conservativehome--2020-07-17--Where is the Conservatives’ Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission?

The Shamima Begum legal proceedings are a culture clash and a timely warning .
The clash lies in the gulf between metropolitan and provincial Britain .
The former ’ s take is audible , sophisticated and was always liable find a willing listener at some point in the courts .
At its core is the conviction that Begum is British – and that she should be tried here for any crimes she is alleged to have committed .
Those who hold it tend also to say that she was a child when she left the country to join ISIS ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she is not a security risk .
The provincial view is less openly expressed , instinctively and reflexively held – and one which the courts won ’ t endorse .
It is that Begum betrayed her country when she travelled to support a terrorist group that seeks to destroy our way of life .
She therefore has no human or other right to the citizenship that the Government removed .
That ’ s not to say that the Supreme Court will necessarily find in her favour when it considers Ministers ’ appeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court of Appeal .
Sajid Javid argued when as Home Secretary he removed Begum ’ s citizenship that she would not be left stateless , because she can claim Bangladeshi nationality through her parents .
The Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that she should not be sent to Bangladesh or Iraq , where she was involved with ISIS , because she might face ill treatment .
You can imagine how that will go down in the Red Wall and elsewhere .
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission took a different view , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court has to say .
Javid suggested yesterday that Begum is a threat to national security ; that she is unlikely to be prosecuted in the courts if she is allowed back into Britain ; that she will become a poster girl for Islamist extremism if this happens .
He also said that “ the judgements and precedents set in this case could bind the hands of the Government in managing past and future cases ” .
That some British citizens and others who also went to join ISIS have already returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wrong .
It isn ’ t hard to see how yesterday ’ s judgement has wider implications .
It ’ s claimed that appeals are now likely to be lauched on behalf of 30 British women and 60 British children detained by the Kurdish authorities in Syria .
All of which raises the question of what is happening to the former ISIS terrorists who have already re-entered the country .
Some will be subject to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures ( Tpims ) – one of which may be slapped on Begum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not watertight : readers may remember the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed , who while disguised in a burka escaped the police tasked with monitoring him .
It ’ s tempting to believe that were the Human Rights Act to be recast and Britain ’ s membership of the ECHR revoked , judgements like yesterday ’ s wouldn ’ t be made .
The point can ’ t be proven one way or the other , but we suspect that any British court would be capable of making it whether we were signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ None the less , reforms to ensure that there is “ a proper balance between the rights of individuals , our vital national security and effective government ” would have an effect on the courts .
The words in quotes above are from the Conservative general election manifesto .
We hope that they are acted upon .
Where is the Constitution , Democracy & Rights Commission it promised “ in our first year ” ?
At any rate , it is far from certain that Begum will actually return , whatever the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has more chapters to come .
The timely warning is bound up with a point we made only two days ago : today ’ s papers cover not only Begum ’ s court case , but Russian espionage claims – that it tried to hack into our Coronavirus vaccine research .
The timing is doubtless connected with the impending publication of the report next week into claims that Russia interfered with the 2016 general election and the 2017 EU referendum .
Our argument was that government shouldn ’ t focus on the threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusion of those from Russia and Islamist extremists – who , as Gerry Adams once said of the IRA , “ haven ’ t gone away , you know ” .

The Shamima Begum legal proceedings are a culture clash and a timely warning.
The clash lies in the gulf between metropolitan and provincial Britain. The former’s take is audible, sophisticated and was always liable find a willing listener at some point in the courts.
At its core is the conviction that Begum is British – and that she should be tried here for any crimes she is alleged to have committed.
Those who hold it tend also to say that she was a child when she left the country to join ISIS; that she has renounced it, and that she is not a security risk.
The provincial view is less openly expressed, instinctively and reflexively held – and one which the courts won’t endorse.
It is that Begum betrayed her country when she travelled to support a terrorist group that seeks to destroy our way of life. She therefore has no human or other right to the citizenship that the Government removed.
That’s not to say that the Supreme Court will necessarily find in her favour when it considers Ministers’ appeal against yesterday’s ruling by the Court of Appeal.
Sajid Javid argued when as Home Secretary he removed Begum’s citizenship that she would not be left stateless, because she can claim Bangladeshi nationality through her parents.
The Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that she should not be sent to Bangladesh or Iraq, where she was involved with ISIS, because she might face ill treatment. You can imagine how that will go down in the Red Wall and elsewhere.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission took a different view, and we will now have to see what the Supreme Court has to say.
Javid suggested yesterday that Begum is a threat to national security; that she is unlikely to be prosecuted in the courts if she is allowed back into Britain; that she will become a poster girl for Islamist extremism if this happens.
He also said that “the judgements and precedents set in this case could bind the hands of the Government in managing past and future cases”.
That some British citizens and others who also went to join ISIS have already returned here doesn’t mean that Javid is wrong. It isn’t hard to see how yesterday’s judgement has wider implications.
It’s claimed that appeals are now likely to be lauched on behalf of 30 British women and 60 British children detained by the Kurdish authorities in Syria.
All of which raises the question of what is happening to the former ISIS terrorists who have already re-entered the country.
Some will be subject to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (Tpims) – one of which may be slapped on Begum if she returns here.
These are not watertight: readers may remember the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who while disguised in a burka escaped the police tasked with monitoring him.
It’s tempting to believe that were the Human Rights Act to be recast and Britain’s membership of the ECHR revoked, judgements like yesterday’s wouldn’t be made.
The point can’t be proven one way or the other, but we suspect that any British court would be capable of making it whether we were signed up to the ECHR or not.
None the less, reforms to ensure that there is “a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government” would have an effect on the courts.
The words in quotes above are from the Conservative general election manifesto. We hope that they are acted upon. Where is the Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission it promised “in our first year”?
At any rate, it is far from certain that Begum will actually return, whatever the Supreme Court decides. So her lamentable story has more chapters to come.
The timely warning is bound up with a point we made only two days ago: today’s papers cover not only Begum’s court case, but Russian espionage claims – that it tried to hack into our Coronavirus vaccine research.
The timing is doubtless connected with the impending publication of the report next week into claims that Russia interfered with the 2017 general election and the 2016 EU referendum.
Our argument was that government shouldn’t focus on the threat to our security from China to the exclusion of those from Russia and Islamist extremists – who, as Gerry Adams once said of the IRA, “haven’t gone away, you know”.


conservativehome--2020-07-17--Iain Dale: Farron’s strange friends here and Hammond’s bloody ones abroad

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
Tim Farron has hit the headlines again this week – if you count a story in The Independent nowadays as ‘ hitting the headlines ’ .
It reported that he has accepted a £75,000 donation from an Evangelical group called Faith in Public .
To be accurate , they “ made a donation at the start of this year to provide him with a policy adviser two days a week , at an estimated maximum value of £9,100″ .
“ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous two years at a total value of £50,319 , as well as the services of a public relations company to the value of £15,000.
” Faith in Public supports gay conversion therapy , which is expected to be banned in new legislation shortly .
The former Liberal Democrat leader says he does not support such an abhorrent practice , but still feels able to take a wedge from an organisation that does .
I ’ m surprised this donation hasn ’ t received more widespread coverage , because you can bet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MP in question been a Conservative one , there would be merry hell to pay .
Farron is coming under pressure within his party to return the money , but in practice that ’ s quite difficult , when no actual cash has changed hands and the payments were ‘ in kind ’ .
Much of this money would presumably have gone towards paying researchers to help with the writing of Farron ’ s memoir , published last year by a Christian publisher .
Another politician raking in the cash is the Philip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spectator this week to have taken on a lucrative consultancy role advising the Saudi government .
Purely coincidentally , he also intervened in the row over Huawei and China , warning that we should not let human rights abuses get in the way of economic transactions .
Tell that to the Saudi citizens who enjoy few of the freedoms that Hammond takes for granted .
Tell that to those who have their hands cut off or are beheaded .
Tell that to the 50 per cent of the Saudi population with two X @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those with a Y .
Perhaps he ’ ll go the whole hog and take a consultancy with Beijing as well .
Nothing would surprise me .
The big question of the week , apart from how Chris Grayling contrived to lose an election rigged in his favour , is what on earth Michael Gove was thinking of when he went on The Andrew Marr Show last weekend to declare that he was against the mandatory wearing of facemasks in shops ?
Two days later , it was announced that this will now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in charge of Coronavirus coordination across governmentn you ’ d have thought that he might have been aware that this was in the offing .
So either he was hung out to dry by Number Ten , or he wanted to burnish his libertarian credentials .
The result was that yet again the Government deservedly stood accused of sending out mixed messages .
Another needless shambles .
A few months ago I decided to leave my bank , Lloyds , after 40 years with them .
The big four banks have become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never speak to the same person twice , and just getting through their security systems is a task in itself .
When you dread picking up the phone to ring your bank , you know that is the time to look at the alternatives .
So I have started the process of opening accounts elsewhere , but if I ’ m honest , the number of forms you have to fill in is quite daunting , and I ’ ve put it all in the pending tray .
That changed this week when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as I tried to buy some stock of my new book from HarperCollins .
I rang the Lloyds credit card hotline , and they said it was a routine check , and that if I tried again in a couple of minutes it would work .
I did , and it didn ’ t .
I phoned them back , and they admitted the person I had originally spoken to had cleared the transaction , but had then cancelled the card !
So I ’ d get a new card in three to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nothing could be done about it and I ’ d just have to wait – even though they admitted it was their error .
This was all the incentive I needed to fill in those forms with my intended new bank .
If ever I had doubted my decision to leave , this experience removed them .
Goodbye Lloyds .
Hello , new dawn .
However much these big companies take us for granted , we as the consumer hold the power in our hands .
The only way they will change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not prepared to stand for it any longer .
I did the same a few years ago with my energy supplier and switched from EDF to Octopus , and I ’ ve never looked back .
They are a delight to deal with .
Over the next couple of weeks , I am spending three hours in the company of the two contenders for the LibDem leadership , Sir Ed Davey and Layla Moran .
Last night , I did an hour long interview with Ed , and on Tuesday evening it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on August 2 , I ’ ll be hosting a head to head debate on my LBC Sunday morning show .
It ’ s called Public Service Broadcasting ( I think ) .
It ’ s , you know , the kind of thing the BBC used to do .
Talking of the BBC , it was announced this week that another 150 jobs are to go in the News & Current Affairs department .
While Politics Live on BBC2 has been given a reprieve ( see last week ’ s column ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week , and it seems we ’ ve seen the last of Andrew Neil on the BBC , with his eponymous interview show being cancelled .
Shameful .
On what planet would they go out of their way to push out their best interviewer ?

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
Tim Farron has hit the headlines again this week – if you count a story in The Independent nowadays as ‘hitting the headlines’.
It reported that he has accepted a £75,000 donation from an Evangelical group called Faith in Public. To be accurate, they “made a donation at the start of this year to provide him with a policy adviser two days a week, at an estimated maximum value of £9,100″.
“They donated the services of two policy advisers the previous two years at a total value of £50,319, as well as the services of a public relations company to the value of £15,000.”
Faith in Public supports gay conversion therapy, which is expected to be banned in new legislation shortly. The former Liberal Democrat leader says he does not support such an abhorrent practice, but still feels able to take a wedge from an organisation that does.
I’m surprised this donation hasn’t received more widespread coverage, because you can bet your bottom dollar that, had the MP in question been a Conservative one, there would be merry hell to pay.
Farron is coming under pressure within his party to return the money, but in practice that’s quite difficult, when no actual cash has changed hands and the payments were ‘in kind’.
Much of this money would presumably have gone towards paying researchers to help with the writing of Farron’s memoir, published last year by a Christian publisher.
Update: Tim Farron’s office has been in touch to say that Faith in Public as an organisation does not support gay conversion therapy. One of their directors does. So that’s OK then.
– – – – – – – – – –
Another politician raking in the cash is the Philip Hammond, who was reported by the Spectator this week to have taken on a lucrative consultancy role advising the Saudi government.
Purely coincidentally, he also intervened in the row over Huawei and China, warning that we should not let human rights abuses get in the way of economic transactions.
Tell that to the Saudi citizens who enjoy few of the freedoms that Hammond takes for granted. Tell that to those who have their hands cut off or are beheaded. Tell that to the 50 per cent of the Saudi population with two X chromosomes who are treated as unequal to those with a Y.
Perhaps he’ll go the whole hog and take a consultancy with Beijing as well. Nothing would surprise me.
– – – – – – – – – –
The big question of the week, apart from how Chris Grayling contrived to lose an election rigged in his favour, is what on earth Michael Gove was thinking of when he went on The Andrew Marr Show last weekend to declare that he was against the mandatory wearing of facemasks in shops?
Two days later, it was announced that this will now indeed be Government policy. Since Gove is in charge of Coronavirus coordination across governmentn you’d have thought that he might have been aware that this was in the offing.
So either he was hung out to dry by Number Ten, or he wanted to burnish his libertarian credentials. The result was that yet again the Government deservedly stood accused of sending out mixed messages. Another needless shambles.
– – – – – – – – – –
A few months ago I decided to leave my bank, Lloyds, after 40 years with them.
The big four banks have become monolithic and totally impersonal. You can never speak to the same person twice, and just getting through their security systems is a task in itself. When you dread picking up the phone to ring your bank, you know that is the time to look at the alternatives.
So I have started the process of opening accounts elsewhere, but if I’m honest, the number of forms you have to fill in is quite daunting, and I’ve put it all in the pending tray.
That changed this week when my card declined in a telephone transaction as I tried to buy some stock of my new book from HarperCollins. I rang the Lloyds credit card hotline, and they said it was a routine check, and that if I tried again in a couple of minutes it would work.
I did, and it didn’t. I phoned them back, and they admitted the person I had originally spoken to had cleared the transaction, but had then cancelled the card! So I’d get a new card in three to five days.
Wow. And no, nothing could be done about it and I’d just have to wait – even though they admitted it was their error.
This was all the incentive I needed to fill in those forms with my intended new bank. If ever I had doubted my decision to leave, this experience removed them.
Goodbye Lloyds. Hello, new dawn. However much these big companies take us for granted, we as the consumer hold the power in our hands.
The only way they will change is if we show them we are not prepared to stand for it any longer. I did the same a few years ago with my energy supplier and switched from EDF to Octopus, and I’ve never looked back. They are a delight to deal with.
– – – – – – – – – –
Over the next couple of weeks, I am spending three hours in the company of the two contenders for the LibDem leadership, Sir Ed Davey and Layla Moran.
Last night, I did an hour long interview with Ed, and on Tuesday evening it’s Layla’s turn.
Then on August 2, I’ll be hosting a head to head debate on my LBC Sunday morning show. It’s called Public Service Broadcasting (I think). It’s, you know, the kind of thing the BBC used to do.
– – – – – – – – – –
Talking of the BBC, it was announced this week that another 150 jobs are to go in the News & Current Affairs department.
While Politics Live on BBC2 has been given a reprieve (see last week’s column), it’s losing one episode a week, and it seems we’ve seen the last of Andrew Neil on the BBC, with his eponymous interview show being cancelled.
Shameful. On what planet would they go out of their way to push out their best interviewer?


conservativehome--2020-07-17--Abi Brown: How planning reforms can help level up Red Wall cities such as Stoke-on-Trent

Cllr Abi Brown is the Leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council .
After more than 100 days in lockdown , where many of us have seen our traditional way of life turned on its head , ‘ new normal ’ has started to look quite appealing .
We have a new found love of open spaces and parks , and have embraced home working with vigour .
Local businesses that were able to stay open or adapted their business models to ensure we could just nip out to them during lockdown – or even better , have them deliver to us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centre point of our communities , alongside all those new friends we made during our enforced stay at home .
For some people , they looked longingly at this new recognition of what a great place to live could look like , and are now busy scouring the internet to find somewhere for a better life they saw others benefitting from during lockdown .
It must have a great quality of life , be affordable but connected ( physically and digitally ) , and have a sense of community .
As you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggestion , and combined with the Government ’ s recent announcements about planning , the mighty Stoke-on-Trent must surely be top of a number of lists .
Beautifully placed in the centre of the country , well-linked by rail , road , and air , with the country ’ s first full-fibre network coming on stream in the next year , we boast over 100 parks and green spaces , and some of the best value-for-money housing in the country .
We drip with authenticity , in towns that reflect our ceramic heritage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a city centre that also shares a bustling independent sector – a sector that is growing across our city .
De-industrialisation has challenged the live-work-shop model , and some of our towns have been notorious in recent years for the high number of empty properties .
However , recent success in bringing back residential to our centres through government supported projects like the Housing Infrastructure Fund see us increasingly having more housing completions than the average London borough .
As a city council , we ’ ve also invested ourselves in bringing forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company that demonstrates there is a market for high quality , mixed tenure , new builds – and bringing in other developers who now see the potential of our city too .
In our city centre , we have brought forward high quality city-centre-loving apartments alongside Grade A office accommodation and a shortly-to-open 4* Hilton Garden Inn hotel .
Our Housing Infrastructure Fund scheme in Burslem – the Mother Town – brought in £10m to spend on remediating nine brownfield sites around the town , with the first now through planning and well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tranche of the 1,000 homes planned for the town .
In a city where last year 98 per cent of our housing development was on pre-developed land , we demonstrate that brownfield first is not just something to aim for optimistically .
But new-normal means we need to go further .
People living in towns makes them animated and interesting .
It attracts new businesses who cater for the parents walking home from school , the home worker who wants to live near the action but not compromise on residential options , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more relaxed way of life but still with things to do and see .
Expanding housing options in our towns is challenging , converting above shops into residential can be tricky , and working that mix of commercial and residential in together .
However , tackling these issues through planning change will arguably mean the rejuvenation of towns and cities like Stoke-on-Trent where levelling up means showing the rest of the country what a great offer you have , and building confidence in your place to be the best it can be .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s about the need to seize the moment .

Cllr Abi Brown is the Leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council.
After more than 100 days in lockdown, where many of us have seen our traditional way of life turned on its head, ‘new normal’ has started to look quite appealing. We have a new found love of open spaces and parks, and have embraced home working with vigour. Local businesses that were able to stay open or adapted their business models to ensure we could just nip out to them during lockdown – or even better, have them deliver to us – are highly regarded and form the centre point of our communities, alongside all those new friends we made during our enforced stay at home.
For some people, they looked longingly at this new recognition of what a great place to live could look like, and are now busy scouring the internet to find somewhere for a better life they saw others benefitting from during lockdown. It must have a great quality of life, be affordable but connected (physically and digitally), and have a sense of community. As you’d expect, I have a great suggestion, and combined with the Government’s recent announcements about planning, the mighty Stoke-on-Trent must surely be top of a number of lists.
Beautifully placed in the centre of the country, well-linked by rail, road, and air, with the country’s first full-fibre network coming on stream in the next year, we boast over 100 parks and green spaces, and some of the best value-for-money housing in the country. We drip with authenticity, in towns that reflect our ceramic heritage through beautiful and interesting buildings, and a city centre that also shares a bustling independent sector – a sector that is growing across our city.
De-industrialisation has challenged the live-work-shop model, and some of our towns have been notorious in recent years for the high number of empty properties. However, recent success in bringing back residential to our centres through government supported projects like the Housing Infrastructure Fund see us increasingly having more housing completions than the average London borough. As a city council, we’ve also invested ourselves in bringing forward housing through Fortior Homes, our housing company that demonstrates there is a market for high quality, mixed tenure, new builds – and bringing in other developers who now see the potential of our city too.
In our city centre, we have brought forward high quality city-centre-loving apartments alongside Grade A office accommodation and a shortly-to-open 4* Hilton Garden Inn hotel. Our Housing Infrastructure Fund scheme in Burslem – the Mother Town – brought in £10m to spend on remediating nine brownfield sites around the town, with the first now through planning and well on its way to delivering the first tranche of the 1,000 homes planned for the town. In a city where last year 98 per cent of our housing development was on pre-developed land, we demonstrate that brownfield first is not just something to aim for optimistically.
But new-normal means we need to go further. People living in towns makes them animated and interesting. It attracts new businesses who cater for the parents walking home from school, the home worker who wants to live near the action but not compromise on residential options, the recently retired who are looking for a more relaxed way of life but still with things to do and see. Expanding housing options in our towns is challenging, converting above shops into residential can be tricky, and working that mix of commercial and residential in together.
However, tackling these issues through planning change will arguably mean the rejuvenation of towns and cities like Stoke-on-Trent where levelling up means showing the rest of the country what a great offer you have, and building confidence in your place to be the best it can be. If lockdown has taught us anything, it’s about the need to seize the moment.


conservativehome--2020-07-17--We’re “hoping for the best, but planning for the worst”, says the PM, in one of the most optimistic

We’re “hoping for the best, but planning for the worst”, says the PM, in one of the most optimistic conferences of recent times

At today ’ s press conference , Johnson gave one of his most confident deliveries in recent weeks .
As he laid out the next steps for the nation , he managed to be both cautious and hopeful in offering a vision of the future .
The Prime Minister began by reeling off encouraging statistics about the country ’ s battle with the Coronavirus .
“ For three weeks now , the number of cases identified through testing each day has been below 1,000 ” he announced , adding that SAGE has calculated the R rate to be between 0.7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of infections was shrinking by five and one per cent every day .
What SAGE hasn ’ t been as encouraging about , however , is the Government ’ s plan to reopen workplaces .
Yesterday Patrick Vallance , its chief scientific advisor , told MPs at the Commons science committee that there was “ absolutely no reason ” to change the guidance to stay at home .
“ A number of companies think it ’ s not detrimental to productivity and in that situation absolutely no reason I can see to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But today Johnson told businesses they have “ discretion ” over whether they want their employees to return from August 1 – and how they do this safely .
Much of this demonstrates , as ConservativeHome has written before , that the Government has never been fully “ guided by the science ” .
Indeed , when Vallance ’ s absence was remarked upon , the Prime Minister responded “ in the end decisions are taken by elected politicians.
” August 1 will also mark the reopening of leisure settings , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as allowing close contact services to resume , although nightclubs and soft play areas still need to stay shut .
The Prime Minister explained that some of the approach to Covid-19 has changed in line with new information about its epidemiology and “ intelligence on where it is spreading ” .
Going forward in England , the NHS Test and Trace , alongside the Joint Biosecurity Centre , will be concentrating on “ targeted , local action ” .
Johnson highlighted that this approach had been used in Weston-Super-Mare and Kirklees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blackburn with Darwen .
He added that restrictions in Leicester would soon be relaxed , based on the fact that “ the percentage of people testing positive ” fell “ from a weekly rate of 12.2 per cent on 29 June to 4.8 per cent yesterday.
” He assured people that he understood that local measures would be “ hard going ” , but that “ there is no point shutting down a city in one part of the country to contain an outbreak in another part of the country.
” It reinforces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strategy shifting with new data .
Some will remember that on April 29 , Matt Hancock told reporters : “ We did think about moving with London and the Midlands first because they were the more advanced in terms of number of cases , but we decided that we are really in this together ” .
But all that has changed drastically .
Overall Johnson ’ s speech emphasised a transition of power from central Government to other bodies – namely , businesses and local councils .
From tomorrow the latter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premises , shut public outdoor spaces , and cancel events ” at their will , in the hope that this will speed up how quickly Coronavirus is identified and isolated .
While the Government and scientific bodies will get little credit for this , they have clearly gone to enormous lengths to step up preparedness in case of further Coronavirus outbreaks , particularly a dreaded second wave in winter .
Data suggest the country is now carrying out more antigen tests ( to identify if someone currently has the virus ) than anywhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has set up 200 mobile units for testing around the country , hugely increased ventilators ( from 9,000 to nearly 30,000 ) and is rolling out the biggest flu vaccination programme in the history of the NHS , on top of an additional £3 billion of funding for the NHS .
From ConservativeHome ’ s perspective , this was one of the most reassuring press conferences from the Prime Minister , showing intense preparations that have been going on behind the scenes , while emphasising one of Johnson ’ s main strengths : @ @

At today’s press conference, Johnson gave one of his most confident deliveries in recent weeks. As he laid out the next steps for the nation, he managed to be both cautious and hopeful in offering a vision of the future.
The Prime Minister began by reeling off encouraging statistics about the country’s battle with the Coronavirus. “For three weeks now, the number of cases identified through testing each day has been below 1,000” he announced, adding that SAGE has calculated the R rate to be between 0.7 and 0.9, and that the number of infections was shrinking by five and one per cent every day.
What SAGE hasn’t been as encouraging about, however, is the Government’s plan to reopen workplaces. Yesterday Patrick Vallance, its chief scientific advisor, told MPs at the Commons science committee that there was “absolutely no reason” to change the guidance to stay at home. “A number of companies think it’s not detrimental to productivity and in that situation absolutely no reason I can see to change it”, were his words.
But today Johnson told businesses they have “discretion” over whether they want their employees to return from August 1 – and how they do this safely. Much of this demonstrates, as ConservativeHome has written before, that the Government has never been fully “guided by the science”. Indeed, when Vallance’s absence was remarked upon, the Prime Minister responded “in the end decisions are taken by elected politicians.”
August 1 will also mark the reopening of leisure settings, such as bowling, skating rinks and casinos, as well as allowing close contact services to resume, although nightclubs and soft play areas still need to stay shut.
The Prime Minister explained that some of the approach to Covid-19 has changed in line with new information about its epidemiology and “intelligence on where it is spreading”. Going forward in England, the NHS Test and Trace, alongside the Joint Biosecurity Centre, will be concentrating on “targeted, local action”.
Johnson highlighted that this approach had been used in Weston-Super-Mare and Kirklees, as well as in Bradford and Blackburn with Darwen. He added that restrictions in Leicester would soon be relaxed, based on the fact that “the percentage of people testing positive” fell “from a weekly rate of 12.2 per cent on 29 June to 4.8 per cent yesterday.”
He assured people that he understood that local measures would be “hard going”, but that “there is no point shutting down a city in one part of the country to contain an outbreak in another part of the country.”
It reinforces Johnson’s point about the Government’s strategy shifting with new data. Some will remember that on April 29, Matt Hancock told reporters: “We did think about moving with London and the Midlands first because they were the more advanced in terms of number of cases, but we decided that we are really in this together”. But all that has changed drastically.
Overall Johnson’s speech emphasised a transition of power from central Government to other bodies – namely, businesses and local councils. From tomorrow the latter will be able to “close specific premises, shut public outdoor spaces, and cancel events” at their will, in the hope that this will speed up how quickly Coronavirus is identified and isolated.
While the Government and scientific bodies will get little credit for this, they have clearly gone to enormous lengths to step up preparedness in case of further Coronavirus outbreaks, particularly a dreaded second wave in winter. Data suggest the country is now carrying out more antigen tests (to identify if someone currently has the virus) than anywhere else in Europe.
Furthermore, it has set up 200 mobile units for testing around the country, hugely increased ventilators (from 9,000 to nearly 30,000) and is rolling out the biggest flu vaccination programme in the history of the NHS, on top of an additional £3 billion of funding for the NHS.
From ConservativeHome’s perspective, this was one of the most reassuring press conferences from the Prime Minister, showing intense preparations that have been going on behind the scenes, while emphasising one of Johnson’s main strengths: optimism.


conservativehome--2020-07-18--What the abolition of DfID tells us about the war on Civil Service generalists

Although overtaken by the Covid-19 crisis , this Government remains committed to the Herculean ( perhaps Sisyphean ) task of reforming the Civil Service .
Michael Gove has spoken about the need to tackle ‘ group think ’ , and Dominic Cummings is an avowed enthusiast for cracking down on Whitehall ’ s reliance on generalists and bringing in outsiders to shake things up .
The practice of shuffling civil servants around Whitehall on a regular basis , which fuels the generalist culture , not only makes it very difficult for them to develop expertise in a given area , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold individuals accountable for failure , and over time this inevitably has an effect on the efficacy of the Civil Service .
In Part V of his excellent essay ‘ The Gervais Principle ‘ , an analysis of organisations through the lens of The Office , Venkatesh Rao describes how individuals in complex organisations conspire to offload blame onto the organisation itself , which instead accrues inside it as a sort of ‘ dark matter ’ .
He then describes the effect this has on the organisation over time , which cumulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into an incomprehensible , byzantine and increasingly error-prone maze , as it pretends to evolve and self-correct ” .
Critics of the Civil Service probably wouldn ’ t dissent from that assessment .
Worse , the Civil Service lacks the correction mechanism Rao perceives in modern capitalism : a relatively short institutional life-cycle which allows for regular resets through mergers and take-overs .
It thus ends up in the middle-management mire foreseen by William H Whyte in his seminal The Organisation Man , the consequences of which for the end-user were illuminatingly described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the war on generalists could have perils of its own .
Whilst circulating civil servants around Whitehall may contribute to the creation of a broad ‘ Civil Service culture ’ , the alternative could be the emergence of much more powerful departmental cultures .
A department populated by long-serving specialists risks becoming deeply committed to an institutional outlook , one bolstered by the very expertise Cummings et al is out to attract and the ideological preoccupations which attract able people to a career in a single sector .
It may thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course under different governments .
Such a development would only deepen the disadvantage faced by ministers , who do tend to move around , unless accompanied by further reforms to help them get an immediate political grip – further complicating the whole process .
A common assumption of Conservative reformers is that it is extremely difficult , if not impossible , for the Government to devise an effective way to simulate the dynamics of the private sector .
It isn ’ t obvious that this is any less true for creative destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil Service reform may ultimately be that no amount of huffing and puffing can replicate Schumpeter ’ s Gale .

Although overtaken by the Covid-19 crisis, this Government remains committed to the Herculean (perhaps Sisyphean) task of reforming the Civil Service.
Michael Gove has spoken about the need to tackle ‘group think’, and Dominic Cummings is an avowed enthusiast for cracking down on Whitehall’s reliance on generalists and bringing in outsiders to shake things up.
The practice of shuffling civil servants around Whitehall on a regular basis, which fuels the generalist culture, not only makes it very difficult for them to develop expertise in a given area, but it can also make it hard to hold individuals accountable for failure, and over time this inevitably has an effect on the efficacy of the Civil Service.
In Part V of his excellent essay ‘The Gervais Principle‘, an analysis of organisations through the lens of The Office, Venkatesh Rao describes how individuals in complex organisations conspire to offload blame onto the organisation itself, which instead accrues inside it as a sort of ‘dark matter’.
He then describes the effect this has on the organisation over time, which cumulate in “the organization itself gradually turning into an incomprehensible, byzantine and increasingly error-prone maze, as it pretends to evolve and self-correct”. Critics of the Civil Service probably wouldn’t dissent from that assessment.
Worse, the Civil Service lacks the correction mechanism Rao perceives in modern capitalism: a relatively short institutional life-cycle which allows for regular resets through mergers and take-overs. It thus ends up in the middle-management mire foreseen by William H Whyte in his seminal The Organisation Man, the consequences of which for the end-user were illuminatingly described by George Bathurst in his article yesterday.
But the war on generalists could have perils of its own. Whilst circulating civil servants around Whitehall may contribute to the creation of a broad ‘Civil Service culture’, the alternative could be the emergence of much more powerful departmental cultures.
A department populated by long-serving specialists risks becoming deeply committed to an institutional outlook, one bolstered by the very expertise Cummings et al is out to attract and the ideological preoccupations which attract able people to a career in a single sector. It may thus lack the flexibility to adapt to changes of course under different governments.
(It’s telling that the Department for International Development, which the Prime Minister is abolishing, is one of the those with the biggest reputation for such a culture. The battle between the Government and a deeply pro-EU Foreign Office would be another example of the problem.)
Such a development would only deepen the disadvantage faced by ministers, who do tend to move around, unless accompanied by further reforms to help them get an immediate political grip – further complicating the whole process.
A common assumption of Conservative reformers is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to devise an effective way to simulate the dynamics of the private sector. It isn’t obvious that this is any less true for creative destruction than anything else.
The tragedy of Civil Service reform may ultimately be that no amount of huffing and puffing can replicate Schumpeter’s Gale.


conservativehome--2020-07-18--David Gauke: Required next time. A fresh Tory leader who embodies modern, multi-racial Britain. Does

David Gauke: Required next time. A fresh Tory leader who embodies modern, multi-racial Britain. Does that suggest anyone?

‘ Don ’ t be so gloomy , the wheel will turn ’ .
That , in essence , is the counter-argument to my last column .
Two weeks ago , I made the case on this site that the nature of the Conservative Party has changed .
It has done so to reflect the fact that the swing voter in the swing seats has a different set of values than was the case before .
Compared to the swing voters of the past ( and , indeed , the typical Conservative voter of the present ) , the polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boris Johnson his electoral triumph in 2019 are economically left wing and socially right wing .
If the Conservatives want to retain those Red Wall seats , I argued , they will need to deliver economic policies that are consistent with these views – high spending and interventionist – and ensure that cultural issues remain salient .
It was a depressing conclusion , I argued , if you were a ‘ small state free marketeer , or a one nation social liberal ’ and that ‘ I fear it is too late to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took issue with my conclusion was my good friend , David Lidington .
As well as being probably the nicest person in politics , he is also one of the wisest .
In his response on ConHome , David set out , from the perspective of a liberal Conservative , reasons to be optimistic .
First , he makes the very fair point that , in the 45 years in which he has been a member of the Conservative Party , it has been a home for many different types of Conservative and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at different times have chosen to emphasise different elements of the broad Conservative tradition ’ .
Second , he acknowledges that ‘ we shall want to hang on to traditional Labour supporters who lent us their votes last December , which in turn means that in four years ’ time they need to see that we are at least beginning to deliver results for their families and neighbourhoods ’ but that ‘ to win again in 2024 we shall need to secure support from more younger voters than we did in either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that will mean reaching out to people whose values are , in the convenient shorthand , more “ socially liberal ” than those of their parents and grandparents , and who want to see political parties to take seriously their concerns about issues like the environment ’ .
‘ Far from giving up in despair , ’ David concludes , ‘ liberal , centrist Conservatives should redouble our efforts to influence the party ’ s thinking about how we can win again in 2024 ’ .
I genuinely wish David and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endeavour .
His analysis of the need to appeal to younger more socially liberal voters is one I share for two reasons .
First , I think it would lead to better government and , second , in the longer term , the Conservative Party will need to broaden its base .
Relying on the votes of those born before 1960 has obvious long term problems .
But in terms of understanding what will happen , there is a tension between what I would like to happen and the Prime Minister ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of last year .
I suspect those revealed preferences are a more reliable indicator .
Last year ’ s general election result was a triumph for the Prime Minister .
It was the product of strategic clarity .
Under Boris Johnson ’ s leadership , there was no real attempt to appeal to both sides of the Brexit debate ( although he received the reluctant support of plenty of Remainers who were terrified of Jeremy Corbyn ) but that gave him a clear message which appealed to the half of the country that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had sought to seek a resolution to the Brexit issue that satisfied both sides of the argument .
Leavers would see us depart from the EU , Remainers would see sufficient continuity to avoid the economic and security downsides that we feared from a hard Brexit .
In my view , this was the sensible approach to the referendum result but by the time we got to last year it had little public support .
Opinion was polarised into supporting a hard Brexit at any price or no Brexit at all , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed .
Johnson ’ s strategy was to be clearly identified as being on one side of the argument .
In everything he did – from the make-up of the Cabinet , the prorogation of Parliament , the withdrawal of the whip for Conservative rebels , the nature of the general election campaign – was designed to win over the support of Leave voters .
Forcing the Brexit Party essentially to step-aside in the general election meant that the Conservative Party had a near monopoly on Leave voters against a divided and badly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these were the circumstances of 2019 , but that does not make them the circumstances for 2024 .
And this brings me to the key question .
Are we living through a fundamental realignment of British politics ?
Are our politics no longer defined by divisions on the grounds of economic class but on cultural identity ?
The somewheres versus the anywheres , the provincial and rural versus the metropolitan , non-graduates versus graduates , the socially conservative versus the socially liberal , the nationalist versus internationalist .
My view is that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the point , I think that the Prime Minister and the people around him believe that we are and that their view is that the most likely route to electoral success for the Conservative Party ( and the route to success last year ) is for the Party to embrace that realignment and establish itself as the Party for those on one side of the new dividing line in British politics .
Brexit may have accelerated this transformation but it did not cause it .
Throughout the world , centre-right parties are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the social democratic left loses its grip on its traditional supporters , providing an opportunity for parties who can defend the cultural identity of those voters .
If that analysis is right ( and , again , I would rather it is not ) , the wheel is not going to turn , at least not for a long time .
Political realignments do not happen very often and this realignment has worked out very nicely for the Conservatives so far .
But it means that the Conservative Party will not be economically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of issues of national identity ) for some time to come .
There is one other point .
If I am wrong and David Lidington is right that the best course of action is for the Conservatives to seek the support of younger , more socially liberal voters there is a significant obstacle .
Even though he is in many ways a social liberal himself , Boris Johnson is too battle-scarred , too associated with Brexit , too polarising to reinvent the Conservative Party yet again .
Fresh leadership by 2024 would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the turmoil and divisions of 2016-19 , someone with the charisma and communication skills to appeal to younger voters , someone who could embody modern , multi-racial Britain .
Maybe , just maybe , such a leader could take the Conservative Party in a different direction .
But who could fit the bill ?
Hmm .

‘Don’t be so gloomy, the wheel will turn’. That, in essence, is the counter-argument to my last column.
Two weeks ago, I made the case on this site that the nature of the Conservative Party has changed. It has done so to reflect the fact that the swing voter in the swing seats has a different set of values than was the case before. Compared to the swing voters of the past (and, indeed, the typical Conservative voter of the present), the polling evidence shows that the voters who gave Boris Johnson his electoral triumph in 2019 are economically left wing and socially right wing.
If the Conservatives want to retain those Red Wall seats, I argued, they will need to deliver economic policies that are consistent with these views – high spending and interventionist – and ensure that cultural issues remain salient. It was a depressing conclusion, I argued, if you were a ‘small state free marketeer, or a one nation social liberal’ and that ‘I fear it is too late to turn back’.
One person who took issue with my conclusion was my good friend, David Lidington. As well as being probably the nicest person in politics, he is also one of the wisest. In his response on ConHome, David set out, from the perspective of a liberal Conservative, reasons to be optimistic.
First, he makes the very fair point that, in the 45 years in which he has been a member of the Conservative Party, it has been a home for many different types of Conservative and that ‘different leaders of the party, at different times have chosen to emphasise different elements of the broad Conservative tradition’.
Second, he acknowledges that ‘we shall want to hang on to traditional Labour supporters who lent us their votes last December, which in turn means that in four years’ time they need to see that we are at least beginning to deliver results for their families and neighbourhoods’ but that ‘to win again in 2024 we shall need to secure support from more younger voters than we did in either of the last two elections and to do that will mean reaching out to people whose values are, in the convenient shorthand, more “socially liberal” than those of their parents and grandparents, and who want to see political parties to take seriously their concerns about issues like the environment’.
‘Far from giving up in despair,’ David concludes, ‘liberal, centrist Conservatives should redouble our efforts to influence the party’s thinking about how we can win again in 2024’.
I genuinely wish David and other liberal, centrist Conservatives well in that endeavour. His analysis of the need to appeal to younger more socially liberal voters is one I share for two reasons.
First, I think it would lead to better government and, second, in the longer term, the Conservative Party will need to broaden its base. Relying on the votes of those born before 1960 has obvious long term problems. But in terms of understanding what will happen, there is a tension between what I would like to happen and the Prime Minister’s preferences, as revealed in the events of last year. I suspect those revealed preferences are a more reliable indicator.
Last year’s general election result was a triumph for the Prime Minister. It was the product of strategic clarity. Under Boris Johnson’s leadership, there was no real attempt to appeal to both sides of the Brexit debate (although he received the reluctant support of plenty of Remainers who were terrified of Jeremy Corbyn) but that gave him a clear message which appealed to the half of the country that favoured leaving the EU.
Theresa May had sought to seek a resolution to the Brexit issue that satisfied both sides of the argument. Leavers would see us depart from the EU, Remainers would see sufficient continuity to avoid the economic and security downsides that we feared from a hard Brexit. In my view, this was the sensible approach to the referendum result but by the time we got to last year it had little public support. Opinion was polarised into supporting a hard Brexit at any price or no Brexit at all, as the results in the European Parliamentary elections showed.
Johnson’s strategy was to be clearly identified as being on one side of the argument. In everything he did – from the make-up of the Cabinet, the prorogation of Parliament, the withdrawal of the whip for Conservative rebels, the nature of the general election campaign – was designed to win over the support of Leave voters. Forcing the Brexit Party essentially to step-aside in the general election meant that the Conservative Party had a near monopoly on Leave voters against a divided and badly led opposition.
Some will argue that these were the circumstances of 2019, but that does not make them the circumstances for 2024. And this brings me to the key question. Are we living through a fundamental realignment of British politics? Are our politics no longer defined by divisions on the grounds of economic class but on cultural identity? The somewheres versus the anywheres, the provincial and rural versus the metropolitan, non-graduates versus graduates, the socially conservative versus the socially liberal, the nationalist versus internationalist.
My view is that we are in such a period. More to the point, I think that the Prime Minister and the people around him believe that we are and that their view is that the most likely route to electoral success for the Conservative Party (and the route to success last year) is for the Party to embrace that realignment and establish itself as the Party for those on one side of the new dividing line in British politics.
Brexit may have accelerated this transformation but it did not cause it. Throughout the world, centre-right parties are being dragged in a similar direction as the social democratic left loses its grip on its traditional supporters, providing an opportunity for parties who can defend the cultural identity of those voters.
If that analysis is right (and, again, I would rather it is not), the wheel is not going to turn, at least not for a long time. Political realignments do not happen very often and this realignment has worked out very nicely for the Conservatives so far. But it means that the Conservative Party will not be economically or socially liberal (at least in terms of issues of national identity) for some time to come.
There is one other point. If I am wrong and David Lidington is right that the best course of action is for the Conservatives to seek the support of younger, more socially liberal voters there is a significant obstacle. Even though he is in many ways a social liberal himself, Boris Johnson is too battle-scarred, too associated with Brexit, too polarising to reinvent the Conservative Party yet again.
Fresh leadership by 2024 would be necessary. Someone not associated with the turmoil and divisions of 2016-19, someone with the charisma and communication skills to appeal to younger voters, someone who could embody modern, multi-racial Britain. Maybe, just maybe, such a leader could take the Conservative Party in a different direction. But who could fit the bill? Hmm.


conservativehome--2020-07-19--WATCH: We need to be very careful in our dealings, says Raab of China

'Do you think Shamima Begum should come back to Britain ? '
Lisa Nandy answers ' I do n't welcome @ @ @ @ @ back to the country who might be a risk ' and adds `` the home @ @ @ @ @ mess of this '' .
# Ridgehttps : //t.co/OePBk0iRj4 pic.twitter.com/zDIPiTAUce

'Do you think Shamima Begum should come back to Britain?'
Lisa Nandy answers 'I don't welcome the prospect of people coming back to the country who might be a risk' and adds "the home secretary has made a real mess of this".#Ridgehttps://t.co/OePBk0iRj4 pic.twitter.com/zDIPiTAUce
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) July 19, 2020


conservativehome--2020-07-19--WATCH: Nandy – “I don’t welcome the prospect of many people coming back who may be a risk to us”


conservativehome--2020-07-19--Johnson prepares for his new Prime Minister’s department

In Boris Johnson ’ s interview with the Sunday Telegraph this morning , he yearns for a civil service that will “ work faster ” – and thinks that “ sometimes it ’ s a question of confidence and belief ” .
“ Maybe there are ways in which we can all learn together to do things faster , to have a real spirit of ‘ can do ’ .
I ’ m not saying that people don ’ t have that , but there ’ s an opportunity to learn from the crisis and to work faster.
” Two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levelled by Number Ten .
( The Prime Minister is careful to say : “ Please don ’ t think that I in any way underestimate the brilliance of the UK civil service , they are absolutely fantastic.
” ) The first is that it needs to “ focus on results ; decentralise its operations ; use data more rigorously ; understand mathematical reasoning ; rotate staff less often ; produce more experts and , startlingly , risk failure by innovating ” .
That was our summary of Michael Gove ’ s recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example of where it fails to act in this way , as identified by Dominic Cummings in his blogs , is defence procurement .
The second is that parts of the service have a worldview that isn ’ t impartial ; that this was so over Brexit , to which there was opposition ; that this is so over human rights norms , which are believed to trump our national sovereignty .
Downing Street ’ s objection to these isn ’ t to human rights themselves , which are a way of describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re sometimes interpreted by the courts – see the Court of Appeal ’ s Shamima Begum decision .
At any rate , a slew of top civil servants have recently left their posts : beside Mark Sedwill , Simon McDonald at the Foreign Office and Richard Heaton at Justice have gone .
Philip Rutnam resigned from the Home Office .
A questionmark also hovers next to the name of Jonathan Slater at Education .
But Number Ten is thinking about much more than the future of individual officials .
As this site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is believed , like Public Health England , to have performed poorly over the Coronavirus , is marked for reform .
Friends of Dominic Cummings have signalled big changes coming both to it and to Number Ten – “ a smaller , more focused and more elite centre is needed ” , he recently told a SpAd zoom meeting .
He also said that the Coronavirus has exposed fundamental problems in the Whitehall machine and that many officials now accept the need for radical change .
Downing Street would resist a label @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” being stuck to the coming changes , but they will clearly involve more control from Number Ten .
ConservativeHome is told that one option is moving Johnson out of his current office in Number Ten , in which Prime Ministers have been accommodated during recent years .
His is the room to which Theresa May famously restored a desk after David Cameron had done without one during his “ chillaxing ” years .
Under this plan , Johnson would shuffle over to 70 Whitehall , where the bulk of the Cabinet Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his Policy Unit , which is headed by Munira Mirza .
Number Ten would resist the claim that “ a more elite centre ” equals “ a much bigger centre ” – or that centralisation itself works .
Cummings ’ briefing to the Zoom meeting was that “ it ’ s ludicrous to suggest the solution to Whitehall ’ s problems is a bigger centre and more centralisation – it ’ s already far too big and incoherent ” .
One idea that has been doing the rounds is that the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s formal deputy in order to get a grip on the pullulating Downing Street operation .
There is no knowing what the Prime Minister would do in a reshuffle , since he keeps his cards not so much close to his chest as stuffed down his vest .
However , a view put to this site by several sources is that a more efficient Number Ten wouldn ’ t need a powerful number two politician to run it .
Gove would instead “ be promoted elsewhere ” – perhaps to the Home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts , where Rutnam is bringing his case against her .

In Boris Johnson’s interview with the Sunday Telegraph this morning, he yearns for a civil service that will “work faster” – and thinks that “sometimes it’s a question of confidence and belief”.
“Maybe there are ways in which we can all learn together to do things faster, to have a real spirit of ‘can do’. I’m not saying that people don’t have that, but there’s an opportunity to learn from the crisis and to work faster.”
Two main criticisms of the civil service are levelled by Number Ten. (The Prime Minister is careful to say: “Please don’t think that I in any way underestimate the brilliance of the UK civil service, they are absolutely fantastic.”)
The first is that it needs to “focus on results; decentralise its operations; use data more rigorously; understand mathematical reasoning; rotate staff less often; produce more experts and, startlingly, risk failure by innovating”.
That was our summary of Michael Gove’s recent speech on the subject. A classic example of where it fails to act in this way, as identified by Dominic Cummings in his blogs, is defence procurement.
The second is that parts of the service have a worldview that isn’t impartial; that this was so over Brexit, to which there was opposition; that this is so over human rights norms, which are believed to trump our national sovereignty.
Downing Street’s objection to these isn’t to human rights themselves, which are a way of describing justice, but about the way they’re sometimes interpreted by the courts – see the Court of Appeal’s Shamima Begum decision.
At any rate, a slew of top civil servants have recently left their posts: beside Mark Sedwill, Simon McDonald at the Foreign Office and Richard Heaton at Justice have gone. Philip Rutnam resigned from the Home Office.
A questionmark also hovers next to the name of Jonathan Slater at Education. But Number Ten is thinking about much more than the future of individual officials.
As this site reported recently, the Cabinet Office, which is believed, like Public Health England, to have performed poorly over the Coronavirus, is marked for reform.
Friends of Dominic Cummings have signalled big changes coming both to it and to Number Ten – “a smaller, more focused and more elite centre is needed”, he recently told a SpAd zoom meeting.
He also said that the Coronavirus has exposed fundamental problems in the Whitehall machine and that many officials now accept the need for radical change.
Downing Street would resist a label reading “Prime Minister’s Department” being stuck to the coming changes, but they will clearly involve more control from Number Ten.
ConservativeHome is told that one option is moving Johnson out of his current office in Number Ten, in which Prime Ministers have been accommodated during recent years.
His is the room to which Theresa May famously restored a desk after David Cameron had done without one during his “chillaxing” years.
Under this plan, Johnson would shuffle over to 70 Whitehall, where the bulk of the Cabinet Office is accommodated, and would settle there with his Policy Unit, which is headed by Munira Mirza.
Number Ten would resist the claim that “a more elite centre” equals “a much bigger centre” – or that centralisation itself works.
Cummings’ briefing to the Zoom meeting was that “it’s ludicrous to suggest the solution to Whitehall’s problems is a bigger centre and more centralisation – it’s already far too big and incoherent”.
One idea that has been doing the rounds is that the Government needs Michael Gove as the Prime Minister’s formal deputy in order to get a grip on the pullulating Downing Street operation.
There is no knowing what the Prime Minister would do in a reshuffle, since he keeps his cards not so much close to his chest as stuffed down his vest.
However, a view put to this site by several sources is that a more efficient Number Ten wouldn’t need a powerful number two politician to run it.
Gove would instead “be promoted elsewhere” – perhaps to the Home Office if Patel runs into trouble in the courts, where Rutnam is bringing his case against her.


conservativehome--2020-07-19--WATCH: Raab on China. “Gross, egregious” human rights abuses are going on.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab says there are `` gross , egregious human rights abuses '' going on in China and @ @ @ @ @ `` deeply deeply troubling '' # Marr https : //t.co/ak3Q7rSUbk pic.twitter.com/0GBxEEHi5V

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab says there are "gross, egregious human rights abuses" going on in China and reports of forced sterilisation are "deeply deeply troubling"#Marr https://t.co/ak3Q7rSUbk pic.twitter.com/0GBxEEHi5V
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 19, 2020


conservativehome--2020-07-19--WATCH: “We do not see any point in interfering,” says the Russian Ambassador of Britain’s elections

WATCH : “ We do not see any point in interfering , ” says the Russian Ambassador of Britain ’ @ @

#Marr asks Chinese ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming to explain footage from China of handcuffed and blindfolded detained peoplehttps://t.co/PkjcTsClEX pic.twitter.com/RSbrSaOAPT
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 19, 2020


conservativehome--2020-07-19--WATCH: China’s Ambassador is questioned about film of the mass handcuffing and blindfolding of priso

WATCH: China’s Ambassador is questioned about film of the mass handcuffing and blindfolding of prisoners

# Marr asks Chinese ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming to explain footage from China of handcuffed and blindfolded detained @ @ @ @


conservativehome--2020-07-19--WATCH: Nandy says that Labour got in wrong on Russia under Corbyn

Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy says Labour “ got it wrong on Russia… we should not have called for consensus @ @ @ @ @ of the Salisbury attack # Marr https : //t.co/YwNjeld4xm pic.twitter.com/uP0ooAQ8zn

Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy says Labour “got it wrong on Russia… we should not have called for consensus", about the handling of the Salisbury attack#Marr https://t.co/YwNjeld4xm pic.twitter.com/uP0ooAQ8zn
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 19, 2020


conservativehome--2020-07-20--A year of Johnson as Prime Minister. As with Thatcher and Blair, his enemies can’t get the measure o

A year of Johnson as Prime Minister. As with Thatcher and Blair, his enemies can’t get the measure of him.

Her opponents never got to grips with Margaret Thatcher , be they from inside or outside the party that she led .
In Opposition , she was either mocked as hopeless ( “ Heath with tits ” ) or denounced as heartless ( “ the Iron Lady ” ) .
Neither line of attack stopped her winning three elections in a row .
Ditto Tony Blair .
His own journey took him from Bambi – toothy , graceful and slight , in both senses of the word – to Bliar : the squinting monster of the Iraq War .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have gained two landslide victories .
Boris Johnson may not win a second general election , let alone a third .
But , almost a year into his premiership , his enemies might ask themselves whether the escapes , luck and elusiveness of “ the greased albino piglet ” , as David Cameron is meant to have called him , may turn out to mirror theirs .
We have learned quite a lot and nothing at all about the Prime Minister during his first twelve months in office .
Nothing at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was and has shown no surprises .
This fan of the Romans , about whom he has written a book , is a bread and circuses politician .
Ultimately , he wants to entertain the electorate and , for reasons that combine gifts , character , genes and , it seems , a depressive streak in the family , this brooding extrovert , whose family and friends call him by his first name , Alex , has blossomed into “ Boris ” – who voters think they know , and whose public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson favours “ boosterism ” , his own word , by which he means tax cuts , grand projets and more borrowing ( because we aren ’ t generating the growth that would render it unnecessary ) .
That imagined bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland is like the Roman aqueducts he lauds in The Dream of Rome .
He is ill at ease with anything that can ’ t be turned into a joke .
The London riots of 2011 were the best pre-government example ; they seemed initially to throw him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more grisly example .
It has killed tens of thousands of his fellow Brits , and might well have done for him , too .
Which is a reminder to recite the litany of his last year : elected Conservative leader , loses votes in Parliament , removes the whip from 21 Tory MPs , is ruled against by the Supreme Court , wins an election by a near-landslide , gets divorced , engaged , becomes a father , and is rushed into intensive care , which “ could have gone either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of myth and legend , of which he is clearly made .
For although he may have won only one election to date , the mark he will leave on history is arguably bigger than Thatcher ’ s : for he has led Britain out of the European Union .
Without him , Vote Leave might not have swung the referendum .
And without him , the Conservatives would , at best , be where they were when he stood for the leadership ( i.e : at some 20 per cent in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would all be on our way to a second referendum in a still-hung Parliament ( with a Tory Party that had finally split ) .
Johnson was slow to respond to the iconoclasm , vandalism and unreason of the New Puritans – though he finally huffled and puffed himself into more or less the right place , and has had the low cunning and good sense not to “ take a knee ” .
And he deserves a Turkmenbashi-style gold statue himself for his achievement in Getting Britain Out .
But if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlook , we have learned quite a lot about his capacities – about what sort of national leader he will turn out to be .
As his term as London ’ s Mayor suggested , he is good at taking decisions , when he really has to do so , and good at delegating , which not all Prime Minister ’ s are .
It is worth marvelling again at how brilliantly he called last year – grasping at the start that Theresa May ’ s attempts to please everyone had ended up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swathe of the British people , regardless of how they voted in 2016 , wanted to “ get Brexit done ” .
It was his Churchillian finest as well as darkest hour .
His critics would say that he may be good at campaigning decisions , but not at governing ones ; and that he may be relaxed about delegating , but he is doing so to a second-rate Cabinet – from which able MPs have been excluded on no ground other than that they didn ’ t vote for him in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this line of thinking .
The Cabinet needs a purge , a theme to which this site will return , and the Government is over-centralised .
International Covid comparisons are tricky , but Britain has clearly performed poorly .
Evidently , the Prime Minister will get blown about in the wind , as the free school meals row showed .
On the other hand , Johnson knows the media well enough , as a former Editor himself , not to get whacked out by bad coverage .
He understands how today ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and how little bothered the public is by U-turns – as over Huawei , say .
What may undo him yet is the Potemkin nature of his majority .
This generation of Conservative MPs was elected to deliver Brexit and spend money : 50,000 extra nurses ; 20,000 more police ; 50 million more GP appointments a year ; “ millions more invested every week in science ” .
But the new MPs from Red Wall seats and others haven ’ t be trained to back tough economic decisions – to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good place to support spending cuts and tax rises when the time comes for them , let alone the wider programme of reform needed to reduce the third of public spending that goes on health , welfare and pensions .
There is also more than a single questionmark against whether or not his grand levelling-up scheme can be delivered .
As he and Dominic Cummings and other have devised it , the plan is about a cultural as much as an economic shift .
It means a movement of young people from academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the jobs market to vocational ones that are ; curbing the abuse of human rights ( as in the Shamima Begum case ) and judicial review ; ensuring freedom of speech in universities .
There is a risk of all this and much else – including outcomes for some of the very worst-off in Britain , such as rough sleepers – getting lost in the struggle simply to salvage the economy , make the best of Brexit and save the Union , as Scotland ’ s elections approach next year .
With so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that Keir Starmer would already be ahead in the polls .
And yet there his Party is , leading Labour by 44 per cent to 37 per cent .
We presume that Labour will get ahead at some point over the coming year .
Nonetheless , that 44 per cent total , restored to roughly where it went for the Tories after the EU referendum , shows up Johnson ’ s biggest strength .
After two terms as London Mayor , some ten at the top of politics and an election win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Certainly , the familiar ; almost , the secure .
For all the savagings he has endured , there is no shape to them , no consistency .
And whatever else Johnson may be , he is a winner – “ reincanated as an olive ” , in which guise we show him today .
But never forget , as he will not , a grim footnote : it was Blair and Thatcher ’ s own backbenchers that brought them down .

Her opponents never got to grips with Margaret Thatcher, be they from inside or outside the party that she led. In Opposition, she was either mocked as hopeless (“Heath with tits”) or denounced as heartless (“the Iron Lady”). Neither line of attack stopped her winning three elections in a row.
Ditto Tony Blair. His own journey took him from Bambi – toothy, graceful and slight, in both senses of the word – to Bliar: the squinting monster of the Iraq War. He remains the only Labour leader in history to have gained two landslide victories.
Boris Johnson may not win a second general election, let alone a third. But, almost a year into his premiership, his enemies might ask themselves whether the escapes, luck and elusiveness of “the greased albino piglet”, as David Cameron is meant to have called him, may turn out to mirror theirs.
We have learned quite a lot and nothing at all about the Prime Minister during his first twelve months in office. Nothing at all, because his disposition is evidently what it was and has shown no surprises. This fan of the Romans, about whom he has written a book, is a bread and circuses politician.
Ultimately, he wants to entertain the electorate and, for reasons that combine gifts, character, genes and, it seems, a depressive streak in the family, this brooding extrovert, whose family and friends call him by his first name, Alex, has blossomed into “Boris” – who voters think they know, and whose public exuberance bucks many of them up.
Johnson favours “boosterism”, his own word, by which he means tax cuts, grand projets and more borrowing (because we aren’t generating the growth that would render it unnecessary). That imagined bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland is like the Roman aqueducts he lauds in The Dream of Rome.
He is ill at ease with anything that can’t be turned into a joke. The London riots of 2011 were the best pre-government example; they seemed initially to throw him off his stride. The Coronavirus is a more grisly example. It has killed tens of thousands of his fellow Brits, and might well have done for him, too.
Which is a reminder to recite the litany of his last year: elected Conservative leader, loses votes in Parliament, removes the whip from 21 Tory MPs, is ruled against by the Supreme Court, wins an election by a near-landslide, gets divorced, engaged, becomes a father, and is rushed into intensive care, which “could have gone either way”.
This is the stuff of myth and legend, of which he is clearly made. For although he may have won only one election to date, the mark he will leave on history is arguably bigger than Thatcher’s: for he has led Britain out of the European Union.
Without him, Vote Leave might not have swung the referendum. And without him, the Conservatives would, at best, be where they were when he stood for the leadership (i.e: at some 20 per cent in the polls); at worst, we would all be on our way to a second referendum in a still-hung Parliament (with a Tory Party that had finally split).
Johnson was slow to respond to the iconoclasm, vandalism and unreason of the New Puritans – though he finally huffled and puffed himself into more or less the right place, and has had the low cunning and good sense not to “take a knee”. And he deserves a Turkmenbashi-style gold statue himself for his achievement in Getting Britain Out.
But if we have learned nothing at all about his outlook, we have learned quite a lot about his capacities – about what sort of national leader he will turn out to be. As his term as London’s Mayor suggested, he is good at taking decisions, when he really has to do so, and good at delegating, which not all Prime Minister’s are.
It is worth marvelling again at how brilliantly he called last year – grasping at the start that Theresa May’s attempts to please everyone had ended up pleasing no-one, and that a great swathe of the British people, regardless of how they voted in 2016, wanted to “get Brexit done”. It was his Churchillian finest as well as darkest hour.
His critics would say that he may be good at campaigning decisions, but not at governing ones; and that he may be relaxed about delegating, but he is doing so to a second-rate Cabinet – from which able MPs have been excluded on no ground other than that they didn’t vote for him in the leadership contest.
There is a lot in this line of thinking. The Cabinet needs a purge, a theme to which this site will return, and the Government is over-centralised. International Covid comparisons are tricky, but Britain has clearly performed poorly. Evidently, the Prime Minister will get blown about in the wind, as the free school meals row showed.
On the other hand, Johnson knows the media well enough, as a former Editor himself, not to get whacked out by bad coverage. He understands how today’s news flurry is forgotten by tomorrow, and how little bothered the public is by U-turns – as over Huawei, say.
What may undo him yet is the Potemkin nature of his majority. This generation of Conservative MPs was elected to deliver Brexit and spend money: 50,000 extra nurses; 20,000 more police; 50 million more GP appointments a year; “millions more invested every week in science”.
But the new MPs from Red Wall seats and others haven’t be trained to back tough economic decisions – to say No. They are not in a good place to support spending cuts and tax rises when the time comes for them, let alone the wider programme of reform needed to reduce the third of public spending that goes on health, welfare and pensions.
There is also more than a single questionmark against whether or not his grand levelling-up scheme can be delivered. As he and Dominic Cummings and other have devised it, the plan is about a cultural as much as an economic shift.
It means a movement of young people from academic courses that are of no use in the jobs market to vocational ones that are; curbing the abuse of human rights (as in the Shamima Begum case) and judicial review; ensuring freedom of speech in universities.
There is a risk of all this and much else – including outcomes for some of the very worst-off in Britain, such as rough sleepers – getting lost in the struggle simply to salvage the economy, make the best of Brexit and save the Union, as Scotland’s elections approach next year.
With so much running against Johnson, one would think that Keir Starmer would already be ahead in the polls. And yet there his Party is, leading Labour by 44 per cent to 37 per cent. We presume that Labour will get ahead at some point over the coming year.
Nonetheless, that 44 per cent total, restored to roughly where it went for the Tories after the EU referendum, shows up Johnson’s biggest strength. After two terms as London Mayor, some ten at the top of politics and an election win, he is a known quantity. Certainly, the familiar; almost, the secure.
For all the savagings he has endured, there is no shape to them, no consistency. And whatever else Johnson may be, he is a winner – “reincanated as an olive”, in which guise we show him today. But never forget, as he will not, a grim footnote: it was Blair and Thatcher’s own backbenchers that brought them down.


conservativehome--2020-07-20--Richard Holden: Three opportunities that open up for us in an Australian trade deal

On Saturday , I did my sixth “ Lockdown Litterpick ” , around the beautiful Bollihope Common .
A group of us bagged up five bin bags full of cans , bottles , pizza boxes and the general detritus that had been dumped in one the most beautiful spots in my constituency .
While chatting to my Association Chairman as the rubbish was collected , one of the volunteers revealed that she had emigrated from Canada to marry a Brit almost 40 years ago .
Later that afternoon , I spoke with an old friend who had worked with me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before getting married and returning ‘ down under ’ to work for the Australian Government .
And later that afternoon still , on my way to my constituency office , I listened with interest to Times Radio as one of their correspondents gave an update on the New Zealand election – where the newly-elected National Party leader , Judith Collins , seems to be clipping the wings of Jacinda Ardern in an election that had until a couple of weeks ago looked as though it was shaping up to be a Labour landslide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remind us that the ties that bind the United Kingdom with Canada , Australia and especially New Zealand are incredibly strong .
Yes , they ’ re linguistic and historic , but they ’ re also based on families and friendships , and shared mature democratic systems of government underpinned by the rule of law .
As has been seen in recent years in both Australia and the United Kingdom , our Parliaments are more powerful than their premiers and the people aren ’ t afraid of switching out either if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While Britain has spent the last few decades concerned over and trying to reform the nature of our relationship with the EU ( which in 1980 made up 30 per cent of global GDP , but has shrunk to just under 15 per cent today ) our CANZUK allies have been reaching out into the world .
I am very aware of how much with the grain some of these thoughts are in traditional conservative circles .
But it ’ s increasingly clear to me that the opportunities presented by closer bonds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nostalgic pipe dream , but instead absolutely central to our future global ambitions , as well as the fillip our post-Coronavirus economy will need .
Our trade deal with Australia looks a though it might be one of the most comprehensive of the ones currently on the table , and there are three aspects of it that I ’ d like to flag .
First , Australia currently has a 20 per cent tariff on imports of luxury cars .
Like the UK , the country is also right-hand drive .
With our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top marques , surely this must be top target for negotiations .
Second , we ’ re much more understanding of Australians who want to come and work in the UK than the other way around .
As we end our open borders with the EU and look at our Australian-style points-based immigration system , more mutual measures with our cousins in this regard must be a basis of future agreements .
Finally , Canada , Australia and New Zealand are all very developed service sector economies , but even our biggest companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cousins .
By opening our services sectors up to each other , we ’ ll drive competition , lower prices , increase productivity and , crucially , enable the formation of global firms with the diversity and reach across the globe .
That ’ s not to mention the new security integrations between our counties as the power structures of the globe tip towards the Pacific more generally and in which Canada , New Zealand and Australia all have a massive stake .
We should be looking to leverage our foreign , defence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these security and international arrangements , as well as looking to build closer ties with an old ally of manufacturing in the North East of England – Japan .
China ’ s recent actions towards Hong Kong , the Pacific island nations , the South China Sea and , domestically , to its ethnic minority populations should give us all pause for thought .
At the forefront of the minds of our allies across Asia and the Pacific is Chinese outward expansionism , control and internal repression For Britain , out into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tectonic plates of geo-politics have shifted to the Pacific ; away from Europe to the wider globe .
The world , not just the continent , is where Britain is at home .
Now we ’ ve got to make the most of the opportunities on our global doorstep – and that starts with building our relationships with our old allies facing a new world on the Pacific rim .

Maddisons Coffee Shop, Front Street, Consett
On Saturday, I did my sixth “Lockdown Litterpick”, around the beautiful Bollihope Common. A group of us bagged up five bin bags full of cans, bottles, pizza boxes and the general detritus that had been dumped in one the most beautiful spots in my constituency.
While chatting to my Association Chairman as the rubbish was collected, one of the volunteers revealed that she had emigrated from Canada to marry a Brit almost 40 years ago. Later that afternoon, I spoke with an old friend who had worked with me when I was a Special Adviser, before getting married and returning ‘down under’ to work for the Australian Government.
And later that afternoon still, on my way to my constituency office, I listened with interest to Times Radio as one of their correspondents gave an update on the New Zealand election – where the newly-elected National Party leader, Judith Collins, seems to be clipping the wings of Jacinda Ardern in an election that had until a couple of weeks ago looked as though it was shaping up to be a Labour landslide.
I mention these things because they to remind us that the ties that bind the United Kingdom with Canada, Australia and especially New Zealand are incredibly strong. Yes, they’re linguistic and historic, but they’re also based on families and friendships, and shared mature democratic systems of government underpinned by the rule of law.
As has been seen in recent years in both Australia and the United Kingdom, our Parliaments are more powerful than their premiers and the people aren’t afraid of switching out either if they’re not getting what they want. While Britain has spent the last few decades concerned over and trying to reform the nature of our relationship with the EU (which in 1980 made up 30 per cent of global GDP, but has shrunk to just under 15 per cent today) our CANZUK allies have been reaching out into the world.
I am very aware of how much with the grain some of these thoughts are in traditional conservative circles. But it’s increasingly clear to me that the opportunities presented by closer bonds with our Commonwealth allies are not some nostalgic pipe dream, but instead absolutely central to our future global ambitions, as well as the fillip our post-Coronavirus economy will need.
Our trade deal with Australia looks a though it might be one of the most comprehensive of the ones currently on the table, and there are three aspects of it that I’d like to flag.
First, Australia currently has a 20 per cent tariff on imports of luxury cars. Like the UK, the country is also right-hand drive. With our Range Rovers, Aston Martins and other top marques, surely this must be top target for negotiations.
Second, we’re much more understanding of Australians who want to come and work in the UK than the other way around. As we end our open borders with the EU and look at our Australian-style points-based immigration system, more mutual measures with our cousins in this regard must be a basis of future agreements.
Finally, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all very developed service sector economies, but even our biggest companies are dwarfed by those of our American cousins. By opening our services sectors up to each other, we’ll drive competition, lower prices, increase productivity and, crucially, enable the formation of global firms with the diversity and reach across the globe.
That’s not to mention the new security integrations between our counties as the power structures of the globe tip towards the Pacific more generally and in which Canada, New Zealand and Australia all have a massive stake. We should be looking to leverage our foreign, defence and international assistance policies more generally on these security and international arrangements, as well as looking to build closer ties with an old ally of manufacturing in the North East of England – Japan.
China’s recent actions towards Hong Kong, the Pacific island nations, the South China Sea and, domestically, to its ethnic minority populations should give us all pause for thought. At the forefront of the minds of our allies across Asia and the Pacific is Chinese outward expansionism, control and internal repression
For Britain, out into the world is our call now. The tectonic plates of geo-politics have shifted to the Pacific; away from Europe to the wider globe. The world, not just the continent, is where Britain is at home. Now we’ve got to make the most of the opportunities on our global doorstep – and that starts with building our relationships with our old allies facing a new world on the Pacific rim.