conservativehome--2020-03-13--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the British Council – a

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the British Council – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year , after 10 years in post .
We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR ’ s staff .
This is a high profile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills and integrity .
Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity .
Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term .
There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms .
This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.
” “ The Office for Nuclear Regulation ( ONR ) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK .
Its vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspires respect , trust and confidence .
ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) who have principal responsibility for governance , finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety .
The Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director ( NED ) to the ONR Board.
” “ As we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution , a wave of technological innovation is creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transforming the way things are made and the way we live .
From AI-powered legal services to autonomous ships , new products , services and business models are emerging which don ’ t fit with existing regulatory systems .
In its White Paper on Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution , the Government committed to establishing a Regulatory Horizons Council ( RHC ) to identify the implications of technological innovation with high potential benefit for the UK economy and society and advise the government on regulatory reform needed to support its rapid and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services , leading a sizeable and complex organisation .
There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role .
Under Andrew Bailey , the FCA has formulated a transformation programme , to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development : a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified ; [ and ] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal , and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.
” “ The Chief Executive will assume office at a time of unprecedented external change .
The political landscape in Europe and around the globe is altering with increasing pace and less predictability .
The British Council is also in constant transformation to deliver within funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and customer-facing world .
The aims and goals of the British Council are more necessary than ever .
Delivering them in the complex world of 2020 is more difficult than at any time since 1945 .
The resulting demands on the Chief Executive in terms of vision , agility , ability to simplify and lead with clarity and purpose are substantial .
The Chief Executive will be instrumental in redefining both ‘ soft power ’ and ‘ cultural relations ’ at this pivotal moment and will help define the place of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ‘ disrupted ’ and uncertain geopolitical world.
” Remuneration : Up to £150k per annum plus bonus to 8 per cent and Civil Service Pension “ The Coast to Capital Strategic Board comprises private sector and local authority Members , setting a vision for and overseeing delivery of economic prosperity for all in the Coast to Capital area , including through Government funding of projects through the Local Growth Fund .
They are accountable to the LEP Board and for the proper governance of the LEP .
Coast to Capital is seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the C2C area to help lead the region and meet the ambitious vision set out in its strategic plan .
Currently chaired by Tim Wates , who will be stepping down in July 2020 , the Board brings together a diverse mix of regional business leaders alongside senior politicians and leaders from Universities and Further Education .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Budget Responsibility – Chair
“Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year, after 10 years in post. We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR’s staff. This is a high profile and influential role, requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity. Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity. Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term. There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms. This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.”
Time: Full- or part-time.
Remuneration: £158,762 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 19 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Nuclear Regulation – Security Non-Executive Director
“The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK. Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect, trust and confidence. ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) who have principal responsibility for governance, finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director (NED) to the ONR Board.”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 plus expenses.
Closes: 22 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Horizons Panel – Member
“As we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a wave of technological innovation is creating new industries, disrupting existing ones and transforming the way things are made and the way we live. From AI-powered legal services to autonomous ships, new products, services and business models are emerging which don’t fit with existing regulatory systems. In its White Paper on Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the Government committed to establishing a Regulatory Horizons Council (RHC) to identify the implications of technological innovation with high potential benefit for the UK economy and society and advise the government on regulatory reform needed to support its rapid and safe introduction.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £380 per diem.
Closes: 23 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Conduct Authority – Chief Executive
“This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services, leading a sizeable and complex organisation. There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role. Under Andrew Bailey, the FCA has formulated a transformation programme, to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development: a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified; [and] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal, and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Competitive.
Closes: 27 March
– – – – – – – – – –
British Council – Chief Executive
“The Chief Executive will assume office at a time of unprecedented external change. The political landscape in Europe and around the globe is altering with increasing pace and less predictability. The British Council is also in constant transformation to deliver within funding constraints in a demanding, more client and customer-facing world. The aims and goals of the British Council are more necessary than ever. Delivering them in the complex world of 2020 is more difficult than at any time since 1945. The resulting demands on the Chief Executive in terms of vision, agility, ability to simplify and lead with clarity and purpose are substantial. The Chief Executive will be instrumental in redefining both ‘soft power’ and ‘cultural relations’ at this pivotal moment and will help define the place of the United Kingdom, for the better, in a ‘disrupted’ and uncertain geopolitical world.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Up to £150k per annum plus bonus to 8 per cent and Civil Service Pension
Closes: 27 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (C2C LEP) – Chair
“The Coast to Capital Strategic Board comprises private sector and local authority Members, setting a vision for and overseeing delivery of economic prosperity for all in the Coast to Capital area, including through Government funding of projects through the Local Growth Fund. They are accountable to the LEP Board and for the proper governance of the LEP. Coast to Capital is seeking an influential and persuasive senior business figure from the C2C area to help lead the region and meet the ambitious vision set out in its strategic plan. Currently chaired by Tim Wates, who will be stepping down in July 2020, the Board brings together a diverse mix of regional business leaders alongside senior politicians and leaders from Universities and Further Education.”
Time: Four days per month, three-year term.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 30 March


conservativehome--2020-03-13--Lagarde, von der Leyen and Merkel have all failed to take charge of Europe’s response to the virus

Who is in charge of the clattering train ?
That question , often put by Winston Churchill , needs to be answered with the utmost urgency by the European authorities if they are to avert disaster .
Someone has to take charge .
Christine Lagarde , the President of the European Central Bank , instead said during yesterday ’ s press conference in Frankfurt : In other words , they have not yet come together .
Lagarde also made this unguarded comment : She implied that the ECB is indifferent to the widening gap between Italian and German bond yields @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage by saying : “ I am fully committed to avoid any fragmentation in a difficult moment for the euro area.
” No doubt she is fully committed , but what can she actually do ?
Meanwhile in Brussels , Ursula von der Leyen , the new President of the European Commission , promises on Twitter to “ use all the tools at our disposal ” to contain the spread of the Coronavirus and ensure that the European economy weathers the storm .
But what are the tools at her disposal ?
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows Brussels well : No wonder the Italians , doing all they can as a nation to meet the crisis , have chided the EU for being slow to come to their aid .
The usual assumption , when Europe is in crisis , is that Germany will mount a rescue mission .
But in this crisis , Angela Merkel has so far shown zero leadership .
Her natural game is to hold back , to wait and see which way things are moving , to intervene only when her services are acknowledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consensus politics entails long periods of immobility , with decisive action out of the question until everyone has talked the subject through with impressive thoroughness , but at almost unbearable length .
Some of the federal states – Bavaria , North Rhine-Westphalia , Schleswig-Holstein – have decided the epidemic demands action .
Others , such as Berlin , refuse to see the need for a significant response .
Michael Müller , the Mayor of Berlin , is well aware that many Berliners are more worried by the climate crisis , and reckon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem “ , for it will only kill old people and those who have cancer , and might even do the planet some good .
Von der Leyen recently met Greta Thunberg , and was reproached by her young visitor for unveiling a climate law which will only make the EU carbon neutral by 2050 .
Meanwhile the Dublin Government has decided to shut schools , universities and childcare facilities until the end of March : noticeably different to the sombre but more gradual approach commended yesterday afternoon by Boris Johnson and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Different nation states can and do vary in their responses to the epidemic , and those in charge will be held accountable for the decisions they are now making , especially if those decisions turn out to be wrong .
If Donald Trump ’ s attempts to downplay the danger prove mistaken , he will lose in November .
But who will be held responsible in the EU ?
No answer to that question can be given , for no one is in charge .
At the end of the poem quoted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Death is in charge of the clattering train .
”

Who is in charge of the clattering train? That question, often put by Winston Churchill, needs to be answered with the utmost urgency by the European authorities if they are to avert disaster.
Someone has to take charge. Christine Lagarde, the President of the European Central Bank, instead said during yesterday’s press conference in Frankfurt:
“I really would like all of us to join forces, I very much hope that the fiscal authorities appreciate that we will only deal with this shock if we come together.”
In other words, they have not yet come together. Lagarde also made this unguarded comment:
”We are not here to close spreads, this is not the function or the mission of the ECB. There are other tools for that and there are other actors to actually deal with those issues.”
She implied that the ECB is indifferent to the widening gap between Italian and German bond yields. Later she tried to repair the damage by saying: “I am fully committed to avoid any fragmentation in a difficult moment for the euro area.”
No doubt she is fully committed, but what can she actually do?
Meanwhile in Brussels, Ursula von der Leyen, the new President of the European Commission, promises on Twitter to “use all the tools at our disposal” to contain the spread of the Coronavirus and ensure that the European economy weathers the storm.
But what are the tools at her disposal? In the words of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who knows Brussels well:
“The EU’s legalistic spending machinery will limit any fiscal punch and slow the roll out of crisis measures. There are still no eurobonds, no shared budget, and no mutualised pan-eurozone deposit insurance for banks, which leaves vulnerable Italy in the worst of all worlds: deprived of sovereign economic instruments yet without EU fiscal support to compensate.”
No wonder the Italians, doing all they can as a nation to meet the crisis, have chided the EU for being slow to come to their aid.
The usual assumption, when Europe is in crisis, is that Germany will mount a rescue mission. But in this crisis, Angela Merkel has so far shown zero leadership.
Her natural game is to hold back, to wait and see which way things are moving, to intervene only when her services are acknowledged to be indispensable.
The German tradition of consensus politics entails long periods of immobility, with decisive action out of the question until everyone has talked the subject through with impressive thoroughness, but at almost unbearable length.
Some of the federal states – Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia, Schleswig-Holstein – have decided the epidemic demands action. Others, such as Berlin, refuse to see the need for a significant response.
Michael Müller, the Mayor of Berlin, is well aware that many Berliners are more worried by the climate crisis, and reckon the Coronavirus is “not a serious problem“, for it will only kill old people and those who have cancer, and might even do the planet some good.
Von der Leyen recently met Greta Thunberg, and was reproached by her young visitor for unveiling a climate law which will only make the EU carbon neutral by 2050.
Meanwhile the Dublin Government has decided to shut schools, universities and childcare facilities until the end of March: noticeably different to the sombre but more gradual approach commended yesterday afternoon by Boris Johnson and the British Government’s scientific advisers.
Different nation states can and do vary in their responses to the epidemic, and those in charge will be held accountable for the decisions they are now making, especially if those decisions turn out to be wrong.
If Donald Trump’s attempts to downplay the danger prove mistaken, he will lose in November.
But who will be held responsible in the EU? No answer to that question can be given, for no one is in charge.
At the end of the poem quoted by Churchill comes an answer of sorts: “Death is in charge of the clattering train.”


Coronavirus Count

Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
• And from Northern Ireland here .
Number of people tested in the UK : 29,764 ( plus 2,288 on yesterday ’ s figure ) .
Number of people tested positive : 590 ( plus 134 on yesterday ’ s figure ) .
Number of people tested positive who have since died : eight .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
From Public Health England ’ s webpage Total UK cases COVID-19 Cases Update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • You think you might have coronavirus • In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see our coronavirus advice for travellers • You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus • In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview Travellers should self-isolate , even if asymptomatic , and use the 111 online coronavirus service to find out what to do next .
Go home or to your destination and then self isolate .
• Daegu or Cheongdo ( Republic of Korea , see map ) *Except areas of the country specifically referred to in Category 1 .
** ( i ) Travellers who returned from areas of Northern Italy that were under containment measures ( see map ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should self-isolate for 14 days .
If they develop symptoms they should contact NHS111 .
( ii ) Travellers who returned from the rest of Italy before 9 March 2020 do not need to undertake any special measures , but if they develop symptoms they should self-isolate and call NHS 111 .
Travellers do not need to undertake any special measures , but if they develop symptoms they should self-isolate and call NHS 111 .
Updated as of 7am on Thursday March 12 .

HEADLINE FACTS
Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 292,950 (Up from 291,409).
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 41,481 (Up from 41,279).
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 1,541 (Up from 1,266).
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 202 (Up from 151).
England total cases: 156,410 (Up from 156,018 ).
England total deaths: 37,069 (Up from 36,883).
England death rate: 279.4 (Was 278.7).
Scotland total cases: 15,709 (Up from 15,682).
Scotland total deaths: 2,439 (Up from 2,434).
Scotland death rate: 288.9 (Was 288.4).
Wales total cases: 14,658 (Up from 14,581).
Wales total deaths: 1,435 (Up from 1,425).
Wales death rate: 467.0 (Was 464.6)
Northern Ireland total cases: 4,838 (Up from 4,822)
Northern Ireland total deaths: 538 (Up from 537).
Northern Ireland death rate: 257.1 (Was 256.3).
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED
DAILY NUMBER OF LAB-CONFIRMED ENGLAND CASES
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
RISK
“The risk to the UK has been raised to high” –
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
NHS VOLUNTEER RESPONDER FORM
See here
(The Government’s scheme to recruit 250,000 volunteers.)
– – –
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD: THE UK GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY
See here. New as of Monday May 11.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON THE LOCKDOWN.
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL DISTANCING
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: GENERAL ADVICE
See here.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CAN’T DO
See here.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW
See here. Published on Saturday March 28.
– – –
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS
Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when you cough or sneeze .
Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell.
SYMPTOMS
The symptoms of coronavirus are:
A cough.
A high temperature.
Shortness of breath.
However, these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness.
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common, such as cold and flu.
USING 111
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do.
Use this service if:
You think you might have coronavirus.
In the last 14 days you’ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers.
You’ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus.
In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours.
In Wales call 111 (if available in your area) or 0845 46 47.
In Northern Ireland call 111.
Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital.
FURTHER LINKS TO GOVERNMENT ADVICE
– – –
(All information taken from Government sources.
Updated as of 19.00 on Friday June 12.)


conservativehome--2020-03-13--Iain Dale: The virus may give a permanent boost to home working – as employers learn to trust employ

Iain Dale: The virus may give a permanent boost to home working – as employers learn to trust employees to do it

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN .
Cometh the hour , cometh the Hancock .
Sometimes it needs a good crisis for a politician ’ s best qualities to come to the fore , and so it has proved with our Secretary of State for Health .
So far , Matt Hancock has had a ‘ good war ’ .
He ’ s shown calmness under fire , a total grip of the subject matter and leadership qualities which perhaps hitherto hadn ’ t been on full display .
In some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise , given the centralising tendencies in Number Ten , but they have allowed Hancock to lead the Government ’ s response , bringing in the Prime Minister only when necessary .
The media , of course , want it both ways .
They complain when everything seems to emanate from Number Ten , but then also berate Boris Johnson for not leading the Government ’ s response to the crisis and chairing every single Cobra meeting .
He ’ s clearly taken the view that he has a Cabinet , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them – to get on with their jobs .
We are still in the early stages of this crisis , and things could soon change rather dramatically .
It is clear that public demands for ‘ action this day ’ are growing .
As I write , Cobra is about to meet and we will be moving to stage two – delay .
I still don ’ t expect the kind of dramatic response that we ’ ve seen in Italy , but let ’ s not pretend that a full quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about two weeks behind it .
The natural response of many is that we should be banning flights into the country from Italy and some other countries too .
People think all sporting events should be cancelled .
It is clear that many businesses are already taking the kind of action people expect the government to take .
Conferences are being cancelled , left , right and centre .
The Liberal Democrats have cancelled their Spring Conference which was due to take place in York this weekend .
People will shrug their shoulders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic consequences on the local economy in York .
Hotel rooms empty .
Restaurants less busy .
Taxis without fares .
I could go on .
Too many businesses seem to be adherents of the ‘ something must be done ’ syndrome .
Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing .
It seems to me that some organisations are taking ‘ firm action ’ just to virtue signal that they are doing something .
Having said that , it is entirely right that home-working should be encouraged .
The less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I suspect one of the lasting legacies of this crisis is that companies will start to trust their employees to work at home in a way they ’ ve never done before .
Clearly , home-working is impossible in many sectors of the economy , but where it can be done , it should be .
The idea that Trevor Phillips is some sort of Islamophobe is to be ridiculed .
He ’ s spent his life fighting racism .
The Labour Party said they had to suspend him as a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is accused of saying were said many years ago .
And most of the accusations revolve around his comments on British Pakistani grooming gangs – all of which I wholeheartedly endorse .
Jenny Formby , the General Secretary of the Labour Party , has overreached herself on this one .
Assuming Keir Starmer wins the leadership of the Labour Party , you ’ d have to predict that her tenure in the job ought to be a very short one .
Could Hillary Clinton yet become President of the United States ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of picking her as his vice-presidential running mate .
Well , why not ?
You don ’ t have to be a septuagenarian to be involved in this contest , but it sure does help .
She ’ s 72 .
If Biden wins , he ’ ll be 78 by the time of his inauguration and given the clear signs of mental decline that he is displaying , it is surely sensible to have a Vice President who ’ s highly experienced .
The trouble is , however , Donald Trump will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once .
I don ’ t wish to rain on Rishi Sunak ’ s post-Budget parade , but what on earth happened to the concept of ‘ sound money ’ ?
I never thought I ’ d live to see the day when a Conservative Government would turn on the spending taps like this .
Margaret Thatcher must be turning in her grave .
I completely get the need to invest in infrastructure , and I the fact that interest rates are at an all time low , but it comes to something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Ed Balls was advocating at the 2015 general election .
It makes you wonder what austerity was all about .
I do worry that by spending in haste , Sunak will repent at leisure .
Or rather his successor will have to clear up the mess .
I hope I am proved wrong .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.
Cometh the hour, cometh the Hancock. Sometimes it needs a good crisis for a politician’s best qualities to come to the fore, and so it has proved with our Secretary of State for Health.
So far, Matt Hancock has had a ‘good war’. He’s shown calmness under fire, a total grip of the subject matter and leadership qualities which perhaps hitherto hadn’t been on full display.
In some ways, this is something of a surprise, given the centralising tendencies in Number Ten, but they have allowed Hancock to lead the Government’s response, bringing in the Prime Minister only when necessary.
The media, of course, want it both ways. They complain when everything seems to emanate from Number Ten, but then also berate Boris Johnson for not leading the Government’s response to the crisis and chairing every single Cobra meeting.
He’s clearly taken the view that he has a Cabinet, and he trusts its members – well, some of them – to get on with their jobs.
We are still in the early stages of this crisis, and things could soon change rather dramatically. It is clear that public demands for ‘action this day’ are growing. As I write, Cobra is about to meet and we will be moving to stage two – delay.
I still don’t expect the kind of dramatic response that we’ve seen in Italy, but let’s not pretend that a full quarantine lockdown could happen. We’re about two weeks behind it.
The natural response of many is that we should be banning flights into the country from Italy and some other countries too. People think all sporting events should be cancelled.
It is clear that many businesses are already taking the kind of action people expect the government to take. Conferences are being cancelled, left, right and centre. The Liberal Democrats have cancelled their Spring Conference which was due to take place in York this weekend.
People will shrug their shoulders, but that single decision will have economic consequences on the local economy in York. Hotel rooms empty. Restaurants less busy. Taxis without fares. I could go on.
Too many businesses seem to be adherents of the ‘something must be done’ syndrome. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. It seems to me that some organisations are taking ‘firm action’ just to virtue signal that they are doing something.
Having said that, it is entirely right that home-working should be encouraged. The less people mix with each other the better.
I suspect one of the lasting legacies of this crisis is that companies will start to trust their employees to work at home in a way they’ve never done before. Clearly, home-working is impossible in many sectors of the economy, but where it can be done, it should be.
– – – – – – – – – –
The idea that Trevor Phillips is some sort of Islamophobe is to be ridiculed. He’s spent his life fighting racism.
The Labour Party said they had to suspend him as a matter of urgency, yet all the things he is accused of saying were said many years ago.
And most of the accusations revolve around his comments on British Pakistani grooming gangs – all of which I wholeheartedly endorse.
Jenny Formby, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, has overreached herself on this one. Assuming Keir Starmer wins the leadership of the Labour Party, you’d have to predict that her tenure in the job ought to be a very short one.
– – – – – – – – – –
Could Hillary Clinton yet become President of the United States? Joe Biden is rumoured to be thinking of picking her as his vice-presidential running mate.
Well, why not? You don’t have to be a septuagenarian to be involved in this contest, but it sure does help. She’s 72.
If Biden wins, he’ll be 78 by the time of his inauguration and given the clear signs of mental decline that he is displaying, it is surely sensible to have a Vice President who’s highly experienced.
The trouble is, however, Donald Trump will think all his Christmases have come at once.
– – – – – – – – – –
I don’t wish to rain on Rishi Sunak’s post-Budget parade, but what on earth happened to the concept of ‘sound money’? I never thought I’d live to see the day when a Conservative Government would turn on the spending taps like this. Margaret Thatcher must be turning in her grave.
I completely get the need to invest in infrastructure, and I the fact that interest rates are at an all time low, but it comes to something when a Conservative Chancellor adopts the policies which Ed Balls was advocating at the 2015 general election.
It makes you wonder what austerity was all about. I do worry that by spending in haste, Sunak will repent at leisure. Or rather his successor will have to clear up the mess. I hope I am proved wrong.


conservativehome--2020-03-13--James Palmer: My plan to offer £100,000 homes in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

James Palmer is the directly elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough .
Between 2017 and 2018 , nearly 3,000 people aged 20-34 left Cambridge , a net loss of over 2.5 per cent of the population of the city in a single year .
This is a significant dent in the number of young professionals and young families and bad news for our communities and for business .
Haemorrhaging young people , the lifeblood of our economy , on this scale , year on year , would be a sheer disaster for growth and would leave our cities , towns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An exodus of working aged people seems entirely probable and quite likely , however , when you consider that average house prices are between ten and thirteen times average income in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire and between six and seven times in Peterborough and Fenland .
With most mortgages offered at four times salary , buying on the open market is out of reach for most people in the region .
This is a problem faced by people across the UK , with average house prices eight times that of national average income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six times faster than median income for people aged 25-34 in the last quarter century , it is particularly acute for those under 35 , known as ‘ generation rent ’ .
Since 2001 , the housing supply in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has increased by 17.8 per cent compared to 11 per cent nationally .
But still , the struggle to find housing that is affordable is one faced by people of all ages , in all corners of the region .
From Whittlesey to Waterbeach and Manea to March , architects , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bar staff , office workers , and librarians are having to move further and further from their place of work or out of the area .
This is untenable and as the directly elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough it is my duty to do something about it .
Which is why I am determined to bring to market £100,000 Homes , a genuinely affordable housing initiative that will make homes available to people on average income or below , in the areas they live or work , for £100,000 .
£100,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achievable deposit and affordable monthly repayments .
This is a more sustainable model than Shared Ownership or Help to Buy where buyers are often faced with high monthly outgoings or large loan repayments after an initial interest free period .
Providing homes for people close to where they work will help stimulate and sustain the economy by increasing work productivity and removing unnecessary burden on transport infrastructure whilst also helping to reduce avoidable carbon emissions .
Historically , local growth has been strong , with GVA increasing by 84.6 per cent between 2001 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average of 72.7 per cent .
Latest figures from the ONS show Cambridgeshire GVA grew by 4.7 per cent and Peterborough by 10.4 per cent between 2017 and 2018 , while UK GVA increased by 3.4 per cent .
But this growth is under threat , as house prices far outstripping wage growth drives people and businesses out of the area .
Larger cities such as London with more advanced transport networks that allow people to live in cheaper areas on the outskirts , but enjoy better commutes are attractive .
In our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the high grade agricultural areas of the Fens in the east , the rapidly growing industries of Peterborough in the north , to the knowledge based economy and international businesses of Greater Cambridgeshire in the south – a microcosm for the UK , in fact .
The opportunities and challenges are vast and part of why I am proud to be Mayor .
But we must improve the economic prospects of everyone in the area .
Frankly , why should local people rejoice in our economic growth , when their children can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place , they call ‘ home ’ ?
£100,000 Homes will make home ownership possible for many more people , helping to ‘ level up ’ the prosperity of the region .
£100,000 Homes will be sold at a discount rate to their open market value to achieve a price tag of £100,000 .
The discount will be passed onto future buyers , helping more people onto the property ladder .
With cross-party local and national political support , we are working with local housing developers to deliver £100,000 homes , offering low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processes .
The first set of homes are under construction , with the first cohort of owners expected to move in at the end of this year .
For developers , getting people on the housing ladder at the bottom end helps create future demand further up the chain .
They can fulfil their affordable housing obligations without the involvement of third parties and build homes to the same standard as their open market properties .
Feedback from developers has been they want to be part of the solution in what is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that unless young people are helped onto the ladder , we face a tipping point of no longer having a sustainable market .
The government has a well vocalised commitment to levelling up the economic prospects of the country .
But with a huge proportion of the population unable to buy a home , the gap between those who own assets and those who don ’ t , is widening .
We must continue to develop solutions such as £100,000 homes to address this , or far from levelling up , economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come .

James Palmer is the directly elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
Between 2017 and 2018, nearly 3,000 people aged 20-34 left Cambridge, a net loss of over 2.5 per cent of the population of the city in a single year.
This is a significant dent in the number of young professionals and young families and bad news for our communities and for business.
Haemorrhaging young people, the lifeblood of our economy, on this scale, year on year, would be a sheer disaster for growth and would leave our cities, towns and villages hollowed at their core.
An exodus of working aged people seems entirely probable and quite likely, however, when you consider that average house prices are between ten and thirteen times average income in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire and between six and seven times in Peterborough and Fenland. With most mortgages offered at four times salary, buying on the open market is out of reach for most people in the region.
This is a problem faced by people across the UK, with average house prices eight times that of national average income. With average house prices having risen six times faster than median income for people aged 25-34 in the last quarter century, it is particularly acute for those under 35, known as ‘generation rent’.
Since 2001, the housing supply in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has increased by 17.8 per cent compared to 11 per cent nationally. But still, the struggle to find housing that is affordable is one faced by people of all ages, in all corners of the region. From Whittlesey to Waterbeach and Manea to March, architects, engineers, pastry chefs, trainee lawyers, bar staff, office workers, and librarians are having to move further and further from their place of work or out of the area.
This is untenable and as the directly elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough it is my duty to do something about it. Which is why I am determined to bring to market £100,000 Homes, a genuinely affordable housing initiative that will make homes available to people on average income or below, in the areas they live or work, for £100,000.
£100,000 Homes offers outright property ownership with an achievable deposit and affordable monthly repayments. This is a more sustainable model than Shared Ownership or Help to Buy where buyers are often faced with high monthly outgoings or large loan repayments after an initial interest free period.
Providing homes for people close to where they work will help stimulate and sustain the economy by increasing work productivity and removing unnecessary burden on transport infrastructure whilst also helping to reduce avoidable carbon emissions.
Historically, local growth has been strong, with GVA increasing by 84.6 per cent between 2001 and 2016, compared to a UK average of 72.7 per cent. Latest figures from the ONS show Cambridgeshire GVA grew by 4.7 per cent and Peterborough by 10.4 per cent between 2017 and 2018, while UK GVA increased by 3.4 per cent.
But this growth is under threat, as house prices far outstripping wage growth drives people and businesses out of the area. Larger cities such as London with more advanced transport networks that allow people to live in cheaper areas on the outskirts, but enjoy better commutes are attractive.
In our devolved region, there is staggering diversity from the high grade agricultural areas of the Fens in the east, the rapidly growing industries of Peterborough in the north, to the knowledge based economy and international businesses of Greater Cambridgeshire in the south – a microcosm for the UK, in fact.
The opportunities and challenges are vast and part of why I am proud to be Mayor. But we must improve the economic prospects of everyone in the area. Frankly, why should local people rejoice in our economic growth, when their children can’t afford to live in a place, they call ‘home’? £100,000 Homes will make home ownership possible for many more people, helping to ‘level up’ the prosperity of the region.
£100,000 Homes will be sold at a discount rate to their open market value to achieve a price tag of £100,000. The discount will be passed onto future buyers, helping more people onto the property ladder.
With cross-party local and national political support, we are working with local housing developers to deliver £100,000 homes, offering low interest loan funding and help navigating planning processes.
The first set of homes are under construction, with the first cohort of owners expected to move in at the end of this year.
For developers, getting people on the housing ladder at the bottom end helps create future demand further up the chain. They can fulfil their affordable housing obligations without the involvement of third parties and build homes to the same standard as their open market properties.
Feedback from developers has been they want to be part of the solution in what is a huge issue facing the economy. They say that unless young people are helped onto the ladder, we face a tipping point of no longer having a sustainable market.
The government has a well vocalised commitment to levelling up the economic prospects of the country. But with a huge proportion of the population unable to buy a home, the gap between those who own assets and those who don’t, is widening. We must continue to develop solutions such as £100,000 homes to address this, or far from levelling up, economic inequality could be locked in for generations to come.


conservativehome--2020-03-13--Johnson’s extra virus mission.  To help “save the world”.

A thought experiment .
Let ’ s imagine as total a shutdown of Britain as it is possible to manage .
Schools closed , offices empty , shops shut – save those selling food .
Minimal public transport .
Airports closed .
Older people deliberately isolated .
No public events .
An economic freeze .
The country sealed off .
Sooner or later , the freeze would have to thaw : the Government would signal a return to as near normality as possible , and people would begin to emerge blinking , like post-hiberation bears , from their homes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his advisers argue , they would run slap bang into the waiting Coronvirus .
There would be health service carnage .
The NHS would be unable to cope , in the manner of Italy ’ s hospitals now .
The death rate would climb to – what ?
– six per cent ; seven per cent ; more .
In this view of events , the Coronavirus is like an invading army .
If you hunker down , wait for it to pass , and then emerge dazzled into the spring sunshine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you down and defeat you .
The Prime Minister ’ s plan is , rather , for a national fight back .
This will come not so much through the eventual deployment of a vaccine , like some battlefield nuclear weapon , but through acting as close to Carry on Britain as it is possible to do .
In that way , the population will acquire “ herd immunity ” .
This will beat the virus in the medium term , and flatten its peak in the short – staggering out those hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NHS from being over-run completely .
This is the core of the case argued this week by Patrick Vallance .
That it is made by the Government ’ s Chief Scientific Officer doesn ’ t mean that it represents “ the science ” .
For strictly speaking , there is no such thing .
Rather , Johnson is being guided by a plan partly based on a certain scientific reading of events .
Some scientists agree with it ; others don ’ t .
That ’ s in the nature of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeps repeating , the decisions that the Government must make are not scientific , but political .
We thus find ourselves in the odd position of agreeing on paper with Rory Stewart , who has made precisely this point , while not agreeing with his call for a China-type response in practice .
He is correct to suggest that the Government ’ s actions can ’ t turn on “ the science ” because ultimately they must hazard a guess on the behaviour of human beings – which is not a science ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it may be that the Prime Minister ’ s strategy , so unlike that of most other comparable governments , is fundamentally flawed .
This would be because people will behave in a more disciplined way that the Government ’ s modelling suggests ; or because “ herd immunity ” can ’ t be acquired so quickly , or because draconian responses are the example to follow .
To follow our wartime analogy , this interpretation of what ’ s happening sees Johnson as an Oh What a Lovely War general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of older people “ over the top ” to die amidst the virus ’ s equivalent of barbed wire and poison gas .
None the less , we think there is a solid case for the Prime Minister ’ s approaching – carried out against the prevailing practice elsewhere , lauded as successful , by Jeremy Hunt , in a series of Far Eastern countries and places .
This isn ’ t to say that the Government is getting everything right .
The advice from 111 to people returning from Italy lagged behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson was slow to concede that the local elections should called off .
111 has sometimes given conflicting advice .
But there are three solid points to make in Johnson ’ s favour .
The first is that the very same people who were only recently denouncing him as a Trumpite populist monster are now excoriating him for being not populist enough .
Charlotte Gill made this case on ConservativeHome yesterday .
And if the debate was , frankly , Vallance v : Piers Morgan , one wouldn ’ t hesitate for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it is not quite as simple as that : for as we point out above , some scientists disagree with the Chief Scientific Adviser .
The second point is a development of the first .
Governments like to tell voters that all will be well – in the case of this one , that it will succeed in “ levelling up ” .
But perhaps the levelling that matters most is levelling with the British people .
If a Prime Minister is willing to tell them that “ many more will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” this sounds like a candid , politically risky statement of truth from a man accused by his enemies of telling nothing but lies .
It commands respect .
War analogies in politics are dangerous , but there is something in the one that this site uses today .
The struggle against the Coronavirus will be a real war with real casualties .
Our snowflaky , social media-focused , Me Too culture may cope , but it is unprepared for it , and there has been nothing like it in most people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Britain ’ s institutions may be a strength .
We don ’ t just mean right-of-centreish ones – like our first past the post system that has delivered a Government with a near landslide majority of 80 .
We mean a centralised , nationalised healthcare system – itself a product of wartime thinking ; not always suited to peacetime , but well set up for a command-and-control-led crisis .
Or a state broadcaster that can carry public information which commercial rivals are under no compulsion to carry .
This brings us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favour .
The European Union ’ s response to the virus has been torpid ; Trump ’ s schlerotic ; China is grappling with its debt burden .
A combination of a Corovirus-driven downturn , oil price wars , corporate debt and the lack of leadership from the EU institutions and the American President threaten a real crisis for the world economy .
Amidst these seething , turbulent waters , the Prime Minister ’ s majority looks like a rock .
Gordon Brown was mocked during the financial crisis for mis-declaring at Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ saved the world ” .
But now that we look back at it , the old boy didn ’ t do badly in the hour of need – despite his responsibility for some of Britain ’ s biggest pre-crisis mistakes .
Johnson is no Brown in almost any sense .
He is mistrusted by the EU and apparently alienated from Trump , at least to some degree , by his decision to keep going with Huawei .
But together with Emmanuel Macron , he is a strong domestic leader .
As Ambrose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the two might just have the capacity , acting together as Britain and France still do on defence , to drive a global plan to tackle the virus .
Working together on an international fiscal and monetary stimulus package could conceivably make a difference .
Something on that scale is needed .
After all , this is a global and not merely a national conflict .
Whatever happens , we close with a hard thought .
Perhaps here at home , Johnson will succeed in “ flattening the peak ” .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t feel like success .
The NHS will still be over-run .
A & E departments will turn the sick away .
There will be agonising horrors .
The service risks tottering to its knees .

A thought experiment. Let’s imagine as total a shutdown of Britain as it is possible to manage. Schools closed, offices empty, shops shut – save those selling food. Minimal public transport. Airports closed. Older people deliberately isolated. No public events. An economic freeze. The country sealed off.
Sooner or later, the freeze would have to thaw: the Government would signal a return to as near normality as possible, and people would begin to emerge blinking, like post-hiberation bears, from their homes.
At this point, Boris Johnson and his advisers argue, they would run slap bang into the waiting Coronvirus. There would be health service carnage. The NHS would be unable to cope, in the manner of Italy’s hospitals now. The death rate would climb to – what? – six per cent; seven per cent; more.
In this view of events, the Coronavirus is like an invading army. If you hunker down, wait for it to pass, and then emerge dazzled into the spring sunshine, it will then ambush you, cut you down and defeat you.
The Prime Minister’s plan is, rather, for a national fight back. This will come not so much through the eventual deployment of a vaccine, like some battlefield nuclear weapon, but through acting as close to Carry on Britain as it is possible to do.
In that way, the population will acquire “herd immunity”. This will beat the virus in the medium term, and flatten its peak in the short – staggering out those hospital admissions over time, and thus preventing the NHS from being over-run completely. This is the core of the case argued this week by Patrick Vallance.
That it is made by the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer doesn’t mean that it represents “the science”. For strictly speaking, there is no such thing.
Rather, Johnson is being guided by a plan partly based on a certain scientific reading of events. Some scientists agree with it; others don’t. That’s in the nature of the beast. Probably because, as ConservativeHome keeps repeating, the decisions that the Government must make are not scientific, but political.
We thus find ourselves in the odd position of agreeing on paper with Rory Stewart, who has made precisely this point, while not agreeing with his call for a China-type response in practice.
He is correct to suggest that the Government’s actions can’t turn on “the science” because ultimately they must hazard a guess on the behaviour of human beings – which is not a science; or at most is a social one. And it may be that the Prime Minister’s strategy, so unlike that of most other comparable governments, is fundamentally flawed.
This would be because people will behave in a more disciplined way that the Government’s modelling suggests; or because “herd immunity” can’t be acquired so quickly, or because draconian responses are the example to follow.
To follow our wartime analogy, this interpretation of what’s happening sees Johnson as an Oh What a Lovely War general of legend, needlessly sending a generation of older people “over the top” to die amidst the virus’s equivalent of barbed wire and poison gas.
None the less, we think there is a solid case for the Prime Minister’s approaching – carried out against the prevailing practice elsewhere, lauded as successful, by Jeremy Hunt, in a series of Far Eastern countries and places.
This isn’t to say that the Government is getting everything right. The advice from 111 to people returning from Italy lagged behind changes announced by Public Health England. Johnson was slow to concede that the local elections should called off. 111 has sometimes given conflicting advice.
But there are three solid points to make in Johnson’s favour. The first is that the very same people who were only recently denouncing him as a Trumpite populist monster are now excoriating him for being not populist enough.
Charlotte Gill made this case on ConservativeHome yesterday. And if the debate was, frankly, Vallance v :Piers Morgan, one wouldn’t hesitate for a moment about whose side to be on. But it is not quite as simple as that: for as we point out above, some scientists disagree with the Chief Scientific Adviser.
The second point is a development of the first. Governments like to tell voters that all will be well – in the case of this one, that it will succeed in “levelling up”.
But perhaps the levelling that matters most is levelling with the British people. If a Prime Minister is willing to tell them that “many more will lose loved ones before their time,” this sounds like a candid, politically risky statement of truth from a man accused by his enemies of telling nothing but lies. It commands respect.
War analogies in politics are dangerous, but there is something in the one that this site uses today. The struggle against the Coronavirus will be a real war with real casualties. Our snowflaky, social media-focused, Me Too culture may cope, but it is unprepared for it, and there has been nothing like it in most people’s living experience.
In these circumstances, Britain’s institutions may be a strength. We don’t just mean right-of-centreish ones – like our first past the post system that has delivered a Government with a near landslide majority of 80.
We mean a centralised, nationalised healthcare system – itself a product of wartime thinking; not always suited to peacetime, but well set up for a command-and-control-led crisis. Or a state broadcaster that can carry public information which commercial rivals are under no compulsion to carry.
This brings us to a third point in Johnson’s favour. The European Union’s response to the virus has been torpid; Trump’s schlerotic; China is grappling with its debt burden.
A combination of a Corovirus-driven downturn, oil price wars, corporate debt and the lack of leadership from the EU institutions and the American President threaten a real crisis for the world economy. Amidst these seething, turbulent waters, the Prime Minister’s majority looks like a rock.
Gordon Brown was mocked during the financial crisis for mis-declaring at Prime Minister’s Questions that he had “saved the world”. But now that we look back at it, the old boy didn’t do badly in the hour of need – despite his responsibility for some of Britain’s biggest pre-crisis mistakes.
Johnson is no Brown in almost any sense. He is mistrusted by the EU and apparently alienated from Trump, at least to some degree, by his decision to keep going with Huawei.
But together with Emmanuel Macron, he is a strong domestic leader. As Ambrose Evans Pritchard argues in the Daily Telegraph, the two might just have the capacity, acting together as Britain and France still do on defence, to drive a global plan to tackle the virus.
Working together on an international fiscal and monetary stimulus package could conceivably make a difference. Something on that scale is needed. After all, this is a global and not merely a national conflict.
Whatever happens, we close with a hard thought. Perhaps here at home, Johnson will succeed in “flattening the peak”. However, we promise our readers that it won’t feel like success. The NHS will still be over-run. A & E departments will turn the sick away. There will be agonising horrors. The service risks tottering to its knees.


conservativehome--2020-03-13--David Gauke: How Sunak can do his best to ensure that Big State Conservatism is a success

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
Rishi Sunak ’ s first Budget speech set out ‘ temporary , timely and targeted ’ measures to address the coronavirus crisis , as well as highlighting the ‘ coordinated , coherent and comprehensive ’ action taken by both the Government and the Bank of England .
It was a speech that was assured , accomplished…and alliterative .
To some extent , the Chancellor delivered not only his first Budget but also his second .
The first was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was substantial and well-judged , focusing support on those businesses and individuals most likely to be affected by the tumultuous months ahead .
Getting help to those who need it quickly is not easy .
There is a trade-off to be made between ensuring the money is well-targeted , but also happens in the spring and summer .
The perfectly directed measure that takes effect in October is not of much use .
By and large , the Chancellor found ways of the delivering this .
It is more than likely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in due course , but this was a very good start .
The second Budget speech set out where the Government is going to go over the course of the Parliament and , in particular , the spending plans .
This is where the controversy lies .
Two points to make in support of the approach taken by the Chancellor .
First , this was a Budget that delivered on the 2019 manifesto .
No one can claim to be surprised that this would be a Government that was prepared to turn on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax rises ( and the Budget contained plenty of tax rises ) , these were broadly set out in advance .
Corporation tax being held at 19 per cent and changes to Entrepreneurs Relief were well flagged .
Second , there is a case for more spending both in respect of capital spending and current spending .
It is undeniable that there are lots of genuine pressures on public spending .
Many areas have seen substantial real terms reductions and the strains are showing .
Other areas , like health , face significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maintaining very tight spending constraints is probably not realistic – especially given the new coalition of supporters the Conservative Party attracted in December .
In other words , it is not unreasonable or politically unwise to increase spending .
Nonetheless , this is a departure from Conservative orthodoxy .
These are rapid increases in spending , significant increases in borrowing and will leave the size of the state at its largest level since the late 1960s .
It may be worth reminding ourselves of the arguments made in the 1970s and ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was a time when the power of Government was used to protect the interests of producers not consumers .
Inefficient , lame duck businesses were sheltered from competition .
Public spending was directed on the basis of political priorities rather than long term economic benefit .
Tax policy was internationally uncompetitive and hostile to enterprise .
If there was a downturn in the economy , borrowing and spending was seen as the answer .
It was an approach that left the UK as the sick man of Europe – uncompetitive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsustainable .
Of course , it is perfectly possible to have a relatively large State and avoid a return to the miseries of a pre-Thatcher British economy .
But , given that the UK has never managed that before , how do we avoid a return to relative decline ?
First , the public finances .
I share the concerns of the Editor of this website in worrying about boasts of how extra spending will boost growth .
In reality , this will just be a short-term sugar rush to the economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is an argument made by the Chancellor that concedes too much ground to those who think that we can borrow our way to prosperity .
To be fair , he has stayed within the constraints of the fiscal rules but this underlines how loose those rules were .
This also assumes that the economy grows in coming years and the fall in debt as a proportion of GDP is very small and dependent upon a contribution from financial repayments to the Bank of England that really should not count .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in relatively good times , but they will soar if we hit bad times .
Many will argue that the Government can borrow very cheaply and that the long maturity of our debt gives us some comfort .
Both points are true , and the Government has greater flexibility than was available to George Osborne in 2010 .
But the argument that “ this time it ’ s different ” is a familiar one , and doesn ’ t always stand the test of time .
The fiscal strategy is high risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tendency of the Government up until now has to be to focus on the inputs ( the extra spending , police officers , hospitals etc . )
rather than the outputs .
This may be a sensible communications strategy but good government will require the focus to be how this money can be spent most effectively to improve outcomes .
The risk of wasting public money increases when the amount of money being spent is increased rapidly .
The capital budget , in particular , is rising rapidly .
It is vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obtain good value for money not just getting the cash out of the door .
Assuming that there is some degree of fiscal responsibility , there will also be a need to think seriously about tax policy .
If we are going to need to raise a lot of money in tax ( and we are ) , this needs to be done in a way which improves the efficiency of our tax system and minimises damage to our capacity to create wealth .
There are many pressures driving tax policy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word about economic growth .
Supply-side reforms are necessary – including sensible use of the new infrastructure funding .
Making our economy more open to foreign competition and investment helped us enormously in the 1980s .
Unfortunately , this country will move in the opposite direction with trade barriers being erected with our biggest market , reducing our productivity by four per cent in 15 years , according to the Office for Budget Responsibility .
A wise Chancellor should ensure that the process of Brexit is no more damaging than it has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is clearly a Government that is committed to higher levels of spending .
What is not yet clear is the precise balance between higher borrowing and higher taxes .
Nor is it yet clear how the Government will ensure that taxes are raised sensibly and that public money is spent wisely .
For the answers to those questions , we will have to wait at least until the autumn .
It will be Rishi Sunak ’ s task to ensure that Big State Conservatism can be a success .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
Rishi Sunak’s first Budget speech set out ‘temporary, timely and targeted’ measures to address the coronavirus crisis, as well as highlighting the ‘coordinated, coherent and comprehensive’ action taken by both the Government and the Bank of England. It was a speech that was assured, accomplished…and alliterative.
To some extent, the Chancellor delivered not only his first Budget but also his second. The first was an emergency Budget responding to COVID-19. It was substantial and well-judged, focusing support on those businesses and individuals most likely to be affected by the tumultuous months ahead.
Getting help to those who need it quickly is not easy. There is a trade-off to be made between ensuring the money is well-targeted, but also happens in the spring and summer. The perfectly directed measure that takes effect in October is not of much use. By and large, the Chancellor found ways of the delivering this. It is more than likely that he will have to announce new measures in due course, but this was a very good start.
The second Budget speech set out where the Government is going to go over the course of the Parliament and, in particular, the spending plans. This is where the controversy lies.
Two points to make in support of the approach taken by the Chancellor. First, this was a Budget that delivered on the 2019 manifesto. No one can claim to be surprised that this would be a Government that was prepared to turn on the spending taps. In terms of tax rises (and the Budget contained plenty of tax rises), these were broadly set out in advance. Corporation tax being held at 19 per cent and changes to Entrepreneurs Relief were well flagged.
Second, there is a case for more spending both in respect of capital spending and current spending. It is undeniable that there are lots of genuine pressures on public spending. Many areas have seen substantial real terms reductions and the strains are showing.
Other areas, like health, face significant pressures caused by demography and rising expectations. Maintaining very tight spending constraints is probably not realistic – especially given the new coalition of supporters the Conservative Party attracted in December. In other words, it is not unreasonable or politically unwise to increase spending.
Nonetheless, this is a departure from Conservative orthodoxy. These are rapid increases in spending, significant increases in borrowing and will leave the size of the state at its largest level since the late 1960s.
It may be worth reminding ourselves of the arguments made in the 1970s and ‘80s about the perils of Big Government. It was a time when the power of Government was used to protect the interests of producers not consumers. Inefficient, lame duck businesses were sheltered from competition. Public spending was directed on the basis of political priorities rather than long term economic benefit. Tax policy was internationally uncompetitive and hostile to enterprise.
If there was a downturn in the economy, borrowing and spending was seen as the answer. It was an approach that left the UK as the sick man of Europe – uncompetitive, inefficient, undynamic and our public finances unsustainable.
Of course, it is perfectly possible to have a relatively large State and avoid a return to the miseries of a pre-Thatcher British economy. But, given that the UK has never managed that before, how do we avoid a return to relative decline?
First, the public finances. I share the concerns of the Editor of this website in worrying about boasts of how extra spending will boost growth. In reality, this will just be a short-term sugar rush to the economy, not a basis for sustained prosperity. It is an argument made by the Chancellor that concedes too much ground to those who think that we can borrow our way to prosperity.
To be fair, he has stayed within the constraints of the fiscal rules but this underlines how loose those rules were. This also assumes that the economy grows in coming years and the fall in debt as a proportion of GDP is very small and dependent upon a contribution from financial repayments to the Bank of England that really should not count. In other words, our debt levels are stable in relatively good times, but they will soar if we hit bad times.
Many will argue that the Government can borrow very cheaply and that the long maturity of our debt gives us some comfort. Both points are true, and the Government has greater flexibility than was available to George Osborne in 2010. But the argument that “this time it’s different” is a familiar one, and doesn’t always stand the test of time. The fiscal strategy is high risk.
As far as spending is concerned, the tendency of the Government up until now has to be to focus on the inputs (the extra spending, police officers, hospitals etc.) rather than the outputs. This may be a sensible communications strategy but good government will require the focus to be how this money can be spent most effectively to improve outcomes.
The risk of wasting public money increases when the amount of money being spent is increased rapidly. The capital budget, in particular, is rising rapidly. It is vital that the focus of the Government is to obtain good value for money not just getting the cash out of the door.
Assuming that there is some degree of fiscal responsibility, there will also be a need to think seriously about tax policy. If we are going to need to raise a lot of money in tax (and we are), this needs to be done in a way which improves the efficiency of our tax system and minimises damage to our capacity to create wealth. There are many pressures driving tax policy in the wrong direction.
Finally, a word about economic growth. Supply-side reforms are necessary – including sensible use of the new infrastructure funding. Making our economy more open to foreign competition and investment helped us enormously in the 1980s.
Unfortunately, this country will move in the opposite direction with trade barriers being erected with our biggest market, reducing our productivity by four per cent in 15 years, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. A wise Chancellor should ensure that the process of Brexit is no more damaging than it has to be for our productivity.
In summary, this is clearly a Government that is committed to higher levels of spending. What is not yet clear is the precise balance between higher borrowing and higher taxes. Nor is it yet clear how the Government will ensure that taxes are raised sensibly and that public money is spent wisely. For the answers to those questions, we will have to wait at least until the autumn. It will be Rishi Sunak’s task to ensure that Big State Conservatism can be a success.


conservativehome--2020-03-13--Local elections postponed until 2021

Local elections postponed until 2021

The Government has announced that all the local elections due to take place on Thursday May 7th will be postponed for a year .
Elections were due to take place for the Mayor of London , the Mayor of the West Midlands , the Mayor of Tees Valley , the Police and Crime Commissioners , and a large number of council seats for district councils , metropolitan boroughs , and unitary authorities .
They will now be held on Thursday May 6th 2021 – so will coincide with county council elections .
The decision is controversial but is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Electoral Commission yesterday to postpone the elections until the autumn .
The Commission ’ s Chief Executive had sent the following letter to Chloe Smith MP , Minister for the Constitution and Devolution : “ In light of the current and emerging situation around Covid-19 in the UK , I wanted to write to set out the Commission ’ s concerns about the real risks to the successful delivery of the scheduled 7 May 2020 elections .
We have been in close contact with a range of key stakeholders across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electoral Administrators , Solace , the Greater London Returning Officer , the Wales Electoral Coordination Board , and of course your officials – to assess the risks , and to identify and take forward appropriate mitigations to enable the delivery of the elections .
While this work is continuing , it has already become clear that the risks are so significant as to raise serious concerns about the polls continuing to their current timetable .
Although polling day is not until 7 May , preparations for the elections are already well underway and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which marks the start of the formal timetable – will take place later this month .
This means that a decision now needs to be taken , by Government and as appropriate by Parliament , whether to proceed with the scheduled 7 May polls .
So voters can cast their ballot , polling station venues need to be secured , set up , staffed and accessed ; we already know that local authorities have concerns about their ability to ensure this , particularly at the same time as continuing to manage other key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also vital that voters are able to hear the positions of candidates , parties and campaigners before they cast their vote ; however , many forms of campaigning may not be possible , leaving insufficient space for the arguments to be heard .
We also anticipate that as a result of the direct and indirect impacts of Covid-19 , there will be significant numbers of registered electors who in practice will not have opportunity to vote , or feel inclined to vote .
While increased access to post and proxy voting may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it would create further and additional pressures and risks in other parts of the system .
Clearly any decisions to delay elections which are due is significant and would not normally be desirable ; however , we are in unprecedented times .
The risks to delivery that have been identified are such that we can not be confident that voters will be able to participate in the polls safely and confidently , nor that campaigners and parties will be able to put their case to the electorate .
We therefore call on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early clarity to all those with an interest in the electoral process ; and on the available information and position we recommend the Government now delay the 7 May polls until the autumn .
In this context we are also mindful that the Chief Executives of local authorities and their staff across the country are necessarily focussed on the ongoing management of the impacts Covid-19 is having on their localities .
Similar impacts could also be expected to affect the effective delivery of by-elections during the intervening period , and we would hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time by providing that these could also be deferred .
Looking further ahead , there may also be a potential impact on annual canvass activity across the UK , and this is something that it will be important for Government to return to with us in due course .
The Commission stands ready to provide further advice and take or co-ordinate necessary actions , as may be of assistance to the Government in this matter.
” However , the Commission had been criticised on the grounds that there would be uncertainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the autumn and whether a further postponement would be proposed .
Delaying for a full year at least has the merit of being decisive .
This does leave a complication for Council by-elections already scheduled for the coming weeks .
It is also difficult for new authorities due to come into being , such as Northamptonshire .
What about the councillors and Police and Crime Commissioners who thought they were standing down ?
What about Warwick District Council ’ s referendum where they were seeking approval for a huge Council Tax increase @

The Government has announced that all the local elections due to take place on Thursday May 7th will be postponed for a year. Elections were due to take place for the Mayor of London, the Mayor of the West Midlands, the Mayor of Tees Valley, the Police and Crime Commissioners, and a large number of council seats for district councils, metropolitan boroughs, and unitary authorities.
They will now be held on Thursday May 6th 2021 – so will coincide with county council elections.
The decision is controversial but is not a complete shock. It followed a plea by the Electoral Commission yesterday to postpone the elections until the autumn. The Commission’s Chief Executive had sent the following letter to Chloe Smith MP, Minister for the Constitution and Devolution:
“In light of the current and emerging situation around Covid-19 in the UK, I wanted to write to set out the Commission’s concerns about the real risks to the successful delivery of the scheduled 7 May 2020 elections.
We have been in close contact with a range of key stakeholders across the electoral community – including the Association of Electoral Administrators, Solace, the Greater London Returning Officer, the Wales Electoral Coordination Board, and of course your officials – to assess the risks, and to identify and take forward appropriate mitigations to enable the delivery of the elections. While this work is continuing, it has already become clear that the risks are so significant as to raise serious concerns about the polls continuing to their current timetable.
Although polling day is not until 7 May, preparations for the elections are already well underway and indeed publication of notice of election – which marks the start of the formal timetable – will take place later this month. This means that a decision now needs to be taken, by Government and as appropriate by Parliament, whether to proceed with the scheduled 7 May polls.
So voters can cast their ballot, polling station venues need to be secured, set up, staffed and accessed; we already know that local authorities have concerns about their ability to ensure this, particularly at the same time as continuing to manage other key services in the current circumstances. It is also vital that voters are able to hear the positions of candidates, parties and campaigners before they cast their vote; however, many forms of campaigning may not be possible, leaving insufficient space for the arguments to be heard.
We also anticipate that as a result of the direct and indirect impacts of Covid-19, there will be significant numbers of registered electors who in practice will not have opportunity to vote, or feel inclined to vote. While increased access to post and proxy voting may provide a partial solution for some electors, it would create further and additional pressures and risks in other parts of the system.
Clearly any decisions to delay elections which are due is significant and would not normally be desirable; however, we are in unprecedented times. The risks to delivery that have been identified are such that we cannot be confident that voters will be able to participate in the polls safely and confidently, nor that campaigners and parties will be able to put their case to the electorate. We therefore call on the Government to take steps to provide early clarity to all those with an interest in the electoral process; and on the available information and position we recommend the Government now delay the 7 May polls until the autumn. In this context we are also mindful that the Chief Executives of local authorities and their staff across the country are necessarily focussed on the ongoing management of the impacts Covid-19 is having on their localities.
Similar impacts could also be expected to affect the effective delivery of by-elections during the intervening period, and we would hope that this could also be addressed at the same time by providing that these could also be deferred. Looking further ahead, there may also be a potential impact on annual canvass activity across the UK, and this is something that it will be important for Government to return to with us in due course.
The Commission stands ready to provide further advice and take or co-ordinate necessary actions, as may be of assistance to the Government in this matter.”
However, the Commission had been criticised on the grounds that there would be uncertainty over how serious the situation will be in the autumn and whether a further postponement would be proposed. Delaying for a full year at least has the merit of being decisive.
The Labour Party had backed a delay.
This does leave a complication for Council by-elections already scheduled for the coming weeks. It is also difficult for new authorities due to come into being, such as Northamptonshire. What about the councillors and Police and Crime Commissioners who thought they were standing down? What about Warwick District Council’s referendum where they were seeking approval for a huge Council Tax increase?


conservativehome--2020-03-13--Youth membership of the Conservative Party extended up to the age of 25

Within the Party ’ s ongoing focus on how to grow its membership further , there ’ s long been a particular question about how best to attract more younger members .
The agedness of the Party ’ s membership is often exaggerated ( according to what limited research is available , the average isn ’ t much higher than that for Labour members ) , but it would be unwise not to have a default position of believing that increasing recruitment is generally good , among the young as well as other age groups .
The Corbynite surge among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are still a lot more Tory-voting younger people out there than Conservative Party members from the same age group .
We ’ ve urged many times on this site for measures to make membership more accessible , and more rewarding .
It ’ s good news , therefore , that the Youth Membership category – a discounted rate of £5 , compared to the usual £25 – has been expanded up to the age of 25 .
That in itself is a positive step .
I understand that it was a change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ben Elliot were Party Co-Chairmen .
But many of the big questions ConservativeHome has raised in the past still stand : what do members get for their membership subs and their campaigning efforts , beyond the opportunity to buy £25 tea-towels ?
Where are the next 200,000 members of the Party to be found ?
What is being done to train the existing membership up , and equip them with all the necessary kit , data and experience to fight the next election ?
When will there be greater accountability for the Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conference ?
Over to Amanda Milling , the new Chairman…

Within the Party’s ongoing focus on how to grow its membership further, there’s long been a particular question about how best to attract more younger members.
The agedness of the Party’s membership is often exaggerated (according to what limited research is available, the average isn’t much higher than that for Labour members), but it would be unwise not to have a default position of believing that increasing recruitment is generally good, among the young as well as other age groups.
The Corbynite surge among younger voters has been huge, but there are still a lot more Tory-voting younger people out there than Conservative Party members from the same age group.
We’ve urged many times on this site for measures to make membership more accessible, and more rewarding. It’s good news, therefore, that the Youth Membership category – a discounted rate of £5, compared to the usual £25 – has been expanded up to the age of 25.
That in itself is a positive step. I understand that it was a change put in train while James Cleverly and Ben Elliot were Party Co-Chairmen.
But many of the big questions ConservativeHome has raised in the past still stand: what do members get for their membership subs and their campaigning efforts, beyond the opportunity to buy £25 tea-towels? Where are the next 200,000 members of the Party to be found? What is being done to train the existing membership up, and equip them with all the necessary kit, data and experience to fight the next election? When will there be greater accountability for the Board, and more open debate at Party Conference?
Over to Amanda Milling, the new Chairman…


conservativehome--2020-03-13--What does the data say on women’s advancement in the workplace?

In time for International Women ’ s Day , global recruiter Robert Walters has released a fascinating survey on gender trends in the workplace .
I say “ fascinating ” because it is one of the most elucidating of recent in highlighting internal and external barriers to female advancement .
The data is particularly relevant given this week ’ s announcement on the gender pay gap .
This is a subject of increasing controversy in our societal debates , as progressives tend to misdiagnose it and others doubt its existence at all ( given that it ’ s illegal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The data clearly shows , however , that the difference in average hourly earnings for men and women has increased , and is most pronounced in the education sector .
Finance and insurance firms are not far behind , with HSBC having a gender pay gap of 47 per cent .
While I ’ m certainly not one to cry about the “ patriarchy ” , nor a fan of quotas , or any other form of female-pitying intervention to alleviate these margins , they are food for thought at the very least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women , so it begs the question of why exactly they are not financially excelling there .
What ’ s clear is that family commitments are one of the main barriers to progression .
A quarter of working mums do not return to their same employer after becoming a parent , and over half felt disadvantaged at work because they ’ d had kids .
This chimes with research showing that childcare as well as looking after older parents , can negatively impact on a woman ’ s salary .
Their absence makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they take on flexible part-time roles ( which are the lowest paid ) , or they drop out of employment all together .
It ’ s important that we ask whether there ’ s more that workplaces can do to improve the situation .
The research shows that 84 per cent of working mums would like the option to work from home , although only a third of employers do this , and 43 per cent would like the opportunity to job share ( similarly , only 12 per cent of employers offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also require something of an attitudinal shift , as society still expects women to take on the majority of childcare .
While many families are happy with this arrangement , and many women see it as their own choice , this sentiment is not universal , and we must ensure mothers do not feel overly pressured ( versus fathers ) to be the main carer .
On the other hand , there are other parts of the report which demonstrate that it ’ s within women ’ s own power to end the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most simple ways being to ask for more money .
The study shows that men are 23 per cent more likely to negotiate a pay rise , and 57 per cent of women have never attempted to , so it ’ s unsurprising we are seeing big disparities .
A significant number of women worryingly seem to think the odds are stacked against them , with 41 per cent saying that opportunities had not been made available to them because of their gender .
One wonders if these perceptions are correct ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been absorbed from societal messaging – the liberal media constantly gives women the impression the patriarchy is out to get them at work .
Overall , a huge barrier seems to be confidence , as many women blamed this for not progressing , and others say that they want more support and training opportunities .
Perhaps this will inspire more organisations to enhance their training programmes , or it might highlight that women are too hopeful about interventions – when they simply need to push themselves forward .
This is very much the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lean In , which encouraged women to be more proactive as employees , asking for opportunities instead of waiting for them .
The truth is that the conditions for women have never been so favourable in modern workplaces , and many male-dominated industries are desperate to have more of us – science , tech , politics , for starters .
Yes there are areas for improvement , but this research demonstrates that many of the solutions are in women ’ s hands .

In time for International Women’s Day, global recruiter Robert Walters has released a fascinating survey on gender trends in the workplace. I say “fascinating” because it is one of the most elucidating of recent in highlighting internal and external barriers to female advancement.
The data is particularly relevant given this week’s announcement on the gender pay gap. This is a subject of increasing controversy in our societal debates, as progressives tend to misdiagnose it and others doubt its existence at all (given that it’s illegal to pay men and women differently). The data clearly shows, however, that the difference in average hourly earnings for men and women has increased, and is most pronounced in the education sector. Finance and insurance firms are not far behind, with HSBC having a gender pay gap of 47 per cent.
While I’m certainly not one to cry about the “patriarchy”, nor a fan of quotas, or any other form of female-pitying intervention to alleviate these margins, they are food for thought at the very least – particularly as education is dominated by women, so it begs the question of why exactly they are not financially excelling there.
What’s clear is that family commitments are one of the main barriers to progression. A quarter of working mums do not return to their same employer after becoming a parent, and over half felt disadvantaged at work because they’d had kids. This chimes with research showing that childcare as well as looking after older parents, can negatively impact on a woman’s salary. Their absence makes them less obvious for promotions, or they take on flexible part-time roles (which are the lowest paid), or they drop out of employment all together.
It’s important that we ask whether there’s more that workplaces can do to improve the situation. The research shows that 84 per cent of working mums would like the option to work from home, although only a third of employers do this, and 43 per cent would like the opportunity to job share (similarly, only 12 per cent of employers offer this.)
Correcting these imbalances may also require something of an attitudinal shift, as society still expects women to take on the majority of childcare. While many families are happy with this arrangement, and many women see it as their own choice, this sentiment is not universal, and we must ensure mothers do not feel overly pressured (versus fathers) to be the main carer.
On the other hand, there are other parts of the report which demonstrate that it’s within women’s own power to end the gender pay gap, with one of the most simple ways being to ask for more money. The study shows that men are 23 per cent more likely to negotiate a pay rise, and 57 per cent of women have never attempted to, so it’s unsurprising we are seeing big disparities.
A significant number of women worryingly seem to think the odds are stacked against them, with 41 per cent saying that opportunities had not been made available to them because of their gender. One wonders if these perceptions are correct? My own view is that they have been absorbed from societal messaging – the liberal media constantly gives women the impression the patriarchy is out to get them at work.
Overall, a huge barrier seems to be confidence, as many women blamed this for not progressing, and others say that they want more support and training opportunities. Perhaps this will inspire more organisations to enhance their training programmes, or it might highlight that women are too hopeful about interventions – when they simply need to push themselves forward. This is very much the hypothesis of Sheryl Sandberg’s book Lean In, which encouraged women to be more proactive as employees, asking for opportunities instead of waiting for them.
The truth is that the conditions for women have never been so favourable in modern workplaces, and many male-dominated industries are desperate to have more of us – science, tech, politics, for starters. Yes there are areas for improvement, but this research demonstrates that many of the solutions are in women’s hands.


conservativehome--2020-03-13--Council by-election results from yesterday and forthcoming contests

Ashford Independent 247 ( 60.2 per cent , +60.2 on 2019 ) Conservatives 115 ( 28.0 per cent , -33.4 ) Labour 29 ( 7.1 per cent , -12.8 ) Green Party 11 ( 2.7 per cent , +2.7 ) Lib Dems 8 ( 2.0 per cent , -16.7 ) Independent 911 ( 28.5 per cent , +28.5 ) SNP 874 ( 27.3 per cent , +8.6 ) Lib Dems 698 ( 21.8 per cent , +19.9 ) Green Party 357 ( 11.2 per cent , +11.2 ) Conservatives 314 ( 9.8 per cent , +3.4 ) Independent 45 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for first preferences .
Lib Dems 387 ( 52.0 per cent , -12.5 on 2019 ) Conservatives 162 ( 21.8 per cent , -13.7 ) Independent 160 ( 21.5 per cent , +21.5 ) Green Party 35 ( 4.7 per cent , +4.7 ) Lib Dems 472 ( 43.6 per cent , +43.6 on 2019 ) Conservatives 323 ( 29.9 per cent , +8.7 ) Independent 231 ( 21.3 per cent , +21.3 ) Labour 41 ( 3.8 per cent , -1.5 ) Green Party 15 ( 1.4 per cent , -7.1 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -4.6 on 2017 ) Lib Dems 623 ( 48.5 per cent , +4.4 ) Labour 24 ( 1.9 per cent , +0.2 ) Conservatives hold .
( This contest took place on Tuesday . )

Ashford – Park Farm North
Ashford Independent 247 (60.2 per cent, +60.2 on 2019) Conservatives 115 (28.0 per cent, -33.4) Labour 29 (7.1 per cent, -12.8) Green Party 11 (2.7 per cent, +2.7) Lib Dems 8 (2.0 per cent, -16.7)
Ashford Independent gain from Conservatives.
Highland – Eilean a’ Cheò
Independent 911 (28.5 per cent, +28.5) SNP 874 (27.3 per cent, +8.6) Lib Dems 698 (21.8 per cent, +19.9) Green Party 357 (11.2 per cent, +11.2) Conservatives 314 (9.8 per cent, +3.4) Independent 45 (1.4 per cet, +1.4) Figures for first preferences.
Independent gain from another independent.
South Somerset – Parrett
Lib Dems 387 (52.0 per cent, -12.5 on 2019) Conservatives 162 (21.8 per cent, -13.7) Independent 160 (21.5 per cent, +21.5) Green Party 35 (4.7 per cent, +4.7)
Lib Dems hold
Stratford-on-Avon – Welford-on-Avon
Lib Dems 472 (43.6 per cent, +43.6 on 2019) Conservatives 323 (29.9 per cent, +8.7) Independent 231 (21.3 per cent, +21.3) Labour 41 (3.8 per cent, -1.5) Green Party 15 (1.4 per cent, -7.1)
Lib Dems gain from an independent
Wiltshire – Till & Wylye Valley
Conservatives 637 (49.6 per cent, -4.6 on 2017) Lib Dems 623 (48.5 per cent, +4.4) Labour 24 (1.9 per cent, +0.2)
Conservatives hold. (This contest took place on Tuesday.)
Forthcoming contests
March 19th
Clackmannanshire – Clackmannanshire East (Conservative held)
Coventry- Upper Stoke Ward (Labour held)
Test Valley – Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams Ward (Conservative held)
Thanet – Newington Ward (Labour held)
March 26th
East Staffordshire – Eton Park Ward (Labour held)
Gloucestershire – Winchcombe and Woodmancote Division (Conservative held)
North Lincolnshire – Ashby Ward (Labour held)
North Lincolnshire – Broughton and Appleby Ward (Conservative held)
April 9th
Greenwich – Glyndon Ward (Labour held)
Swansea – Castle Division (Labour held)
April 16th