conservativehome--2020-06-12--Police chiefs have unwisely emboldened the mob

What on earth are the police doing in their response to the recent spate of mob violence and vandalism ?
I don ’ t mean the rank and file officers particularly , rather the commanders who issue their orders .
Time and again in recent days they have succeeded in sending out messages that undermine rather than reinforce public order .
Despite the swaggering warnings issued to law-abiding people across the country for buying Easter eggs , or sitting in their own front garden , during the previous weeks of lockdown , the Metropolitan Police decided to stand by as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent the spread of Coronavirus .
The reason given by the Commissioner was that to require people to follow the law risked “ serious disorder…turning into a violent situation ” .
The implication was clear .
Gather illegally in a small enough number , sufficiently peaceably to pose no threat of “ serious disorder ” or “ a violent situation ” , and the police will require you to stop and disperse on pain of arrest .
If on the other hand the police become convinced that enforcing the law will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present , then they ’ ll allow you to proceed .
The weekend after Cressida Dick ’ s remarks , 49 police officers were injured , and peaceful protesters were endangered by – guess what – serious disorder and a violent situation .
Oddly , given that she had cited concerns about the prospect of violence , officers do not appear to have been equipped with the requisite kit to face that threat when it emerged .
This week , the superintendent who led the operation during which a mob tore down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listed heritage structure – declared that “ Bristol should be proud of itself ” because “ no one got hurt and we had no arrests in the whole protest ” , particularly given that the crowd were “ passionate ” .
It feels , shall we say , unusual for a police officer to measure success by not arresting people who committed a crime .
What impact did he imagine it would have on the standing of the law which Avon & Somerset Police are supposed to uphold , to boast that officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disorder was permitted ?
Predictably , other vandals have duly gone on the hunt for memorials to attack and destroy .
In Bristol , the city ’ s first ever statue of a black person has been defaced with bleach .
This is why Peel included in his principles of policing the idea that “ The police seek and preserve public favour , not by catering to public opinion , but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law , in complete independence of policy , and without regard to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual laws ” .
Perhaps the police have chucked him in a metaphorical harbour already , as just another old bloke from history .
Nor are these isolated cases .
Ben-Julian Harrington , Chief Constable of Essex Police and the National Police Chiefs ’ Council ’ s lead on public order , attempts to draw a tension between preventing crime against property and protecting the safety of people when dealing with mobs like that in Bristol .
He is reported to have argued that “ …the officers will be there looking to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt in the first instance , trying to protect property if that ’ s the right thing to do , but people come first , making sure officers and those taking part are safe.
” The thinking seems wrong-headed .
By definition , mobs are not “ safe ” things to indulge .
Rather obviously , mobs that are in the business of tearing down big cast bronze monuments with bits of rope and their bare hands are even less safe than your average mob .
A man in the United States is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toppled on top of him .
It should be quite clear by now that undermining the law in one area undermines it in another , just as abandoning consistent policing of the law undermines police authority generally .
Conditions have not become safer for officers , members of the public , peaceful protesters , or for private and public property , as a result of this approach .
Quite the contrary .
Finally , today Winston Churchill , Mahatma Gandhi , the Cenotaph and other illustrious memorials suffer the indignity of being closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the behest of the Mayor of London , working with “ partners ” including the Met .
Why ?
Because , in the words of Sadiq Khan , “ I ’ m extremely concerned that further protests in central London not only risk spreading Covid-19 , but could lead to disorder , vandalism and violence.
” Again , retreat seems to be the default .
If you want something concealed from view , threaten to destroy it with sufficient force and the authorities will hide it for you rather than challenge your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many senior officers to justify these calls is that they are “ tactical decisions ” .
No doubt they are , but there appear to be two misapprehensions at work .
First , “ tactical ” does not mean “ correct ” .
Calling something a “ tactical decision ” seems to be intended to lend an air of official wisdom , but it simply describes the decision without managing to justify it .
Worse , these appear to be solely tactical decisions , without any view to strategy .
Letting crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be tactically appealing , but doing so without regard for the resulting effect the next day , or the next week , is strategically foolish .
The results are all too clear .
I find it hard to believe that every copper is happy with this .
If it ’ s a flaw of policing philosophy , or the culture among senior police officers , how might it be corrected ?
oliticians clearly have to do their part , from PCCs – who are disappointingly quiet – through the Home Office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonders : if , as the Prime Minister asserts , Churchill ’ s statue is “ a ‘ permament reminder ’ , why is it being temporarily covered – rather than safeguarded ?
”

What on earth are the police doing in their response to the recent spate of mob violence and vandalism? I don’t mean the rank and file officers particularly, rather the commanders who issue their orders. Time and again in recent days they have succeeded in sending out messages that undermine rather than reinforce public order.
Despite the swaggering warnings issued to law-abiding people across the country for buying Easter eggs, or sitting in their own front garden, during the previous weeks of lockdown, the Metropolitan Police decided to stand by as thousands of people broke the laws intended to prevent the spread of Coronavirus.
The reason given by the Commissioner was that to require people to follow the law risked “serious disorder…turning into a violent situation”.
The implication was clear. Gather illegally in a small enough number, sufficiently peaceably to pose no threat of “serious disorder” or “a violent situation”, and the police will require you to stop and disperse on pain of arrest. If on the other hand the police become convinced that enforcing the law will be met with violence by some of those present, then they’ll allow you to proceed.
The weekend after Cressida Dick’s remarks, 49 police officers were injured, and peaceful protesters were endangered by – guess what – serious disorder and a violent situation. Oddly, given that she had cited concerns about the prospect of violence, officers do not appear to have been equipped with the requisite kit to face that threat when it emerged.
This week, the superintendent who led the operation during which a mob tore down the Colston statue – criminal damage against a listed heritage structure – declared that “Bristol should be proud of itself” because “no one got hurt and we had no arrests in the whole protest”, particularly given that the crowd were “passionate”.
It feels, shall we say, unusual for a police officer to measure success by not arresting people who committed a crime. What impact did he imagine it would have on the standing of the law which Avon & Somerset Police are supposed to uphold, to boast that officers were ordered to stand by as crime and disorder was permitted?
Predictably, other vandals have duly gone on the hunt for memorials to attack and destroy. In Bristol, the city’s first ever statue of a black person has been defaced with bleach.
Well done, Avon & Somerset Police.
This is why Peel included in his principles of policing the idea that “The police seek and preserve public favour, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws”. Perhaps the police have chucked him in a metaphorical harbour already, as just another old bloke from history.
Nor are these isolated cases.
Ben-Julian Harrington, Chief Constable of Essex Police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on public order, attempts to draw a tension between preventing crime against property and protecting the safety of people when dealing with mobs like that in Bristol. He is reported to have argued that “…the officers will be there looking to make sure that people don’t get hurt in the first instance, trying to protect property if that’s the right thing to do, but people come first, making sure officers and those taking part are safe.”
The thinking seems wrong-headed. By definition, mobs are not “safe” things to indulge. Rather obviously, mobs that are in the business of tearing down big cast bronze monuments with bits of rope and their bare hands are even less safe than your average mob. A man in the United States is currently in a coma after a statue toppled on top of him.
It should be quite clear by now that undermining the law in one area undermines it in another, just as abandoning consistent policing of the law undermines police authority generally.
Conditions have not become safer for officers, members of the public, peaceful protesters, or for private and public property, as a result of this approach. Quite the contrary.
Finally, today Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, the Cenotaph and other illustrious memorials suffer the indignity of being closed up in boxes, hidden away apparently at the behest of the Mayor of London, working with “partners” including the Met. Why? Because, in the words of Sadiq Khan, “I’m extremely concerned that further protests in central London not only risk spreading Covid-19, but could lead to disorder, vandalism and violence.”
Again, retreat seems to be the default. If you want something concealed from view, threaten to destroy it with sufficient force and the authorities will hide it for you rather than challenge your criminality directly.
The buzzword used by so many senior officers to justify these calls is that they are “tactical decisions”. No doubt they are, but there appear to be two misapprehensions at work.
First, “tactical” does not mean “correct”. Calling something a “tactical decision” seems to be intended to lend an air of official wisdom, but it simply describes the decision without managing to justify it. Worse, these appear to be solely tactical decisions, without any view to strategy. Letting crime slide one day to avoid a confrontation might be tactically appealing, but doing so without regard for the resulting effect the next day, or the next week, is strategically foolish. The results are all too clear.
I find it hard to believe that every copper is happy with this. If it’s a flaw of policing philosophy, or the culture among senior police officers, how might it be corrected? oliticians clearly have to do their part, from PCCs – who are disappointingly quiet – through the Home Office, and still higher. As our Editor wonders: if, as the Prime Minister asserts, Churchill’s statue is “a ‘permament reminder’, why is it being temporarily covered – rather than safeguarded?”


conservativehome--2020-06-13--The Government needs to get a grip on public order policing

Yesterday Mark Wallace set out in some detail how extraordinarily problematic is the attitude of too many senior police officers towards public order policing .
According to the doctrine set out by one senior officer , Ben-Julian Harrington , his officers might step up to defend property on occasion but they viewed their first role as making sure that “ those taking part are safe ” .
That ’ s those taking part in a crime .
Such attitudes are clearly deeply embedded .
We saw them during the 2011 riots , when it took days of mounting public anger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rioters to protect public and private property was , in fact , their job .
There seems little question then that the institutional culture of the police still needs , from a Conservative perspective , a serious overhaul , at least when it comes to public order policing .
But achieving this is much easier said than done .
One initiative which clearly hasn ’ t worked is Police and Crime Commissioners .
Harrington is the Chief Constable of Essex Police , so we might expect the local PCC to have offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet there is no sign that Roger Hirst , who has been the Conservative incumbent since 2016 , has said a word about it .
If the PCCs have fallen victim to producer capture , it should not be surprising .
Public interest in the position has been so low that it can scarcely have provided much of a counterweight to the strong institutional pressures on any government body to fall into line with the permanently established and often very able lobbies of whoever they ’ re supposed to regulate or scrutinise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past decade , such as the College of Policing and efforts to introduce more outside recruitment into the senior ranks , don ’ t seem to have made much of a difference either .
Combating the progressive drift of state institutions is not a problem confined to the police .
Only yesterday Mark Lehain warned about how the ongoing disruption of schooling could be exploited by ‘ the Blob ’ , the great un-slain hydra of the education sector , to roll back a decade ’ s worth of reform .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education , which in the Coalition years received the full attention of Michael Gove , one of the Party ’ s most energetic reformers ( not to mention one Dominic Cummings ) , it will be worse elsewhere .
But it is especially important in the police , whose authority rests on impartially upholding the law but risk ending up as enforcers of popular opinion .
The present disorder has been relatively low-key .
But that is no excuse not to attempt to correct course .
Stress tests like this are valuable because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , allowing politicians and the police to address them before we next face a more serious challenge to public order .
What can be done ?
The Government could try to effect personnel change at the top of the profession , although Conservatives have typically been very bad at this .
Proposals to introduce an army-style officer class , allowing direct recruitment into command positions , could be reconsidered .
Perhaps the Home Secretary might review the legislation governing police responsibilities in public order scenarios , with a view to sharpening their requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps our friends and allies in Europe hold the answer .
Many of these , including France , Portugal , Spain , Italy , and the Netherlands , supplement their civilian police forces with gendarmeries .
France , in particular , sports the Gendarmerie Mobile , a nationwide force specialising in public order policing .
Whilst there wouldn ’ t be any need to blur the traditional British distinction between the military and the police , it could be possible to create a new , UK-wide specialist force – along the lines of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil Nuclear Constabulary – with a focus on riot control and related specialisms , perhaps taking the Metropolitan Police ’ s existing Territorial Support Group as a base .
This would not only help to separate community and public order policing , but creating a new institution would give the Government the opportunity to craft a brand-new institutional culture from the ground up .
And all whilst bringing us closer to a European norm , too .
At the very least , the threat of it might spur officers such as Harrington to @ @ @ @

Yesterday Mark Wallace set out in some detail how extraordinarily problematic is the attitude of too many senior police officers towards public order policing.
According to the doctrine set out by one senior officer, Ben-Julian Harrington, his officers might step up to defend property on occasion but they viewed their first role as making sure that “those taking part are safe”. That’s those taking part in a crime.
Such attitudes are clearly deeply embedded. We saw them during the 2011 riots, when it took days of mounting public anger for the police to accept that confronting the rioters to protect public and private property was, in fact, their job.
There seems little question then that the institutional culture of the police still needs, from a Conservative perspective, a serious overhaul, at least when it comes to public order policing. But achieving this is much easier said than done.
One initiative which clearly hasn’t worked is Police and Crime Commissioners. Harrington is the Chief Constable of Essex Police, so we might expect the local PCC to have offered at least some comment on his views. Yet there is no sign that Roger Hirst, who has been the Conservative incumbent since 2016, has said a word about it.
If the PCCs have fallen victim to producer capture, it should not be surprising. Public interest in the position has been so low that it can scarcely have provided much of a counterweight to the strong institutional pressures on any government body to fall into line with the permanently established and often very able lobbies of whoever they’re supposed to regulate or scrutinise.
But other Home Office initiatives of the past decade, such as the College of Policing and efforts to introduce more outside recruitment into the senior ranks, don’t seem to have made much of a difference either.
Combating the progressive drift of state institutions is not a problem confined to the police. Only yesterday Mark Lehain warned about how the ongoing disruption of schooling could be exploited by ‘the Blob’, the great un-slain hydra of the education sector, to roll back a decade’s worth of reform.
And if the problem remains that acute in education, which in the Coalition years received the full attention of Michael Gove, one of the Party’s most energetic reformers (not to mention one Dominic Cummings), it will be worse elsewhere. But it is especially important in the police, whose authority rests on impartially upholding the law but risk ending up as enforcers of popular opinion.
The present disorder has been relatively low-key. But that is no excuse not to attempt to correct course. Stress tests like this are valuable because they expose shortcomings in our institutional responses, allowing politicians and the police to address them before we next face a more serious challenge to public order.
What can be done? The Government could try to effect personnel change at the top of the profession, although Conservatives have typically been very bad at this. Proposals to introduce an army-style officer class, allowing direct recruitment into command positions, could be reconsidered. Perhaps the Home Secretary might review the legislation governing police responsibilities in public order scenarios, with a view to sharpening their requirements on intervention and prevention.
Alternatively, perhaps our friends and allies in Europe hold the answer. Many of these, including France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, supplement their civilian police forces with gendarmeries. France, in particular, sports the Gendarmerie Mobile, a nationwide force specialising in public order policing.
Whilst there wouldn’t be any need to blur the traditional British distinction between the military and the police, it could be possible to create a new, UK-wide specialist force – along the lines of the Ministry of Defence Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary – with a focus on riot control and related specialisms, perhaps taking the Metropolitan Police’s existing Territorial Support Group as a base.
This would not only help to separate community and public order policing, but creating a new institution would give the Government the opportunity to craft a brand-new institutional culture from the ground up. And all whilst bringing us closer to a European norm, too.
At the very least, the threat of it might spur officers such as Harrington to action next time.


Coronavirus Count

Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 292,950 ( Up from 291,409 ) .
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 41,481 ( Up from 41,279 ) .
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 1,541 ( Up from 1,266 ) .
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 202 ( Up from 151 ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD : THE UK GOVERNMENT ’ S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY See here .
New as of Monday May 11 .
See here .
New as of Tuesday June 2 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19 See here .
New as of Tuesday June 2 .
See here .
New as of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS .
WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CAN ’ T DO GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You think you might have coronavirus .
• In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 19.00 on Friday June 12 . )

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


conservativehome--2020-06-14--WATCH: ‘I wouldn’t support Churchill’s statue coming down’ – Lammy

Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy tells # Marr “ many great figures in history are also flawed and we ought @ @ @ @ @ that debate as well ” https : //t.co/jZgmjdzkFp pic.twitter.com/QbcA1Ze7O3

“I wouldn’t support Winston Churchill’s statue coming down”
Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy tells #Marr “many great figures in history are also flawed and we ought to be able to have that debate as well”https://t.co/jZgmjdzkFp pic.twitter.com/QbcA1Ze7O3
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) June 14, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-14--WATCH: Sunak admits two-metre social distancing rule under review

Does @ RishiSunak want to get rid of the two metre rule ?
“ I can very much understand the @ @ @ @ @ [ getting rid of it ] will have on businesses ability to open ” he @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s important that we look at it ” in a new review.
# @ @

Does @RishiSunak want to get rid of the two metre rule?
“I can very much understand the impact, the positive impact [getting rid of it] will have on businesses ability to open” he tells @SophyRidgeSky and “it’s important that we look at it” in a new review.#Ridge pic.twitter.com/RZPz1VXHqA
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) June 14, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-14--WATCH: Thomas-Symonds – ‘absolutely despicable’ that someone urinated next to memorial

“ I want to say a particular word about that awful scene of someone urinating next to PC Keith Palmer @ @ @ @ @ despicable.
” Shadow minister , Nick Thomas Symonds hits out at the behaviour at protests @ @ @ @ @ analysis : https : //t.co/s0vjwhnxAT pic.twitter.com/2fqa43dV1D

“I want to say a particular word about that awful scene of someone urinating next to PC Keith Palmer’s memorial, absolutely despicable.”
Shadow minister, Nick Thomas Symonds hits out at the behaviour at protests in London.#Ridge
Live analysis: https://t.co/s0vjwhnxAT pic.twitter.com/2fqa43dV1D
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) June 14, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-14--WATCH: ‘They sting in a way that other things don’t,’ Sunak says about racist comments

“ They sting in a way that other things don ’ t…there ’ s something about that that cuts to @ @ @ @ @ RishiSunak about racist incidents he ’ s experienced .
He tells @ SophyRidgeSky “ there @ @ @ @ @ ” but “ real change doesn ’ t come from wanton destruction or violence ” @ @ @ @

“They sting in a way that other things don’t…there’s something about that that cuts to your core” says @RishiSunak about racist incidents he’s experienced.
He tells @SophyRidgeSky “there’s more to do” but “real change doesn’t come from wanton destruction or violence”.#Ridge pic.twitter.com/e0AK8ZMYeB
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) June 14, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-14--Polling snapshot. Coming out of lockdown, Starmer’s election and disillusion with the Government are

Polling snapshot. Coming out of lockdown, Starmer’s election and disillusion with the Government are returning us to politics as normal.

Politico ’ s poll of polls above , which can be clicked on in the original to show dates , is a fascinating study .
It charts three stages of events over the past tumultuous year .
The first begins after Theresa May ’ s announcement of resignation on May 24 and ends at the general election of last December 12 .
It shows the Conservative opinion poll line gradually rising from pre-Boris Johnson ’ s election as Conservative leader through his win and Parliamentary setbacks – Commons defeats ; expulsions ; the Supreme Court judgement… …To this thumping general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour ’ s rating originally remains steady and then , as an election approaches , rises .
The Liberal Democrat total falls commensurately .
The second period starts after December 12 , and runs from the pre-Coronavirus first period of Johnson ’ s premiership until just after the election of Keir Starmer as Labour leader on April 4 .
It shows the Tory rating climbing to a peak of 51 per cent of the poll , and Labour and Liberal Democrats ratings falling away amidst their post-general election doldrums .
This highest Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Johnson ’ s Prime Ministerial broadcast of March 24 announcing the lockdown .
Hence a Union Jack effect .
The third stage has Labour ’ s total rising about a week after Starmer ’ s election , and the Tory total falling below 50 per cent on May 4 .
Between then and now the Conservative share falls smoothly and steadily to a June 10 total of 43 per cent .
The Labour share on that day is 37 per cent .
The poll of polls presents no evidence to suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on May 10 , or the Dominic Cummings affair at the end of the month , speeded up the slide .
A more likely explanation is shutdown frustration , Britain ’ s death totals , financial anxiety – and a sense that the Government hasn ’ t handled the virus well , accentuated and amplified by media coverage .
The next election is expected to take place in four years ’ time , so polls at this stage are of limited value – though it ’ s worth remembering that we are due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections in 2021 : that year ’ s and this year ’ s .
Nonetheless , they are always worth keeping an eye on , and in our view the ones most worth clocking are those measuring voting intention , which are regular , comparable , and among the least obscure .
Britain Elects ’ Twitter feed shows three polls since June .
Survation ’ s of June 9/10 , which shows the Conservatives at 42 per cent , Labour at 36 per cent and the LibDems at eight per cent… …Ipsos/MORI ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Tories at 43 per cent , Labour at 38 per cent and the LibDems at ten per cent… …Redfield Winton ’ s of yesterday , which has the Conservatives on 41 per cent , Labour on 39 per cent and the LibDems on nine per cent… …YouGov ’ s of the same day : Tories 45 per cent , Labour 37 per cent , LibDems 6 per cent .
And Opinium ’ s , posted ten hours ago , showing 44 per cent , 39 per cent and six per cent respectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is out , we expect the polls to show the classic , though not invariable , mid-term shape : Opposition ahead , Government behind .

Source: Politico
Politico’s poll of polls above, which can be clicked on in the original to show dates, is a fascinating study. It charts three stages of events over the past tumultuous year.
The first begins after Theresa May’s announcement of resignation on May 24 and ends at the general election of last December 12.
It shows the Conservative opinion poll line gradually rising from pre-Boris Johnson’s election as Conservative leader through his win and Parliamentary setbacks – Commons defeats; expulsions; the Supreme Court judgement…
…To this thumping general election victory. During this period, Labour’s rating originally remains steady and then, as an election approaches, rises. The Liberal Democrat total falls commensurately.
The second period starts after December 12, and runs from the pre-Coronavirus first period of Johnson’s premiership until just after the election of Keir Starmer as Labour leader on April 4.
It shows the Tory rating climbing to a peak of 51 per cent of the poll, and Labour and Liberal Democrats ratings falling away amidst their post-general election doldrums.
This highest Conservative total also concides with the period immediately after Johnson’s Prime Ministerial broadcast of March 24 announcing the lockdown. Hence a Union Jack effect.
The third stage has Labour’s total rising about a week after Starmer’s election, and the Tory total falling below 50 per cent on May 4.
Between then and now the Conservative share falls smoothly and steadily to a June 10 total of 43 per cent. The Labour share on that day is 37 per cent.
The poll of polls presents no evidence to suggest that either the complex relaxation of lockdown announced on May 10, or the Dominic Cummings affair at the end of the month, speeded up the slide.
A more likely explanation is shutdown frustration, Britain’s death totals, financial anxiety – and a sense that the Government hasn’t handled the virus well, accentuated and amplified by media coverage.
The next election is expected to take place in four years’ time, so polls at this stage are of limited value – though it’s worth remembering that we are due to have a double dose of local elections in 2021: that year’s and this year’s.
Nonetheless, they are always worth keeping an eye on, and in our view the ones most worth clocking are those measuring voting intention, which are regular, comparable, and among the least obscure.
Britain Elects’ Twitter feed shows three polls since June. Survation’s of June 9/10, which shows the Conservatives at 42 per cent, Labour at 36 per cent and the LibDems at eight per cent…
…Ipsos/MORI’s of June 12, which shows the Tories at 43 per cent, Labour at 38 per cent and the LibDems at ten per cent…
…Redfield Winton’s of yesterday, which has the Conservatives on 41 per cent, Labour on 39 per cent and the LibDems on nine per cent…
…YouGov’s of the same day: Tories 45 per cent, Labour 37 per cent, LibDems 6 per cent. And Opinium’s, posted ten hours ago, showing 44 per cent, 39 per cent and six per cent respectively.
At some point before the year is out, we expect the polls to show the classic, though not invariable, mid-term shape: Opposition ahead, Government behind.


conservativehome--2020-06-15--The culture of “special measures” prepares to counter the threat of the virus

The Government ’ s original anti-Coronavirus campaign slogan was “ Stay Home .
Protect the NHS .
Save Lives ” .
It opens up a way of assessing Boris Johnson ’ s choice as he seeks to balance closing down the disease with opening up the economy .
For as the slogan reminds us , the Government ’ s aim wasn ’ t to reduce the virus to the lowest possible level in order to save lives – if only because there is a trade-off between lives lost from it and those lost from cancelled operations for other conditions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t now be booked in the first place , and so on .
And that ’ s quite apart from the damage to the economy , jobs and livelihoods that brings illness and , in some cases , death in its wake .
No , the core of Johnson ’ s aim was crudely political .
It was to prevent horrified voters from seeing Italy-style live pictures of people choking to death in hospital corridors or emergency rooms .
The uproar from a terrified public would have stampeded Conservative MPs into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it – for all its majority of 80 .
So it came about that the NHS was saved .
You may think that this was as much by luck as judgement .
Or that the success in hospitals it must be offset by the failure in care homes .
But it represents a win for Johnson and Matt Hancock amidst other losses .
The question that therefore follows is whether the NHS is in danger now from the relaxation of the lockdown that is currently taking place – and that is due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scraps the two metre rule , as Rishi Sunak and some other Ministers want .
On this site in April , Bernard Jenkin wrote that “ if [ the R number ] is consistently above one , the disease will spread to the entire population ” .
Which would certainly overwhelm the NHS were there no plan in place to reduce it – whether a lockdown one or some other .
However , it stands to reason that the R number isn ’ t the same everywhere .
So the national figure for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It doesn ’ t tell one who has the disease and where – in other words , what local rates are .
This information is vital .
Consider the virus in care homes and hospitals .
Last month , we reported that it was driving up R because their own R average was higher to start with , and they therefore represented a greater share of the overall R average .
This may help to explain why the Government has recently been in retreat on R. In his address to the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for reducing the Coronavirus , the Prime Minister put great stress on bringing down R. He explained that the new Covid alert levels “ will be determined primarily by R [ our italic ] and the number of coronavirus cases ” .
However , the new Joint Biosecurity Centre , which was to monitor the Covid Alert System , has only recently been established .
And within a week , Jenny Harries , was publicly distancing herself from Johnson ’ s stress on R. “ The real outcome is the reduction in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus , not the R , ” she said on May 15 .
Which is just as well for the Government , because R has been rising recently in the North West and to a lesser degree in the South West .
Certainly , the moves to relax the lockdown have not marched in step with changes in the Coronavirus alert level .
It has not moved from level four to level three .
It is merely “ transitioning ” towards it .
Chris Whitty reportedly resisted a downgrade from four to three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly collectively cautious of lockdown relaxation .
We mean it in the nicest possible way when we add : “ they would be ” .
For after all , their aim as government advisers is to reduce the presence of the virus .
It follows that they have no stake in the wider economic – or even healthcare – considerations that Johnson and his Cabinet must mull .
Downing Street will be watching them very closely , now that the pre-inquiry blame game has begun .
The Prime Minister will not want bolt-from-the-blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undertaken from high reasons of principle or low reasons of blame-shifting .
At any rate , Ministers have recently taken refuge in the claim that the five tests , not the R-rate , is their main determinant for relaxing lockdown .
Which takes us back to the NHS – since only the first and last of those five tests have real meaning , and they are both about protecting the service .
( The fifth says : “ we need to be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NHS ” .
The first is about its “ ability to cope ” . )
It is impossible to estimate how soon a rise in Coronavirus cases would swamp the service .
To know that , one would have to know the speed of the increase , and where and among whom it was concentrated .
What is certain is that since mid-April the Nightingales have been largely empty .
All in all , it ’ s clear that Johnson is no longer being “ guided by the science ” – in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any clearly identifiable measure .
He is operating intuitively : holding up his metaphorical finger to the wind ; sniffing around the R and infection numbers ; watching his back for revolting scientists , Tory MPs and Ministers .
Are we therefore doomed to wait for the Government to slam the lockdown breaks on again having lifted them off , in order to save the NHS from accelerating virus cases ?
Not necessarily .
This is where the new test and trace system comes in .
If it works , local outbreaks will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tracing their contacts , but by local shutdowns .
We wanted the Government to experiment with lifting the original lockdown on an area basis .
It is set to do the opposite – i.e : to impose new shutdowns on such a basis , as the nationwide one is gradually eased .
The best parallel we can think of is those Michael Gove reforms at education , mimicked later by Jeremy Hunt at health , of putting schools and hospitals in “ special measures ” .
In went Ofsted or new leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round .
Local special measures , complemented by test and trace , instead of national lockdown , with crack teams going in from the centre to advise local authorities : that ’ s the plan .
But it depends on tracing and testing working , in a less conformist culture than South Korea ’ s , and in which the state has less power .
And on those special measures biting , too .
In the meantime , Johnson , with the threat to the NHS relatively distant as we write , should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives depend , and which ultimately fund the health service in the first place .
That means lifting the two metre rule , and classroom restrictions come the autumn .

The Government’s original anti-Coronavirus campaign slogan was “Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives”. It opens up a way of assessing Boris Johnson’s choice as he seeks to balance closing down the disease with opening up the economy.
For as the slogan reminds us, the Government’s aim wasn’t to reduce the virus to the lowest possible level in order to save lives – if only because there is a trade-off between lives lost from it and those lost from cancelled operations for other conditions, or from illnesses for which an operation can’t now be booked in the first place, and so on.
And that’s quite apart from the damage to the economy, jobs and livelihoods that brings illness and, in some cases, death in its wake.
No, the core of Johnson’s aim was crudely political. It was to prevent horrified voters from seeing Italy-style live pictures of people choking to death in hospital corridors or emergency rooms. The uproar from a terrified public would have stampeded Conservative MPs into collapsing the Government, and him with it – for all its majority of 80.
So it came about that the NHS was saved. You may think that this was as much by luck as judgement. Or that the success in hospitals it must be offset by the failure in care homes. But it represents a win for Johnson and Matt Hancock amidst other losses.
The question that therefore follows is whether the NHS is in danger now from the relaxation of the lockdown that is currently taking place – and that is due to gather speed, particularly if the Government scraps the two metre rule, as Rishi Sunak and some other Ministers want.
On this site in April, Bernard Jenkin wrote that “if [the R number] is consistently above one, the disease will spread to the entire population”. Which would certainly overwhelm the NHS were there no plan in place to reduce it – whether a lockdown one or some other.
However, it stands to reason that the R number isn’t the same everywhere. So the national figure for it in Britain is of limited value. It doesn’t tell one who has the disease and where – in other words, what local rates are. This information is vital.
Consider the virus in care homes and hospitals. Last month, we reported that it was driving up R because their own R average was higher to start with, and they therefore represented a greater share of the overall R average. This may help to explain why the Government has recently been in retreat on R.
In his address to the nation on May 11 announcing his new plan for reducing the Coronavirus, the Prime Minister put great stress on bringing down R. He explained that the new Covid alert levels “will be determined primarily by R [our italic] and the number of coronavirus cases”.
However, the new Joint Biosecurity Centre, which was to monitor the Covid Alert System, has only recently been established. And within a week, Jenny Harries, was publicly distancing herself from Johnson’s stress on R. “The real outcome is the reduction in the number of cases, that is our focus, not the R,” she said on May 15.
Which is just as well for the Government, because R has been rising recently in the North West and to a lesser degree in the South West. Certainly, the moves to relax the lockdown have not marched in step with changes in the Coronavirus alert level. It has not moved from level four to level three. It is merely “transitioning” towards it.
Chris Whitty reportedly resisted a downgrade from four to three, and “the scientists” are certainly collectively cautious of lockdown relaxation. We mean it in the nicest possible way when we add: “they would be”. For after all, their aim as government advisers is to reduce the presence of the virus.
It follows that they have no stake in the wider economic – or even healthcare – considerations that Johnson and his Cabinet must mull. Downing Street will be watching them very closely, now that the pre-inquiry blame game has begun.
The Prime Minister will not want bolt-from-the-blue resignations from senior scientific advisers, whether undertaken from high reasons of principle or low reasons of blame-shifting. At any rate, Ministers have recently taken refuge in the claim that the five tests, not the R-rate, is their main determinant for relaxing lockdown.
Which takes us back to the NHS – since only the first and last of those five tests have real meaning, and they are both about protecting the service. (The fifth says: “we need to be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelm the NHS”. The first is about its “ability to cope”.)
It is impossible to estimate how soon a rise in Coronavirus cases would swamp the service. To know that, one would have to know the speed of the increase, and where and among whom it was concentrated. What is certain is that since mid-April the Nightingales have been largely empty.
All in all, it’s clear that Johnson is no longer being “guided by the science” – in the sense of taking his cue from any clearly identifiable measure. He is operating intuitively: holding up his metaphorical finger to the wind; sniffing around the R and infection numbers; watching his back for revolting scientists, Tory MPs and Ministers.
Are we therefore doomed to wait for the Government to slam the lockdown brakes on again having lifted them off, in order to save the NHS from accelerating virus cases? Not necessarily. This is where the new test and trace system comes in.
If it works, local outbreaks will be countered not only by testing people and tracing their contacts, but by local shutdowns. We wanted the Government to experiment with lifting the original lockdown on an area basis. It is set to do the opposite – i.e: to impose new shutdowns on such a basis, as the nationwide one is gradually eased.
The best parallel we can think of is those Michael Gove reforms at education, mimicked later by Jeremy Hunt at health, of putting schools and hospitals in “special measures”. In went Ofsted or new leadership teams from other hospitals to turn everything round.
Local special measures, complemented by test and trace, instead of national lockdown, with crack teams going in from the centre to advise local authorities: that’s the plan. But it depends on tracing and testing working, in a less conformist culture than South Korea’s, and in which the state has less power.
And on those special measures biting, too. In the meantime, Johnson, with the threat to the NHS relatively distant as we write, should move to help the livelihoods on which lives depend, and which ultimately fund the health service in the first place. That means lifting the two metre rule, and classroom restrictions come the autumn.


conservativehome--2020-06-15--Neil O’Brien: Like fax machines, pagers and your old macarena CD, it’s time to bin the 1990s

I ’ ll tell you what I want , what I really , really want .
I want someone to drive a stake through the heart of the 1990s .
Why , you ask , do we need to kill off a decade which technically ended twenty years ago ?
The problem is the ideas of that decade are still with us , staggering around like a zombie in a garish “ Global Hypercolor ” t-shirt .
In the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall , the west collectively came to believe in some over-optimistic assumptions .
Policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like a badly-chipped “ Friends ” coffee mug .
During the 90s , we were told we ’ d reached the end of history , and could look forward to the “ universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
” Instead , we ’ re in a world where the rising superpower is a communist dictatorship .
Rising wealth hasn ’ t led to democratisation in China .
Instead , human rights are going backwards under China ’ s President-for-life Xi Jinping .
Yet amazingly , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out : “ if we engage more , they ’ ll become more like us.
” In reality , whether it ’ s firms like HSBC backing repressive new laws in Hong Kong ; or episodes of western TV shows being censored for fear of China ; or countless western firms grovelling to Beijing for supposed slights… it ’ s clear we got it the wrong way round : they ’ re making us more like them .
The rise of China exemplifies other zombie assumptions from the 90s .
The idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example .
During the 90s , our future was thought to be all about services .
Financial engineering , not actual engineering .
That assumption is one reason Britain deindustrialised more than any other G20 country since 1990 .
People still trot out the line that “ government can ’ t pick winners , losers pick governments ” like it ’ s some great flash of insight .
So explain how Huawei went from an idea in 1987 , to the world ’ s most powerful telecoms firm today ?
Answer : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberation Army , massive state subsidies , a developmental state investing heavily in R & D , and a bit of industrial espionage .
More relevantly for us , other democracies have has successful industrial policies .
In 1990 South Korea ’ s GDP per head was 41 per cent of the UK .
It ’ s now 85 per cent .
How did it catch up so fast ?
Industrial policy .
How did Taiwan , with no computer chip making industry in 1987 , come to have the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy .
The US may have the strongest industrial policies of all , with an incredible military/innovation complex teeing up the successes of silicon valley firms .
The 90s consensus ignores all this .
Don ’ t get me wrong : Britain ’ s post-war industrial policies were awash with failures .
But we ignore other countries successes .
We don ’ t notice that , since 1997 , manufacturing has provided 40-50 per cent of all productivity growth in places like the North West , West Midlands and Wales .
We don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Saving Rolls Royce was a good investment .
Margaret Thatcher ’ s interventions to promote microcomputers led to tech firms like ARM , plus a strong games industry ( and this fun video of her showing off the ZX spectrum to the then Japanese Prime Minister ) .
Her bungs to get Nissan to Sunderland transformed the car industry and more .
She even set up set up a successful state-backed biotech firm , Celltech , to build a UK beachead in the industry .
Yet think tanks in thrall to 90s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thatcherite should endorse .
In the 1990s , people thought things could be “ designed in California , assembled in China ” – as it still says on Apple products .
We missed the importance of the industrial commons : the links between designing and making .
So we made trade policy in the overconfident belief that the west would keep all the good jobs .
Bill Clinton said of letting China joining the WTO that : “ Economically , this agreement is the equivalent of a one-way street.
” He was right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the traffic wrong .
China was let into the club , but never obeyed the rules .
Many other 1990s legacy policies are also built on dated assumptions that the West dominates the world economy – the mental equivalent of still carrying a blockbuster video card in your wallet .
Take the Kyoto Protocol , signed in 1997 .
Under it , developed countries in Europe and North America would set targets to reduce their emissions .
But other countries would not have such targets .
It was vaguely assumed that they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our example .
Or something .
In an east-shifted world it just didn ’ t work .
That ’ s why world emissions are still rise with global growth .
That ’ s why China is in the process of adding more coal power plants than currently exist in Europe .
As Greta Thunberg ( born after the 90s ) points out , progress in reducing emissions doesn ’ t look so good when you look at all the emissions ( and industry ) that have simply been offshored to dirtier economies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” would be a force for liberty and international friendship ?
In reality , Twitter is a Hobbsian war of all against all , populated by armies of state-funded bots pumping out disinformation .
We worried about the Millennium Bug .
We didn ’ t know about filter bubbles or “ pile-ons ” or aps for kids made addictive by design .
The “ world wide web ” was going to promote competition in business .
Turns out , in a frictionless world , the forces tending towards giant monopolies are strong .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , You ’ ve Got Mail , in which little bookshop owner Meg Ryan falls in love with big bookshop owner Tom Hanks over a succession of newly trendy takeaway coffees .
Little do they realise that Amazon is about to stomp them both flat .
Years on , we ’ re still debating the right way for competition policy or the tax system to respond to these monopolising forces .
Optimistic assumptions have held us back .
In the 90s we thought the future belonged to young , globalised urban graduates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Take British Airways .
In 1997 , it replaced the Union Jack with funky new “ Utopia / World Image ” tailfins for its planes .
In 2020 , Britain has left the EU .
There ’ s been a populist backlash from disenfranchised blue collar workers across the west .
British Airways Union Jack theme is back and it ’ s keen to “ big up ” ( to use 90s speak ) its “ Britishness ” .
The future isn ’ t what it used to be , but we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to reunite the nation .
The protests , fights and statue-toppling of recent weeks , and the bafflement of many less urban voters about it , reveal a country in which large numbers of people are no longer even able to understand one another : no longer part of the same conversation .
Part of it is about the vast expansion of universities , believed in the 90s to be an unalloyed good , but today leaving too many young people feeling mis-sold , in debt , and cheesed off .
Part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1990s we were told “ devolution will kill nationalism stone dead ” .
This has not proved to be the case .
Yet , sad as a dead Tamagotchi , the assumptions of the 1990s linger on somehow .
Like fax machines , pagers and your old “ macarena ” CD , it ’ s time for them to go in the bin .

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
I’ll tell you what I want, what I really, really want. I want someone to drive a stake through the heart of the 1990s. Why, you ask, do we need to kill off a decade which technically ended twenty years ago? The problem is the ideas of that decade are still with us, staggering around like a zombie in a garish “Global Hypercolor” t-shirt.
In the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the west collectively came to believe in some over-optimistic assumptions. Policies based on them are still kicking around, like a badly-chipped “Friends” coffee mug. During the 90s, we were told we’d reached the end of history, and could look forward to the “universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
Instead, we’re in a world where the rising superpower is a communist dictatorship. Rising wealth hasn’t led to democratisation in China. Instead, human rights are going backwards under China’s President-for-life Xi Jinping.
Yet amazingly, you still hear those complacent 90s arguments trotted out: “if we engage more, they’ll become more like us.” In reality, whether it’s firms like HSBC backing repressive new laws in Hong Kong; or episodes of western TV shows being censored for fear of China; or countless western firms grovelling to Beijing for supposed slights… it’s clear we got it the wrong way round: they’re making us more like them.
The rise of China exemplifies other zombie assumptions from the 90s. The idea that industrial policy can’t work, for example. During the 90s, our future was thought to be all about services. Financial engineering, not actual engineering.
That assumption is one reason Britain deindustrialised more than any other G20 country since 1990. People still trot out the line that “government can’t pick winners, losers pick governments” like it’s some great flash of insight.
So explain how Huawei went from an idea in 1987, to the world’s most powerful telecoms firm today? Answer: lucrative contracts from the People’s Liberation Army, massive state subsidies, a developmental state investing heavily in R&D, and a bit of industrial espionage.
More relevantly for us, other democracies have has successful industrial policies. In 1990 South Korea’s GDP per head was 41 per cent of the UK. It’s now 85 per cent. How did it catch up so fast? Industrial policy.
How did Taiwan, with no computer chip making industry in 1987, come to have the world’s leading chip maker, TSMC? Industrial Policy. The US may have the strongest industrial policies of all, with an incredible military/innovation complex teeing up the successes of silicon valley firms. The 90s consensus ignores all this.
Don’t get me wrong: Britain’s post-war industrial policies were awash with failures. But we ignore other countries successes. We don’t notice that, since 1997, manufacturing has provided 40-50 per cent of all productivity growth in places like the North West, West Midlands and Wales.
We don’t even remember our own successes. Saving Rolls Royce was a good investment. Margaret Thatcher’s interventions to promote microcomputers led to tech firms like ARM, plus a strong games industry (and this fun video of her showing off the ZX spectrum to the then Japanese Prime Minister).
Her bungs to get Nissan to Sunderland transformed the car industry and more. She even set up set up a successful state-backed biotech firm, Celltech, to build a UK beachead in the industry. Yet think tanks in thrall to 90s thinking tell us these are things no Thatcherite should endorse.
In the 1990s, people thought things could be “designed in California, assembled in China” – as it still says on Apple products. We missed the importance of the industrial commons: the links between designing and making. So we made trade policy in the overconfident belief that the west would keep all the good jobs.
Bill Clinton said of letting China joining the WTO that: “Economically, this agreement is the equivalent of a one-way street.” He was right. He just got the direction of the traffic wrong. China was let into the club, but never obeyed the rules.
Many other 1990s legacy policies are also built on dated assumptions that the West dominates the world economy – the mental equivalent of still carrying a blockbuster video card in your wallet.
Take the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997. Under it, developed countries in Europe and North America would set targets to reduce their emissions. But other countries would not have such targets. It was vaguely assumed that they would be persuaded to follow by the force of our example. Or something.
In an east-shifted world it just didn’t work. That’s why world emissions are still rise with global growth. That’s why China is in the process of adding more coal power plants than currently exist in Europe.
As Greta Thunberg (born after the 90s) points out, progress in reducing emissions doesn’t look so good when you look at all the emissions (and industry) that have simply been offshored to dirtier economies.
Remember how the “Information superhighway” would be a force for liberty and international friendship? In reality, Twitter is a Hobbsian war of all against all, populated by armies of state-funded bots pumping out disinformation.
We worried about the Millennium Bug. We didn’t know about filter bubbles or “pile-ons” or aps for kids made addictive by design.
The “world wide web” was going to promote competition in business. Turns out, in a frictionless world, the forces tending towards giant monopolies are strong. During lockdown I rewatched late 90s classic, You’ve Got Mail, in which little bookshop owner Meg Ryan falls in love with big bookshop owner Tom Hanks over a succession of newly trendy takeaway coffees. Little do they realise that Amazon is about to stomp them both flat.
Years on, we’re still debating the right way for competition policy or the tax system to respond to these monopolising forces. Optimistic assumptions have held us back. In the 90s we thought the future belonged to young, globalised urban graduates, and that the future was post-national.
Take British Airways. In 1997, it replaced the Union Jack with funky new “Utopia / World Image” tailfins for its planes. In 2020, Britain has left the EU.
There’s been a populist backlash from disenfranchised blue collar workers across the west. British Airways Union Jack theme is back and it’s keen to “big up” (to use 90s speak) its “Britishness”.
The future isn’t what it used to be, but we’re still struggling to find an alternative way to reunite the nation. The protests, fights and statue-toppling of recent weeks, and the bafflement of many less urban voters about it, reveal a country in which large numbers of people are no longer even able to understand one another: no longer part of the same conversation.
Part of it is about the vast expansion of universities, believed in the 90s to be an unalloyed good, but today leaving too many young people feeling mis-sold, in debt, and cheesed off.
Part of the splintering is national. In the 1990s we were told “devolution will kill nationalism stone dead”. This has not proved to be the case.
Yet, sad as a dead Tamagotchi, the assumptions of the 1990s linger on somehow. Like fax machines, pagers and your old “macarena” CD, it’s time for them to go in the bin.


conservativehome--2020-06-15--Peter Golds: The Left’s hypocrisy over Robert Milligan

Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets .
He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association .
Living near Canary Wharf for 20 years , I have walked past the statue of Robert Milligan many times .
Scottish born , he grew up on his family sugar plantation in Jamaica .
He came to London aged 33 , in 1779 , where he established himself as a merchant and ship owner .
Like many contemporary merchants he railed against the endemic pilfering which took place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were moored .
He gathered together a consortium of businessmen and between they acquired land on the Isle of Dogs .
After passage of the West India Docks Act , the West India Docks were built between 1800-02 , which reduced both pilfering and increased revenue for the government .
What is also well known is that Milligan was involved in slavery , indeed on his death over 500 slaves are recorded on his Jamaican plantation .
By the time the docks were completed , abolition of the slave trade was imminent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was passed by 283 to 16 votes in the House of Commons .
This outlawed the transport of slaves throughout the empire and from 1808 the West African Squadron of the Royal Navy was established to halt slave ships .
After Milligan ’ s death in 1809 a statue was commissioned in his memory which stood at the North Gate of the Docks .
In 1943 , during the Blitz , the statue was moved to safety and was not seen until 1997 when it was placed on what is now West India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Museum of the Docklands .
In 2007 the museum opened a gallery called , London , Sugar and Slavery .
During the opening period of this gallery , the statue was shrouded in black as a mark of his activities in slavery .
This was the first time I took a particular interest in the statue .
Neither in 1997 , when the statue was returned to the docks , nor at the opening of the exhibition was there any demonstrations .
Local politicians , including present executive Mayor John Biggs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in local office between 1997 and 2007 and would have at least been invited to the events .
We now turn to the sad situation of the retrenchment of Safeway stores in the early years of this century and impacts on this current issue .
One store which closed and the site sold for redevelopment was in Bow at the corner of Gladstone Place ( as in William Ewart ) and Cardigan Road ( as in the Earl famed for leading the Charge of the Light Brigade ) .
The extensive site became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residential units .
The Greater London Authority approved the development in November 2010 in a letter which was copied to John Biggs as the local London Assembly member .
As always in these cases , progress was relatively slow and eventually this mixed development was completed , with the social element initially owned and managed by Old Ford Housing which is now Clarion .
Lutfur Rahman was by this time entrenched as Mayor and Cllr Rabina Khan was his personally appointed Cabinet Member for housing .
The name chosen for this development and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Milligan House .
It can be found today by simply Googling the name .
Nobody from any political party said or raised a thing .
Last week , in the aftermath of the pulling down of the Colston statue in Bristol , a former local Liberal Democrat candidate , Elaine Bagshaw , who had left Tower Hamlets politics to work for Jo Swinson , tweeted a picture of herself by the statue at West India Quay .
This created some interest and on Tuesday my colleague , Cllr Andrew Wood , organised a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facebook page with a number of options .
He was almost instantly denounced by some as a racist sympathiser and a Labour councillor initiated “ pull down the statue ” petition which attracted signatures .
On Tuesday , Cllr Rabina Khan , who had just a few years previously , whilst Cabinet member for Housing , approved the name Robert Milligan House for a block of flats , wrote in the Independent about why the statue had to be removed .
She has not so far called for the demolition of the homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and River Trust , who are the immediate landowners and the council became concerned at the possibility of direct action and arrangements were made to remove the statue , which is listed , on Tuesday evening .
This resulted in what became no more than a Labour Party political event .
The Mayor and seventeen councillors , Labour activists , and even former potential parliamentary candidates were assembled for pictures .
Facemasks were not worn and there was no social distancing .
The council press office was out in force despite this being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , no councillor or , as far as I can see , any Labour Party activist , had suggested the removal of the Milligan statue .
Unlike Bristol where there has been a debate for decades over the Colston statue , there was silence in this part of east London .
One senior Labour councillor even expressed surprise that there was a block of flats named after Milligan in the borough .
I believe that the Milligan statue should have been placed in the museum , but both sides of his life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owner , should have been described .
Instead we had public action for use in political campaigning .
From the age of 11 I attended a school named after one of the founders of the Clapham sect .
We were taught about the leading figures of the abolitionist movement and every year attended a commemoration service in Holy Trinity Church Clapham where many of the Clapham Sect abolitionists worshipped .
William Wilberforce , the great parliamentarian is remembered for his work for delivering abolition in Parliament .
My school was named after Henry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abolitionist .
The school and its name is sadly long gone .
Zachary Macaulay and Henry Venn both have streets named after them in Clapham .
For what they achieved , for the ultimate good of humanity , and how they achieved it , statues are the least of what they deserved .
It is surely right that people understand what makes human life so complex .
Richard Wagner and George Bernard Shaw were both virulent anti semites .
The triumph over their anti-semitism is seeing their music and plays enhanced , interpreted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom they disliked , remembering both were legendary dislikers .
Any list of the greatest ever political figures in the UK will include Sir Robert Peel , William Gladstone , and Winston Churchill .
All three were giants of their time , all left a legacy that is remembered today .
The attacks on their records does nothing to enhance our country .
The Government , opposition , Mayor of London , and the media , should understand this current situation and ensure that we do not disintegrate into mob rule .

Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets. He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association.
Living near Canary Wharf for 20 years, I have walked past the statue of Robert Milligan many times. Scottish born, he grew up on his family sugar plantation in Jamaica. He came to London aged 33, in 1779, where he established himself as a merchant and ship owner. Like many contemporary merchants he railed against the endemic pilfering which took place in the Pool of London where ships were moored. He gathered together a consortium of businessmen and between they acquired land on the Isle of Dogs. After passage of the West India Docks Act, the West India Docks were built between 1800-02, which reduced both pilfering and increased revenue for the government.
What is also well known is that Milligan was involved in slavery, indeed on his death over 500 slaves are recorded on his Jamaican plantation. By the time the docks were completed, abolition of the slave trade was imminent and in 1807, the Slave Trade Bill was passed by 283 to 16 votes in the House of Commons. This outlawed the transport of slaves throughout the empire and from 1808 the West African Squadron of the Royal Navy was established to halt slave ships.
After Milligan’s death in 1809 a statue was commissioned in his memory which stood at the North Gate of the Docks. In 1943, during the Blitz, the statue was moved to safety and was not seen until 1997 when it was placed on what is now West India Quay, close to the entrance of the Museum of the Docklands. In 2007 the museum opened a gallery called, London, Sugar and Slavery. During the opening period of this gallery, the statue was shrouded in black as a mark of his activities in slavery. This was the first time I took a particular interest in the statue.
Neither in 1997, when the statue was returned to the docks, nor at the opening of the exhibition was there any demonstrations. Local politicians, including present executive Mayor John Biggs and at least two councillors, were serving in local office between 1997 and 2007 and would have at least been invited to the events.
We now turn to the sad situation of the retrenchment of Safeway stores in the early years of this century and impacts on this current issue. One store which closed and the site sold for redevelopment was in Bow at the corner of Gladstone Place (as in William Ewart) and Cardigan Road (as in the Earl famed for leading the Charge of the Light Brigade). The extensive site became five buildings with a total of 208 residential units. The Greater London Authority approved the development in November 2010 in a letter which was copied to John Biggs as the local London Assembly member.
As always in these cases, progress was relatively slow and eventually this mixed development was completed, with the social element initially owned and managed by Old Ford Housing which is now Clarion. Lutfur Rahman was by this time entrenched as Mayor and Cllr Rabina Khan was his personally appointed Cabinet Member for housing. The name chosen for this development and approved by the Rahman administration was Robert Milligan House. It can be found today by simply Googling the name.
Nobody from any political party said or raised a thing.
Last week, in the aftermath of the pulling down of the Colston statue in Bristol, a former local Liberal Democrat candidate, Elaine Bagshaw, who had left Tower Hamlets politics to work for Jo Swinson, tweeted a picture of herself by the statue at West India Quay.
This created some interest and on Tuesday my colleague, Cllr Andrew Wood, organised a survey regarding the statue on a local facebook page with a number of options. He was almost instantly denounced by some as a racist sympathiser and a Labour councillor initiated “pull down the statue” petition which attracted signatures.
On Tuesday, Cllr Rabina Khan, who had just a few years previously, whilst Cabinet member for Housing, approved the name Robert Milligan House for a block of flats, wrote in the Independent about why the statue had to be removed. She has not so far called for the demolition of the homes.
During the day, The Canals and River Trust, who are the immediate landowners and the council became concerned at the possibility of direct action and arrangements were made to remove the statue, which is listed, on Tuesday evening.
This resulted in what became no more than a Labour Party political event. The Mayor and seventeen councillors, Labour activists, and even former potential parliamentary candidates were assembled for pictures. Facemasks were not worn and there was no social distancing. The council press office was out in force despite this being a partisan political event.
Until this week, no councillor or, as far as I can see, any Labour Party activist, had suggested the removal of the Milligan statue. Unlike Bristol where there has been a debate for decades over the Colston statue, there was silence in this part of east London. One senior Labour councillor even expressed surprise that there was a block of flats named after Milligan in the borough.
I believe that the Milligan statue should have been placed in the museum, but both sides of his life, the dock builder and the slave owner, should have been described. Instead we had public action for use in political campaigning.
From the age of 11 I attended a school named after one of the founders of the Clapham sect. We were taught about the leading figures of the abolitionist movement and every year attended a commemoration service in Holy Trinity Church Clapham where many of the Clapham Sect abolitionists worshipped. William Wilberforce, the great parliamentarian is remembered for his work for delivering abolition in Parliament. My school was named after Henry Thornton, banker, parliamentarian, and abolitionist. The school and its name is sadly long gone. Zachary Macaulay and Henry Venn both have streets named after them in Clapham. For what they achieved, for the ultimate good of humanity, and how they achieved it, statues are the least of what they deserved.
It is surely right that people understand what makes human life so complex. Richard Wagner and George Bernard Shaw were both virulent anti semites. The triumph over their anti-semitism is seeing their music and plays enhanced, interpreted, and performed by Jews and others whom they disliked, remembering both were legendary dislikers.
Any list of the greatest ever political figures in the UK will include Sir Robert Peel, William Gladstone, and Winston Churchill. All three were giants of their time, all left a legacy that is remembered today. The attacks on their records does nothing to enhance our country.
The Government, opposition, Mayor of London, and the media, should understand this current situation and ensure that we do not disintegrate into mob rule.


conservativehome--2020-06-15--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Members of the Migration Advisory Committe

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Members of the Migration Advisory Committee – 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 Imperial War Museum ( IWM ) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War .
Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today , IWM is the world ’ s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain , its former Empire and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War to the present .
The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose , fulfilled in different ways at its different branches , both physical and virtual .
In addition to its headquarters building , IWM London , in Southwark , the Museum ’ s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London , IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire , and IWM North in Trafford , Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind .
The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the armed forces , and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.
” Time : Up to one day per month .
“ The Pensions Ombudsman ( TPO ) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run .
The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) Board under the PPF ’ s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are provided for separately in legislation , they are held by one post holder .
Throughout this document the term ‘ PO ’ will therefore cover both roles .
TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints .
Determinations are final and binding on all parties , subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law .
Services are provided free of charge.
” “ DFID leads the UK ’ s work to end extreme poverty , deliver the Global Goals , and tackle global challenges in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aid Strategy .
We are delivering against the Government ’ s manifesto to stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education , to end the preventable deaths of mothers , new born babies and children by 2030 and to fight climate change , protect the environment and preserve biodiversity .
We are helping to lead the international response to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the Coronavirus and we work to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit .
We do this whilst also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Global Health Security and improve peoples ’ resilience to shocks and supporting countries receiving aid to become self-sufficient.
” “ The Commission operates as an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office and is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland… Candidates for these roles must be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the Commission and will need to demonstrate : the ability to build productive and respectful relationships with fellow Commissioners , senior stakeholders and diverse communities ; knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scope and limits of the NIHRCs work in Northern Ireland , and the considerations that influence the environment in which it operates ; the ability to analyse information and exercise judgement across a broad spectrum of policy and high level human rights issues ; and a reputation for personal integrity , professional conduct and credibility , with an exceptional sense of propriety.
” “ Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice , supporting as well as challenging the executive , and covering such issues as : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy ( the single departmental plan ) ; performance ( including agreeing key performance indicators ) , operational issues ( including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals ) , adherence to relevant standards ( e.g .
commercial , digital ) , and on the effective management of the department ; [ and ] the recruitment , appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives , as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.
” “ IE : UK is a joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major infrastructure export opportunities around the world .
It is supported by DIT ’ s network of local staff in 116 markets , with the objective of identifying , pursuing , and delivering major strategic infrastructure projects through a consortium-led approach .
The objective of IE : UK is to increase UK infrastructure exports and identify gaps in the UK supply chain for FDI to fill .
The IE : UK Board is co-chaired by DIT ‘ s Minister for Exports and a senior industry leader .
The Industry sector co-Chair will benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Exports and leading UK based infrastructure companies to help shape the direction of UK export policy and support within the infrastructure sector.
” “ Do you want to play a key role in helping to shape the future of migration issues and support the interests of UK residents ?
If so , you can do this by becoming a Member of the Migration Advisory Committee ( MAC ) .
The MAC advises the government on a range of migration policy issues , offering independent evidence-based advice , and its core statement of purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , economics focused , reports and policy advice in accordance with the work plan set by the Government ; and help ensure that Government policy and strategy in relation to migration and employment is based on the best possible evidence and analysis .
To date the advice of the Committee has included impacts of migration ; annual limits on , and the design of , Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points-Based System ; and transitional labour market access for nationals of new EU member states .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Imperial War Museum – RAF Trustee and Navy Trustee
“The Imperial War Museum (IWM) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War. Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today, IWM is the world’s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain, its former Empire and the Commonwealth, from the First World War to the present. The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose, fulfilled in different ways at its different branches, both physical and virtual. In addition to its headquarters building, IWM London, in Southwark, the Museum’s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London, IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire, and IWM North in Trafford, Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind. The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces, and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.”
Time: Up to one day per month.
Remuneration: Expenses reasonably incurred.
Closes: 19 June
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pensions Ombudsman – Chair
“The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run. The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Board under the PPF’s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Financial Assistance Scheme. Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation, they are held by one post holder. Throughout this document the term ‘PO’ will therefore cover both roles. TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints. Determinations are final and binding on all parties, subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law. Services are provided free of charge.”
Time: Min. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 June
– – – – – – – – – –
DFID Board – Non-Executive Director
“DFID leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty, deliver the Global Goals, and tackle global challenges in line with the government’s UK Aid Strategy. We are delivering against the Government’s manifesto to stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education, to end the preventable deaths of mothers, new born babies and children by 2030 and to fight climate change, protect the environment and preserve biodiversity. We are helping to lead the international response to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the Coronavirus and we work to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit. We do this whilst also investing in the systems that help support Global Health Security and improve peoples’ resilience to shocks and supporting countries receiving aid to become self-sufficient.”
Time: Approx. 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 26 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission – Commissioners
“The Commission operates as an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office and is a key part of the architecture of human rights protections in Northern Ireland… Candidates for these roles must be able to make a personal contribution to the work of the Commission and will need to demonstrate: the ability to build productive and respectful relationships with fellow Commissioners, senior stakeholders and diverse communities; knowledge of human rights law, and of the scope and limits of the NIHRCs work in Northern Ireland, and the considerations that influence the environment in which it operates; the ability to analyse information and exercise judgement across a broad spectrum of policy and high level human rights issues; and a reputation for personal integrity, professional conduct and credibility, with an exceptional sense of propriety.”
Time: Approx. 3 days per month.
Remuneration: £7,500 per annum.
Closes: 26 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for International Trade – Lead Non-Executive Board Member/Non-Executive Board Member
“Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice, supporting as well as challenging the executive, and covering such issues as: support, guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy (the single departmental plan); performance (including agreeing key performance indicators), operational issues (including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals), adherence to relevant standards (e.g. commercial, digital), and on the effective management of the department; [and] the recruitment, appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives, as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000/£15,000 per annum.
Closes: 28 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Infrastructure Exports:UK – Board co-Chair
“IE:UK is a joint industry and government partnership, strategically targeting major infrastructure export opportunities around the world. It is supported by DIT’s network of local staff in 116 markets, with the objective of identifying, pursuing, and delivering major strategic infrastructure projects through a consortium-led approach. The objective of IE:UK is to increase UK infrastructure exports and identify gaps in the UK supply chain for FDI to fill. The IE:UK Board is co-chaired by DIT‘s Minister for Exports and a senior industry leader. The Industry sector co-Chair will benefit from working closely with the Minister for Exports and leading UK based infrastructure companies to help shape the direction of UK export policy and support within the infrastructure sector.”
Time: 3-4 meetings a year.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 29 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Migration Advisory Committee – Members
“Do you want to play a key role in helping to shape the future of migration issues and support the interests of UK residents? If so, you can do this by becoming a Member of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). The MAC advises the government on a range of migration policy issues, offering independent evidence-based advice, and its core statement of purpose is to: deliver high quality evidence-based, economics focused, reports and policy advice in accordance with the work plan set by the Government; and help ensure that Government policy and strategy in relation to migration and employment is based on the best possible evidence and analysis. To date the advice of the Committee has included impacts of migration; annual limits on, and the design of, Tiers 1 and 2 of the Points-Based System; and transitional labour market access for nationals of new EU member states.”
Time: “An initial term of three years.”
Remuneration: £275
Closes: 06 July