conservativehome--2020-07-20--Judy Terry: Proper accountability is needed for the East of England Ambulance Service

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk .
Whilst we are all grateful for , and rightly praise , NHS frontline and other essential workers for their selfless commitment to saving lives and helping vulnerable people cope with the Covid crisis , other key NHS-related issues are escaping public scrutiny .
Not least because local authority Cabinets and Health & Wellbeing Boards aren ’ t convening in the usual way to share information .
For example , a report by Lord Carter , a non-executive director of NHS Improvement , examining Operational Productivity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unwarranted variation in delivery of ambulance services and potential £500m efficiency savings which could be made in 2020/21 ’ .
He noted that ‘ too many patients are being taken to hospital Emergency Departments unnecessarily , when many could be treated at the scene , but aging fleets means this is not always possible , despite paramedics working incredibly hard as demand soars.
’ As Chair of the Department of Health ’ s Procurement and Efficiency Board , no doubt he will develop a central procurement programme to replace outdated ambulances , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving local Trusts to purchase individually .
Meanwhile , building on the recommendations in Lord Carter ’ s report , last October , the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust launched a consultation on its Corporate Strategy for 2020-25 , led by the Chief Executive Officer ( CEO ) , Dorothy Hosein , initially appointed as an interim in 2018 and confirmed in her role last autumn .
Covering 6 counties , the Trust receives about one million emergency calls annually , and employs more than 4,000 staff , but suffered leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoped the new Strategy would address .
Concluding in November , feedback from the short consultation amongst staff , patients , and various organisations , identified some key issues , including three which were eerily prescient : • Provide long term leadership stability to ensure the Trust is well led ; • Ensure staff feel valued and supported , with emphasis on wellbeing and mental health ; • Improve training and development to help staff reach their full potential .
Shortly after its release , the Trust experienced three unexpected deaths of ambulance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time , they were alleged to be suicide .
The CEO ’ s report to a public meeting of the Trust in January “ addressing all issues since the previous public meeting on 13th November makes no mention of the deaths or any investigation .
But , in December , independent management consultant , Christine Carter , was commissioned to examine ‘ the circumstances surrounding the deaths , to ensure that all appropriate actions were taken , and will continue to be taken , to ensure staff welfare is the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improvements by the organisation to mitigate the reoccurrence of any similar events.
’ The investigation involved interviewing more than 40 witnesses , including the families of the three staff members .
Given the significant amount of personal details revealed , the full report will not be published , to protect families ’ privacy , but it has been shared with the Care Quality Commission ( CQC ) and NHS England/Improvement .
Case specific reports have also been shared with relevant families and coroners .
Following discussion with the Trust Board , which accepted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did publish the full recommendations and Action Plan , “ in the interests of transparency.
” Key to Ms. Carter ’ s twelve recommendations , is the “ need to make improvements around guidance , policies and additional training and support for managers and staff.
” In addition to the need to update policies and ‘ cross-reference management ’ , the Trust is urged to : • Develop training for managers in supporting staff with mental health problems – in partnership with specialist mental health professionals ; • Consider how it can contribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide prevention strategies and initiatives across its catchment area and incorporate suicide prevention into its strategic goals ; • Establish a programme of change and development to address sexual harassment and change the behaviours of staff and managers that enable it to thrive ; • Amend the Disciplinary Policy in relation to suspension of staff to include a clause reflecting the need to undertake a risk assessment at the time the decision to suspend is made ; • Review its arrangements for first line management support in order to move to a model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and regular management support ; • Senior operational managers ( Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Heads of Operations ) should be reminded of their responsibilities under the Duty of Candour Policy ; and • Carefully consider the findings of all current investigations , together with this one , to assess any common themes or consistent messages that would suggest the need for remedial actions and further organisational development initiatives .
“ Every day our staff do fantastic work at the frontline of healthcare and often in demanding circumstances.. the investigation brings home clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mental health of staff if they suffer problems or anxiety in their private , family or work life .
“ I am committed to instilling a culture which sees , respects and cares for all staff as individuals…taking rapid and robust action to address issues arising in the workplace and outside of work… with all managers listening to and supporting colleagues and spotting any early signs where help might be needed .
“ We are already making progress on our action plan to address these recommendations and half our actions will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with all recommendations addressed by the end of September , providing regular updates to the Board and online.
” This is an opportunity for Health & Wellbeing boards across the six counties served by the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust to get together and set up a sub-group to monitor progress and hold the leadership to account , in order to restore confidence amongst all paramedics and staff that respect and wellbeing will genuinely be a priority in future .
The Norfolk & Suffolk Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust is another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another CQC report describing a litany of errors , it still requires improvement and remains in Special Measures , first ‘ awarded ’ in July 2017 when deemed ‘ inadequate ’ .
If there is to be any partnership with the Ambulance Service to support staff mental health , improvement needs to accelerate .
On several occasions I suggested that Norfolk and Suffolk county councils should co-operate in monitoring and holding the ever-changing leadership to account .
It is heartbreaking to read of nine further deaths , and there needs to be stronger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is local residents who are suffering and not being listened to , despite various action groups desperate to be heard .
The same is true in the Ambulance Service ; experienced paramedics are refusing deserved promotions because “ we don ’ t want to be part of existing management ” .
With a degree of ‘ normality ’ returning after the lockdown , local authorities need to recognise these shortcomings in our proud NHS , and work positively to ensure quality service is delivered to both patients – and staff .

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk.
Whilst we are all grateful for, and rightly praise, NHS frontline and other essential workers for their selfless commitment to saving lives and helping vulnerable people cope with the Covid crisis, other key NHS-related issues are escaping public scrutiny. Not least because local authority Cabinets and Health & Wellbeing Boards aren’t convening in the usual way to share information.
For example, a report by Lord Carter, a non-executive director of NHS Improvement, examining Operational Productivity and Performance in Ambulance Trusts, highlighted ‘unwarranted variation in delivery of ambulance services and potential £500m efficiency savings which could be made in 2020/21’.
He noted that ‘too many patients are being taken to hospital Emergency Departments unnecessarily, when many could be treated at the scene, but aging fleets means this is not always possible, despite paramedics working incredibly hard as demand soars.’ As Chair of the Department of Health’s Procurement and Efficiency Board, no doubt he will develop a central procurement programme to replace outdated ambulances, which would be better value for money than leaving local Trusts to purchase individually.
Meanwhile, building on the recommendations in Lord Carter’s report, last October, the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust launched a consultation on its Corporate Strategy for 2020-25, led by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Dorothy Hosein, initially appointed as an interim in 2018 and confirmed in her role last autumn. Covering 6 counties, the Trust receives about one million emergency calls annually, and employs more than 4,000 staff, but suffered leadership challenges in recent years which it was hoped the new Strategy would address.
Concluding in November, feedback from the short consultation amongst staff, patients, and various organisations, identified some key issues, including three which were eerily prescient:
Provide long term leadership stability to ensure the Trust is well led;
Ensure staff feel valued and supported, with emphasis on wellbeing and mental health;
Improve training and development to help staff reach their full potential.
Shortly after its release, the Trust experienced three unexpected deaths of ambulance staff within days of each other; at the time, they were alleged to be suicide.
The CEO’s report to a public meeting of the Trust in January “addressing all issues since the previous public meeting on 13th November makes no mention of the deaths or any investigation.
But, in December, independent management consultant, Christine Carter, was commissioned to examine ‘the circumstances surrounding the deaths, to ensure that all appropriate actions were taken, and will continue to be taken, to ensure staff welfare is the highest priority and learning identified and translated into improvements by the organisation to mitigate the reoccurrence of any similar events.’
The investigation involved interviewing more than 40 witnesses, including the families of the three staff members. Given the significant amount of personal details revealed, the full report will not be published, to protect families’ privacy, but it has been shared with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and NHS England/Improvement. Case specific reports have also been shared with relevant families and coroners.
Following discussion with the Trust Board, which accepted the report, on 13th May it did publish the full recommendations and Action Plan, “in the interests of transparency.”
Key to Ms. Carter’s twelve recommendations, is the “need to make improvements around guidance, policies and additional training and support for managers and staff.” In addition to the need to update policies and ‘cross-reference management’, the Trust is urged to:
Develop training for managers in supporting staff with mental health problems – in partnership with specialist mental health professionals;
Consider how it can contribute to and learn from the range of suicide prevention strategies and initiatives across its catchment area and incorporate suicide prevention into its strategic goals;
Establish a programme of change and development to address sexual harassment and change the behaviours of staff and managers that enable it to thrive;
Amend the Disciplinary Policy in relation to suspension of staff to include a clause reflecting the need to undertake a risk assessment at the time the decision to suspend is made;
Review its arrangements for first line management support in order to move to a model that provides front line staff with consistent and regular management support;
Senior operational managers (Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Heads of Operations) should be reminded of their responsibilities under the Duty of Candour Policy; and
Carefully consider the findings of all current investigations, together with this one, to assess any common themes or consistent messages that would suggest the need for remedial actions and further organisational development initiatives.
Welcoming the recommendations, CEO Ms. Hosein commented:
“Every day our staff do fantastic work at the frontline of healthcare and often in demanding circumstances.. the investigation brings home clearly that we must do more to support the mental health of staff if they suffer problems or anxiety in their private, family or work life.
“I am committed to instilling a culture which sees, respects and cares for all staff as individuals…taking rapid and robust action to address issues arising in the workplace and outside of work… with all managers listening to and supporting colleagues and spotting any early signs where help might be needed.
“We are already making progress on our action plan to address these recommendations and half our actions will be completed by the end of May, with all recommendations addressed by the end of September, providing regular updates to the Board and online.”
This is an opportunity for Health & Wellbeing boards across the six counties served by the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust to get together and set up a sub-group to monitor progress and hold the leadership to account, in order to restore confidence amongst all paramedics and staff that respect and wellbeing will genuinely be a priority in future.
The Norfolk & Suffolk Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust is another victim of poor leadership; following yet another CQC report describing a litany of errors, it still requires improvement and remains in Special Measures, first ‘awarded’ in July 2017 when deemed ‘inadequate’.
If there is to be any partnership with the Ambulance Service to support staff mental health, improvement needs to accelerate.
On several occasions I suggested that Norfolk and Suffolk county councils should co-operate in monitoring and holding the ever-changing leadership to account. It is heartbreaking to read of nine further deaths, and there needs to be stronger local oversight. After all, it is local residents who are suffering and not being listened to, despite various action groups desperate to be heard.
The same is true in the Ambulance Service; experienced paramedics are refusing deserved promotions because “we don’t want to be part of existing management”.
With a degree of ‘normality’ returning after the lockdown, local authorities need to recognise these shortcomings in our proud NHS, and work positively to ensure quality service is delivered to both patients – and staff.


conservativehome--2020-07-20--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commiss

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Scottish National Investment Bank Act ( ‘ the Act ’ ) received Royal Assent in February 2020 , paving the way to establish the Bank as a public limited company and public body accountable to Scottish Ministers who own and set its strategic missions .
The Act sets out how the Bank should operate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be set by Scottish Ministers as the sole-shareholder .
In response to these missions the Bank is required to develop an Investment Strategy which will help create and shape future markets , spark innovation and tackle socio-economic challenges in Scotland .
Additionally , the Bank will have a key role to play in Scotland ’ s emerging economy post Covid-19.
” Time : Up to 25 days per annum .
“ The TRA as a statutory body would perform an independent function , investigating and recommending to Ministers when to impose trade remedies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfair trading practices , such as dumping , subsidies , or unforeseen surges in imports .
Ministers would decide whether to agree the TRA ’ s recommendations .
The TRA will also carry out reviews of those existing EU measures transitioned into the UK system to ensure that they are specific to the UK market , in line with WTO rules .
The TRA will also be responsible for providing support and assistance to DIT on trade… The TRA Board sets the strategic direction and priorities of the organisation , monitoring its performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Executive and executive team to account.
” Remuneration : £15,000 per annum ( additional £3,000 for the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee ) .
“ The chair is responsible for leading and managing the Panel .
They must lead development and implementation of a strategic vision for the Panel and ensure the reviews under their supervision identify improvements safeguarding partners or others should make to better safeguard and promote the welfare of children…Successful applicants will demonstrate the ability to : provide strong strategic leadership ; chair high level meetings ; effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of others , including child safeguarding professionals , Ministers and the public .
The right candidate will also demonstrate a strong understanding of multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements , policy and frontline delivery.
” “ The Chair of the College of Policing is appointed by the Home Secretary to ensure the long-term success of the College .
Together with the College Board of Directors , the Chair ( who must not have a background in operational policing ) will set the College ’ s strategic direction and aims against budgets and priorities .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team of Executive Directors with the necessary leadership , support and monitoring that will help them to meet the College and Home Secretary ’ s goals .
The College plays a critical role in helping to increase the diversity within the police to reflect the communities they serve.
” “ The Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities is seeking a strong , strategic leader who will continue to develop the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) and set the Commission ’ s overall direction to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body and National Human Rights Institution .
This appointment fulfils the requirement of the Equality Act 2006 that the Secretary of State should appoint a Chair to the Commission .
Although the Commission is an independent organisation , the Chair is accountable to the above sponsoring Minister .
You will develop and maintain high-value relationships with Ministers , influential partners , governments at home and abroad , opinion formers , industry and others , demonstrating judgment , integrity and resilience in the face of challenge.
” “ National Citizen Service ( NCS ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England and Northern Ireland .
We exist to engage , unite and empower young people , building their confidence so they can go out there and achieve their dreams , no matter where they ’ re from or what their background is .
Our programme is managed and supported by NCS Trust , our central team who are constantly working to make sure we deliver the most impactful experience we can to as many young people as possible .
National Citizen Service is seeking three Trustees with experience and skills at a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and demonstrable senior leadership in the parliamentary/public sector ( 1 Trustee ) ; human resources specialist with commercial experience and a particular focus on people strategy , culture and coaching high performance teams ( 1 Trustee ) ; [ and ] an education leader with strong links to schools and young people ( 1 Trustee ) .
” “ The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner role aims to promote police compliance with the rules on the collection and retention of DNA , fingerprints and surveillance cameras respectively .
The roles were created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ POFA ) , which set out the regime for police use of DNA , fingerprints and the regulation of surveillance cameras .
We have decided to appoint a single person to both roles because of the confluence of existing and emerging regulatory issues around police use of automated facial recognition .
The post will cover the duties of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner , while the Government is considering reforms in this area.
” Home Office – Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Rescue Services ( HMICFRS ) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales , fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies .
It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends , challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement , and making performance information accessible .
The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities in England ; providing the public with a clear , consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their local area .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Scottish National Investment Bank – Non-Executive Directors
“The Scottish National Investment Bank Act (‘the Act’) received Royal Assent in February 2020, paving the way to establish the Bank as a public limited company and public body accountable to Scottish Ministers who own and set its strategic missions. The Act sets out how the Bank should operate in order to meet missions which will be set by Scottish Ministers as the sole-shareholder. In response to these missions the Bank is required to develop an Investment Strategy which will help create and shape future markets, spark innovation and tackle socio-economic challenges in Scotland. Additionally, the Bank will have a key role to play in Scotland’s emerging economy post Covid-19.”
Time: Up to 25 days per annum.
Remuneration: £21,250 per annum.
Closes: 24 July
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Trade Remedies Authority – Non-Executive Directors
“The TRA as a statutory body would perform an independent function, investigating and recommending to Ministers when to impose trade remedies measures in response to injury caused by unfair trading practices, such as dumping, subsidies, or unforeseen surges in imports. Ministers would decide whether to agree the TRA’s recommendations. The TRA will also carry out reviews of those existing EU measures transitioned into the UK system to ensure that they are specific to the UK market, in line with WTO rules. The TRA will also be responsible for providing support and assistance to DIT on trade… The TRA Board sets the strategic direction and priorities of the organisation, monitoring its performance against its objectives and holding the Chief Executive and executive team to account.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum (additional £3,000 for the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee).
Closes: 24 July
– – – – – – – – – –
Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel – Chair
“The chair is responsible for leading and managing the Panel. They must lead development and implementation of a strategic vision for the Panel and ensure the reviews under their supervision identify improvements safeguarding partners or others should make to better safeguard and promote the welfare of children…Successful applicants will demonstrate the ability to: provide strong strategic leadership; chair high level meetings; effectively manage team dynamics and maintain the confidence of others, including child safeguarding professionals, Ministers and the public. The right candidate will also demonstrate a strong understanding of multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements, policy and frontline delivery.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 31 July
– – – – – – – – – –
College of Policing – Chair
“The Chair of the College of Policing is appointed by the Home Secretary to ensure the long-term success of the College. Together with the College Board of Directors, the Chair (who must not have a background in operational policing) will set the College’s strategic direction and aims against budgets and priorities. They will provide the College Chief Executive and team of Executive Directors with the necessary leadership, support and monitoring that will help them to meet the College and Home Secretary’s goals. The College plays a critical role in helping to increase the diversity within the police to reflect the communities they serve.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £135,000 pro rata.
Closes: 03 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Equality & Human Rights Commission – Chair
“The Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities is seeking a strong, strategic leader who will continue to develop the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and set the Commission’s overall direction to reflect its crucial role as an equality body and National Human Rights Institution. This appointment fulfils the requirement of the Equality Act 2006 that the Secretary of State should appoint a Chair to the Commission. Although the Commission is an independent organisation, the Chair is accountable to the above sponsoring Minister. You will develop and maintain high-value relationships with Ministers, influential partners, governments at home and abroad, opinion formers, industry and others, demonstrating judgment, integrity and resilience in the face of challenge.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 03 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport – National Citizen Service Trustees
“National Citizen Service (NCS) is a youth programme that runs across England and Northern Ireland. We exist to engage, unite and empower young people, building their confidence so they can go out there and achieve their dreams, no matter where they’re from or what their background is. Our programme is managed and supported by NCS Trust, our central team who are constantly working to make sure we deliver the most impactful experience we can to as many young people as possible. National Citizen Service is seeking three Trustees with experience and skills at a senior level in the following areas: experience and demonstrable senior leadership in the parliamentary/public sector (1 Trustee); human resources specialist with commercial experience and a particular focus on people strategy, culture and coaching high performance teams (1 Trustee); [and] an education leader with strong links to schools and young people (1 Trustee).”
Time: 5-10 days per week.
Remuneration: “Reasonable expenses”.
Closes: 09 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner
“The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner role aims to promote police compliance with the rules on the collection and retention of DNA, fingerprints and surveillance cameras respectively. The roles were created by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), which set out the regime for police use of DNA, fingerprints and the regulation of surveillance cameras. We have decided to appoint a single person to both roles because of the confluence of existing and emerging regulatory issues around police use of automated facial recognition. The post will cover the duties of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, while the Government is considering reforms in this area.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 09 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities
“HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales, fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies. It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends, challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement, and making performance information accessible. The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales, and of all fire & rescue authorities in England; providing the public with a clear, consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their local area.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £175,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 August


conservativehome--2020-07-20--“If universities can’t defend free speech, the Government will”, said Williamson in February. He mea

“If universities can’t defend free speech, the Government will”, said Williamson in February. He meant it.

For a long time , the UK ’ s silent majority has been quite clearly concerned about “ cancel culture ” – which describes when people are demonised or sacked for having “ the wrong views ” .
This concern partly explains why Labour suffered such a big defeat at last year ’ s election .
The result was not only down to its confused stance on Brexit , or Jeremy Corbyn ’ s leadership , but the party ’ s woke worldview .
Unfortunately , cancel culture since seems to have accelerated , particularly during lockdown , when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows like The Mighty Boosh removed for being “ offensive ” and an author even fired from her agency for Tweeting support for JK Rowling .
There have been growing calls for the Government to intervene before it gets too late ; something which it ’ s not always easy to do , but last week Gavin Williamson announced a policy that could make a sizeable difference .
Titled the Higher Education Restructuring Regime , it essentially incentivises English universities – many of which are struggling as a result of the Coronavirus crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to receive a Government bailout .
Williamson ’ s restructuring regime is broadly focussed on three areas .
First , it asks universities to reduce administrative costs , including vice-chancellor pay , to focus resources “ on the front line ” .
Second , it asks them to cut courses that lead to poor employment outcomes – with the Education Secretary wanting to strive for “ great value for money ” as part of his commitment to levelling up Britain .
And third , it requires institutions to “ demonstrate their commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
An independently-chaired Higher Education Restructuring Regime Board will be established , and Williamson will draw on its expertise to assess which universities should receive bailouts , by way of repayable loans .
Jo Grady , General Secretary of the University and College Union , has strongly criticised the move , suggesting that the Government is exploiting Covid-19 to “ impose evidence-free ideology ” , and there have been similar objections .
But one suspects that this will be an incredibly popular policy with taxpayers , for a number of reasons .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are now too many young people going to universities , due to Tony Blair ’ s target for 50 per cent attendance ( the figure hit 50.2 per cent in 2017-2018 ) .
Williamson has said he will stand up for the “ forgotten 50 per cent ” , paying more attention to skills training , and other parts of the further education sector .
This is great news ; the UK needs qualifications and training to be better tailored to the economy , and there ’ s increasing evidence many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return on investment .
As Neil O ’ Brien has written for ConservativeHome , “ poor-value degree courses… waste taxpayers ’ money , but don ’ t actually increase opportunities for students.
” Then there ’ s the universities ’ free speech issue .
Censoriousness has become so prevalent that Amber Rudd was “ no-platformed ” at the University of Oxford in March .
There are numerous examples of universities banning speakers , as well as political hostility to those who hold Conservative/ Brexiteer views .
Last year I wrote for The Telegraph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been subjected to on campus because of these .
Williamson ’ s intervention is clever because it doesn ’ t tell universities how to combat this problem , and they have the option to do nothing ; it simply motivates them to promote free speech .
One way they could do this is by adopting the Chicago Principles , which are widely recognised in the Government and elsewhere , as best practice in this regard .
These were developed in 2014 following a series of incidents at different universities in which students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Academics at the University of Chicago drafted a statement that made an “ overarching commitment to free , robust , and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University ’ s community.
” Another way universities might tackle this is by trying to improving safety measures for speakers – so that they can not be no-platformed , or maybe even interviewing students on their attitudes to free speech before offering them a place .
There ’ s lots of ways in which the issue can be approached .
Some will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In February he wrote for The Times that “ If universities don ’ t take action [ to promote free speech ] , the government will.
” Strangely enough , it was the Coronavirus crisis that allowed him to stick to his word .
Let ’ s hope that his policy gives other ministers some ideas for how to fight cancel culture too .

For a long time, the UK’s silent majority has been quite clearly concerned about “cancel culture” – which describes when people are demonised or sacked for having “the wrong views”. This concern partly explains why Labour suffered such a big defeat at last year’s election. The result was not only down to its confused stance on Brexit, or Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, but the party’s woke worldview.
Unfortunately, cancel culture since seems to have accelerated, particularly during lockdown, when the nation watched statues toppled, innocuous TV shows like The Mighty Boosh removed for being “offensive” and an author even fired from her agency for Tweeting support for JK Rowling.
There have been growing calls for the Government to intervene before it gets too late; something which it’s not always easy to do, but last week Gavin Williamson announced a policy that could make a sizeable difference.
Titled the Higher Education Restructuring Regime, it essentially incentivises English universities – many of which are struggling as a result of the Coronavirus crisis – to tackle censorship on campus in order to receive a Government bailout.
Williamson’s restructuring regime is broadly focussed on three areas. First, it asks universities to reduce administrative costs, including vice-chancellor pay, to focus resources “on the front line”. Second, it asks them to cut courses that lead to poor employment outcomes – with the Education Secretary wanting to strive for “great value for money” as part of his commitment to levelling up Britain. And third, it requires institutions to “demonstrate their commitment to academic freedom and free speech”.
An independently-chaired Higher Education Restructuring Regime Board will be established, and Williamson will draw on its expertise to assess which universities should receive bailouts, by way of repayable loans.
Jo Grady, General Secretary of the University and College Union, has strongly criticised the move, suggesting that the Government is exploiting Covid-19 to “impose evidence-free ideology”, and there have been similar objections. But one suspects that this will be an incredibly popular policy with taxpayers, for a number of reasons.
For starters, it has been said repeatedly that there are now too many young people going to universities, due to Tony Blair’s target for 50 per cent attendance (the figure hit 50.2 per cent in 2017-2018). Williamson has said he will stand up for the “forgotten 50 per cent”, paying more attention to skills training, and other parts of the further education sector.
This is great news; the UK needs qualifications and training to be better tailored to the economy, and there’s increasing evidence many undergraduate degrees aren’t providing a return on investment. As Neil O’Brien has written for ConservativeHome, “poor-value degree courses… waste taxpayers’ money, but don’t actually increase opportunities for students.”
Then there’s the universities’ free speech issue. Censoriousness has become so prevalent that Amber Rudd was “no-platformed” at the University of Oxford in March. There are numerous examples of universities banning speakers, as well as political hostility to those who hold Conservative/ Brexiteer views. Last year I wrote for The Telegraph about the amount of insults young people had been subjected to on campus because of these.
Williamson’s intervention is clever because it doesn’t tell universities how to combat this problem, and they have the option to do nothing; it simply motivates them to promote free speech. One way they could do this is by adopting the Chicago Principles, which are widely recognised in the Government and elsewhere, as best practice in this regard.
These were developed in 2014 following a series of incidents at different universities in which students tried to ban speakers deemed controversial. Academics at the University of Chicago drafted a statement that made an “overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.”
Another way universities might tackle this is by trying to improving safety measures for speakers – so that they cannot be no-platformed, or maybe even interviewing students on their attitudes to free speech before offering them a place. There’s lots of ways in which the issue can be approached.
Some will not be surprised about Williamson’s announcement. In February he wrote for The Times that “If universities don’t take action [to promote free speech], the government will.” Strangely enough, it was the Coronavirus crisis that allowed him to stick to his word. Let’s hope that his policy gives other ministers some ideas for how to fight cancel culture too.


conservativehome--2020-07-21--James Frayne: Churchill – and why the conservative movement would win a culture war. But it would be

James Frayne: Churchill – and why the conservative movement would win a culture war. But it would be unpleasant and divisive.

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
The battle over the legacy of Winston Churchill shows in miniature what a big chunk of a future British culture war will look like .
It will be one which the conservative movement wins decisively because of mass public support .
But the fighting and winning of the battle will be unpleasant and divisive .
So we should hope a serious culture war never comes to pass .
Left-wing activists could spend hundreds of millions on campaigns to attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make no dent in public support for him .
Without doubt , his resolute opposition to Nazism and his brilliant war leadership saved Britain from a successful invasion and shaped the global effort to defeat Hitler .
The respect that the British public have had for Churchill since at least mid-way through the war is completely ingrained .
Footage of his funeral , at which working class dock workers lined the Thames to pay their respects is extraordinary to watch .
What ’ s true then is true now .
All these years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sympathetic Churchill books are published ; he ’ s depicted heroically in film ; queues still form to see where he lived and worked .
There are many things to dislike about Churchill ; his record as a politician pre-war was patchy at best , with some catastrophic errors of governance .
More relevant to this debate , as Andrew Roberts has pointed out , his views on other countries and races were unpleasant for the time and therefore breathtakingly unpleasant now .
And he wasn ’ t universally loved by the British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after it .
On the contrary , many post-war Northern families ( some of mine , included ) were brought up with terrible stories about Churchill ’ s failures .
But the mass of the public sees Churchill overwhelmingly through the prism of the Second World War and the moral , political and military leadership he provided in the country ’ s darkest hour .
It ’ s not that they share the same cultural views as Churchill – indeed , most would be horrified by them – but that they have chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in war time .
Trying to make the public revile Churchill is like trying to make them feel bad for Britain fighting the Second World War at all ; it has no point .
And this is the issue : it ’ s a pointless battle which the conservative movement ( I can ’ t think of a better term ) will win decisively , but in doing so risk opening up old and new wounds between different groups .
Because , in doing so , Churchill ’ s record and views must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could they not be ?
– and ultimately deemed to matter less on balance than his role as war leader and national saviour .
In turn , those that revile Churchill will be able to claim that most people don ’ t care about his views , and therefore that Britain is an unenlightened , intolerant country .
On this narrow point , this will not be true – people will simply not be able to view him as anything other than a war leader – but there ’ s a logic to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the battle over Churchill will be true too of many other cultural battles too .
The public will likely come to support the removal of those historical figures linked with atrocities abroad , but it ’ s hard to see how they could come to see Sur Francis Drake as anything other than the man who saved England from the Armada .
The public will strongly support further efforts to make sure the police better reflects and better serves minority groups , but they will not support anything that looks like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees them pull back from making streets safer .
Voters will support a balanced narrative about Britain ’ s past in our schools , but they will want children to mostly feel pride in our past .
( Such is public reverence for Churchill that a problem for those campaigning for social and cultural change , is that more palatable changes that the public understand and are happy to get behind , end up being obscured by a debate around Churchill , which they most certainly will not get behind . )
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians stand firm on these issues – and will give these politicians strong support as they do so .
And as these debates are played out , left-wing campaigns will accuse politicians of fostering intolerance and many in the public of “ falling for it ” – because , as with Churchill , people will expect politicians to put things in a wider context .
In the public mind : yes , Drake was one of those responsible for the aggressive expansion of England , but he saved England from a successful invasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more diverse , but they do a good job in difficult circumstances and limited cash ; yes , Britain has done things for which it should be ashamed , but it has also been a force for good .
As all this is played out , as with Churchill , the conservative movement will win these battles , but division will emerge .
Emphatically , this is not to say that campaigns shouldn ’ t demand social or cultural change .
Nor is to say that the public are hostile to such change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the last few decades , campaigns have fostered and secured public support behind a range of morally just causes .
Rather , it is to say that some harder-left campaigns are seeking battle with the mass of the public on areas where they won ’ t ever shift , and where the only outcome is victory for the conservative movement , but with division following in its wake .
What would ultimately deliver electoral advantage to the Conservative Party would be damaging to the country .
Jeremy Corbyn went full throttle for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his face .
Those that care about building a more united country , regardless of their party allegiance , should hope that Jeir Starmer steers the Labour Party back to mainstream values – with a focus on practically solving cultural and social problems ( as well as economic ones ) .
It ’ ll make for a more competitive electoral environment , but surely a happier place .

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
The battle over the legacy of Winston Churchill shows in miniature what a big chunk of a future British culture war will look like. It will be one which the conservative movement wins decisively because of mass public support. But the fighting and winning of the battle will be unpleasant and divisive. So we should hope a serious culture war never comes to pass.
Left-wing activists could spend hundreds of millions on campaigns to attack Churchill over many years, but would make no dent in public support for him. Without doubt, his resolute opposition to Nazism and his brilliant war leadership saved Britain from a successful invasion and shaped the global effort to defeat Hitler. The respect that the British public have had for Churchill since at least mid-way through the war is completely ingrained.
Footage of his funeral, at which working class dock workers lined the Thames to pay their respects is extraordinary to watch. What’s true then is true now. All these years on from his death, serious and sympathetic Churchill books are published; he’s depicted heroically in film; queues still form to see where he lived and worked.
There are many things to dislike about Churchill; his record as a politician pre-war was patchy at best, with some catastrophic errors of governance. More relevant to this debate, as Andrew Roberts has pointed out, his views on other countries and races were unpleasant for the time and therefore breathtakingly unpleasant now. And he wasn’t universally loved by the British public, either during the war or after it. On the contrary, many post-war Northern families (some of mine, included) were brought up with terrible stories about Churchill’s failures.
But the mass of the public sees Churchill overwhelmingly through the prism of the Second World War and the moral, political and military leadership he provided in the country’s darkest hour. It’s not that they share the same cultural views as Churchill – indeed, most would be horrified by them – but that they have chosen to honour him for his massive achievement in war time. Trying to make the public revile Churchill is like trying to make them feel bad for Britain fighting the Second World War at all; it has no point.
And this is the issue: it’s a pointless battle which the conservative movement (I can’t think of a better term) will win decisively, but in doing so risk opening up old and new wounds between different groups. Because, in doing so, Churchill’s record and views must inevitably be put into context – how could they not be? – and ultimately deemed to matter less on balance than his role as war leader and national saviour.
In turn, those that revile Churchill will be able to claim that most people don’t care about his views, and therefore that Britain is an unenlightened, intolerant country. On this narrow point, this will not be true – people will simply not be able to view him as anything other than a war leader – but there’s a logic to this position.
What’s true of the battle over Churchill will be true too of many other cultural battles too. The public will likely come to support the removal of those historical figures linked with atrocities abroad, but it’s hard to see how they could come to see Sur Francis Drake as anything other than the man who saved England from the Armada. The public will strongly support further efforts to make sure the police better reflects and better serves minority groups, but they will not support anything that looks like “defunding” the police, or which sees them pull back from making streets safer.
Voters will support a balanced narrative about Britain’s past in our schools, but they will want children to mostly feel pride in our past. (Such is public reverence for Churchill that a problem for those campaigning for social and cultural change, is that more palatable changes that the public understand and are happy to get behind, end up being obscured by a debate around Churchill, which they most certainly will not get behind.)
The mass of the public will demand that politicians stand firm on these issues – and will give these politicians strong support as they do so. And as these debates are played out, left-wing campaigns will accuse politicians of fostering intolerance and many in the public of “falling for it” – because, as with Churchill, people will expect politicians to put things in a wider context.
In the public mind: yes, Drake was one of those responsible for the aggressive expansion of England, but he saved England from a successful invasion; yes, the police should be more diverse, but they do a good job in difficult circumstances and limited cash; yes, Britain has done things for which it should be ashamed, but it has also been a force for good.
As all this is played out, as with Churchill, the conservative movement will win these battles, but division will emerge.
Emphatically, this is not to say that campaigns shouldn’t demand social or cultural change. Nor is to say that the public are hostile to such change. As we’ve seen consistently in the last few decades, campaigns have fostered and secured public support behind a range of morally just causes. Rather, it is to say that some harder-left campaigns are seeking battle with the mass of the public on areas where they won’t ever shift, and where the only outcome is victory for the conservative movement, but with division following in its wake. What would ultimately deliver electoral advantage to the Conservative Party would be damaging to the country.
Jeremy Corbyn went full throttle for culture war and it blew up in his face. Those that care about building a more united country, regardless of their party allegiance, should hope that Jeir Starmer steers the Labour Party back to mainstream values – with a focus on practically solving cultural and social problems (as well as economic ones). It’ll make for a more competitive electoral environment, but surely a happier place.


conservativehome--2020-07-21--Tory MPs, Downing Street and the Treasury are poised to clash over plans to cut the army to 60,000.

Tory MPs, Downing Street and the Treasury are poised to clash over plans to cut the army to 60,000. Who will win out?

In Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott ’ s White Flag , their books about Britain ’ s defence capability , there is a chapter on “ Operation Tethered Goat ” , which looks at the army ’ s presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States .
Part of it describes the 800-strong NATO UK-led Enhanced Forward Presence ( EFP ) , as it is called , stationed in an encampment “ at the end of a dusty road an hour ’ s drive from the Estonian capital of Tallinn ” .
The authors go on to identify how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 Challenger tanks .
It got ten .
The RAND corporation reported that however they war-gamed a Russian invasion involving conventional armed forces , these reached Tallinn and Riga within 60 hours .
“ This is why some in the armed forces privately call the EFP in Estonia ‘ Operation Tethered Goat ’ “ , write Oakeshott and our proprietor .
If Downing Street puts its plans for defence spending into effect , expect the prospects of what the authors refer to as “ a small but fierce battalion of UK troops ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Welsh , to be fiercely debated , along with those of an entire division of the British Army – and our defence strategy as a whole .
The background is well known .
Dominic Cummings has long had an interest in revisiting defence spending .
“ He believes that the British state is wasteful ; that the most wasteful part of the British state is the Ministry of Defence , and that the most wasteful part of the Ministry of Defence is its procurement function ” , as one Tory MP puts it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defence debates believes that Cummings is necessarily wrong .
He has read Boris Johnson ’ s adviser ’ s profuse and splenetic blogs on defence , which also cover the Pentagon ’ s use of artificial intelligence , the history of modern weapons development , drone swarms , equipment safety and ( topically ) China .
A section on Government procurement is sub-headed , Apolalypse Now-style , “ the horror , the horror ” .
This would also be a fair description of the reaction when it was reported that Cummings has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain ’ s most highly classified national security sites as part of his plan to radically shake up the military ” .
There will be much more to his scheme , and to the defence , security and foreign policy review , than the future of Ministry of Defence procurement – or even of the army .
It must weigh the future of the navy , internal security , cyber and the air force , not to mention the security threats posed by China , radical Islam and Russia , plus others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Estonia , and indeed those of the Third ( United Kingdom ) Division are at stake .
It is , the Army declares , “ the only division at continual operational readiness in the UK ” – in other words , the only one of three prepared for action in Eastern Europe .
The word on the defence street is that Downing Street has a proposal to cut the army to 60,000 – not the first time that this figure has been deployed .
How can it possibly make sense ?
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one backbench source told ConservativeHome .
“ If your defence effort is concentrated against Islamist terror in Britain , you don ’ t need nearly that many .
If you want to fight in Estonia , it isn ’ t enough – you need as many as you can get .
For the Middle East , you ’ d want something in between ” .
The review itself is already the subject of swirling internal spats and , as noted above , this isn ’ t the first time that a cut to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ army numbers themselves have been reduced .
On paper , its “ establishment strength ” has come down to 82,500 .
In practice , that means a real capacity of about 74,000 regulars .
“ It ’ s been 15 per cent or so beneath strength for years , ” another defence-minded MP said .
“ The generals get their budget , complain about the army being downsized – and pocket savings for kit ” .
So it has been since the Levene Review years , he said .
“ We haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real hole is in the regulars.
” The army has already reorganised itself in the wake of recent defence and security reviews – see the emergence of “ Strike ” – and optimists argue that more kit all round can substitute for boots on the ground .
That Apache attack helicopters , for example , can assail more tanks at once – or that robots will eventually replace men almost entirely .
Conservative MPs are unlikely to be among them .
Forty-five members of Parliament have served in the armed forces as regulars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them are Tories , most of whom are ex-army .
Off the top of our heads , we name two senior Select Committee chairs by way of example : Tom Tugendhat and Tobias Ellwood .
Boris Johnson can not simply impose a cut to 60,000 on Parliament .
For a start , there is Ben Wallace , the Defence Secretary , to consider , if he survives any coming reshuffle .
Then there is the legislature itself .
There are questions , debates , bills that could be creatively amended – not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mark Francois will release the second part of his report into army recruitment ( he wrote about the first part on this site three years ago ) – a reminder that interest in the armed forces on the Tory benches blooms perenially .
There are three possible outcomes to the future of the army when the reviews make their recommendations .
The first is the most likely : namely that , in the manner of previous defence reviews , there is a decision to muddle through .
Cummings and others get the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s headline number settles down at roughly the real figure it is now .
No-one is exactly happy but no-one is very unhappy either .
The second is that the army is reduced to 60,000 people .
This is almost certain not to happen – because Conservative MPs would kill it .
If a band of perhaps 20 can force Minister to turn tail on Huawei , 40 or so can easily do so on such cuts to the army .
The third that Cummings and company get their cyber ; that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other services are also shielded from economies .
Given Boris Johnson ’ s inclination to spend spend spend as well as build build build , one would have thought this a runner .
Except that Rishi Sunak is already keeping the economy afloat on a tide of borrowed money , and this site is told that he and the Treasury team are getting very restive .
They will be well aware of the Ministry of Defence ’ s unreformed history over procurement .
It looks from here as though a political pile-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible to say who will emerged from it least damaged .
Meanwhile , in Estonia , our soldiers watch and wait for the Russian conventional assault that will , God willing , not come .
Cummings and the strategic review , by contrast , are knocking at the door .

In Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott’s White Flag, their books about Britain’s defence capability, there is a chapter on “Operation Tethered Goat”, which looks at the army’s presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
Part of it describes the 800-strong NATO UK-led Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP), as it is called, stationed in an encampment “at the end of a dusty road an hour’s drive from the Estonian capital of Tallinn”. The authors go on to identify how it was originally intended to be provided with 18 Challenger tanks. It got ten.
The RAND corporation reported that however they war-gamed a Russian invasion involving conventional armed forces, these reached Tallinn and Riga within 60 hours. “This is why some in the armed forces privately call the EFP in Estonia ‘Operation Tethered Goat’ “, write Oakeshott and our proprietor.
If Downing Street puts its plans for defence spending into effect, expect the prospects of what the authors refer to as “a small but fierce battalion of UK troops”, from the 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh, to be fiercely debated, along with those of an entire division of the British Army – and our defence strategy as a whole.
The background is well known. Dominic Cummings has long had an interest in revisiting defence spending. “He believes that the British state is wasteful; that the most wasteful part of the British state is the Ministry of Defence, and that the most wasteful part of the Ministry of Defence is its procurement function”, as one Tory MP puts it.
Not that this well-placed participant in defence debates believes that Cummings is necessarily wrong. He has read Boris Johnson’s adviser’s profuse and splenetic blogs on defence, which also cover the Pentagon’s use of artificial intelligence, the history of modern weapons development, drone swarms, equipment safety and (topically) China.
A section on Government procurement is sub-headed, Apolalypse Now-style, “the horror, the horror”. This would also be a fair description of the reaction when it was reported that Cummings has been given permission “to tour some of Britain’s most highly classified national security sites as part of his plan to radically shake up the military”.
There will be much more to his scheme, and to the defence, security and foreign policy review, than the future of Ministry of Defence procurement – or even of the army. It must weigh the future of the navy, internal security, cyber and the air force, not to mention the security threats posed by China, radical Islam and Russia, plus others.
But the prospects for the EFP in Estonia, and indeed those of the Third (United Kingdom) Division are at stake. It is, the Army declares, “the only division at continual operational readiness in the UK” – in other words, the only one of three prepared for action in Eastern Europe.
The word on the defence street is that Downing Street has a proposal to cut the army to 60,000 – not the first time that this figure has been deployed. How can it possibly make sense? “It depends what your objective is,” one backbench source told ConservativeHome.
“If your defence effort is concentrated against Islamist terror in Britain, you don’t need nearly that many. If you want to fight in Estonia, it isn’t enough – you need as many as you can get. For the Middle East, you’d want something in between”.
The review itself is already the subject of swirling internal spats and, as noted above, this isn’t the first time that a cut to 60,000 has been mooted. Or that army numbers themselves have been reduced. On paper, its “establishment strength” has come down to 82,500. In practice, that means a real capacity of about 74,000 regulars.
“It’s been 15 per cent or so beneath strength for years,” another defence-minded MP said. “The generals get their budget, complain about the army being downsized – and pocket savings for kit”. So it has been since the Levene Review years, he said. “We haven’t done badly on reserves; the real hole is in the regulars.”
The army has already reorganised itself in the wake of recent defence and security reviews – see the emergence of “Strike” – and optimists argue that more kit all round can substitute for boots on the ground. That Apache attack helicopters, for example, can assail more tanks at once – or that robots will eventually replace men almost entirely.
Conservative MPs are unlikely to be among them. Forty-five members of Parliament have served in the armed forces as regulars or reservists. No fewer than 41 of them are Tories, most of whom are ex-army. Off the top of our heads, we name two senior Select Committee chairs by way of example: Tom Tugendhat and Tobias Ellwood.
Boris Johnson cannot simply impose a cut to 60,000 on Parliament. For a start, there is Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, to consider, if he survives any coming reshuffle. Then there is the legislature itself. There are questions, debates, bills that could be creatively amended – not to mention the defence estimates.
Today, Mark Francois will release the second part of his report into army recruitment (he wrote about the first part on this site three years ago) – a reminder that interest in the armed forces on the Tory benches blooms perenially. There are three possible outcomes to the future of the army when the reviews make their recommendations.
The first is the most likely: namely that, in the manner of previous defence reviews, there is a decision to muddle through. Cummings and others get the cyber investment they want; the army’s headline number settles down at roughly the real figure it is now. No-one is exactly happy but no-one is very unhappy either.
The second is that the army is reduced to 60,000 people. This is almost certain not to happen – because Conservative MPs would kill it. If a band of perhaps 20 can force Minister to turn tail on Huawei, 40 or so can easily do so on such cuts to the army.
The third that Cummings and company get their cyber; that the army stays at 80,000; that the other services are also shielded from economies. Given Boris Johnson’s inclination to spend spend spend as well as build build build, one would have thought this a runner.
Except that Rishi Sunak is already keeping the economy afloat on a tide of borrowed money, and this site is told that he and the Treasury team are getting very restive. They will be well aware of the Ministry of Defence’s unreformed history over procurement.
It looks from here as though a political pile-up is coming, and it’s impossible to say who will emerged from it least damaged. Meanwhile, in Estonia, our soldiers watch and wait for the Russian conventional assault that will, God willing, not come. Cummings and the strategic review, by contrast, are knocking at the door.


conservativehome--2020-07-21--Radical: An open letter to Liz Truss. We urge you to see through your commitment to protect single s

Radical: An open letter to Liz Truss. We urge you to see through your commitment to protect single sex spaces.

As you know , we ’ ve been thinking hard about sex and gender issues .
We launched our Radical campaign last November , with the aim of searching out the truth , from a position committed to freedom , tolerance , and equal respect .
As planned , we ’ ve engaged with people from across the political spectrum , and learned lots from researchers , activists , practitioners , and more .
We ’ re writing to you now to share our latest thoughts , ahead of your expected announcement on the outcome of the consultation on reforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initial instincts haven ’ t changed much , although our concern has grown , greatly , the more we ’ ve learned .
Our view remains that people who choose to act in ways stereotypically associated with membership of the opposite biological sex should be treated just as respectfully as anyone else , all other things being equal .
But also , that this doesn ’ t equate to believing that the law should mandate that biological men must be treated as women , and vice versa , solely on their demand – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only risk a downgrading of the value of truth in our society , it would have serious detrimental consequences for the policy prescriptions that seek to ensure equal opportunity , and the social-science research and records that inform these policies .
It would also constitute a safety risk to girls and women , by effectively outlawing single-sex spaces and services .
Our view also remains that , if adults wish to seek medical intervention to make their bodies resemble those of members of the opposite sex , they should be free to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case of children , such interventions are always wrong : over the past year , we ’ ve grown even more committed to fighting against these interventions , which equate to child abuse .
We ’ ve been grateful to write for ConservativeHome , once a fortnight , about why we hold these views — sharing what we ’ ve learned with the conservative community .
We were aware that many people on the centre-right weren ’ t engaged with these matters , and we ’ ve sought to change that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll know , there ’ s been a recent flurry of polling and campaigning on sex and gender matters .
We believe that the results of recent polls – and how they ’ ve been reported – serve to illustrate public confusion about relevant current laws , and the reforms that ’ ve been proposed .
This confusion is persistently manifested in mainstream-media reportage , in policy documents published by state bodies , and in statements by high-profile commentators and politicians .
This confusion , as we ’ ve written here many times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of powerful activists , who ’ ve seized on the uncertainty they ’ ve sown , to advance their political cause .
Pink News – the chosen media outlet of many of these activists – recently published , with great fanfare , the finding that most women in Britain support the right of transpeople to self-identify .
This , they proclaimed , means that the law must be changed to remove the current procedural requirements for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate ( the document that legally changes a person ’ s sex ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually done , is to highlight – inadvertently , no doubt – the reason why maintaining these controls on changing legal sex is so important .
And also , how the retention of these controls is not only expected by the public , but that these controls are not generally seen as illiberal , or as ‘ denying the existence ’ of transpeople .
More detailed polling , subsequently released by YouGov , does indeed show high levels of support for people being able to self-identify their gender .
But it also shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of transwomen using women-only facilities , and serious disagreement — from almost all sections of society — with the idea that the legal ‘ gender ’ -change process should be ‘ made easier ’ .
It also shows widespread opposition to people who ’ ve not had gender-reassignment surgery using facilities reserved for the opposite sex .
This is a crushing blow to those claiming that self-identified gender identity should solely determine one ’ s entitlements regarding single-sex services .
It reflects the traditional understanding that ‘ sex ’ relates to membership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ female , and that ‘ gender ’ relates to stereotypical societal understandings of masculinity and femininity .
As you know , we ’ re fully committed to free expression , and we ’ ve stressed many times that we ’ ll die on the hill for people to be allowed to dress and act however they like .
But that doesn ’ t mean that men – adult human males – should be housed in women ’ s refuges or prison wings .
Now , you ’ ll be aware of current siren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Conservative Party circles .
Common to these is the claim that a Gender Recognition Certificate ( GRC ) is ‘ just a piece of paper ’ – and , that , if a GRC makes a vulnerable transperson feel more secure and validated , then what ’ s the harm in making GRCs available , on demand ?
Well , those making such calls simply can not be aware of the realities of the current relevant laws – and the repercussions such a change would have .
It would not only make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women-only spaces , it would also destabilise all manner of legal structures , from equal pay to sex discrimination law to criminal law .
Sadly , the truth is that , as a society , we ’ ve moved beyond the opportunity of dealing with these matters at the level of individual choice and decency .
We urgently need laws that clearly prevent men seeking residency in women ’ s refuges and prisons ; that prevent men rendering women ’ s sport null ; and , yes , that even help to prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is an extremely depressing , yet fully accurate conclusion .
And , yes , the current laws are imperfect .
In an ideal world , they would be torn up and rewritten , but – unless you have the time to do that ( ! )
– then we are where we are , and the inevitable negative effects of changing these laws must be accepted .
So we urge you to resist the calls for so-called ‘ compromise ’ , and to see through your commitment to protecting single-sex spaces , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gender-recognition process .
Neither of those commitments can be honoured by allowing self-ID .
But that doesn ’ t mean there ’ s nothing you can do to help support transpeople , and those suffering from gender dysphoria .
Aside from small , genuine , unharmful direct compromises — such as removing the fee from seeking a GRC — foremost in these positive actions should be to improve resources for young people .
It must be ensured that children and teenagers get the proper support they need — and they must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political activists and politicised medical professionals .
Beyond that , we believe your priority should be to meet the urgent need for the review and clarification of formal guidance around relevant law .
On all the YouGov questions , between 21 and 30 per cent of people answered ‘ don ’ t know ’ .
This is unsurprising , given the arcane nature of much of the debate , and — as previously emphasised — the confusing and often seriously manipulated advice that government departments and local authorities have been publishing and endorsing @ @ @ @ @ @

Dear Liz,
As you know, we’ve been thinking hard about sex and gender issues. We launched our Radical campaign last November, with the aim of searching out the truth, from a position committed to freedom, tolerance, and equal respect.
As planned, we’ve engaged with people from across the political spectrum, and learned lots from researchers, activists, practitioners, and more. We’re writing to you now to share our latest thoughts, ahead of your expected announcement on the outcome of the consultation on reforms to the Gender Recognition Act.
Our initial instincts haven’t changed much, although our concern has grown, greatly, the more we’ve learned. Our view remains that people who choose to act in ways stereotypically associated with membership of the opposite biological sex should be treated just as respectfully as anyone else, all other things being equal.
But also, that this doesn’t equate to believing that the law should mandate that biological men must be treated as women, and vice versa, solely on their demand – via ‘self-ID’. That would not only risk a downgrading of the value of truth in our society, it would have serious detrimental consequences for the policy prescriptions that seek to ensure equal opportunity, and the social-science research and records that inform these policies. It would also constitute a safety risk to girls and women, by effectively outlawing single-sex spaces and services.
Our view also remains that, if adults wish to seek medical intervention to make their bodies resemble those of members of the opposite sex, they should be free to do so. But, that in the case of children, such interventions are always wrong: over the past year, we’ve grown even more committed to fighting against these interventions, which equate to child abuse.
We’ve been grateful to write for ConservativeHome, once a fortnight, about why we hold these views — sharing what we’ve learned with the conservative community. We were aware that many people on the centre-right weren’t engaged with these matters, and we’ve sought to change that.
On that topic, as you’ll know, there’s been a recent flurry of polling and campaigning on sex and gender matters. We believe that the results of recent polls – and how they’ve been reported – serve to illustrate public confusion about relevant current laws, and the reforms that’ve been proposed.
This confusion is persistently manifested in mainstream-media reportage, in policy documents published by state bodies, and in statements by high-profile commentators and politicians. This confusion, as we’ve written here many times, has been propagated by a set of powerful activists, who’ve seized on the uncertainty they’ve sown, to advance their political cause.
Pink News – the chosen media outlet of many of these activists – recently published, with great fanfare, the finding that most women in Britain support the right of transpeople to self-identify. This, they proclaimed, means that the law must be changed to remove the current procedural requirements for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (the document that legally changes a person’s sex).
However, what Pink News has actually done, is to highlight – inadvertently, no doubt – the reason why maintaining these controls on changing legal sex is so important. And also, how the retention of these controls is not only expected by the public, but that these controls are not generally seen as illiberal, or as ‘denying the existence’ of transpeople.
More detailed polling, subsequently released by YouGov, does indeed show high levels of support for people being able to self-identify their gender. But it also shows much lower levels of support for the idea of transwomen using women-only facilities, and serious disagreement — from almost all sections of society — with the idea that the legal ‘gender’-change process should be ‘made easier’.
It also shows widespread opposition to people who’ve not had gender-reassignment surgery using facilities reserved for the opposite sex. This is a crushing blow to those claiming that self-identified gender identity should solely determine one’s entitlements regarding single-sex services. It reflects the traditional understanding that ‘sex’ relates to membership of the biological sets of male or female, and that ‘gender’ relates to stereotypical societal understandings of masculinity and femininity.
As you know, we’re fully committed to free expression, and we’ve stressed many times that we’ll die on the hill for people to be allowed to dress and act however they like. But that doesn’t mean that men – adult human males – should be housed in women’s refuges or prison wings.
Now, you’ll be aware of current siren calls for ‘compromise’, rippling through Conservative Party circles. Common to these is the claim that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is ‘just a piece of paper’ – and, that, if a GRC makes a vulnerable transperson feel more secure and validated, then what’s the harm in making GRCs available, on demand?
Well, those making such calls simply cannot be aware of the realities of the current relevant laws – and the repercussions such a change would have. It would not only make it much harder to exclude men from women-only spaces, it would also destabilise all manner of legal structures, from equal pay to sex discrimination law to criminal law.
Sadly, the truth is that, as a society, we’ve moved beyond the opportunity of dealing with these matters at the level of individual choice and decency. We urgently need laws that clearly prevent men seeking residency in women’s refuges and prisons; that prevent men rendering women’s sport null; and, yes, that even help to prevent men using women’s toilets.
This is an extremely depressing, yet fully accurate conclusion. And, yes, the current laws are imperfect. In an ideal world, they would be torn up and rewritten, but – unless you have the time to do that (!) – then we are where we are, and the inevitable negative effects of changing these laws must be accepted.
So we urge you to resist the calls for so-called ‘compromise’, and to see through your commitment to protecting single-sex spaces, and to maintaining checks and balances in the gender-recognition process.
Neither of those commitments can be honoured by allowing self-ID. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing you can do to help support transpeople, and those suffering from gender dysphoria. Aside from small, genuine, unharmful direct compromises — such as removing the fee from seeking a GRC — foremost in these positive actions should be to improve resources for young people.
It must be ensured that children and teenagers get the proper support they need — and they must be protected from being instrumentalised and abused by political activists and politicised medical professionals.
Beyond that, we believe your priority should be to meet the urgent need for the review and clarification of formal guidance around relevant law. On all the YouGov questions, between 21 and 30 per cent of people answered ‘don’t know’. This is unsurprising, given the arcane nature of much of the debate, and — as previously emphasised — the confusing and often seriously manipulated advice that government departments and local authorities have been publishing and endorsing.
With very best wishes,
Rebecca Lowe and Victoria Hewson


conservativehome--2020-07-21--Nicholas Rogers: Over a decade, acid attacks in London have quadrupled

Nicholas Rogers is the Conservative London Assembly candidate for Hounslow , Richmond , & Kingston and is a former Metropolitan Police Special Constable Things have changed since I patrolled the streets of London as a Metropolitan Police Special Constable in 2008 .
My work as a Special was the daily routine of community policing : patrolling estates in North Kensington , getting to know local residents and businesses , stop & search , traffic duties , with the occasional excitement of a foot chase .
The experience was valuable as a glimpse into the challenges police officers face day-in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be immensely difficult and immensely rewarding .
Back then , the concept of acid regularly being used as an offensive weapon on our streets would have seemed nightmarish and almost dystopian , even to the veteran regular officers I worked alongside .
To my distress , London is now living that nightmare .
Data I obtained from the Met Police shows that in the ten years from 2008 to 2018 , acid attacks in London increased by 430 per cent , from 59 cases to 313 .
It is impossible to overstate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are left with life-changing physical injuries often requiring years of specialist treatment .
The mental scars are far deeper and longer lasting .
Survivors talk of battling anxiety , loneliness , and post-traumatic stress disorder .
The Acid Survivors Trust states that ‘ the path to recovery is long , complex and very painful at both a physical and mental level ’ – exactly what the criminals who carry out these attacks intend .
It was with dismay that I learnt my home borough of Kingston – otherwise one of the safest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city for violent offences involving the use of corrosive substances against a person ; in other words , acid attacks .
My research shows a precipitous increase in these offences in Kingston , from three in 2015 to 13 last year – down from a worrying 20 in 2018 .
This makes us the joint fifth worst borough in the city .
As recently as 2018 we were the second worst borough in London .
This will likely come as shocking news for Kingston residents .
For context , neighbouring Richmond had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 .
Sutton had three in 2018 and 2019 .
Hounslow only had one in 2019 .
There is clearly a serious local problem in Kingston .
However , in response to my question , the Metropolitan Police advised that there is no specific local plan in place to tackle the issue ; something that is surely urgently required and which I am now calling for .
Unfortunately , the Liberal Democrats , who run Kingston Council and hold both Parliamentary seats covering the borough , show no signs of understanding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party conference in 2019 they adopted a policy opposing mandatory prison sentences for those caught carrying acid .
‘ Misguided ’ doesn ’ t begin to describe how badly wrong this policy is .
Acid is an offensive weapon – it is carried solely to maim , disfigure , and terrorise its victims .
It is not carried for self-defence .
Those who carry it have made the decision to cause great mental and physical harm .
They must be punished for that decision .
Ed Davey , Member of Parliament for Kingston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubled down on his party ’ s policy .
In a series of tabled amendments to the Offensive Weapons Bill 2019 he sought to reduce the penalties for selling acid to youths and attempted to eliminate mandatory prison sentences for second convictions of carrying corrosive substances .
The Lib Dem London Mayoral candidate , herself a Kingston resident , is yet to disown this approach , which could hardly be less suited to addressing London ’ s violent crime epidemic .
While a nasty acid problem developed in his own back yard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
I am curious to understand whether , in formulating his party ’ s policy on sentencing for acid offences , Ed Davey either knew a problem existed in his own constituency and chose not to mention it , or was entirely unaware that Kingston has become one of the worst boroughs in our city for violent acid offences .
To me it is obvious : if you choose to carry acid , you must go to prison .
We absolutely need to have a searching debate about how that time in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals are rehabilitated and given the support they need to lead productive , lawful lives , but this does not change the basic fact that for a justice system to work and to be respected , actions must have consequences – and those who choose to carry acid must face the consequences of their actions .
The only candidate in the Mayoral race with a sensible approach is Shaun Bailey .
He grew up on the same estates in North Kensington I patrolled as a Special Constable .
He has seen violent crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I trust to deal with these problems in an informed manner .
In vivid contrast to the Liberal Democrats , Bailey recognises the gravity of these crimes and wants to make life harder for the criminals , not give them an easy ride .
He is calling for those caught carrying acid to be imprisoned on the first offence , not the second .
He will take a zero-tolerance approach to gang activity .
Bailey is a crime-fighting youth worker who is best-placed to work with the government to secure a good deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why outcomes for these offences are so poor : in 2018 barely more than ten per cent of these offences had positive outcomes ( i.e .
a charge or caution ) whereas in almost half of all cases , no suspect was even identified .
It is a poor record and one that has fallen consistently from 2010 , when there was a positive outcome in 40 per cent of cases .
The Liberal Democrats , now something of an irrelevance both nationally and in London , can not be expected to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our city .
I was shocked when I learnt the scale of the acid attack problem in Kingston and how bad it is here relative to the rest of London .
It is a problem that absolutely can not be ignored .
I will make it a personal mission on the London Assembly to understand how this problem has developed and why Kingston is so much worse than other areas of London .
The Metropolitan Police needs to investigate how our otherwise safe borough came to be blighted with this problem and – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get these figures down to zero .

Nicholas Rogers is the Conservative London Assembly candidate for Hounslow, Richmond, & Kingston and is a former Metropolitan Police Special Constable
Things have changed since I patrolled the streets of London as a Metropolitan Police Special Constable in 2008. My work as a Special was the daily routine of community policing: patrolling estates in North Kensington, getting to know local residents and businesses, stop & search, traffic duties, with the occasional excitement of a foot chase.
The experience was valuable as a glimpse into the challenges police officers face day-in, day-out. I saw how the job could be immensely difficult and immensely rewarding.
Back then, the concept of acid regularly being used as an offensive weapon on our streets would have seemed nightmarish and almost dystopian, even to the veteran regular officers I worked alongside.
To my distress, London is now living that nightmare.
Data I obtained from the Met Police shows that in the ten years from 2008 to 2018, acid attacks in London increased by 430 per cent, from 59 cases to 313.
It is impossible to overstate the horror of acid attacks. Victims are left with life-changing physical injuries often requiring years of specialist treatment. The mental scars are far deeper and longer lasting. Survivors talk of battling anxiety, loneliness, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The Acid Survivors Trust states that ‘the path to recovery is long, complex and very painful at both a physical and mental level’ – exactly what the criminals who carry out these attacks intend.
It was with dismay that I learnt my home borough of Kingston – otherwise one of the safest in London – is among the worst in the city for violent offences involving the use of corrosive substances against a person; in other words, acid attacks.
My research shows a precipitous increase in these offences in Kingston, from three in 2015 to 13 last year – down from a worrying 20 in 2018. This makes us the joint fifth worst borough in the city. As recently as 2018 we were the second worst borough in London. This will likely come as shocking news for Kingston residents.
For context, neighbouring Richmond had five offences in 2019 and only one in 2018. Sutton had three in 2018 and 2019. Hounslow only had one in 2019.
There is clearly a serious local problem in Kingston. However, in response to my question, the Metropolitan Police advised that there is no specific local plan in place to tackle the issue; something that is surely urgently required and which I am now calling for.
Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats, who run Kingston Council and hold both Parliamentary seats covering the borough, show no signs of understanding that this problem even exists.
At their party conference in 2019 they adopted a policy opposing mandatory prison sentences for those caught carrying acid. ‘Misguided’ doesn’t begin to describe how badly wrong this policy is.
Acid is an offensive weapon – it is carried solely to maim, disfigure, and terrorise its victims. It is not carried for self-defence. Those who carry it have made the decision to cause great mental and physical harm. They must be punished for that decision.
Ed Davey, Member of Parliament for Kingston & Surbiton and LibDem leadership candidate, doubled down on his party’s policy. In a series of tabled amendments to the Offensive Weapons Bill 2019 he sought to reduce the penalties for selling acid to youths and attempted to eliminate mandatory prison sentences for second convictions of carrying corrosive substances.
The Lib Dem London Mayoral candidate, herself a Kingston resident, is yet to disown this approach, which could hardly be less suited to addressing London’s violent crime epidemic.
While a nasty acid problem developed in his own back yard, Ed Davey sought to water down the law. I am curious to understand whether, in formulating his party’s policy on sentencing for acid offences, Ed Davey either knew a problem existed in his own constituency and chose not to mention it, or was entirely unaware that Kingston has become one of the worst boroughs in our city for violent acid offences.
To me it is obvious: if you choose to carry acid, you must go to prison.
We absolutely need to have a searching debate about how that time in prison is best used to ensure that criminals are rehabilitated and given the support they need to lead productive, lawful lives, but this does not change the basic fact that for a justice system to work and to be respected, actions must have consequences – and those who choose to carry acid must face the consequences of their actions.
The only candidate in the Mayoral race with a sensible approach is Shaun Bailey. He grew up on the same estates in North Kensington I patrolled as a Special Constable. He has seen violent crime first-hand and he is the only candidate I trust to deal with these problems in an informed manner.
In vivid contrast to the Liberal Democrats, Bailey recognises the gravity of these crimes and wants to make life harder for the criminals, not give them an easy ride. He is calling for those caught carrying acid to be imprisoned on the first offence, not the second. He will take a zero-tolerance approach to gang activity. Bailey is a crime-fighting youth worker who is best-placed to work with the government to secure a good deal for London.
Bailey will also address why outcomes for these offences are so poor: in 2018 barely more than ten per cent of these offences had positive outcomes (i.e. a charge or caution) whereas in almost half of all cases, no suspect was even identified. It is a poor record and one that has fallen consistently from 2010, when there was a positive outcome in 40 per cent of cases.
The Liberal Democrats, now something of an irrelevance both nationally and in London, cannot be expected to take a serious approach to tackling crime in our city.
I was shocked when I learnt the scale of the acid attack problem in Kingston and how bad it is here relative to the rest of London. It is a problem that absolutely cannot be ignored.
I will make it a personal mission on the London Assembly to understand how this problem has developed and why Kingston is so much worse than other areas of London. The Metropolitan Police needs to investigate how our otherwise safe borough came to be blighted with this problem and – crucially – we need a local strategy to get these figures down to zero.


conservativehome--2020-07-22--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commiss