conservativehome--2020-06-17--Darren Grimes: Since we must use coal, why import it all – when we could instead create jobs by mini

Darren Grimes: Since we must use coal, why import it all – when we could instead create jobs by mining it in the North-East?

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK .
“ The screen behind shows where Britain is getting its energy from right now , ” explained Natasa Dinic from the National Grid in a recent BBC News segment that triumphantly celebrated the UK going cold turkey from coal for two months .
“ Why would you burn coal ?
” the BBC presenter claimed , when “ you can get electricity from these ” – and the shot changing to panoramic film of wind turbines .
However , a quick rewind to a list displayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grid reveals that wind actually powered a paltry 1.7 per cent of our grid , with almost 80 per cent coming from gas and nuclear power .
But the central point remains .
The UK has gone two months without coal in the energy mix all , and both Labour and the Conservatives are jubilant .
So why , Darren , you might ask , why are you about to argue that we still need it ?
Coal use in UK electricity generation will come to an end by 2024 – that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achievable because of practical , lower emission alternatives that can be deployed at the necessary scale , such as gas and nuclear , and not the BBC ’ s hot air about wind .
However , this doesn ’ t tell us the full story .
While it is true that coal will soon no longer be part of our electricity generation , it still makes general , economic and environmental sense to obtain the coal needed for a range of crucial industrial needs by mining it here at home .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in such industries as steel , cement , the UK ’ s heritage railways and even for the heating of rural homes .
Going forward , once all coal-fired generation ceases , it ’ s estimated that the UK will still need around five million tonnes for these industries every year .
I come from an ex-mining village in County Durham ; coal and community runs through my family tree .
My grandad and his dad before him mined coal .
Grandad had arthritis , respiratory problems and couldn ’ t fully extend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pit .
It would have been unthinkable for him to see his offspring go through what he had to , but such are , thankfully , no longer the working conditions for hardworking lads and lasses working in the industry in the North East today .
Surface mining is a much cleaner and safer operation to extract the coal that we still need .
It ’ s a process that ’ s complete with restoration and regeneration projects , represents a boost for the local economy and is a world away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great-grandad once endured .
That ’ s why I am incensed by moves that would see these high-skill , high-wage jobs in extracting that coal that we need here at home , exported elsewhere – especially when it ’ s to the likes of Russia .
When you consider that our Prime Minister has never met a bridge he doesn ’ t like and , with the levelling-up agenda that he ’ s promised to communities like mine ( that gave him his 80-seat majority ) , the UK is going to require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary steel and cement .
Coal that without the means of having a local coal source , you ’ d have to import and ship in a very costly way – likely from halfway around the world .
Take HS2 ; the government reckons that an estimated 2,000,000 tones of steel will be needed .
To produce that amount of steel , 1.6 million tonnes of coal would be required .
Does it make sense to import this coal from the Russian bear , thousands of miles away from our shores ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just to transport 4.7million tonnes of Russian coal was equivalent to a whopping 130 jumbo jets whizzing , non-stop , around the globe for an entire year .
It ’ s enough to make even Hollywood-greenie Emma Thompson blush , who famously flew 5,400 miles from LA to London to show how green she was at an Extinction Rebellion protest last year .
I ’ m surely not alone in believing it ridiculous to propose forgoing high-skill , high wage jobs here at home , which would enable us to remove thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only to export them overseas .
But that , regrettably , is precisely what the government looks set to endorse .
There is a proposed open cast mining site , the Highthorn scheme , that would see Banks Mining create at least 100 well-paid , full-time jobs on a site in Northumberland .
The Government is currently opposing this plan , which would invest £87 million into the local economy .
It would also keep a total of £200 million within the UK economy , by ensuring we can do without the importation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international suppliers , as well as supply chain contracts worth an estimated £48 million to local businesses .
These are all impressive feats that Banks Group have already pulled off at other sites .
The North East employer put forward the scheme that was recommended for approval by Northumberland County Council and the Government-appointed Planning Inspectorate .
This was then rejected in 2017 by the then Secretary of State , Sajid Javid , disregarding the planning inspector ’ s decision for the scheme to go ahead .
Banks Group appealed the decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Judge did not hold back .
Mr Justice Ouseley found in favour of Banks Mining on all of the bases on which the challenge was lodged , describing Javid ’ s rejection of the planning inspector ’ s findings as ‘ significantly inadequate.
’ Despite this , the scheme is yet to get the go-ahead .
Meanwhile , we continue to import our coal from bad-faith actors on the international stage .
The greenhouse gas emissions directly linked to the transportation of these imports , from Russia to UK consumers , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal mined here at home .
Mining the coal we need in the UK massively cuts greenhouse gases , offers an immediate boost to the levelling-up agenda , is all done under UK safety , employment and environmental standards ( do you reckon you can say the same thing about that mined in Russia ? )
, and the carbon emissions saving from not having to transport this coal from Russia is equivalent to covering an area the size of Newcastle upon Tyne in trees .
Our politicians can celebrate the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without coal , but they can show that they care about the North East , and reduce the UK ’ s carbon footprint , by reversing the lunacy of denying jobs in a region desperate for them – all in a futile attempt to appease the likes of the privileged prats in Extinction Rebellion .
The North East doesn ’ t want state handouts or meaningless slogans ; it wants jobs , opportunities and transport links .
The Government will be sending the wrong message entirely to these new voters if it makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , high-skill jobs in coal extraction , the first casualty of its asphyxiating net-zero by 2050 target will be them .
Prime Minister , voters in the North East have placed their trust in you ; do not let our lads and lasses down .

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK.
“The screen behind shows where Britain is getting its energy from right now,” explained Natasa Dinic from the National Grid in a recent BBC News segment that triumphantly celebrated the UK going cold turkey from coal for two months.
“Why would you burn coal?” the BBC presenter claimed, when “you can get electricity from these” – and the shot changing to panoramic film of wind turbines. However, a quick rewind to a list displayed in the previous interview at the National Grid reveals that wind actually powered a paltry 1.7 per cent of our grid, with almost 80 per cent coming from gas and nuclear power.
But the central point remains. The UK has gone two months without coal in the energy mix all, and both Labour and the Conservatives are jubilant. So why, Darren, you might ask, why are you about to argue that we still need it?
Coal use in UK electricity generation will come to an end by 2024 – that’s set in law. This is achievable because of practical, lower emission alternatives that can be deployed at the necessary scale, such as gas and nuclear, and not the BBC’s hot air about wind. However, this doesn’t tell us the full story.
While it is true that coal will soon no longer be part of our electricity generation, it still makes general, economic and environmental sense to obtain the coal needed for a range of crucial industrial needs by mining it here at home.
There’s a massive domestic demand for coal in such industries as steel, cement, the UK’s heritage railways and even for the heating of rural homes. Going forward, once all coal-fired generation ceases, it’s estimated that the UK will still need around five million tonnes for these industries every year.
I come from an ex-mining village in County Durham; coal and community runs through my family tree. My grandad and his dad before him mined coal. Grandad had arthritis, respiratory problems and couldn’t fully extend his arm thanks to his years down the pit. It would have been unthinkable for him to see his offspring go through what he had to, but such are, thankfully, no longer the working conditions for hardworking lads and lasses working in the industry in the North East today.
Surface mining is a much cleaner and safer operation to extract the coal that we still need. It’s a process that’s complete with restoration and regeneration projects, represents a boost for the local economy and is a world away from the dust-ridden and unsafe practices that my great-grandad once endured.
That’s why I am incensed by moves that would see these high-skill, high-wage jobs in extracting that coal that we need here at home, exported elsewhere – especially when it’s to the likes of Russia.
When you consider that our Prime Minister has never met a bridge he doesn’t like and, with the levelling-up agenda that he’s promised to communities like mine (that gave him his 80-seat majority), the UK is going to require a lot of coal to produce the necessary steel and cement.
Coal that without the means of having a local coal source, you’d have to import and ship in a very costly way – likely from halfway around the world. Take HS2; the government reckons that an estimated 2,000,000 tones of steel will be needed. To produce that amount of steel, 1.6 million tonnes of coal would be required. Does it make sense to import this coal from the Russian bear, thousands of miles away from our shores?
The stats are stark. In 2018, just to transport 4.7million tonnes of Russian coal was equivalent to a whopping 130 jumbo jets whizzing, non-stop, around the globe for an entire year. It’s enough to make even Hollywood-greenie Emma Thompson blush, who famously flew 5,400 miles from LA to London to show how green she was at an Extinction Rebellion protest last year.
I’m surely not alone in believing it ridiculous to propose forgoing high-skill, high wage jobs here at home, which would enable us to remove thousands of carbon-miles out of the levelling-up process, only to export them overseas. But that, regrettably, is precisely what the government looks set to endorse.
There is a proposed open cast mining site, the Highthorn scheme, that would see Banks Mining create at least 100 well-paid, full-time jobs on a site in Northumberland. The Government is currently opposing this plan, which would invest £87 million into the local economy.
It would also keep a total of £200 million within the UK economy, by ensuring we can do without the importation of three million tonnes of coal from international suppliers, as well as supply chain contracts worth an estimated £48 million to local businesses. These are all impressive feats that Banks Group have already pulled off at other sites.
The North East employer put forward the scheme that was recommended for approval by Northumberland County Council and the Government-appointed Planning Inspectorate. This was then rejected in 2017 by the then Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, disregarding the planning inspector’s decision for the scheme to go ahead.
Banks Group appealed the decision. After presiding over a two-day hearing, the Judge did not hold back. Mr Justice Ouseley found in favour of Banks Mining on all of the bases on which the challenge was lodged, describing Javid’s rejection of the planning inspector’s findings as ‘significantly inadequate.’
Despite this, the scheme is yet to get the go-ahead. Meanwhile, we continue to import our coal from bad-faith actors on the international stage. The greenhouse gas emissions directly linked to the transportation of these imports, from Russia to UK consumers, are five to seven times higher than transporting coal mined here at home.
Mining the coal we need in the UK massively cuts greenhouse gases, offers an immediate boost to the levelling-up agenda, is all done under UK safety, employment and environmental standards (do you reckon you can say the same thing about that mined in Russia?), and the carbon emissions saving from not having to transport this coal from Russia is equivalent to covering an area the size of Newcastle upon Tyne in trees.
Our politicians can celebrate the fact that the national grid has gone two months without coal, but they can show that they care about the North East, and reduce the UK’s carbon footprint, by reversing the lunacy of denying jobs in a region desperate for them – all in a futile attempt to appease the likes of the privileged prats in Extinction Rebellion.
The North East doesn’t want state handouts or meaningless slogans; it wants jobs, opportunities and transport links. The Government will be sending the wrong message entirely to these new voters if it makes clear that, by destroying potentially high-wage, high-skill jobs in coal extraction, the first casualty of its asphyxiating net-zero by 2050 target will be them.
Prime Minister, voters in the North East have placed their trust in you; do not let our lads and lasses down.


conservativehome--2020-06-17--Luke Evans: The Coronavirus, my Bosworth constituency, reporting, risk – and the persistence of unce

Luke Evans: The Coronavirus, my Bosworth constituency, reporting, risk – and the persistence of uncertainty

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
A couple of weeks ago , I was contacted by a local Labour Party activist looking to make some political hay .
He wrote a letter to me , and then posted about it on social media with a copy .
I ’ m sure he was wanting to keep profile high with his local CLP : the local elections are never too far away and you can ’ t blame a fellow for wanting a story to put on the front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist had read an article on MailOnline , although the same story was reported in both The Sun and Daily Mirror , which outlined that 18 areas in England and Wales had not yet reached their peak for Coronavirus deaths with my constituency , or to be specific my nearly contiguous borough council , being one of them .
What was I going to do about it , the activist asked ?
The wider question is something I have been investigating myself .
I only recently wrote on ConservativeHome about the difference between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal .
In Bosworth we appear to have been lucky , the pending tidal wave of coronavirus infections so far failed to fully materialise .
I have been talking in depth with my Local Resilience Forum lead , health bosses and community leaders about how we get on with normality while holding onto capacity to accommodate surges , and the practical applications of regional or even hyper local lockdowns can be achieved .
I am always relieved to hear that locally all organisations are working on each eventuality , on plans they hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the face of it the data was worrying and wasn ’ t particularly straight forward .
There were other places on the list which shared the rural nature of my constituency ; Broadland or Richmondshire being obvious ones : but then there were also more urban areas too , such as Preston or Doncaster .
Whilst I would be the first to acknowledge that Bosworth has felt relatively distanced from the worst effects of Coronavirus , could it be true that we were about to see a localised peak long after other areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a new MP , I ’ ve learnt very quickly that one of the treasures of our democratic process are the subject specialists in the House of Commons library .
Given that the Mail Online article had outlined that the story had been derived from ‘ a separate analysis of ONS data ’ , I went straight to the library to ask for a balanced overview .
Just a day or two later I was pleased to read the library ’ s response to my query : “ The main thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Hinckley and Bosworth , or indeed other local areas , have yet to reach their peak of coronavirus cases is not an ONS conclusion .
The level of fluctuation in case numbers at small areas can be quite substantial and identifying accurate trends and definitive peaks is likely to require many weeks more of data , not to mention confirmed data rather than provisional snapshots .
While the local level figures are indicative and obviously of interest to residents in a given area , it would be misleading to try to determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have peaked , are likely to increase further etc .
To illustrate this , it is worth noting that of the 18 authorities highlighted by the Mail , all but one of these now show a decline in weekly figures .
The Mail report was based on the week ending 15 May but if we now examine data for the week ending 22 May , the picture has changed … the latest figures indicate that weekly deaths in Hinckley and Bosworth fell from 15 to 4 between the weeks ending 15 May and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears that the separate analysis which much of the print media picked up and ran with as rather worrying news – at least if you lived in one of the 18 areas – wasn ’ t sufficiently robust enough to consider data from relatively small geographic areas .
Of course we should all continue to stay vigilant , it may be that my constituency does suffer a spike in the virus somewhere down the line , but the point is that data is very easy to misinterpret and misconstrue even when the intentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Coronavirus being the only topic of conversation for more than three months now .
Virtually every one of us feels like we understand the data , and that we have our own individual roadmap for a way out of lockdown – if only the Government would listen .
The truth is that if even the scientists can get things wrong because a variable is off or the amount of data insufficient , then any of us can do the same .
In medicine we judge risk , we deal with uncertainty and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the valid data you have at your disposal .
It ’ s generally bad advice for patients to self-diagnose using the internet , invariably they will ignore an important symptom , or equally emphasise too strongly on another ; inevitably they will conclude the diagnosis as the worst possible outcome rather than the most likely .
The same is true for statistics , most of us don ’ t have the expertise to analyse them precisely , but we can take time to look into them , check the methodology and what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth their salt will have acknowledged in their own findings anyway .
But then again that wouldn ’ t make for a good story on the front of a Labour Rose , would it ?

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
A couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by a local Labour Party activist looking to make some political hay. He wrote a letter to me, and then posted about it on social media with a copy. I’m sure he was wanting to keep profile high with his local CLP: the local elections are never too far away and you can’t blame a fellow for wanting a story to put on the front of his next Labour Rose.
The activist had read an article on MailOnline, although the same story was reported in both The Sun and Daily Mirror, which outlined that 18 areas in England and Wales had not yet reached their peak for Coronavirus deaths with my constituency, or to be specific my nearly contiguous borough council, being one of them.
What was I going to do about it, the activist asked?
The wider question is something I have been investigating myself. I only recently wrote on ConservativeHome about the difference between “uneasy normal” and what is normal.
In Bosworth we appear to have been lucky, the pending tidal wave of coronavirus infections so far failed to fully materialise. I have been talking in depth with my Local Resilience Forum lead, health bosses and community leaders about how we get on with normality while holding onto capacity to accommodate surges, and the practical applications of regional or even hyper local lockdowns can be achieved. I am always relieved to hear that locally all organisations are working on each eventuality, on plans they hope they never have to use.
On the face of it the data was worrying and wasn’t particularly straight forward.
There were other places on the list which shared the rural nature of my constituency; Broadland or Richmondshire being obvious ones: but then there were also more urban areas too, such as Preston or Doncaster.
Whilst I would be the first to acknowledge that Bosworth has felt relatively distanced from the worst effects of Coronavirus, could it be true that we were about to see a localised peak long after other areas were on the road to recovery?
As a new MP, I’ve learnt very quickly that one of the treasures of our democratic process are the subject specialists in the House of Commons library. Given that the Mail Online article had outlined that the story had been derived from ‘a separate analysis of ONS data’, I went straight to the library to ask for a balanced overview.
Just a day or two later I was pleased to read the library’s response to my query:
“The main thing to point out here is that the idea that Hinckley and Bosworth, or indeed other local areas, have yet to reach their peak of coronavirus cases is not an ONS conclusion.
The level of fluctuation in case numbers at small areas can be quite substantial and identifying accurate trends and definitive peaks is likely to require many weeks more of data, not to mention confirmed data rather than provisional snapshots. While the local level figures are indicative and obviously of interest to residents in a given area, it would be misleading to try to determine whether the latest weekly figures imply numbers have peaked, are likely to increase further etc.
To illustrate this, it is worth noting that of the 18 authorities highlighted by the Mail, all but one of these now show a decline in weekly figures. The Mail report was based on the week ending 15 May but if we now examine data for the week ending 22 May, the picture has changed … the latest figures indicate that weekly deaths in Hinckley and Bosworth fell from 15 to 4 between the weeks ending 15 May and 22 May.”
In short, it appears that the separate analysis which much of the print media picked up and ran with as rather worrying news – at least if you lived in one of the 18 areas – wasn’t sufficiently robust enough to consider data from relatively small geographic areas.
Of course we should all continue to stay vigilant, it may be that my constituency does suffer a spike in the virus somewhere down the line, but the point is that data is very easy to misinterpret and misconstrue even when the intentions are good.
We’ve lived with Coronavirus being the only topic of conversation for more than three months now. Virtually every one of us feels like we understand the data, and that we have our own individual roadmap for a way out of lockdown – if only the Government would listen.
The truth is that if even the scientists can get things wrong because a variable is off or the amount of data insufficient, then any of us can do the same.
In medicine we judge risk, we deal with uncertainty and making the best assessment you can with the valid data you have at your disposal.
It’s generally bad advice for patients to self-diagnose using the internet, invariably they will ignore an important symptom, or equally emphasise too strongly on another; inevitably they will conclude the diagnosis as the worst possible outcome rather than the most likely.
The same is true for statistics, most of us don’t have the expertise to analyse them precisely, but we can take time to look into them, check the methodology and what is more spot the vulnerabilities that most scientists worth their salt will have acknowledged in their own findings anyway.
But then again that wouldn’t make for a good story on the front of a Labour Rose, would it?


conservativehome--2020-06-17--Sally-Ann Hart: Unitary status for local government is required without further delay

Sally-Ann Hart is the MP for Hastings and Rye and was a councillor in Rother .
The organisation of local government in the UK has changed over the centuries and much of the current structure has been in place since the Local Government Act of 1972 , where the two-tier system of borough/district and counties was established .
As we are working to get back on our economic feet after lockdown , we need to think expansively in the long term interests of our country .
The time is right to take the opportunity to consider cutting out middle-tier district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into unitary councils , addressing some of the issues that the multi-tier system has created .
I do not suggest this lightly ; my local district council , Rother , has done a remarkable job during the coronavirus crisis and thanks must be given to all the officers for the extra work that they have undertaken to provide the best possible services , work with local volunteer community groups , and safeguard the vulnerable .
However , despite the extra millions that the Government has given local authorities to cover the extra costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , the financial situation of the majority of smaller councils is apparently unsustainable and many are calling for more funding to cover loss of income from carparks , council tax , business rates , and investment income , as a result of the lockdown .
Consolidation of district , borough , and county councils will foster the ability to drive greater efficiency and thereby save taxpayers ’ money through economies of scale .
Unitary authorities could also provide better social care services as counties struggle financially and look for different ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It makes sense that social care – children and adults , housing , benefits , health , and possibly police are brought under one authority with a focus on more integrated solutions .
Localism is vital in strengthening local communities .
Unitary authorities do not take away from local decision-making and town and parish councils should be retained with their delegated responsibilities , as they are closer to communities .
Having more regionally focussed authorities may encourage greater decentralisation by having a more joined-up approach for local government .
Disagreements between the tiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political philosophies , make it almost impossible to speak with one voice ; something that would be more effective when dealing with or lobbying central government to address local needs .
During coronavirus , we have seen great collaboration across the country between government and local authorities , but more recently , we have also seen some ideological clashes between Labour councils , their local Conservative MPs , and the Government .
Take James Daly and Christian Wakeford in Bury , where they have had to write to head teachers in their constituencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ political grandstanding ” and make their own decisions for school ‘ re-opening ’ on June 1st .
In the north east , the Labour council leader of Gateshead urged local people to disregard the Government ’ s easing of lockdown restrictions and the Newcastle council leader branded the Government “ deeply irresponsible ” for easing restrictions .
In my constituency , Labour-controlled Hastings Borough Council has urged people to continue to ‘ Stay at Home ’ and have even posted ‘ Hastings Closed ’ signs .
It has refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emailing me about the stink of urine and human excrement in public places .
At the time of writing , it has also yet to open-up its Government funded discretionary grant scheme to help local businesses .
Through all this , Labour councillors in their local fiefdoms blame the problems and deficiencies they , themselves , have caused , on the Conservative Government .
There seems to be little incentive for them to help boost residents ’ confidence in living with coronavirus and getting our economy back on track – they would rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than save livelihoods .
Important measures , such as those that are now required , need to be determined centrally and implemented locally .
Requests to local government to adopt changes in the broader interest can be widely ignored .
Asking local government to impose changes on themselves and create unitary councils would not affect the change needed .
This is a decision which needs to be made and imposed by central Government .
Attracting councillors at all levels of local government has long been an issue .
Many are elected unopposed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By paying a smaller number of unitary councillors commensurately for the skills he or she brings to bear , candidates of a higher or more committed calibre should be attracted to the role .
This will also allow ( and require ) elected councillors to really focus on the very important role of being a councillor , accountable to the electorate .
Support from an able and experienced permanent executive at the unitary level to provide expertise and effective financial management , advise and execute the councillors ’ policies is a given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get them right , can transform local government into more efficient , cost effective , and customer focused undertakings without giving up important local accountability .
As we face huge changes in our ways of working , what better time is there to make local government fit for the future ?

Sally-Ann Hart is the MP for Hastings and Rye and was a councillor in Rother.
The organisation of local government in the UK has changed over the centuries and much of the current structure has been in place since the Local Government Act of 1972, where the two-tier system of borough/district and counties was established. As we are working to get back on our economic feet after lockdown, we need to think expansively in the long term interests of our country. The time is right to take the opportunity to consider cutting out middle-tier district and borough councils and focus on consolidation into unitary councils, addressing some of the issues that the multi-tier system has created.
I do not suggest this lightly; my local district council, Rother, has done a remarkable job during the coronavirus crisis and thanks must be given to all the officers for the extra work that they have undertaken to provide the best possible services, work with local volunteer community groups, and safeguard the vulnerable.
However, despite the extra millions that the Government has given local authorities to cover the extra costs incurred during the coronavirus health and economic crisis, the financial situation of the majority of smaller councils is apparently unsustainable and many are calling for more funding to cover loss of income from carparks, council tax, business rates, and investment income, as a result of the lockdown.
Consolidation of district, borough, and county councils will foster the ability to drive greater efficiency and thereby save taxpayers’ money through economies of scale. Unitary authorities could also provide better social care services as counties struggle financially and look for different ways to meet what seems like ever-increasing demands. It makes sense that social care – children and adults, housing, benefits, health, and possibly police are brought under one authority with a focus on more integrated solutions.
Localism is vital in strengthening local communities. Unitary authorities do not take away from local decision-making and town and parish councils should be retained with their delegated responsibilities, as they are closer to communities. Having more regionally focussed authorities may encourage greater decentralisation by having a more joined-up approach for local government. Disagreements between the tiers of local government, due to different political philosophies, make it almost impossible to speak with one voice; something that would be more effective when dealing with or lobbying central government to address local needs.
During coronavirus, we have seen great collaboration across the country between government and local authorities, but more recently, we have also seen some ideological clashes between Labour councils, their local Conservative MPs, and the Government. Take James Daly and Christian Wakeford in Bury, where they have had to write to head teachers in their constituencies asking them to ignore the town hall’s “political grandstanding” and make their own decisions for school ‘re-opening’ on June 1st. In the north east, the Labour council leader of Gateshead urged local people to disregard the Government’s easing of lockdown restrictions and the Newcastle council leader branded the Government “deeply irresponsible” for easing restrictions.
In my constituency, Labour-controlled Hastings Borough Council has urged people to continue to ‘Stay at Home’ and have even posted ‘Hastings Closed’ signs. It has refused to open public lavatories and I have constituents emailing me about the stink of urine and human excrement in public places. At the time of writing, it has also yet to open-up its Government funded discretionary grant scheme to help local businesses.
Through all this, Labour councillors in their local fiefdoms blame the problems and deficiencies they, themselves, have caused, on the Conservative Government. There seems to be little incentive for them to help boost residents’ confidence in living with coronavirus and getting our economy back on track – they would rather play political games and make political capital than save livelihoods. Important measures, such as those that are now required, need to be determined centrally and implemented locally.
Requests to local government to adopt changes in the broader interest can be widely ignored. Asking local government to impose changes on themselves and create unitary councils would not affect the change needed. This is a decision which needs to be made and imposed by central Government.
Attracting councillors at all levels of local government has long been an issue. Many are elected unopposed and some have to be cajoled into standing. By paying a smaller number of unitary councillors commensurately for the skills he or she brings to bear, candidates of a higher or more committed calibre should be attracted to the role. This will also allow (and require) elected councillors to really focus on the very important role of being a councillor, accountable to the electorate. Support from an able and experienced permanent executive at the unitary level to provide expertise and effective financial management, advise and execute the councillors’ policies is a given.
New unitary authorities, if we get them right, can transform local government into more efficient, cost effective, and customer focused undertakings without giving up important local accountability. As we face huge changes in our ways of working, what better time is there to make local government fit for the future?


conservativehome--2020-06-17--WATCH: Dowden hails the return of Premier League football

❓Ask your question at the press conference https : //t.co/AciuhAKREC https : //t.co/jQUFnEcamF

.
WATCH LIVE: #Coronavirus press conference (17 June 2020)
Speaker: @OliverDowden, Secretary of State @DCMS
❓Ask your question at the press conference https://t.co/AciuhAKREC https://t.co/jQUFnEcamF
— UK Prime Minister (@10DowningStreet) June 17, 2020


conservativehome--2020-06-17--Union battles, parental resistance and court cases: why the UK isn’t alone across Europe in getting

Union battles, parental resistance and court cases: why the UK isn’t alone across Europe in getting schools to reopen

One of the biggest headaches for the Government during the Covid-19 crisis has the reopening of schools .
As soon as Boris Johnson announced plans to get primary schools fully functioning by June 1 , the teaching unions were ready to challenge the decision in the most dramatic way possible .
They called plans “ reckless ” and “ irresponsible ” , as well as advising schools not to “ engage in planning meetings ” .
Perhaps it is no wonder that only one in four children returned at the beginning of the month , as a result of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only down to parental concerns ; figures published by the Department for Education showed that only 52 per cent of schools opened up to reception , year one and year six , indicating that staff are worried about resuming business too .
Thus the Government has been forced to rethink its goal of getting all primary schools back before the summer holidays .
The media has been typically unhelpful while these events unfold , portraying the difficulties in getting schools to return as a problem that ’ s unique to the UK – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s been a distinct lack of comparison with Europe , despite newspapers documenting the continent constantly when they want to claim that Britain has the worst death rate .
The fact is , Europe offers key insights into the challenges and nuances of the school situation – which are felt widely .
For starters , what ’ s evident is that there ’ s no “ right ” approach to reopening schools .
While there are crossovers in strategies , different regions have their own ideas about what works best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country in Europe to reopen schools in mid-April , started with primary settings – with children aged 11 and over allowed to return May 18 .
In contrast , Germany prioritised older children doing exams , and primary schools were the last to go back .
Then there are the regions that are keeping things shut for everyone .
Italy , which was the first European country to close schools and universities , has decided to reopen them up again in September .
The Czech Republic , Hungary and Poland have also taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having low Covid-19 rates compared to western Europe .
But will the British media be reporting on the impact this will have on youngsters ’ education ?
Don ’ t expect such an analysis any time soon… Some of the variations between countries , in their approach to schools , reflect the level of centralisation in educational administrations .
Much of Spain ’ s reopening plans have been contingent upon each of its autonomous regions , and the same goes for Germany , which has 16 states directing their own reopening rules .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it has divided the country up into coloured zones as a means to decide who can return .
Children in the “ green zone ” – where the virus is less prevalent – have gone back to school before those in the “ orange zone ” ( including Paris ) – where the virus poses more of a risk .
Just like the UK , the German government has had resistance to its plans .
Last month , parents in Saxony won the right to keep children at home over Coronavirus fears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Home schooling is illegal in Germany , and without the case going through , parents would have faced prosecution .
As a result , Germany ’ s regional culture ministry announced it would suspend compulsory attendance laws – meaning parents can homeschool for now .
Public opinion is fairly mixed on the subject of schools reopening ; some are extremely concerned about safety , and others are finding Germany ’ s cautious approach a step too far .
The country ’ s decision to divide up lessons has meant children are left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making childcare much harder for their families – with employment ramifications .
The UK must take note .
France , too , has had some turbulence with its plans .
Macron has been one of the most forceful leaders in Europe in trying to get schools moving again .
On Sunday evening he warned parents that schools will reopen next Monday , and that presence will be “ mandatory ” , adding that summer holidays will be postponed until July 4 .
Perhaps it is no wonder he has been so bold in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only 1.8 million of the country ’ s pre- and primary school children have gone back ( out of 6.7 million ) , and only 600,000 of the country ’ s 3.3 million middle schoolers .
As with the UK and Germany , unions have kicked off .
Sub-Education teachers ’ union has criticised the “ abrupt nature ” of Macron ’ s statement , claiming that “ [ t ] here are a lot of questions that still remain unanswered ” , and Des Stylos Rouges ( The Red Pens ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted its objections on Twitter – demanding more clarity .
So it ’ s a fallacy to believe that these sorts of conflicts are limited to Britain .
Another reality that has been buried in among all the headlines about the unions and the Government , then Johnson and Starmer , is whether a second wave occurred in schools that reopened .
The UK has been extremely lucky , in many ways , not to have been the guinea pig for such an experiment .
The good news is that European countries that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May have not had significant increases in new cases .
Denmark , for instance , reported just under 200 new cases a day mid-April and 14 as of June 8 .
Experts suggest this may not be down to social distancing , but a lower transmission rate of Covid-19 among children .
Whatever the reason , this is an encouraging step for concerned parents .
Ultimately , what ’ s happening in Europe demonstrates that the UK ’ s school reopening plans are not “ in tatters ” as one headline put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experienced elsewhere .
Instead of the UK in-fighting , as it always seems to – even in a pandemic , the most important thing we can do is pay close attention to the lessons in the continent as to how best phase out a return to schools , in line with the Government ’ s initial plan .

One of the biggest headaches for the Government during the Covid-19 crisis has the reopening of schools. As soon as Boris Johnson announced plans to get primary schools fully functioning by June 1, the teaching unions were ready to challenge the decision in the most dramatic way possible. They called plans “reckless” and “irresponsible”, as well as advising schools not to “engage in planning meetings”.
Perhaps it is no wonder that only one in four children returned at the beginning of the month, as a result of this fearmongering. And this wasn’t only down to parental concerns; figures published by the Department for Education showed that only 52 per cent of schools opened up to reception, year one and year six, indicating that staff are worried about resuming business too. Thus the Government has been forced to rethink its goal of getting all primary schools back before the summer holidays.
The media has been typically unhelpful while these events unfold, portraying the difficulties in getting schools to return as a problem that’s unique to the UK – and a dire reflection on the Government. There’s been a distinct lack of comparison with Europe, despite newspapers documenting the continent constantly when they want to claim that Britain has the worst death rate. The fact is, Europe offers key insights into the challenges and nuances of the school situation – which are felt widely.
For starters, what’s evident is that there’s no “right” approach to reopening schools. While there are crossovers in strategies, different regions have their own ideas about what works best. Denmark, which was the first country in Europe to reopen schools in mid-April, started with primary settings – with children aged 11 and over allowed to return May 18. In contrast, Germany prioritised older children doing exams, and primary schools were the last to go back.
Then there are the regions that are keeping things shut for everyone. Italy, which was the first European country to close schools and universities, has decided to reopen them up again in September. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland have also taken this cautious approach – in spite of having low Covid-19 rates compared to western Europe. But will the British media be reporting on the impact this will have on youngsters’ education? Don’t expect such an analysis any time soon…
Some of the variations between countries, in their approach to schools, reflect the level of centralisation in educational administrations. Much of Spain’s reopening plans have been contingent upon each of its autonomous regions, and the same goes for Germany, which has 16 states directing their own reopening rules.
Though France has a centralised education system, it has divided the country up into coloured zones as a means to decide who can return. Children in the “green zone” – where the virus is less prevalent – have gone back to school before those in the “orange zone” (including Paris) – where the virus poses more of a risk.
Just like the UK, the German government has had resistance to its plans. Last month, parents in Saxony won the right to keep children at home over Coronavirus fears, having been backed by teaching unions. Home schooling is illegal in Germany, and without the case going through, parents would have faced prosecution.
As a result, Germany’s regional culture ministry announced it would suspend compulsory attendance laws – meaning parents can homeschool for now. Public opinion is fairly mixed on the subject of schools reopening; some are extremely concerned about safety, and others are finding Germany’s cautious approach a step too far. The country’s decision to divide up lessons has meant children are left with random periods of free time, making childcare much harder for their families – with employment ramifications. The UK must take note.
France, too, has had some turbulence with its plans. Macron has been one of the most forceful leaders in Europe in trying to get schools moving again. On Sunday evening he warned parents that schools will reopen next Monday, and that presence will be “mandatory”, adding that summer holidays will be postponed until July 4.
Perhaps it is no wonder he has been so bold in his demands. According to the Government, only 1.8 million of the country’s pre- and primary school children have gone back (out of 6.7 million), and only 600,000 of the country’s 3.3 million middle schoolers.
As with the UK and Germany, unions have kicked off. Sub-Education teachers’ union has criticised the “abrupt nature” of Macron’s statement, claiming that “[t]here are a lot of questions that still remain unanswered”, and Des Stylos Rouges (The Red Pens), a teacher advocacy group, has posted its objections on Twitter – demanding more clarity. So it’s a fallacy to believe that these sorts of conflicts are limited to Britain.
Another reality that has been buried in among all the headlines about the unions and the Government, then Johnson and Starmer, is whether a second wave occurred in schools that reopened. The UK has been extremely lucky, in many ways, not to have been the guinea pig for such an experiment.
The good news is that European countries that sent children back in April and early May have not had significant increases in new cases. Denmark, for instance, reported just under 200 new cases a day mid-April and 14 as of June 8. Experts suggest this may not be down to social distancing, but a lower transmission rate of Covid-19 among children. Whatever the reason, this is an encouraging step for concerned parents.
Ultimately, what’s happening in Europe demonstrates that the UK’s school reopening plans are not “in tatters” as one headline put it, as these teething issues have been experienced elsewhere. Instead of the UK in-fighting, as it always seems to – even in a pandemic, the most important thing we can do is pay close attention to the lessons in the continent as to how best phase out a return to schools, in line with the Government’s initial plan.


conservativehome--2020-06-17--Ben Roback: Why America’s election may turn on jobs, immigration, abortion and China – not race, pol

Ben Roback: Why America’s election may turn on jobs, immigration, abortion and China – not race, policing, justice and riots

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
General elections are won and lost on the political and societal dividing lines of the day .
Recall our own 2019 election which was undoubtedly won by the Conservatives because of Brexit .
The 2017 election , famously , was intended to , but didn ’ t .
A campaign intended to re-elect a ‘ strong and stable ’ leader on a platform to deliver the Brexit vision she had negotiated became derailed by a fateful domestic policy on social care .
An intended Brexit election became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a matter of days .
Theresa May was returned to office , but was hardly in power .
She could struggle on for not much longer .
The 1968 presidential election in the United States became a ‘ law and order ’ election , steered by Richard Nixon .
But the context that cast a long shadow over the campaign beforehand was the Vietnam War , since 1968 was the year in which US troop numbers peaked after Lyndon Johnson increased boots on the ground to over half a million .
Not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deadliest year in the war for the United States .
Societal tensions reached boiling point over the King and Kennedy ’ s assassinations , whilst the civil rights movement proved powerful .
So listen carefully to part of Nixon ’ s acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican convention : There are easily identifiable parallels between 1968 and 2020 , and not just because Donald Trump has declared himself the “ law and order ” choice for Americans .
In the current climate of political and societal activism in America , it might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tumult of the shouting , the non-shouters , the non-demonstrators ” which , Nixon later referred to in that speech , which decide the coming election .
Indeed , Trump often refers to the “ silent majority ” which he considers his natural supporters and allies .
This is not to discount the widespread presence of progressive protests in cities and states across the length and breadth of America – this is not a movement hidden in the safe Democratic enclaves of California and New York .
Protests demanding police reform and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African Americans and people of colour have gripped such Republican strongholds as Missouri and Mississippi , even though much of the political and media attention has been fixed on the liberal cities of Seattle and Washington DC .
Less than five months before the presidential election , if these protest movements can transition from marches and placards to voter turnout mobilisation , then traditionally red states could suddenly be within Joe Biden ’ s reach .
In theory .
It is incumbent on Biden to be the voice of change , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters from the streets to the White House .
So far , he has struggled .
The former Vice President told a popular radio host that anyone struggling to decide whether to support him or Trump in the general election “ ain ’ t black.
” The Trump campaign seized on the remarks , reminding voters of Biden ’ s support in passing the 1994 crime bill .
An apology followed .
In seeking to reinvigorate his campaign , Biden will host a grassroots fundraiser with Barack Obama next week .
Getting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden campaign hopes , get his electoral message back on track .
The current national spotlight on race relations makes Biden a natural ally for the protestors , but the associated arguments around defunding the police mean he risks being painted as being soft on crime – an argument the President is keenly making on Twitter .
Trump ’ s strength in 2016 was that he was an outsider .
In 2020 , as the incumbent , he can not use American disunity against his opponent quite as easily .
In 1968 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the existing chaos because Hubert Humphrey was the sitting Vice-President .
Campaigning alongside Obama will remind Americans that Biden was himself recently vice president – and so is hardly the voice of change , as a career politician .
And so , to Nixon The 2020 election might well be cast under the familiar shadow that Nixon described in that Miami convention speech .
American cities have indeed been enveloped in smoke and flames .
Sirens have sounded long into the night .
American troops are still dying on distant battlefields abroad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return them home .
Americans continue to hate , fight and kill each other .
As in 1968 , Americans might wonder again in 2020 : ‘ Did we come all this way for this ?
’ .
The outcome of the election therefore becomes difficult to forecast , because the terms on which it will be won and lost remain in flux .
For successive weeks since George Floyd ’ s death , the dominant political conversation has been about race relations and police reform .
Trump has shown a rare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform executive order , breaking a hitherto narrow commitment to law enforcement around the country .
With the tap of a Tweet or an unexpected policy announcement , the President has the ability to suddenly shift the spotlight onto an issue of his choosing .
Building a wall on the US-Mexico border is an ace card that the President has reached for in times of need previously .
An entrenching of the White House ’ s hawkish approach to China is never far away .
Whereas Trump has the White House podium , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news cycle that always needs something to discuss to amplify his message , Biden has far fewer tools in his arsenal .
Were the election to be fought tomorrow , we might reasonably expect it to be won and lost on the candidates ’ record and responses to race relations , police reform and Covid-19 .
But that is not to say that the major diving lines come the autumn won ’ t be foreign election interference , immigration , unemployment and abortion .
Trump is the more skilled communicator in both dictating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivering a message .
The question will be whether or not those terms are favourable to his campaign come November .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
General elections are won and lost on the political and societal dividing lines of the day. Recall our own 2019 election which was undoubtedly won by the Conservatives because of Brexit.
The 2017 election, famously, was intended to, but didn’t. A campaign intended to re-elect a ‘strong and stable’ leader on a platform to deliver the Brexit vision she had negotiated became derailed by a fateful domestic policy on social care. An intended Brexit election became a ‘dementia tax’ election in a matter of days. Theresa May was returned to office, but was hardly in power. She could struggle on for not much longer.
The 1968 presidential election in the United States became a ‘law and order’ election, steered by Richard Nixon. But the context that cast a long shadow over the campaign beforehand was the Vietnam War, since 1968 was the year in which US troop numbers peaked after Lyndon Johnson increased boots on the ground to over half a million.
Not only that; 1968 became the most expensive and deadliest year in the war for the United States. Societal tensions reached boiling point over the King and Kennedy’s assassinations, whilst the civil rights movement proved powerful.
So listen carefully to part of Nixon’s acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican convention:
“For a few moments, let us look at America. Let us listen to America to find the answer to that question. As we look at America, we see cities enveloped in smoke and flames. We hear sirens in the night. We see Americans dying on distant battlefields abroad. We see Americans hating each other, fighting each other, killing each other at home. And as we see and hear these things, millions of Americans cry out in anguish ‘did we come all this way for this?’ “
There are easily identifiable parallels between 1968 and 2020, and not just because Donald Trump has declared himself the “law and order” choice for Americans.
In the current climate of political and societal activism in America, it might well be “the quiet voice in the tumult of the shouting, the non-shouters, the non-demonstrators” which, Nixon later referred to in that speech, which decide the coming election. Indeed, Trump often refers to the “silent majority” which he considers his natural supporters and allies.
This is not to discount the widespread presence of progressive protests in cities and states across the length and breadth of America – this is not a movement hidden in the safe Democratic enclaves of California and New York. Protests demanding police reform and a fairer, more just society for African Americans and people of colour have gripped such Republican strongholds as Missouri and Mississippi, even though much of the political and media attention has been fixed on the liberal cities of Seattle and Washington DC.
Less than five months before the presidential election, if these protest movements can transition from marches and placards to voter turnout mobilisation, then traditionally red states could suddenly be within Joe Biden’s reach. In theory.
It is incumbent on Biden to be the voice of change, and the man to carry the message of the protesters from the streets to the White House. So far, he has struggled. The former Vice President told a popular radio host that anyone struggling to decide whether to support him or Trump in the general election “ain’t black.” The Trump campaign seized on the remarks, reminding voters of Biden’s support in passing the 1994 crime bill. An apology followed.
In seeking to reinvigorate his campaign, Biden will host a grassroots fundraiser with Barack Obama next week. Getting the old band back together will, the Biden campaign hopes, get his electoral message back on track. The current national spotlight on race relations makes Biden a natural ally for the protestors, but the associated arguments around defunding the police mean he risks being painted as being soft on crime – an argument the President is keenly making on Twitter.
Trump’s strength in 2016 was that he was an outsider. In 2020, as the incumbent, he cannot use American disunity against his opponent quite as easily. In 1968, Nixon was able to tie his opponent to the existing chaos because Hubert Humphrey was the sitting Vice-President. Campaigning alongside Obama will remind Americans that Biden was himself recently vice president – and so is hardly the voice of change, as a career politician.
And so, to Nixon
The 2020 election might well be cast under the familiar shadow that Nixon described in that Miami convention speech. American cities have indeed been enveloped in smoke and flames. Sirens have sounded long into the night. American troops are still dying on distant battlefields abroad, despite the commitment of successive presidents to return them home. Americans continue to hate, fight and kill each other. As in 1968, Americans might wonder again in 2020: ‘Did we come all this way for this?’.
The outcome of the election therefore becomes difficult to forecast, because the terms on which it will be won and lost remain in flux. For successive weeks since George Floyd’s death, the dominant political conversation has been about race relations and police reform.
Trump has shown a rare flash of flexibility in signing a police reform executive order, breaking a hitherto narrow commitment to law enforcement around the country.
With the tap of a Tweet or an unexpected policy announcement, the President has the ability to suddenly shift the spotlight onto an issue of his choosing. Building a wall on the US-Mexico border is an ace card that the President has reached for in times of need previously. An entrenching of the White House’s hawkish approach to China is never far away.
Whereas Trump has the White House podium, 82 million Twitter followers and a 24-hour news cycle that always needs something to discuss to amplify his message, Biden has far fewer tools in his arsenal.
Were the election to be fought tomorrow, we might reasonably expect it to be won and lost on the candidates’ record and responses to race relations, police reform and Covid-19. But that is not to say that the major diving lines come the autumn won’t be foreign election interference, immigration, unemployment and abortion.
Trump is the more skilled communicator in both dictating the terms of the conversation and then delivering a message. The question will be whether or not those terms are favourable to his campaign come November.


conservativehome--2020-06-17--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson exudes an impudent freedom and refuses to take Starmer seriousl

Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson exudes an impudent freedom and refuses to take Starmer seriously

Things are getting back to normal .
The Cenotaph has been liberated from its protective wrapping and the Prime Minister is crashing about like a Tory Democrat , amusing the public by abusing the Establishment .
Winston Churchill ’ s statue is still , rather annoyingly , covered up .
But Boris Johnson bears a closer resemblance to Winston ’ s father , Lord Randolph Churchill , who for a few years in the 1880s was unbelievably rude to Gladstone , to the huge amusement of anyone who regarded that high-minded statesman as a hypocrite and a prig .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of playing Gladstone .
The Leader of the Opposition has the necessary moral seriousness .
The Government had on Tuesday been forced into a U-turn on free school meals by Marcus Rashford , a 22-year-old footballer .
Some opponents might have sought to ridicule Johnson for being so comprehensively outplayed by Rashford .
Starmer instead sought to force Johnson onto a higher moral plane : “ The Prime Minister ’ s chuntering .
He might like to listen .
I ’ m sure the Prime Minister ’ s read the report.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read the report , which mentioned 600,000 more children living in relative poverty .
But he was not going to let himself be portrayed as an unfeeling Tory toff , so insisted that absolute poverty has declined .
Starmer now referred to the “ anticipated rise ” in poverty .
Johnson at once saw his chance , remarked that Starmer is “ talking about what he calls an anticipated rise , ” and protested that “ a new concept is being introduced into our deliberations.
” For himself , the PM went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has actually happened ” .
He asked whether , in Starmer ’ s opinion , it is now safe for schools to open – a question he accused the Leader of the Opposition of ducking last week .
Starmer retorted that he was the one asking the questions : “ If the Prime Minister wants to swop places , I ’ m very happy.
” Johnson saw , from Starmer ’ s silence on the schools question , that he had found a sensitive spot , and pressed home the attack : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did we Mr Speaker… The unions won ’ t let him say .
A great ox has stood upon his tongue.
” People began to laugh .
The Chamber is thinly populated , but the laugh was against Starmer .
As when Lord Randolph derided Gladstone , this was in many ways unfair .
It was certainly disrespectful .
Johnson exuded an impudent freedom : a refusal to take Starmer as seriously as Starmer takes himself .
In these days of moral earnestness , there is a market for levity .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After all , Lord Randolph almost immediately went too far , and destroyed himself .

Things are getting back to normal. The Cenotaph has been liberated from its protective wrapping and the Prime Minister is crashing about like a Tory Democrat, amusing the public by abusing the Establishment.
Winston Churchill’s statue is still, rather annoyingly, covered up. But Boris Johnson bears a closer resemblance to Winston’s father, Lord Randolph Churchill, who for a few years in the 1880s was unbelievably rude to Gladstone, to the huge amusement of anyone who regarded that high-minded statesman as a hypocrite and a prig.
To Sir Keir Starmer falls the unenviable task of playing Gladstone. The Leader of the Opposition has the necessary moral seriousness.
The Government had on Tuesday been forced into a U-turn on free school meals by Marcus Rashford, a 22-year-old footballer. Some opponents might have sought to ridicule Johnson for being so comprehensively outplayed by Rashford.
Starmer instead sought to force Johnson onto a higher moral plane: “The Prime Minister’s chuntering. He might like to listen. I’m sure the Prime Minister’s read the report.”
It was pretty clear the PM had not read the report, which mentioned 600,000 more children living in relative poverty.
But he was not going to let himself be portrayed as an unfeeling Tory toff, so insisted that absolute poverty has declined.
Starmer now referred to the “anticipated rise” in poverty. Johnson at once saw his chance, remarked that Starmer is “talking about what he calls an anticipated rise,” and protested that “a new concept is being introduced into our deliberations.”
For himself, the PM went on, he would rather discuss “what has actually happened”. He asked whether, in Starmer’s opinion, it is now safe for schools to open – a question he accused the Leader of the Opposition of ducking last week.
Starmer retorted that he was the one asking the questions: “If the Prime Minister wants to swop places, I’m very happy.”
Johnson saw, from Starmer’s silence on the schools question, that he had found a sensitive spot, and pressed home the attack: “We didn’t have an answer, did we Mr Speaker… The unions won’t let him say. A great ox has stood upon his tongue.”
People began to laugh. The Chamber is thinly populated, but the laugh was against Starmer.
As when Lord Randolph derided Gladstone, this was in many ways unfair. It was certainly disrespectful. Johnson exuded an impudent freedom: a refusal to take Starmer as seriously as Starmer takes himself.
In these days of moral earnestness, there is a market for levity. But Starmer need not despair of conquering Johnson. After all, Lord Randolph almost immediately went too far, and destroyed himself.


conservativehome--2020-06-18--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


conservativehome--2020-06-18--Six months on from last year’s general election, it’s only the LibDems who bang on about Europe

Britain has left the European Union .
Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings turned round a Conservative poll rating of barely 20 per cent , a hostile Supreme Court judgement over prorogation , Commons defeats , stalemate and resignations to deliver first a Commons majority of 80 and then Brexit itself – less than six months after the Conservatives were reduced to only a bare four MEPs under Theresa May .
Even if he achieves nothing else as Prime Minister , Johnson will be remembered for this nation-changing achievement , more monumental even than Margaret Thatcher ’ s economic reforms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for seeing off Jeremy Corbyn .
So what ’ s at stake in the current trade negotiation with the EU is the form of Brexit , not the fact of it .
Will we be , at one of the scale , more like ( say ) Norway , circling within the orbit of the EU ’ s Single Market rules and social market consensus ; or , at the other end , Australia ( for example ) , having no trade deal at all , and trading on minimum WTO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the future , some other Government will lean in a Norway-type direction .
But that is neither what Johnson ’ s Brexit deal pointed towards , nor what his election manifesto expressly promised .
On Johnson ’ s deal , the revised Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration was worse for Northern Ireland than Theresa May ’ s version , since it expressly separated it further from the settlement which will apply to Great Britain… …But better for Great Britain than May ’ s deal , since that settlement gives it greater potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an independent state .
On the Conservative Manifesto , that document expressly committed the Prime Minister to a future relationship “ based on free trade and friendly cooperation , not on the EU ’ s treaties or EU law ” … …And to “ not extending the implementation period beyond December 2020 ” .
Given those commitments , we ’ re surprised that anyone was surprised that the Government made it clear this week that it keep that pledge .
The thrust of the public objection to doing so came from the now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the campaigners who sought a second referendum less than a year ago .
It was that the start of 2021 would be a bad time for more friction in trade between the UK and the EU , because of the effects of the Coronavirus .
But the heart of the economic case for Brexit was always what this site called short-term pain for medium-term gain – in other words , trading off more friction with the EU for greater spending , regulatory and tax freedoms overall .
There is no guarantee that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more or less disruptive in two years than it will be in December .
In any event , the real objection of those former Remainers to not extending wasn ’ t the public one .
Rather , it was that ending the implementation period will make it easier for Britain to begin leaving that EU orbit .
In other words , the campaign to extend transition was essentially part of the push to keep Britain within it – and make it more like Norway and less like Canada or Switzerland – or Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal at all .
However , the sum of the matter is that this ship is already sailing .
The economic arguments for and against Brexit were tested in the 2016 referendum .
Leave won .
Johnson then refined them further , proposing “ a new relationship based on free trade and friendly cooperation , not on the EU ’ s treaties or EU law ” in that manifesto last year .
He won .
The question that therefore remains is whether a trade deal will or won ’ t be agreed before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given the legal and political exigencies , will mean that the parties need to get a negotiating move on .
And as our columnist Stephen Booth keeps pointing out , the dynamics of this negotiation are rather different from those of May ’ s .
It wouldn ’ t be true to claim that the UK wants nothing from a trade deal other than a barebones settlement .
It would like greater access for financial services , for example , and less trading friction than other third parties .
But in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk away from the talks rather than concede “ a role ” to the European Court of Justice , to quote from the manifesto again .
Furthermore , he has a majority of 80 , specifically returned on the basis of his Brexit vision and pledges , whereas May had none at all .
Additionally , the second most intractable problem in the two-stage negotiation has been resolved : the matter of where regulatory and trade barriers will run between Great Britain , Ireland and Northern Ireland .
Which leaves the hardest one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
If the EU is willing to recognise that Johnson won ’ t budge , which seems to be the case , the elements are in place for a solution .
The EU wants fishing and migrant access , plus no tariffs , given its manufacturing surplus ; the UK wants services and trade access , with minimum friction on rules of origin and other regulatory checks .
The Prime Minister will have to be very careful on fishing , particularly given the Scottish dimension – and will want a U.S trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is truly entering a new era .
Michel Barnier seems to recognise that the EU will have to give up some ground on fishing , but although a trade deal looks possible on paper it also looks daunting in practice .
This negotiation is more in the hands of the member states and less in that of the Commission than its predecessor , and so vulnerable to spanners in the works .
Whatever happens , Britain has moved on from May ’ s Government and Brexit stalemate .
The CBI now says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timetable ” .
Keir Starmer is a dog that hasn ’ t barked on implementation extension .
EU alignment is becoming a niche cause .
David Cameron once suggested that the Eurosceptic Conservative Party was irritating the electorate by “ banging on about Europe ” .
That fate is currently reserved for the pro-EU Liberal Democrats , currently languishing on some seven per cent in the polls .

Britain has left the European Union. Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings turned round a Conservative poll rating of barely 20 per cent, a hostile Supreme Court judgement over prorogation, Commons defeats, stalemate and resignations to deliver first a Commons majority of 80 and then Brexit itself – less than six months after the Conservatives were reduced to only a bare four MEPs under Theresa May.
Even if he achieves nothing else as Prime Minister, Johnson will be remembered for this nation-changing achievement, more monumental even than Margaret Thatcher’s economic reforms. Tories should always honour him for it, and for seeing off Jeremy Corbyn.
So what’s at stake in the current trade negotiation with the EU is the form of Brexit, not the fact of it. Will we be, at one of the scale, more like (say) Norway, circling within the orbit of the EU’s Single Market rules and social market consensus; or, at the other end, Australia (for example), having no trade deal at all, and trading on minimum WTO terms?
Perhaps, at some point in the future, some other Government will lean in a Norway-type direction. But that is neither what Johnson’s Brexit deal pointed towards, nor what his election manifesto expressly promised.
On Johnson’s deal, the revised Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration was worse for Northern Ireland than Theresa May’s version, since it expressly separated it further from the settlement which will apply to Great Britain…
…But better for Great Britain than May’s deal, since that settlement gives it greater potential to shape its own economic destiny as an independent state.
On the Conservative Manifesto, that document expressly committed the Prime Minister to a future relationship “based on free trade and friendly cooperation, not on the EU’s treaties or EU law”…
…And to “not extending the implementation period beyond December 2020”. Given those commitments, we’re surprised that anyone was surprised that the Government made it clear this week that it keep that pledge.
The thrust of the public objection to doing so came from the now reduced Remainer residue – the diehard remnants of the campaigners who sought a second referendum less than a year ago.
It was that the start of 2021 would be a bad time for more friction in trade between the UK and the EU, because of the effects of the Coronavirus.
But the heart of the economic case for Brexit was always what this site called short-term pain for medium-term gain – in other words, trading off more friction with the EU for greater spending, regulatory and tax freedoms overall.
There is no guarantee that the end of transition will be any more or less disruptive in two years than it will be in December.
In any event, the real objection of those former Remainers to not extending wasn’t the public one. Rather, it was that ending the implementation period will make it easier for Britain to begin leaving that EU orbit.
In other words, the campaign to extend transition was essentially part of the push to keep Britain within it – and make it more like Norway and less like Canada or Switzerland – or Australia, if there’s no trade deal at all.
However, the sum of the matter is that this ship is already sailing. The economic arguments for and against Brexit were tested in the 2016 referendum. Leave won.
Johnson then refined them further, proposing “a new relationship based on free trade and friendly cooperation, not on the EU’s treaties or EU law” in that manifesto last year. He won.
The question that therefore remains is whether a trade deal will or won’t be agreed before the end of the year – which, given the legal and political exigencies, will mean that the parties need to get a negotiating move on.
And as our columnist Stephen Booth keeps pointing out, the dynamics of this negotiation are rather different from those of May’s.
It wouldn’t be true to claim that the UK wants nothing from a trade deal other than a barebones settlement. It would like greater access for financial services, for example, and less trading friction than other third parties.
But in the last resort, Johnson seems prepared to walk away from the talks rather than concede “a role” to the European Court of Justice, to quote from the manifesto again.
Furthermore, he has a majority of 80, specifically returned on the basis of his Brexit vision and pledges, whereas May had none at all.
Additionally, the second most intractable problem in the two-stage negotiation has been resolved: the matter of where regulatory and trade barriers will run between Great Britain, Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Which leaves the hardest one of all – the role of the Court. If the EU is willing to recognise that Johnson won’t budge, which seems to be the case, the elements are in place for a solution.
The EU wants fishing and migrant access, plus no tariffs, given its manufacturing surplus; the UK wants services and trade access, with minimum friction on rules of origin and other regulatory checks. The Prime Minister will have to be very careful on fishing, particularly given the Scottish dimension – and will want a U.S trade deal as a sign that the UK is truly entering a new era.
Michel Barnier seems to recognise that the EU will have to give up some ground on fishing, but although a trade deal looks possible on paper it also looks daunting in practice. This negotiation is more in the hands of the member states and less in that of the Commission than its predecessor, and so vulnerable to spanners in the works.
Whatever happens, Britain has moved on from May’s Government and Brexit stalemate. The CBI now says that it “supports the Government’s timetable”. Keir Starmer is a dog that hasn’t barked on implementation extension. EU alignment is becoming a niche cause.
David Cameron once suggested that the Eurosceptic Conservative Party was irritating the electorate by “banging on about Europe”. That fate is currently reserved for the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, currently languishing on some seven per cent in the polls.