conservativehome--2020-08-14--Iain Dale: Butler and the police, and why Williamson will be feeling anxious this week

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
I have no problem in saying I am concerned at the number of times law abiding black people are stopped by the Police just because they happen to be driving a nice car , or indeed , for seemingly no apparent reason than the colour of their skin .
There ’ s no point in pretending we don ’ t have a problem here because we do .
However , we ’ re getting to the point where individual police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who is black for fear of being accused of racism .
Take the example this week , when Dawn Butler , the Labour MP , complained that she was in a car which was stopped because ( she thought ) the driver and she were black .
She released a video she had recorded on her phone to try to prove her point .
She had no complaint about how the police spoke to her , but nevertheless made it all about race .
The police patiently explained that the car was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the registration plate into the national computer and it came up with the fact that the car had come from North Yorkshire .
Once they had realised their mistake and typed in the correct number , they apologised and Butler and her friend went on their way .
She then released the video on social media , and there then descended a vicious war between those who defended the police and those who defended her .
The police have been quite robust in defending the officers concerned , and have pointed out they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their racial profile , given the car had tinted windows .
And so the debate goes on… I can imagine how anxious Gavin Williamson will have been this week .
The last thing he will have wanted is to go through what John Swinney , the Scottish Education Secretary , has been through in Scotland over the release of exam results .
Only 24 hours before the A Level results were released , the Education Secretary announced a major change and said that if a student was unhappy with their grades they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or take the result of their mock exam .
What he didn ’ t do is say that they could accept the predicted grades from their teacher .
This has caused outrage .
Teachers have said that they are best placed to predict grades , and in some cases they may well be right , but not in all .
Just at a human level , teachers will tend to give higher grades rather than lower ones .
Is a teacher really going to want to fail anyone ?
If they did so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own teaching abilities .
But in real life , people do fail .
I sympathise wholly with anyone who hasn ’ t got the grades they were expecting or felt they should have been awarded .
The trouble is , there is no perfect system .
OfQual has released figures which demonstrate that the overall grades this year are on a par , or even slightly better , than the last two years .
However , it appears that 35 per cent of grades have been downgraded from the teachers ’ predictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Scotland , but still a massive number , which will give the Government ’ s opponents a lot to chew on .
The students I feel for particularly are those from disadvantaged backgrounds , who may be at a higher risk of being underestimated because of the fact that their schools might not have had such great results in the past .
I genuinely hope universities and colleges are as flexible as they can be and will still accept those students who results might not quite have been what had been expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who didn ’ t get the grades they thought they would get to say that this happens each year .
Understandably , those who didn ’ t get the grades will seek to blame Covid .
My advice , for what it is worth is for them , to work bloody hard over the next two months and resit the exams in October .
I hope schools will provide every support for them to do so .
Reshuffle speculation is always rife at this time of year , and at least it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during August .
They can rest their pens this summer , though .
I am hearing that a reshuffle is being pencilled in for January and not before , on the basis that it will be quite clear by then which ministers need shifting or removing .
I doubt whether the names on the chopping board will change in the meantime , but I reckon there will be at least eight cabinet ministers who will be experiencing a few months of “ squeaky bum ” moments between now and then .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
I have no problem in saying I am concerned at the number of times law abiding black people are stopped by the Police just because they happen to be driving a nice car, or indeed, for seemingly no apparent reason than the colour of their skin. There’s no point in pretending we don’t have a problem here because we do.
However, we’re getting to the point where individual police officers now feel they can’t stop someone who is black for fear of being accused of racism.
Take the example this week, when Dawn Butler, the Labour MP, complained that she was in a car which was stopped because (she thought) the driver and she were black. She released a video she had recorded on her phone to try to prove her point. She had no complaint about how the police spoke to her, but nevertheless made it all about race.
The police patiently explained that the car was stopped because the officers had mistakenly typed the registration plate into the national computer and it came up with the fact that the car had come from North Yorkshire. Once they had realised their mistake and typed in the correct number, they apologised and Butler and her friend went on their way.
She then released the video on social media, and there then descended a vicious war between those who defended the police and those who defended her. The police have been quite robust in defending the officers concerned, and have pointed out they could not have stopped the car due to their racial profile, given the car had tinted windows. And so the debate goes on…
– – – – – – – – – –
I can imagine how anxious Gavin Williamson will have been this week. The last thing he will have wanted is to go through what John Swinney, the Scottish Education Secretary, has been through in Scotland over the release of exam results.
Only 24 hours before the A Level results were released, the Education Secretary announced a major change and said that if a student was unhappy with their grades they could either resit the exam in October or take the result of their mock exam. What he didn’t do is say that they could accept the predicted grades from their teacher.
This has caused outrage. Teachers have said that they are best placed to predict grades, and in some cases they may well be right, but not in all. Just at a human level, teachers will tend to give higher grades rather than lower ones. Is a teacher really going to want to fail anyone? If they did so, it would reflect on them and their own teaching abilities. But in real life, people do fail.
I sympathise wholly with anyone who hasn’t got the grades they were expecting or felt they should have been awarded. The trouble is, there is no perfect system. OfQual has released figures which demonstrate that the overall grades this year are on a par, or even slightly better, than the last two years.
However, it appears that 35 per cent of grades have been downgraded from the teachers’ predictions. That’s slightly less than in Scotland, but still a massive number, which will give the Government’s opponents a lot to chew on.
The students I feel for particularly are those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who may be at a higher risk of being underestimated because of the fact that their schools might not have had such great results in the past.
I genuinely hope universities and colleges are as flexible as they can be and will still accept those students who results might not quite have been what had been expected. It’s scant comfort to those who didn’t get the grades they thought they would get to say that this happens each year.
Understandably, those who didn’t get the grades will seek to blame Covid. My advice, for what it is worth is for them, to work bloody hard over the next two months and resit the exams in October. I hope schools will provide every support for them to do so.
– – – – – – – – – –
Reshuffle speculation is always rife at this time of year, and at least it gives political journalists something to write about during August.
They can rest their pens this summer, though. I am hearing that a reshuffle is being pencilled in for January and not before, on the basis that it will be quite clear by then which ministers need shifting or removing.
I doubt whether the names on the chopping board will change in the meantime, but I reckon there will be at least eight cabinet ministers who will be experiencing a few months of “squeaky bum” moments between now and then.


conservativehome--2020-08-14--John Bald: The lack of merit in A-level grading shows a misplaced belief in the power of statistical

John Bald: The lack of merit in A-level grading shows a misplaced belief in the power of statistical modelling

John Bald is a former Ofsted inspector and has written two books on the history of writing and spelling .
He is Vice President of the Conservative Education Society .
The famous expression , “ lies , damned lies , and statistics , ” is extended by statistical modelling to take in the future as well as the past , whether to predict it , or , in the case of Ofqual , to dictate it .
Those responsible , notably the Chair and Chief Regulator , are statisticians rather than specialists in education .
They have educational advice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main interest , as Roger Taylor , its Chair , put it , is “ How do you measure stuff ?
” When the “ stuff ” is the standards reached by children in school , and when evidence , such as analysis of the demands of questions in maths exams , or of the language used by candidates in English answers , shows that standards have fallen , there is a clear need to improve the way they are measured , and to apply a brake .
Examination reform has addressed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the corruption that had grown up around school-based assessments and coursework .
Shortly before its abolition , I had six clear examples in GCSE German alone , including teachers doing the coursework instead of pupils , and a grammar school head who destroyed the integrity of his staff by refusing to accept any grade below a pupil ’ s target , usually an A .
Honest people suffered , and a very senior Ofsted official – not an HMCI – told me it was so widespread that Ofsted could do nothing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before 1993 , A level grading was simple .
The top five per cent of entrants got an A , for example , and other grades were also decided on percentages of entry , with sample papers kept to ensure comparability between years .
A major change in 1993 doubled the proportion of A grades and destroyed the comparison papers , an act of vandalism without parallel in educational record-keeping .
It was perhaps no accident that this coincided with the redesignation of polytechnics are universities , setting the scene for Blair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the population to university at the expense of lifelong debt .
Michelle Donelan ’ s recent comments on this issue are a welcome sign that the tide has turned .
Her point that every student with the right grades should be able to obtain the right place is a matter of principle .
But what are the right grades , and how do we ensure that students receive them ?
Yesterday ’ s report on A levels shows record numbers of A* and A grades so claims that the government has set out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly untrue .
Donelan pointed out that more candidates got into their first choice of university this year than last .
Nevertheless , schools and candidates can not be confident about having been graded on their merits .
One successful headteacher described the results as “ a dog ’ s dinner ” , blaming Ofqual for a statistical straitjacket that did not discriminate between subjects , seriously downgrading the school ’ s strengths in its specialist areas .
It had also ignored a substantial improvement in GCSE results among this year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis of earlier results .
Fortunately , Oxbridge had accepted all but one of the candidates who had received offers , and that case was pending decision .
Ofqual ’ s failure to discriminate accurately is founded on a misplaced belief in the power of statistical modelling , and a chronic failure in its leadership to pay sufficient attention to detail when measuring “ stuff ” .
We can expect hard cases to make headlines , and universities to do what they can to mitigate the most obvious injustices .
We can also @ @ @ @ @ @ @

John Bald is a former Ofsted inspector and has written two books on the history of writing and spelling. He is Vice President of the Conservative Education Society.
The famous expression, “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” is extended by statistical modelling to take in the future as well as the past, whether to predict it, or, in the case of Ofqual, to dictate it. Those responsible, notably the Chair and Chief Regulator, are statisticians rather than specialists in education. They have educational advice, some of it excellent, but their main interest, as Roger Taylor, its Chair, put it, is “How do you measure stuff?” When the “stuff” is the standards reached by children in school, and when evidence, such as analysis of the demands of questions in maths exams, or of the language used by candidates in English answers, shows that standards have fallen, there is a clear need to improve the way they are measured, and to apply a brake.
Examination reform has addressed the first part of the problem by cutting out the corruption that had grown up around school-based assessments and coursework. Shortly before its abolition, I had six clear examples in GCSE German alone, including teachers doing the coursework instead of pupils, and a grammar school head who destroyed the integrity of his staff by refusing to accept any grade below a pupil’s target, usually an A. Honest people suffered, and a very senior Ofsted official – not an HMCI – told me it was so widespread that Ofsted could do nothing about it.
The brake is another matter. Before 1993, A level grading was simple. The top five per cent of entrants got an A, for example, and other grades were also decided on percentages of entry, with sample papers kept to ensure comparability between years. A major change in 1993 doubled the proportion of A grades and destroyed the comparison papers, an act of vandalism without parallel in educational record-keeping. It was perhaps no accident that this coincided with the redesignation of polytechnics are universities, setting the scene for Blair’s disastrous target of sending half the population to university at the expense of lifelong debt. Michelle Donelan’s recent comments on this issue are a welcome sign that the tide has turned. Her point that every student with the right grades should be able to obtain the right place is a matter of principle. But what are the right grades, and how do we ensure that students receive them?
Yesterday’s report on A levels shows record numbers of A* and A grades so claims that the government has set out deliberately to penalise schools and teachers are clearly untrue. Donelan pointed out that more candidates got into their first choice of university this year than last.
Nevertheless, schools and candidates cannot be confident about having been graded on their merits. One successful headteacher described the results as “a dog’s dinner”, blaming Ofqual for a statistical straitjacket that did not discriminate between subjects, seriously downgrading the school’s strengths in its specialist areas. It had also ignored a substantial improvement in GCSE results among this year’s candidates, pulling them back on the basis of earlier results. Fortunately, Oxbridge had accepted all but one of the candidates who had received offers, and that case was pending decision.
Ofqual’s failure to discriminate accurately is founded on a misplaced belief in the power of statistical modelling, and a chronic failure in its leadership to pay sufficient attention to detail when measuring “stuff”. We can expect hard cases to make headlines, and universities to do what they can to mitigate the most obvious injustices. We can also expect an application for Judicial Review.


conservativehome--2020-08-14--Morgan Schondelmeier: State-directed research is no substitute for the marketplace of ideas

Morgan Schondelmeier is Head of External Affairs at the Adam Smith Institute .
While we find ourselves in “ unprecedented times ” it seems that the Government is increasingly dipping into precedent policies .
From revamping Milliband ’ s 2015 food advertising ban to proposing spending that would make Corbyn blush , the Government seems dead set on recycling old ideas .
So why then , if they can ’ t even think of particularly new policies , are they proposing that Government bureaucrats dream up scientific advancements ?
We saw in the spring budget the creation of a grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reinventing British science , technology and innovation through the creation of the British Advanced Research Projects Agency ( ARPA ) .
Just like the first ARPA was a response to the Soviet Union , this agency would be the answer to China ’ s state-sponsored technological progress , cementing Britain ’ s place on the global scientific stage .
But what is ARPA ?
In a new paper out this weekend by Professor Terence Kealey , the Adam Smith Institute looks at the history of the state directed research project from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the UK .
It ’ s yet another example of old ideas dying hard .
ARPA , soon to have a British sibling after being strongly championed by Dominic Cummings , was plucked from a project established in the United States during the 1950s .
In response to the Soviet ’ s launching Sputnik , Eisenhower established ARPA to fund pure scientific research – in the hope of creating the technology to beat the Soviet Union .
Eventually , ARPA was found to be inefficient and expensive and so funding was cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense-related applications .
Symbolically , the organisation became DARPA , with the D standing for defence .
Its proponents thought this change in the early 1970s would lead to the downfall of American science .
But instead , as history showed us , private innovation flourished .
You may have heard the story about how the Internet and personal computer technology were funded by the US government .
In reality , ARPA made only tangential contributions that largely came to fruition after the leading minds left the organisation as it became focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ from state-funded ARPA to privately backed research ventures like Xerox PARC was the real impetus for the technological revolution .
Xerox PARC are the ones who created windows , the mouse , the laser printer , and ethernet .
So what has led Cummings to emulate , to the letter , a less than stellar project from the US ?
Firstly , he conflates the success of ARPA with the success later found in Xerox PARC and Silicon Valley , and as having all been borne of state funding .
But secondly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government is making the same mistake socialists have made across history ; thinking that the genesis of economic growth is central direction rather than bottom-up , market-led innovation .
That without government direction , we won ’ t ever reach the next technological milestone .
And that is the grand misconception with research and development .
The idea that the market and private enterprise is failing to devote resources to new and untested technologies , because the risk is too great .
So the Government must step in to ensure that our answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in reality , instead of bringing jobs and growth to our left-behind towns , it will be a boon to PhD students in established university and metropolitan areas to pursue their pet projects .
Our approach to technological research and development is fundamentally broken .
We need to rework our attitudes towards innovation , not just our funds .
The Government is seeking to give with one hand , while taking away with the other .
It has throttled innovation and enterprise through its policies and throwing money at the problem , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it hopes to make innovation flourish , won ’ t actually bring jobs or growth or create new technologies .
For too long , our adherence to the European Union ’ s precautionary principle , whereby we regulate innovative technologies like GM crops , has strangled new developments .
Our approach to patents is overzealous and makes it harder to stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us .
High corporation taxes and the factory tax make it too expensive to conduct business in the UK , pushing our leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be fixed , and without spending a dime .
Far too often governments , like this one , fail to acknowledge their role in hampering the progress which would otherwise be brought around in a free marketplace .
Instead of recognising themselves as the problem , they are set on trying to be the solution .
So instead of spending £800 million trying to copy an idea the United States gave up on 40 years ago , the Government should take a critical look at the ways in which they can revamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to step back and look at what works around the world to increase innovation and scientific progress , we wouldn ’ t find ARPA , but a free and liberal marketplace for ideas which allows great minds to pursue the radical notion that our best inventions are yet to come .

Morgan Schondelmeier is Head of External Affairs at the Adam Smith Institute.
While we find ourselves in “unprecedented times” it seems that the Government is increasingly dipping into precedent policies. From revamping Milliband’s 2015 food advertising ban to proposing spending that would make Corbyn blush, the Government seems dead set on recycling old ideas.
So why then, if they can’t even think of particularly new policies, are they proposing that Government bureaucrats dream up scientific advancements?
We saw in the spring budget the creation of a grand narrative, and £800 million, devoted to reinventing British science, technology and innovation through the creation of the British Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). Just like the first ARPA was a response to the Soviet Union, this agency would be the answer to China’s state-sponsored technological progress, cementing Britain’s place on the global scientific stage.
But what is ARPA? In a new paper out this weekend by Professor Terence Kealey, the Adam Smith Institute looks at the history of the state directed research project from the USA and the hopes of its champions in the UK.
It’s yet another example of old ideas dying hard. ARPA, soon to have a British sibling after being strongly championed by Dominic Cummings, was plucked from a project established in the United States during the 1950s. In response to the Soviet’s launching Sputnik, Eisenhower established ARPA to fund pure scientific research – in the hope of creating the technology to beat the Soviet Union.
Eventually, ARPA was found to be inefficient and expensive and so funding was cut and their purpose was limited to purely defense-related applications. Symbolically, the organisation became DARPA, with the D standing for defence. Its proponents thought this change in the early 1970s would lead to the downfall of American science. But instead, as history showed us, private innovation flourished.
You may have heard the story about how the Internet and personal computer technology were funded by the US government. In reality, ARPA made only tangential contributions that largely came to fruition after the leading minds left the organisation as it became focused on defence applications. The ‘brain drain’ from state-funded ARPA to privately backed research ventures like Xerox PARC was the real impetus for the technological revolution. Xerox PARC are the ones who created windows, the mouse, the laser printer, and ethernet.
So what has led Cummings to emulate, to the letter, a less than stellar project from the US? Firstly, he conflates the success of ARPA with the success later found in Xerox PARC and Silicon Valley, and as having all been borne of state funding.
But secondly, and perhaps more saliently, this Government is making the same mistake socialists have made across history; thinking that the genesis of economic growth is central direction rather than bottom-up, market-led innovation. That without government direction, we won’t ever reach the next technological milestone.
And that is the grand misconception with research and development. The idea that the market and private enterprise is failing to devote resources to new and untested technologies, because the risk is too great. So the Government must step in to ensure that our answer to Silicon Valley is Tees Valley. But in reality, instead of bringing jobs and growth to our left-behind towns, it will be a boon to PhD students in established university and metropolitan areas to pursue their pet projects.
Our approach to technological research and development is fundamentally broken. We need to rework our attitudes towards innovation, not just our funds. The Government is seeking to give with one hand, while taking away with the other. It has throttled innovation and enterprise through its policies and throwing money at the problem, without fundamentally changing the environment in which it hopes to make innovation flourish, won’t actually bring jobs or growth or create new technologies.
For too long, our adherence to the European Union’s precautionary principle, whereby we regulate innovative technologies like GM crops, has strangled new developments. Our approach to patents is overzealous and makes it harder to stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us. High corporation taxes and the factory tax make it too expensive to conduct business in the UK, pushing our leading minds overseas.
All of these things can be fixed, and without spending a dime. Far too often governments, like this one, fail to acknowledge their role in hampering the progress which would otherwise be brought around in a free marketplace. Instead of recognising themselves as the problem, they are set on trying to be the solution.
So instead of spending £800 million trying to copy an idea the United States gave up on 40 years ago, the Government should take a critical look at the ways in which they can revamp our approach to innovation.
Were we to step back and look at what works around the world to increase innovation and scientific progress, we wouldn’t find ARPA, but a free and liberal marketplace for ideas which allows great minds to pursue the radical notion that our best inventions are yet to come.


conservativehome--2020-08-15--The Conservative Party should give a warm welcome to Hong Kongers arriving in the UK

It was belated , following decades of inaction and errors on Hong Kong , but the British government did the right thing when Dominic Raab offered Hong Kongers sanctuary in this country in the face of China ’ s hijack of the city .
A huge 85 per cent of Conservative Party members agreed with the Foreign Secretary ’ s decision – a remarkably clear majority .
And so , Hong Kongers who have taken the agonising decision to leave their homes are starting to arrive in the UK .
Not just Nathan Law , the prominent democracy activist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in my local community Facebook group a couple of people have recently introduced themselves , asking for tips on adapting to life in the UK .
It strikes me that this is a moment at which the Conservative Party itself should be putting on a warm welcome to these new arrivals .
After all , a Conservative Government has established the policy , and Conservative members think it a good thing , so shouldn ’ t we also assist practically to help people making this move to settle in here ?
British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way in which the Canadian Conservative Jason Kenney and his colleagues built relationships with ethnic minority communities in Canada .
Kenney met with people , listened to their concerns , interests and ambitions , and championed policies to help in response .
Back in 2014 , Rishi Sunak ( whatever happened to him ? )
wrote on this site that : Well , here is just such an opportunity to stop wondering at what Kenney did , and start putting the principle into practice .
Will the Conservative Party – as a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as individuals – seize it ?

It was belated, following decades of inaction and errors on Hong Kong, but the British government did the right thing when Dominic Raab offered Hong Kongers sanctuary in this country in the face of China’s hijack of the city. A huge 85 per cent of Conservative Party members agreed with the Foreign Secretary’s decision – a remarkably clear majority.
And so, Hong Kongers who have taken the agonising decision to leave their homes are starting to arrive in the UK. Not just Nathan Law, the prominent democracy activist, but others without public profile. Indeed, in my local community Facebook group a couple of people have recently introduced themselves, asking for tips on adapting to life in the UK.
It strikes me that this is a moment at which the Conservative Party itself should be putting on a warm welcome to these new arrivals. After all, a Conservative Government has established the policy, and Conservative members think it a good thing, so shouldn’t we also assist practically to help people making this move to settle in here?
British Conservatives have long looked enviously at the way in which the Canadian Conservative Jason Kenney and his colleagues built relationships with ethnic minority communities in Canada. Kenney met with people, listened to their concerns, interests and ambitions, and championed policies to help in response.
Back in 2014, Rishi Sunak (whatever happened to him?) wrote on this site that:
“[Kenney] emphasised the importance of personal contact for new immigrants – the political party that engages first has an opportunity to frame how new arrivals perceive that party and its motivations.”
Well, here is just such an opportunity to stop wondering at what Kenney did, and start putting the principle into practice. Will the Conservative Party – as a national organisation, as local associations, or as individuals – seize it?


conservativehome--2020-08-16--Why injustices to school students haven’t sparked a revolt by Tory backbenchers. So far.

An uprising by Conservative MPs is most likely to succeed in the following laboratory conditions .
First , if it has a clear aim .
Second , if Parliament is sitting , and votes can be held – on amendments to a Bill , for example ; or on an Opposition motion .
Or even if there are no votes , but a Minister is suddenly hauled to the despatch box to answer an urgent question or open a Standing Order 24 debate .
Third , if it is widely and deeply held .
All these elements were present during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for children during these summer holidays .
The revolt ’ s objective was clear : to compel Rishi Sunak to find the money to fund them .
Parliament was sitting .
( Labour duly slapped down an Opposition Day motion on the subject . )
And finally , backbench opinion was relatively united in wanting the Chancellor to stump up the required £120 million or so .
None of these circumstances applied to last week ’ s A-level results , and their aftermath , and one of them at least won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which will be issued on Thursday .
This is despite Ministers conceding that both sets of results are unfair to many pupils .
( If they didn ’ t admit the point , they wouldn ’ t be encouraging appeals , would they ? )
So why the difference ?
Because , first , those MPs unhappy with last week ’ s A-level results have no agreed objective .
Some hanker after the SNP solution – that ’ s to say , for the Government simply to give way , and let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Others would like the results to be scrapped altogether , and exams being sat in the autumn .
Most hope that that the appeals process will somehow iron the difficulties out .
Second , Parliament isn ’ t sitting .
Which means no UQs , no SO24s , no Opposition Day motions – and no votes .
Finally , Tory MPs differ not only over potential solutions to the problem , but also over how big it is in the first place .
A few are personally affected , with their own children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils in their seats which they complain have been penalised .
But others from a variety of seats report a low number of complaints to date .
So , crucially , backbench opinion has been divided .
Or so WhatsApp group debate among MPs reportedly suggests .
“ On the Richter Revolt scale , I ’ d put this at about six , ” one experienced hand told ConHome .
Some Tory MPs feel that the Government should resist a Scotland-style U-turn ; others still are primarily concerned about any move that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , perhaps , newish backbenchers have learned from the Dominic Cummings saga – their first experience of a real e-mail and social media pile-on .
“ I ’ m not planning to write any full replies for a fortnight , ” one newcomer said .
“ I want to see how the appeals process starts to bed down.
” Furthermore , much of media moved on , after a day of intense coverage , from A-levels to French quarantine .
There is less commentary than might have been expected in today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Education Secretary , too .
None the less , Gavin Williamson and Nick Gibb are in very serious trouble .
Yesterday ’ s Ofqual U-turn over appeals was a shambles , and will register on the Conservative backbenches .
Even those who support the Government ’ s position complain that Ministers moved late over appeals and fees .
Finally , those GCSE results will come later this week , affecting a larger number of pupils .
Above all , the Education Secretary ’ s capacity to help craft a return to school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been further damaged .
He is pushing the cause today , amidst a very bad time for him .
We will return to these matters tomorrow .

An uprising by Conservative MPs is most likely to succeed in the following laboratory conditions.
First, if it has a clear aim.
Second, if Parliament is sitting, and votes can be held – on amendments to a Bill, for example; or on an Opposition motion. Or even if there are no votes, but a Minister is suddenly hauled to the despatch box to answer an urgent question or open a Standing Order 24 debate.
Third, if it is widely and deeply held.
All these elements were present during the recent row over free school meals for children during these summer holidays. The revolt’s objective was clear: to compel Rishi Sunak to find the money to fund them. Parliament was sitting. (Labour duly slapped down an Opposition Day motion on the subject.) And finally, backbench opinion was relatively united in wanting the Chancellor to stump up the required £120 million or so.
None of these circumstances applied to last week’s A-level results, and their aftermath, and one of them at least won’t to this week’s GSCE awards, which will be issued on Thursday. This is despite Ministers conceding that both sets of results are unfair to many pupils. (If they didn’t admit the point, they wouldn’t be encouraging appeals, would they?)
So why the difference? Because, first, those MPs unhappy with last week’s A-level results have no agreed objective. Some hanker after the SNP solution – that’s to say, for the Government simply to give way, and let the grades recommended by schools stand. Others would like the results to be scrapped altogether, and exams being sat in the autumn. Most hope that that the appeals process will somehow iron the difficulties out.
Second, Parliament isn’t sitting. Which means no UQs, no SO24s, no Opposition Day motions – and no votes.
Finally, Tory MPs differ not only over potential solutions to the problem, but also over how big it is in the first place. A few are personally affected, with their own children sitting exams; more have schools and pupils in their seats which they complain have been penalised.
But others from a variety of seats report a low number of complaints to date.
So, crucially, backbench opinion has been divided. Or so WhatsApp group debate among MPs reportedly suggests.
“On the Richter Revolt scale, I’d put this at about six,” one experienced hand told ConHome. Some Tory MPs feel that the Government should resist a Scotland-style U-turn; others still are primarily concerned about any move that would allow more grade inflation.
Above all, perhaps, newish backbenchers have learned from the Dominic Cummings saga – their first experience of a real e-mail and social media pile-on. “I’m not planning to write any full replies for a fortnight,” one newcomer said. “I want to see how the appeals process starts to bed down.”
Furthermore, much of media moved on, after a day of intense coverage, from A-levels to French quarantine. There is less commentary than might have been expected in today’s papers. And fewer vituperative quotes about the Education Secretary, too.
None the less, Gavin Williamson and Nick Gibb are in very serious trouble. Yesterday’s Ofqual U-turn over appeals was a shambles, and will register on the Conservative backbenches. Even those who support the Government’s position complain that Ministers moved late over appeals and fees. Finally, those GCSE results will come later this week, affecting a larger number of pupils.
Above all, the Education Secretary’s capacity to help craft a return to school for England’s pupils may have been further damaged. He is pushing the cause today, amidst a very bad time for him. We will return to these matters tomorrow.


conservativehome--2020-08-17--A Government U-turn on exam grades is set for this afternoon – as backbench criticism swells

There will be an announcement on exam grades this afternoon .
Will the Government “ do a Northern Ireland ” @ @ @ @ @ A-levels , but chucking it for GCSEs ?
Or “ do a Scotland ” – @ @ @ @ @ both ?
Or something else entirely ?
George Grylls of the Times is keeping a @ @ @ @ @ – of Tory MPs calling for a rethink ( see above ) .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ unhappy tweeters include Penny Mordaunt , a senior Minister .
As we wrote yesterday , @ @ @ @ @ was a shambles , and will register on the Conservative backbenches ” .
That – @ @ @ @ @ that Ministers are not in control of events – is driving the pressure on Number @ @ @ @ @ .
The political question now isn ’ t whether or not a reverse ferret is @ @ @ @ @ whether it U-turns or V-turns : i.e – whether Ministers try to make the appeals @ @ @ @ @ to slashs themselves loose from the wreckage entirely .

There will be an announcement on exam grades this afternoon. Will the Government “do a Northern Ireland” – clinging to standardisation for A-levels, but chucking it for GCSEs? Or “do a Scotland” – i.e: ditch it for both? Or something else entirely?
George Grylls of the Times is keeping a useful – and growing list – of Tory MPs calling for a rethink (see above). It’s worth noting that the unhappy tweeters include Penny Mordaunt, a senior Minister. Whips are now telling backbenchers that the Government “is in listening mode”.
As we wrote yesterday, “Ofqual U-turn over appeals was a shambles, and will register on the Conservative backbenches”. That – and the sense it confirmed that Ministers are not in control of events – is driving the pressure on Number Ten and the Education Department.
The political question isn’t whether or not a reverse ferret is coming. Rather, it’s whether the Governmen U-turns or V-turns: i.e – whether Ministers toil away at patching up their damaged ship…or try to slash themselves loose from the wreckage entirely.


conservativehome--2020-08-17--Newslinks for Monday 17th August 2020

Newslinks for Monday 17th August 2020

Coronavirus 4 ) UK looks to extend bailout loans to private equity-owned groups “ The British government is trying to find a way to offer state-backed loans to debt-laden companies owned by private equity groups , in the hope of rescuing a swath of the British high street .
The Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy department ( Beis ) wants to help private equity-backed groups that employ large numbers of people , such as PizzaExpress , Prezzo or Merlin , the owner of Legoland , without breaching EU state aid rules , according to four people involved in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there is no guarantee the government will find a solution .
PE-backed companies typically carry high levels of debt to reduce their tax bill , resulting in statutory losses even when they are generating cash.
” – FT Only one in seven civil servants working at the Cabinet Office are back at their desks “ Just one in seven civil servants at the ministry reporting directly to Boris Johnson have returned to the office , the Mail can reveal .
The number of employees back at the Cabinet Office could even be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Freedom of Information request has disclosed .
On August 4 , around 10 to 15 per cent of staff at the department travelled into work .
This woeful total comes despite pleas from the Prime Minister for people to stop working from home in a bid to boost the economy .
It follows fears that city centre shops and restaurants – which rely on footfall from office workers – face ruin if more employees do not return .
Last month the Mail revealed that just one in five of the 430,000 civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of July.
” – Daily Mail Government accused of stoking “ diplomatic row ” with France over migrants and quarantine “ The Government has created a “ diplomatic storm of its own making ” , MPs have warned , after Priti Patel suggested migrants were making channel crossings to escape France because it is “ racist ” .
A “ war of words ” between the two nations broke out on Sunday , as Paris gears up to impose reciprocal quarantine measures on British travellers .
French politicians accused the Home Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ callous manner ” , after her comments emerged on Sunday .
In the frank discussions between Ms Patel and MPs last week , the Home Secretary reportedly said that migrants were crossing the Channel because they believe France is a “ racist country ” where they may be “ tortured ” .
” – Daily Telegraph • Home Office apologises after “ error ” led them to housing asylum seekers in a hotel in Patel ’ s constituency – Daily Mail • Channel migrants should be quarantined on cruise – Daily @

Coronavirus 4) UK looks to extend bailout loans to private equity-owned groups
“The British government is trying to find a way to offer state-backed loans to debt-laden companies owned by private equity groups, in the hope of rescuing a swath of the British high street. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy department (Beis) wants to help private equity-backed groups that employ large numbers of people, such as PizzaExpress, Prezzo or Merlin, the owner of Legoland, without breaching EU state aid rules, according to four people involved in the process. They cautioned, however, that there is no guarantee the government will find a solution. PE-backed companies typically carry high levels of debt to reduce their tax bill, resulting in statutory losses even when they are generating cash.” – FT
Only one in seven civil servants working at the Cabinet Office are back at their desks
“Just one in seven civil servants at the ministry reporting directly to Boris Johnson have returned to the office, the Mail can reveal. The number of employees back at the Cabinet Office could even be as few as one in ten, a Freedom of Information request has disclosed. On August 4, around 10 to 15 per cent of staff at the department travelled into work. This woeful total comes despite pleas from the Prime Minister for people to stop working from home in a bid to boost the economy. It follows fears that city centre shops and restaurants – which rely on footfall from office workers – face ruin if more employees do not return. Last month the Mail revealed that just one in five of the 430,000 civil servants had returned to work by the end of July.” – Daily Mail
Government accused of stoking “diplomatic row” with France over migrants and quarantine
“The Government has created a “diplomatic storm of its own making”, MPs have warned, after Priti Patel suggested migrants were making channel crossings to escape France because it is “racist”. A “war of words” between the two nations broke out on Sunday, as Paris gears up to impose reciprocal quarantine measures on British travellers. French politicians accused the Home Secretary of spreading “hateful claims” in a “callous manner”, after her comments emerged on Sunday. In the frank discussions between Ms Patel and MPs last week, the Home Secretary reportedly said that migrants were crossing the Channel because they believe France is a “racist country” where they may be “tortured”.” – Daily Telegraph


conservativehome--2020-08-17--This week’s GCSE results. The least bad course now is to let predicted grades stand.

Exams are the least bad means of grading students .
True , a pupil may mess up on the day , and not show his real capacity .
And , yes , a test crammed into a short period of time , rather than assessments carried out over a longer one , favours some temperaments over others .
Those who can adapt to sudden death penalty shoot-outs win out , as it were , over those more comfortable with attritionally climbing the league table .
Some would prefer teacher assessment .
But whether these critics are right or wrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educational landscape .
They have , in a rough and ready way , popular consent .
But a computer ’ s algorithm alone was never likely to possess the missing authority of an examiner ’ s pen – especially when it tampers with some 40 per cent of suggested grades .
In a nutshell , last week ’ s A-level results , and this week ’ s coming GCSE ones , pit different unfairnesses against each other .
Nick Gibb ’ s article defending the Government on this site last week viewed justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils their teacher-assessed grade , he argued , would reward schools who have inflated their suggestions at the expense of those who did not , and unfairly advantage this year ’ s students at the expense of next year ’ s .
Gibb was right .
But , as his piece implicitly acknowledged , justice must also be viewed from the bottom up .
And the sum of the matter is that , at a macro level , the algorithm did what it was meant to do – that ’ s to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while also keeping their inflation in check .
But what works for the macro doesn ’ t necessarily work for the micro .
What the algorithm produced last week is rather like a picture that looks flawless from a distance but , when viewed close up , turns out to be marred by blotches , chips , and reworkings .
Perhaps other variants would have worked better .
But it seems to us that the algorithmic logic of standardisation was always likely to produce individual and collective injustices , as it crunched its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore stupifyingly insensitive for the Education Department , in a rebuttal document published last week , to say that “ in 96 per cent of cases grades were the same as submitted by teachers or were just one grade different ” .
A single grade can be the sword that separates a pupil from the University place he had been conditionally offered .
And if he isn ’ t going on to higher education , a lower grade could imperil his career prospects .
In the absence of exams , and the legitimacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always going to gather for Gibb and Gavin Williamson .
In one sense , this makes them and in another mars them .
It makes them , in that there is no fair substitute for exams , just a trade-off between different sets of injustices , as any fair-minded observer should acknowledge .
In another , it mars them , and deeply .
Wisdom after the event is journalistic stock in trade .
Few of the commentators who are now lashing Williamson and Gibb to the railway tracks were warning , during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ train called Algorithm was chuffing down the line .
It is none the less true that the vehicle ’ s rumbling and grinding will have been picked by Ministers and officials months from the moment when exams were cancelled , or should have been .
Some events in the life of a Minister are unpredictable .
For example , Grant Shapps can ’ t have known last week that a real-life train would crash in Aberdeenshire , with fatalities .
But A-level and GCSE results are the main outward-facing events in the yearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the place that the Budget and pre-Budget Report hold for the Treasury ( and the same goes for their equivalents in the devolved institutions ) .
As we write , Conservative MPs ’ WhatsApp groups are buzzing with the question : what went wrong ?
Why did the Department rush out its plan to take “ valid ” mocks into account only after the Scottish debacle ?
How come Ofqal tore up advice that it had issued on the same day ?
Why the pause over whether or not appeals would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been softened up for the perceived advantage that the algorithm gave to private schools ?
At some point soonish , answers to these questions , and others , will begin to emerge : it is too early , as events continue to develop , to find them now .
What matters most now is patching up the A-level wounds ; heading off this week ’ s coming GCSEs from trouble , and restoring credibility to a department and a Government that must succeed , during the coming weeks , where it failed this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in getting schools to open .
With A-levels , the die is already cast .
The showboating and bandwagon-jumping of Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner is no more than that : manoeuvering for position .
The option of Doing a Scotland , and reverting to predicted grades , no longer exists – at least , not if the stitching-together of places which the universities have begun is not to be unstitched , with all the new injustices that such a move would threaten .
That leaves , very broadly , the options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s results or by-passing them via the appeals system .
There is little doubt which one Ministers favour : they will be hoping that the appeals process will apply balm to the algorithm ’ s wounds .
There are at least three major problems here , even assuming that the system is not swamped by more appeals than the Education Department expects .
First , a successful appeal may well come too late to matter , at least as far as the pupil ’ s original offer is concerned .
Second , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the appeals bodies will play ball ; Ofqal ’ s dynamiting of Ministers ’ position on mocks suggest that they may not .
Finally , those for whom an appeal is not successful , and who are not going on to higher education , will have the algorithm ’ s verdict as the last word on their academic record , in many cases .
In any event , the Government should grease the palms of the universities , thus enabling them to take in the extra students that the appeals process will wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range wider .
Ministers could simply let the teacher-assessed recommendations or previously predicted grades stand .
Or , as Ken Baker is suggesting , pull the results altogether ( with students sitting exams during the autumn ) .
We end where we began .
There is no perfect option open to the Government – only a choice between imperfect options .
Yes , letting predicted grades prevail would risk the injustices of which Gibb wrote .
And there would be knock-on funding consequences for some colleges , sixth forms and FEs if others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils .
But grade inflation is less dangerous at GCSE – since many pupils go on to further and higher education and to further assessments and exams – than it is higher up the educational food chain .
Letting predicted grands stand is the most reliable way of body-swerving this week ’ s elephant trap , and allowing the Education Department to channel its energies into getting schools open this autumn .
Without which much of the economy will stay shut .

Exams are the least bad means of grading students. True, a pupil may mess up on the day, and not show his real capacity. And, yes, a test crammed into a short period of time, rather than assessments carried out over a longer one, favours some temperaments over others. Those who can adapt to sudden death penalty shoot-outs win out, as it were, over those more comfortable with attritionally climbing the league table.
Some would prefer teacher assessment. But whether these critics are right or wrong, exams are a known feature of our educational landscape. They have, in a rough and ready way, popular consent. But a computer’s algorithm alone was never likely to possess the missing authority of an examiner’s pen – especially when it tampers with some 40 per cent of suggested grades.
In a nutshell, last week’s A-level results, and this week’s coming GCSE ones, pit different unfairnesses against each other. Nick Gibb’s article defending the Government on this site last week viewed justice from the top down. Simply awarding pupils their teacher-assessed grade, he argued, would reward schools who have inflated their suggestions at the expense of those who did not, and unfairly advantage this year’s students at the expense of next year’s.
Gibb was right. But, as his piece implicitly acknowledged, justice must also be viewed from the bottom up. And the sum of the matter is that, at a macro level, the algorithm did what it was meant to do – that’s to say, balance allowing grades to rise slightly while also keeping their inflation in check. But what works for the macro doesn’t necessarily work for the micro.
What the algorithm produced last week is rather like a picture that looks flawless from a distance but, when viewed close up, turns out to be marred by blotches, chips, and reworkings. Perhaps other variants would have worked better. But it seems to us that the algorithmic logic of standardisation was always likely to produce individual and collective injustices, as it crunched its way through the numbers.
It was therefore stupifyingly insensitive for the Education Department, in a rebuttal document published last week, to say that “in 96 per cent of cases grades were the same as submitted by teachers or were just one grade different”. A single grade can be the sword that separates a pupil from the University place he had been conditionally offered. And if he isn’t going on to higher education, a lower grade could imperil his career prospects.
In the absence of exams, and the legitimacy that they supply, August thunder-clouds were always going to gather for Gibb and Gavin Williamson. In one sense, this makes them and in another mars them. It makes them, in that there is no fair substitute for exams, just a trade-off between different sets of injustices, as any fair-minded observer should acknowledge. In another, it mars them, and deeply.
Wisdom after the event is journalistic stock in trade. Few of the commentators who are now lashing Williamson and Gibb to the railway tracks were warning, during the last few months, that a slow train called Algorithm was chuffing down the line. It is none the less true that the vehicle’s rumbling and grinding will have been picked by Ministers and officials months from the moment when exams were cancelled, or should have been.
Some events in the life of a Minister are unpredictable. For example, Grant Shapps can’t have known last week that a real-life train would crash in Aberdeenshire, with fatalities. But A-level and GCSE results are the main outward-facing events in the yearly cycle of the Education Department, comparable to the place that the Budget and pre-Budget Report hold for the Treasury (and the same goes for their equivalents in the devolved institutions).
As we write, Conservative MPs’ WhatsApp groups are buzzing with the question: what went wrong? Why did the Department rush out its plan to take “valid” mocks into account only after the Scottish debacle? How come Ofqal tore up advice that it had issued on the same day? Why the pause over whether or not appeals would be free? Could not the public have been softened up for the perceived advantage that the algorithm gave to private schools?
At some point soonish, answers to these questions, and others, will begin to emerge: it is too early, as events continue to develop, to find them now. What matters most now is patching up the A-level wounds; heading off this week’s coming GCSEs from trouble, and restoring credibility to a department and a Government that must succeed, during the coming weeks, where it failed this summer – that’s to say, in getting schools to open.
With A-levels, the die is already cast. The showboating and bandwagon-jumping of Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner is no more than that: manoeuvering for position. The option of Doing a Scotland, and reverting to predicted grades, no longer exists – at least, not if the stitching-together of places which the universities have begun is not to be unstitched, with all the new injustices that such a move would threaten.
That leaves, very broadly, the options of either standing by last week’s results or by-passing them via the appeals system. There is little doubt which one Ministers favour: they will be hoping that the appeals process will apply balm to the algorithm’s wounds. There are at least three major problems here, even assuming that the system is not swamped by more appeals than the Education Department expects.
First, a successful appeal may well come too late to matter, at least as far as the pupil’s original offer is concerned. Second, it isn’t at all clear whether the appeals bodies will play ball; Ofqal’s dynamiting of Ministers’ position on mocks suggest that they may not. Finally, those for whom an appeal is not successful, and who are not going on to higher education, will have the algorithm’s verdict as the last word on their academic record, in many cases.
In any event, the Government should grease the palms of the universities, thus enabling them to take in the extra students that the appeals process will wave through. With GCSEs, the choices range wider. Ministers could simply let the teacher-assessed recommendations or previously predicted grades stand. Or, as Ken Baker is suggesting, pull the results altogether (with students sitting exams during the autumn).
We end where we began. There is no perfect option open to the Government – only a choice between imperfect options. Yes, letting predicted grades prevail would risk the injustices of which Gibb wrote. And there would be knock-on funding consequences for some colleges, sixth forms and FEs if others take more than their planned number of pupils.
But grade inflation is less dangerous at GCSE – since many pupils go on to further and higher education and to further assessments and exams – than it is higher up the educational food chain. Letting predicted grands stand is the most reliable way of body-swerving this week’s elephant trap, and allowing the Education Department to channel its energies into getting schools open this autumn. Without which much of the economy will stay shut.


conservativehome--2020-08-17--Richard Holden: My young constituents want to pay less tax and afford a home. We must lift the Unive

Richard Holden: My young constituents want to pay less tax and afford a home. We must lift the University debts that hold them back.

Chatting to a group of “ empty nest ” parents in their fifties and sixties when out for a post-work pint recently , I was struck by the political split between them and the views of many of their children .
The children who ’ d stayed in and around County Durham , most likely after pursuing further education vocational and technical courses , tended to hold similar views to their parents .
Those who ’ d gone away to university were , politically at least , politically detached .
This manifested itself even more strongly post-graduation for many as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities Post-election polling from IpsosMori backs this up .
We Conservatives need to understand this graduate group better in a variety of ways , especially given the fact that , at the 2019 election , 18-24s ( especially students and graduates ) were one of the few groups among which Conservative support fell , despite a widespread swing from Labour to us elsewhere .
Ask left-wing agitators why they feel this happened , and they ’ ll argue that these voters who swung behind them did so out of belief in the socialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least support for the magnificence of Keir Starmer ’ s second referendum policy .
I am not convinced .
On the contrary , I ’ m increasingly certain , from the anecdotal conversations that I ’ ve had with both these voters and their families , that they voted on two over-riding issues : housing and tax .
Deep down , many recent graduates were voting in line with clear self-interest .
It ’ s not that they didn ’ t care that the Labour Party was riddled with anti-semitism .
Nor is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Corbyn and his cabal had supported every enemy of their country who had crossed his path .
It ’ s just that they didn ’ t care as much about these issues as they did about getting what they thought might be a chunky tax cut from Labour – in terms , from what is in essence a nine per cent tax levied on graduate incomes above £26,575 a year , on top of being forced to spend a huge chunk of their remaining income on rent .
With 20 per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Insurance and nine per cent student loan contributions for recent graduates , a 40 per cent marginal tax rate kicks in at £26,575 .
This margin rises to 51 per cent if they earn over £50,000 down the line .
When you throw in the living costs of cities where graduates tend to go for work , together with high rent , it ’ s hardly surprising that many graduates feel squeezed – and that , when Labour offered jam today for which everyone else would pay , it can hardly be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which leaves us Conservatives with some big questions if we want to re-engage with this group of voters .
Crucially , these graduates with hangover student loans won ’ t come back to us when they hit their 30s .
Furthermore , given that they ’ ll be paying that extra nine per cent income tax until their mid-50s , I can ’ t see them doing so for a very long time .
What ’ s the answer ?
Well , Robert Jenrick ’ s look at housing and housebuilding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good start .
We ’ ve got to get homes built , reduce the cost of housing and get these people on the property ladder .
Aged 35 , I ’ m literally in the process of buying my first home , something my ( I ’ d imagine ) equally hard-working parents and grandparents were able to do the best part of a decade before me and well before most of my peers – at least before most of those who haven ’ t had deposits provided by their families .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamentally – because it cuts across so many different things from productivity to tax – is we ’ ve got to have a proper look at post-18 education and training .
It ’ s clear that Covid-19 is going to cause at least some short-term recruitment issues , and that the Kickstarter Scheme – another really sensible move from Rishi Sunak – will doubtless really help get some young people into work , and prevent some of the worklessness issues that in the past have caused so many issues .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader .
We have ended up in a right pickle .
Because of the rapid expansion of universities , taxpayers are still paying roughly 50 per cent of the cost of sending people to Higher Education ( about £10 billion a year ) .
This is roughly the same as the entire Home Office budget , covering policing , counter-terror , borders , etc .
At the same time , we ’ re also giving graduates a notional debt of tens of thousands of pounds , and so also gifting them what are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay it .
And , most importantly , for many young students we ’ re selling a false promise .
According to the IFS , 71,000 students last year ( some 20 per cent of the total ) undertook university courses although they ’ d be better off not having gone to university .
That ’ s not good for taxpayers , it ’ s not good for an increasing number of young people being sold a fantasy , and it ’ s not good for the UK ’ s productivity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for three years at huge expense to themselves and to taxpayers , and for them then get jobs in which they end up earning less in that if they hadn ’ t gone to university , is clear economic madness , and politically toxic too .
The solution to this is already , in part , being trailed by some of our biggest companies increasingly in the service sector at the top end – degree apprenticeships at work .
It is , in essence , a return to what happened a long time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative Party Agent , a solicitor who ’ d done his articles as a clerk and never been to university . )
Crucially , with our high-end firms increasingly reaching into this area , they ’ ll also start to pass the “ parents evening test ” too .
If young Joanne has got herself a solid paid apprenticeship with degree level options at Deloitte , BAE , or Goldman Sachs ( yes , all offer them ) , during which she gets paid to work while studying with a top employer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the end of it , then what ’ s not to like ?
The core other policy element is to revolutionise our Further Education offering more generally as a similar step up and into employment too for post-18 as well as post-16 .
We need to value properly what is done in this sector better , as many of our successful continental cousins do .
Derwentside College in my constituency does great work as do colleges across the county , but their whole top end ( level 4 and 5 – that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one and two year post-18 courses ) have been cannibalised by some of universities offering degree level courses to essentially anyone who wants to go .
Rather than students getting good one or two year local courses , tied to local employment , they ’ re off to “ university ” for a three year course that will leave them in a worse position than when they left .
There are other facets , too , but what I ’ ve outlined here is the fundamental start .
Our obsession with kids going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fortune , harming Britain ’ s long-term productivity and crucially selling those young people a false dream .
Electorally , it ’ s also a complete disaster and the gift that keeps on giving to Labour .
Our next generation are natural Conservatives – they ’ d like to own their own homes , not pay eye-wateringly high taxes and be part of a community that supports them and each other .
It ’ s up to us to show them that we ’ re on their side too .
Taking on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy but crucially , it ’ s the right thing to do .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
The Hobson Pub, County Durham.
Chatting to a group of “empty nest” parents in their fifties and sixties when out for a post-work pint recently, I was struck by the political split between them and the views of many of their children.
The children who’d stayed in and around County Durham, most likely after pursuing further education vocational and technical courses, tended to hold similar views to their parents. Those who’d gone away to university were, politically at least, politically detached.
This manifested itself even more strongly post-graduation for many as they moved often to graduate jobs in cities Post-election polling from IpsosMori backs this up. We Conservatives need to understand this graduate group better in a variety of ways, especially given the fact that, at the 2019 election, 18-24s (especially students and graduates) were one of the few groups among which Conservative support fell, despite a widespread swing from Labour to us elsewhere.
Ask left-wing agitators why they feel this happened, and they’ll argue that these voters who swung behind them did so out of belief in the socialist ideals of Comrade Corbyn, or at least support for the magnificence of Keir Starmer’s second referendum policy.
I am not convinced. On the contrary, I’m increasingly certain, from the anecdotal conversations that I’ve had with both these voters and their families, that they voted on two over-riding issues: housing and tax.
Deep down, many recent graduates were voting in line with clear self-interest. It’s not that they didn’t care that the Labour Party was riddled with anti-semitism. Nor is it that they didn’t care that Corbyn and his cabal had supported every enemy of their country who had crossed his path.
It’s just that they didn’t care as much about these issues as they did about getting what they thought might be a chunky tax cut from Labour – in terms, from what is in essence a nine per cent tax levied on graduate incomes above £26,575 a year, on top of being forced to spend a huge chunk of their remaining income on rent.
With 20 per cent income tax, 11 per cent National Insurance and nine per cent student loan contributions for recent graduates, a 40 per cent marginal tax rate kicks in at £26,575. This margin rises to 51 per cent if they earn over £50,000 down the line.
When you throw in the living costs of cities where graduates tend to go for work, together with high rent, it’s hardly surprising that many graduates feel squeezed – and that, when Labour offered jam today for which everyone else would pay, it can hardly be a surprise that many jumped at the offer.
Which leaves us Conservatives with some big questions if we want to re-engage with this group of voters. Crucially, these graduates with hangover student loans won’t come back to us when they hit their 30s. Furthermore, given that they’ll be paying that extra nine per cent income tax until their mid-50s, I can’t see them doing so for a very long time.
What’s the answer? Well, Robert Jenrick’s look at housing and housebuilding, particularly in brownfield site areas, is a good start. We’ve got to get homes built, reduce the cost of housing and get these people on the property ladder. Aged 35, I’m literally in the process of buying my first home, something my (I’d imagine) equally hard-working parents and grandparents were able to do the best part of a decade before me and well before most of my peers – at least before most of those who haven’t had deposits provided by their families.
But, secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally – because it cuts across so many different things from productivity to tax – is we’ve got to have a proper look at post-18 education and training.
It’s clear that Covid-19 is going to cause at least some short-term recruitment issues, and that the Kickstarter Scheme – another really sensible move from Rishi Sunak – will doubtless really help get some young people into work, and prevent some of the worklessness issues that in the past have caused so many issues.
However, the change we need to see is much broader. We have ended up in a right pickle. Because of the rapid expansion of universities, taxpayers are still paying roughly 50 per cent of the cost of sending people to Higher Education (about £10 billion a year).
This is roughly the same as the entire Home Office budget, covering policing, counter-terror, borders, etc. At the same time, we’re also giving graduates a notional debt of tens of thousands of pounds, and so also gifting them what are high tax rates at which they have to pay it.
And, most importantly, for many young students we’re selling a false promise. According to the IFS, 71,000 students last year (some 20 per cent of the total) undertook university courses although they’d be better off not having gone to university.
That’s not good for taxpayers, it’s not good for an increasing number of young people being sold a fantasy, and it’s not good for the UK’s productivity, either. Taking people out of work for three years at huge expense to themselves and to taxpayers, and for them then get jobs in which they end up earning less in that if they hadn’t gone to university, is clear economic madness, and politically toxic too.
The solution to this is already, in part, being trailed by some of our biggest companies increasingly in the service sector at the top end – degree apprenticeships at work. It is, in essence, a return to what happened a long time ago. (I remember my first Conservative Party Agent, a solicitor who’d done his articles as a clerk and never been to university.)
Crucially, with our high-end firms increasingly reaching into this area, they’ll also start to pass the “parents evening test” too. If young Joanne has got herself a solid paid apprenticeship with degree level options at Deloitte, BAE, or Goldman Sachs (yes, all offer them), during which she gets paid to work while studying with a top employer and a Russel Group university with a job at the end of it, then what’s not to like?
The core other policy element is to revolutionise our Further Education offering more generally as a similar step up and into employment too for post-18 as well as post-16. We need to value properly what is done in this sector better, as many of our successful continental cousins do. Derwentside College in my constituency does great work as do colleges across the county, but their whole top end (level 4 and 5 – that is, Higher National Certificates, HNDs one and two year post-18 courses) have been cannibalised by some of universities offering degree level courses to essentially anyone who wants to go.
Rather than students getting good one or two year local courses, tied to local employment, they’re off to “university” for a three year course that will leave them in a worse position than when they left. There are other facets, too, but what I’ve outlined here is the fundamental start. Our obsession with kids going to university is increasingly costing taxpayers a fortune, harming Britain’s long-term productivity and crucially selling those young people a false dream.
Electorally, it’s also a complete disaster and the gift that keeps on giving to Labour. Our next generation are natural Conservatives – they’d like to own their own homes, not pay eye-wateringly high taxes and be part of a community that supports them and each other. It’s up to us to show them that we’re on their side too. Taking on the new University Establishment won’t be easy but crucially, it’s the right thing to do.


conservativehome--2020-08-17--Shona Haslam: Advice from Scotland on getting schools reopened

Cllr Shona Haslam is the Leader of the Scottish Borders Council It ’ s back to school in Scotland and for thousands of pupils ( and parents ) it has been a looooong summer… Local councils have been planning for two different scenarios .
The first : “ blended learning ” with a combination of in-school and home learning , using technology .
The second : a full return with Covid measures in place .
The Scottish Government told us that they would announce which model we were to go for , and Covid containment measures , on 30th of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils were to return to school on 11th August , which was a week before we had planned to bring our pupils back in my local authority .
This gave us 12 days in which to put everything in place that was required .
It was a mammoth task .
In the Borders we have 16,000 pupils , 68 schools , and 2,500 staff .
All of our schools had to be risk assessed , one way systems put in place , additional cleaners and cleaning measures implemented , additional cleaning materials purchased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupil ) , extra ventilation measures etc etc .
The Scottish Borders is a rural authority , almost half of our pupils travel by bus to school ; this was a major headache for our school transport teams .
Again the guidance from the Government came out on 30 July : buses were to be viewed as an extension of the school estate and therefore users would not need to wear masks or socially distance .
However , we also have children who use normal service buses for transport to school .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools transport and take them out of service .
Windows have to be open all the time , fine in August but what happens in January in Scotland ?
We had to turn around bus passes for all the children in record quick time with staff working solidly for 12 days in order to get everyone the information that they needed .
Our poor children who were going into their first years of primary and secondary had missed out on any transition and were obviously worried – and the poor parents were only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases hours ) before the kids were returning to school .
And none of this is cheap : our antibacterial wipes bill for next year is £2.5 million and we are a relatively small authority .
The strain on local council budgets as a result of Covid can not be underestimated .
Just to put this into context : in the Borders , a one per cent Council Tax rise generates £500,000 of income .
So the wipes bill alone would require a five per cent Council Tax hike .
Governments must step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full cost of our Covid responsibilities , so that we are not forced to push the costs onto taxpayers .
But , we did it .
All of our kids returned successfully on Tuesday morning at 8.45 and in the words of the first year in my house , “ secondary school is awesome ” .
We do have to remember that our kids are resilient and will get through this and often it is the parents who are more anxious than the children .
So here is my advice for our English @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Make sure you get more than 12 days notice of what measures are required .
Get information out to parents as quickly and as simply as possible .
Five emails on five topics are better than one long email with lots of information .
Work with all of your staff , teachers , cleaners , support staff they are all important .
In Scotland our support staff felt ignored as the Government only spoke to teachers unions and not our support staff .
Reassure parents as much as possible but don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid outbreaks , be clear how you will handle them when they do happen .
And finally show your working .
Be clear how you came to decisions that you have come to and be as transparent as possible .

Cllr Shona Haslam is the Leader of the Scottish Borders Council
It’s back to school in Scotland and for thousands of pupils (and parents) it has been a looooong summer…
Local councils have been planning for two different scenarios. The first: “blended learning” with a combination of in-school and home learning, using technology. The second: a full return with Covid measures in place. The Scottish Government told us that they would announce which model we were to go for, and Covid containment measures, on 30th of July. The Government also announced that pupils were to return to school on 11th August, which was a week before we had planned to bring our pupils back in my local authority.
This gave us 12 days in which to put everything in place that was required. It was a mammoth task.
In the Borders we have 16,000 pupils, 68 schools, and 2,500 staff. All of our schools had to be risk assessed, one way systems put in place, additional cleaners and cleaning measures implemented, additional cleaning materials purchased (including wipes for every classroom and pupil), extra ventilation measures etc etc.
The Scottish Borders is a rural authority, almost half of our pupils travel by bus to school; this was a major headache for our school transport teams. Again the guidance from the Government came out on 30 July: buses were to be viewed as an extension of the school estate and therefore users would not need to wear masks or socially distance. However, we also have children who use normal service buses for transport to school. We have had to commandeer these buses for schools transport and take them out of service. Windows have to be open all the time, fine in August but what happens in January in Scotland? We had to turn around bus passes for all the children in record quick time with staff working solidly for 12 days in order to get everyone the information that they needed.
Our poor children who were going into their first years of primary and secondary had missed out on any transition and were obviously worried – and the poor parents were only getting information days (and in some cases hours) before the kids were returning to school.
And none of this is cheap: our antibacterial wipes bill for next year is £2.5 million and we are a relatively small authority. The strain on local council budgets as a result of Covid cannot be underestimated. Just to put this into context: in the Borders, a one per cent Council Tax rise generates £500,000 of income. So the wipes bill alone would require a five per cent Council Tax hike. Governments must step up and help local authorities cover the full cost of our Covid responsibilities, so that we are not forced to push the costs onto taxpayers.
But, we did it. All of our kids returned successfully on Tuesday morning at 8.45 and in the words of the first year in my house, “secondary school is awesome”. We do have to remember that our kids are resilient and will get through this and often it is the parents who are more anxious than the children.
So here is my advice for our English neighbours as they return to school. Make sure you get more than 12 days notice of what measures are required. Get information out to parents as quickly and as simply as possible. Five emails on five topics are better than one long email with lots of information. Work with all of your staff, teachers, cleaners, support staff they are all important. In Scotland our support staff felt ignored as the Government only spoke to teachers unions and not our support staff. Reassure parents as much as possible but don’t make false promises. There will be Covid outbreaks, be clear how you will handle them when they do happen. And finally show your working. Be clear how you came to decisions that you have come to and be as transparent as possible.