituency has increased from only a dozen before 2017 to around 250 now.
Bradley says:
“We’ve got lots of MPs now who don’t have a foundation in their local councils, but it’s possible to work backwards and use your national platform to win locally. Many issues cross over both roles and you can campaign very effectively, or at least show what could be done if only there were Conservative Councillors to help you. One of the big challenges, where Conservatives haven’t been visible for a long time, is building your “brand” and explaining what your local Party is about. That’s a brand that can carry your local candidates a long way too, if you’re campaigning with one voice.”
When it comes to social media, Bradley feels it is important not just to transmit but also to respond – sometimes robustly when he is attacked by his opponents.
Despite representing many former Labour voters, Bradley does not favour a half-hearted Conservative message designed to placate those with residual socialist sympathies. On issues like crime and welfare reform, most working class voters want tougher action. Some aspects of the “culture wars” have traction – there is indignation at the way that freedom of speech is threatened and that baffling jargon is demanded rather than plain speaking. The cost of living is particularly important for families on tight budgets – so lower Council Tax, Income Tax, and National Insurance would be important. Bradley hopes that free trade deals after Brexit will result in lower grocery and clothing bills. Transport is important – his constituents tend to be more concerned about buses than trains.
The popularity of Boris Johnson, the unpopularity of Jeremy Corbyn, and the impatience to deliver a proper Brexit, were all significant electoral factors in Mansfield as elsewhere. But there has been something deeper happening for many years before that. Labour has been alienating the voters for a long time. More recently the Conservatives have been winning their trust.


conservativehome--2020-01-23--WATCH: Royal Assent granted for the European Union Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020

European Union Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020 – known as the Brexit bill – is given Royal Assent https : //t.co/lmyu2ZIdEM @

“Order, order!”
European Union Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020 – known as the Brexit bill – is given Royal Assent https://t.co/lmyu2ZIdEM pic.twitter.com/Q5TyF04O7R
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) January 23, 2020