conservativehome--2020-01-27--HS2. All aboard the Ninky Nonk.

HS2. All aboard the Ninky Nonk.

The Conservatives originally supported HS2 as a modernisation symbol during their opposition years .
It would run north from Heathrow along the M40 corridor as an alternative to a third runway at the airport .
Now we are on course to have both that runway and HS2 , if Boris Johnson gives the scheme the go-ahead after a review panel ’ s report .
That muddle over purpose is the right place to begin reviewing where HS2 has got to .
Once they took office , David Cameron and George Osborne promptly reverse-ferreted ( reverse-tracked ? )
on the scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ plan – remember him ?
– to run HS2 from Euston to Birmingham and beyond .
The best part of ten years on from that decision , the critics have been proved right on costs .
Three years ago , the Taxpayers ’ Alliance estimated that these would come in at some £91 billion , not the £55 billion originally stated .
The latest calculation is £100 billion .
The price could be even higher .
This site has long argued that the plan is the white elephant of white elephants – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and communal costs ; that mid-to-late twentieth century technology may be out of date by the mid-to-late twenty-first , and that one doesn ’ t need a high speed service to update the West Coast main line .
It would have been far better , as the ConservativeHome Manifesto argued six years ago , to scrap the scheme and re-direct the planned public investment in its entirety to a Northern Infrastructure Fund , providing core finance for a generational programme for transport and communication links between key urban centres .
Osborne is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrowly political – avoiding anything much to do with delivery ( such as taxpayer costs and passenger use ) and concentrating almost entirely on perception ( such as what cancellation might mean for the Government ’ s image ) .
This is to reheat the argument that has driven the scheme : that Britain should commit itself enthusiastically to grands projets , that a U-turn would be a morale-sapping admission of failure , and that HS2 is a symbol of Conservative commitment to the north and midlands .
It is a case that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s shoulders as he contemplates responding to the review panel – and to Lord Berkeley ’ s minority report claiming not only that the costs are out of control but that the figures have been fiddled .
The Prime Minister will be sensitive to the claim that if he , the “ Brexity Hezza ” , U-turns on HS2 then any big future scheme he advances – a land bridge to Ireland ; his beloved new airport in the Thames Estuary , some Ozymandian space exploration enterprise – will be mocked out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would also open him to accusations of betraying the Midlands and North .
As it happens , Conservative MPs are divided about the scheme , and no less north of the Watford Gap that anywhere else .
But there is a knotty political problem in the West Midlands .
Our columnist Andy Street is committed to HS2 , and is up for re-election this spring .
Is Johnson really going to pull the rail line from under his feet ?
The West Midlands Mayor is only one frame in a broader picture .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs .
These are by definition financial .
But there ’ s such a thing as sunk political costs , too .
John Downer ’ s pro-HS2 piece on this site last year is a useful introduction to the concept .
At one level , the article on behalf of the scheme from a group of business leaders was what it said it was – an account of how one job-creating project can produce job-creating spin-offs .
At another , it told a story of how there is now – to adapt Eisenhower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppliers , archaeologists and even , apparently , environmentalists .
To mix metaphors for a moment , it ’ s a gravy train with many fingers in it .
Furthermore , Phase One of the project is already under way .
Department of Transport officials have previously mulled pulling Phase Two – or at least Phase 2b , which would run HS2 from Crewe to Manchester and from the West Midlands to Leeds .
One friend of ConHome told the site that “ this would be a very British solution – a half-built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense to do it all the other way round : in other words , announce that Phase 2 will be undertaken first .
There have been briefings that such will be the decision .
But even if technically viable that would be to abandon Street – unless a reason can be found to put a decision off mañana-style .
We are not at all sure about these briefings .
Paul Maynard , the Rail Minister , is said to be supportive of the scheme .
Dominic Cummings is instinctively sceptical about it but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then there are those sunk political costs : that mass of interwoven lobby interests .
It needs no genius to point out that the idea of sunk economic costs is a fallacy .
That of sunk political costs may be too .
Johnson will never be more powerful than during these first few months after his great election victory .
If he wants to tell the HS2 lobby to take away their Ninky Nonk , there will never be a better time to do it than now .
And we would .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be asking some very hard questions .
These will include : how many alternative schemes for the Midlands and North are anything like “ shovel-ready ” ?
If our aim is to ensure that Red Wall seats gain visibly by 2024 , how many would do so , were HS2 to be scrapped ?
For all these reasons , we suspect that the scheme will get the go ahead – perhaps with some fig leaf to hang over the rising costs ; possibly with some apparent new gain for the North .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May with a cracking chance of being re-elected .
“ I fear the worst , ” one HS2-sceptic within Number Ten told this site yesterday .
Steve Barclay said on The Andrew Marr Show that his “ gut feeling ” was that the plan will go ahead .
Cabinet Ministers like Barclay don ’ t usually advertise what their stomach is telling them without good reason .
“ We ’ re here because we ’ re here because we here because we ’ re here , ” the old First World War song @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be with HS2 .
It ’ s here because it ’ s here – because a mass of political as well as taxpayer capital has been poured into the scheme .
And more will come .
Slow train coming ; fast train coming .
On and on and on HS2 is likely to go , consuming taxpayers ’ money like the furnace in some old steam monster , belching out its over-runs like black smoke – with a mass of reports and inquiries panting along in its wake .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Cameron ’ s modernisation project .

The Conservatives originally supported HS2 as a modernisation symbol during their opposition years. It would run north from Heathrow along the M40 corridor as an alternative to a third runway at the airport. Now we are on course to have both that runway and HS2, if Boris Johnson gives the scheme the go-ahead after a review panel’s report.
That muddle over purpose is the right place to begin reviewing where HS2 has got to. Once they took office, David Cameron and George Osborne promptly reverse-ferreted (reverse-tracked?) on the scheme, and almost immediately adopted Andrew Adonis’ plan – remember him? – to run HS2 from Euston to Birmingham and beyond.
The best part of ten years on from that decision, the critics have been proved right on costs. Three years ago, the Taxpayers’ Alliance estimated that these would come in at some £91 billion, not the £55 billion originally stated. The latest calculation is £100 billion. The price could be even higher.
This site has long argued that the plan is the white elephant of white elephants – that HS2 comes with environmental, visual and communal costs; that mid-to-late twentieth century technology may be out of date by the mid-to-late twenty-first, and that one doesn’t need a high speed service to update the West Coast main line.
It would have been far better, as the ConservativeHome Manifesto argued six years ago, to scrap the scheme and re-direct the planned public investment in its entirety to a Northern Infrastructure Fund, providing core finance for a generational programme for transport and communication links between key urban centres.
Osborne is still defending HS2, and his rationale remains narrowly political – avoiding anything much to do with delivery (such as taxpayer costs and passenger use) and concentrating almost entirely on perception (such as what cancellation might mean for the Government’s image).
This is to reheat the argument that has driven the scheme: that Britain should commit itself enthusiastically to grands projets, that a U-turn would be a morale-sapping admission of failure, and that HS2 is a symbol of Conservative commitment to the north and midlands.
It is a case that will weigh heavily on Boris Johnson’s shoulders as he contemplates responding to the review panel – and to Lord Berkeley’s minority report claiming not only that the costs are out of control but that the figures have been fiddled.
The Prime Minister will be sensitive to the claim that if he, the “Brexity Hezza”, U-turns on HS2 then any big future scheme he advances – a land bridge to Ireland; his beloved new airport in the Thames Estuary, some Ozymandian space exploration enterprise – will be mocked out of its own headlines.
Junking the plan would also open him to accusations of betraying the Midlands and North. As it happens, Conservative MPs are divided about the scheme, and no less north of the Watford Gap that anywhere else. But there is a knotty political problem in the West Midlands.
Our columnist Andy Street is committed to HS2, and is up for re-election this spring. Is Johnson really going to pull the rail line from under his feet? The West Midlands Mayor is only one frame in a broader picture. Our readers will be aware of sunk costs. These are by definition financial. But there’s such a thing as sunk political costs, too.
John Downer’s pro-HS2 piece on this site last year is a useful introduction to the concept. At one level, the article on behalf of the scheme from a group of business leaders was what it said it was – an account of how one job-creating project can produce job-creating spin-offs.
At another, it told a story of how there is now – to adapt Eisenhower – an HS2-Industrial Complex: contractors, suppliers, archaeologists and even, apparently, environmentalists. To mix metaphors for a moment, it’s a gravy train with many fingers in it. Furthermore, Phase One of the project is already under way.
Department of Transport officials have previously mulled pulling Phase Two – or at least Phase 2b, which would run HS2 from Crewe to Manchester and from the West Midlands to Leeds. One friend of ConHome told the site that “this would be a very British solution – a half-built railway”.
It would make Johnsonian sense to do it all the other way round: in other words, announce that Phase 2 will be undertaken first. There have been briefings that such will be the decision. But even if technically viable that would be to abandon Street – unless a reason can be found to put a decision off mañana-style.
We are not at all sure about these briefings. Paul Maynard, the Rail Minister, is said to be supportive of the scheme. Dominic Cummings is instinctively sceptical about it but has his eye on other matters. And then there are those sunk political costs: that mass of interwoven lobby interests.
It needs no genius to point out that the idea of sunk economic costs is a fallacy. That of sunk political costs may be too. Johnson will never be more powerful than during these first few months after his great election victory. If he wants to tell the HS2 lobby to take away their Ninky Nonk, there will never be a better time to do it than now.
And we would. But the Prime Minister is bound to be asking some very hard questions. These will include: how many alternative schemes for the Midlands and North are anything like “shovel-ready”? If our aim is to ensure that Red Wall seats gain visibly by 2024, how many would do so, were HS2 to be scrapped?
For all these reasons, we suspect that the scheme will get the go ahead – perhaps with some fig leaf to hang over the rising costs; possibly with some apparent new gain for the North. And Street will sail towards his poll in May with a cracking chance of being re-elected.
“I fear the worst,” one HS2-sceptic within Number Ten told this site yesterday. Steve Barclay said on The Andrew Marr Show that his “gut feeling” was that the plan will go ahead. Cabinet Ministers like Barclay don’t usually advertise what their stomach is telling them without good reason.
“We’re here because we’re here because we here because we’re here,” the old First World War song had it. So it may well be with HS2. It’s here because it’s here – because a mass of political as well as taxpayer capital has been poured into the scheme. And more will come.
Slow train coming; fast train coming. On and on and on HS2 is likely to go, consuming taxpayers’ money like the furnace in some old steam monster, belching out its over-runs like black smoke – with a mass of reports and inquiries panting along in its wake. It’s a high price to pay for this legacy from Cameron’s modernisation project.


conservativehome--2020-01-27--Neil O’Brien: So you want to level up.  In what way?  And how will you do it?

Anand Menon has a telling anecdote from the EU referendum campaign .
Making a speech in Newcastle , he said economists were forecasting a plunge in GDP if we voted to leave .
He was interrupted by a female heckler : “ That ’ s your bloody GDP .
Not ours.
” She ’ s not alone in feeling that national statistics don ’ t reflect the experience of her area .
The Prime Minister says he wants to “ level up ” poorer places .
I think that ’ s great .
But how should we measure whether we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do we want to do this ?
In one sense , the answer ’ s obvious .
We just won a huge majority by gaining seats in places we ’ ve rarely or never held .
Places that voted to leave , feel ignored by Westminster and left out of growth .
But there are good policy reasons as well .
For Conservatives , the sorts of things we might do to level up ( like helping attract new jobs to a town with high unemployment ) might be more attractive ways of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits .
Handups not handouts .
Levelling up might mean fixing imbalances caused by government itself : much of the government ’ s most growth-enhancing government spending ( transport , housing , research , culture ) is currently skewed towards London .
We might want to level up because a more even distribution of economic activity is correlated with stronger economic growth overall .
It ’ s striking that there are no major economies that are richer per head than Britain and have a more unbalanced economy .
Levelling up could mean regenerating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have resources like land and infrastructure overloaded in some places , while underused elsewhere .
People don ’ t simply leave their homes in the face of local economic problems .
That ’ s particularly true of lower earners who rely more on family networks for help .
Levelling up mean could closing the gap between unemployed workers and job opportunities , again increasing growth overall .
A more even pattern of growth might lead to higher levels of wellbeing as well as growth .
Do we really all want to cram into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than being crowded into tiny flats in a couple of congested cities , wouldn ’ t we rather spread out , and live in bigger houses with gardens ?
But what exactly are we trying to level up where ?
And how will we measure it ?
First , we need to look at smaller areas , not just big regions .
We aren ’ t just interested in the difference between say , Yorkshire and London , but in the differences within them .
Places with problems can be right next to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are isolated tend to do worst .
Second , we need to take a rounded view of levelling up , not just have one measure .
Our measures should include whether we are getting unemployment down and employment up .
The data on employment is reliable even for small areas .
Differences between areas have shrunk as unemployment has been slashed .
But in local authorities like Chesterfield , Hartlepool and Birmingham , the unemployment rate is still over eight per cent – twice the national average .
We could look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the data from government surveys doesn ’ t have a big enough sample size to tell you anything reliable about local areas .
In so far as there are patterns , there ’ s not much government can do to influence them : people seem to be happier in more rural areas , but we can ’ t move the Lake District to London .
Measuring people ’ s incomes needs to be part of measuring progress – but we need to be careful about what metric we use , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , whether income differences between areas are getting bigger or smaller depends how you measure income .
If we look at Gross Disposable Household Income ( GDHI ) per head , it looks like Britain is diverging .
Between 1997 and 2017 income per head in London raced ahead from 22 per cent to 43 per cent above the national average , while the North East fell further back , from being 14 per cent to 19 per cent below .
But if we look at median household income ( based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to see convergence .
In fact , if we look at incomes after housing costs , London isn ’ t even the richest area any more .
On that measure the North East caught up , from being 14 per cent below average in the mid 1990s to 10 per cent below , while London fell back , from seven per cent ahead to smack on the national average , and the richest areas , the South East , fell from 14 per cent ahead to just 10 per cent ahead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ key is the word median average .
If we look at mean average incomes on the very same measures we see divergence not convergence .
That ’ s because the incomes of poorer workers have been converging , but the incomes of richer workers above the median have diverged .
Both matter .
The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings ( ASHE ) lets us look at that in detail .
It shows that rich people ’ s incomes differ between regions much more than poorer workers ( see graph at bottom ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the 10th percentile of incomes ( i.e .
only ten percent of people earn less than them ) earn 16 per cent more than people in the same position across the country .
However , high earning Londoners at the 90th percentile , earn 54 per cent more .
And these differences for higher earners have been getting wider .
In 1999 , top earning Londoners were “ only ” 40 per cent ahead of the national average .
It may be that poorer people ’ s incomes are crunching together while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the rising National Living Wage , tax cuts aimed at the bottom end , and the growth of tax credits & Universal Credit .
All of these help a greater proportion of people in poorer areas , while changing things less for higher earners .
But we should measure what ’ s happening across the board in poorer areas , not just for the poorest people there .
ASHE is probably the best measure of whether we are really “ levelling up ” earnings .
It is generated from tax data , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures .
It lets you see that people in the Huddersfield constituency earn much less than people in Leeds East , and that incomes have grown more in Hull than Barnsley .
True , it doesn ’ t let you see benefit income , but levelling up should focus on helping people sustainably earn more , not increasing benefits .
Crucially , it lets you look at the distribution of earnings , not just a misleading average that might not tell the full story .
Finally , when we are measuring progress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the counter-factual is .
With radically different qualification levels and very different age profiles , different areas are unlikely to grow at the same rate .
In Wandsworth 70 per cent of people have a degree .
In Sandwell in the Black Country , just 20 per cent .
The average age in Sheffield Central constituency is 26 .
In North Norfolk , 54 , because so many are retired .
These patterns can change over time .
A place can attract more young graduates .
But we need to have some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we are going to realistically work out if we are making a difference .
“ What gets measured gets managed ” , they say .
If we really want to level up , it ’ s crucial to be clear about what we are trying to achieve and how we are going to measure it .

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
Anand Menon has a telling anecdote from the EU referendum campaign. Making a speech in Newcastle, he said economists were forecasting a plunge in GDP if we voted to leave. He was interrupted by a female heckler: “That’s your bloody GDP. Not ours.”
She’s not alone in feeling that national statistics don’t reflect the experience of her area. The Prime Minister says he wants to “level up” poorer places. I think that’s great. But how should we measure whether we are succeeding? In fact, why do we want to do this?
In one sense, the answer’s obvious. We just won a huge majority by gaining seats in places we’ve rarely or never held. Places that voted to leave, feel ignored by Westminster and left out of growth. But there are good policy reasons as well.
For Conservatives, the sorts of things we might do to level up (like helping attract new jobs to a town with high unemployment) might be more attractive ways of spreading opportunity than lefty solutions like increasing benefits. Handups not handouts.
Levelling up might mean fixing imbalances caused by government itself: much of the government’s most growth-enhancing government spending (transport, housing, research, culture) is currently skewed towards London.
We might want to level up because a more even distribution of economic activity is correlated with stronger economic growth overall. It’s striking that there are no major economies that are richer per head than Britain and have a more unbalanced economy.
Levelling up could mean regenerating poorer areas, meaning we no longer have resources like land and infrastructure overloaded in some places, while underused elsewhere. People don’t simply leave their homes in the face of local economic problems. That’s particularly true of lower earners who rely more on family networks for help.
Levelling up mean could closing the gap between unemployed workers and job opportunities, again increasing growth overall. A more even pattern of growth might lead to higher levels of wellbeing as well as growth. Do we really all want to cram into London and the Home Counties? Rather than being crowded into tiny flats in a couple of congested cities, wouldn’t we rather spread out, and live in bigger houses with gardens?
But what exactly are we trying to level up where? And how will we measure it?
First, we need to look at smaller areas, not just big regions. We aren’t just interested in the difference between say, Yorkshire and London, but in the differences within them. Places with problems can be right next to places that are booming, although places that are isolated tend to do worst.
Second, we need to take a rounded view of levelling up, not just have one measure. Our measures should include whether we are getting unemployment down and employment up. The data on employment is reliable even for small areas. Differences between areas have shrunk as unemployment has been slashed. But in local authorities like Chesterfield, Hartlepool and Birmingham, the unemployment rate is still over eight per cent – twice the national average.
We could look at people’s own reported well being. But the data from government surveys doesn’t have a big enough sample size to tell you anything reliable about local areas. In so far as there are patterns, there’s not much government can do to influence them: people seem to be happier in more rural areas, but we can’t move the Lake District to London.
Measuring people’s incomes needs to be part of measuring progress – but we need to be careful about what metric we use, because different measures give different results.
For example, whether income differences between areas are getting bigger or smaller depends how you measure income. If we look at Gross Disposable Household Income (GDHI) per head, it looks like Britain is diverging. Between 1997 and 2017 income per head in London raced ahead from 22 per cent to 43 per cent above the national average, while the North East fell further back, from being 14 per cent to 19 per cent below.
But if we look at median household income (based on the governments Family Resources Survey) we seem to see convergence. In fact, if we look at incomes after housing costs, London isn’t even the richest area any more. On that measure the North East caught up, from being 14 per cent below average in the mid 1990s to 10 per cent below, while London fell back, from seven per cent ahead to smack on the national average, and the richest areas, the South East, fell from 14 per cent ahead to just 10 per cent ahead.
Why such a different picture? The key is the word median average. If we look at mean average incomes on the very same measures we see divergence not convergence. That’s because the incomes of poorer workers have been converging, but the incomes of richer workers above the median have diverged. Both matter.
The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) lets us look at that in detail. It shows that rich people’s incomes differ between regions much more than poorer workers (see graph at bottom).
People working in London who are on the 10th percentile of incomes (i.e. only ten percent of people earn less than them) earn 16 per cent more than people in the same position across the country. However, high earning Londoners at the 90th percentile, earn 54 per cent more. And these differences for higher earners have been getting wider. In 1999, top earning Londoners were “only” 40 per cent ahead of the national average.
It may be that poorer people’s incomes are crunching together while richer folks diverge because of a combination of the rising National Living Wage, tax cuts aimed at the bottom end, and the growth of tax credits & Universal Credit. All of these help a greater proportion of people in poorer areas, while changing things less for higher earners.
But we should measure what’s happening across the board in poorer areas, not just for the poorest people there.
ASHE is probably the best measure of whether we are really “levelling up” earnings. It is generated from tax data, so has much more detail than other measures. It lets you see that people in the Huddersfield constituency earn much less than people in Leeds East, and that incomes have grown more in Hull than Barnsley.
True, it doesn’t let you see benefit income, but levelling up should focus on helping people sustainably earn more, not increasing benefits. Crucially, it lets you look at the distribution of earnings, not just a misleading average that might not tell the full story.
Finally, when we are measuring progress, we need to have a sense of what the counter-factual is. With radically different qualification levels and very different age profiles, different areas are unlikely to grow at the same rate. In Wandsworth 70 per cent of people have a degree. In Sandwell in the Black Country, just 20 per cent. The average age in Sheffield Central constituency is 26. In North Norfolk, 54, because so many are retired. These patterns can change over time. A place can attract more young graduates. But we need to have some sense of what the initial baseline is if we are going to realistically work out if we are making a difference.
“What gets measured gets managed”, they say. If we really want to level up, it’s crucial to be clear about what we are trying to achieve and how we are going to measure it.


conservativehome--2020-01-27--Nathan Evans: We are fighting to win in Trafford again

Cllr Nathan Evans is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Trafford Council .
In Trafford , Conservatives lost control of the council in 2018 for various reasons .
There was a large turnout of those who were previously non-voters .
We had a flood of Labour canvassers come into the borough .
But ultimately we lost because of potholes .
Believing that we could collaborate with Labour on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority ( GMCA ) also played a part in our downfall as we felt sure that Labour would listen to Trafford which contains the largest employment site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trafford Park .
Labour actually considered residential development on Trafford Park and if left in charge for too long , no doubt will go ahead with this .
Labour had promised they would save a surplus-to-requirements leisure centre from our plans to redevelop it , in order to house a 2,000-capacity arena for Manchester Giants basketball team , along with a new health centre , 60 affordable homes for key workers including nurses , social workers , and teachers .
The Centre ’ s keys are now due to be handed back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February with still no clear indication from Labour as to what they want to do with the site .
Perhaps we will find out after the local elections in May .
Control of Trafford ’ s Green Belt has now effectively been handed to Andy Burnham , the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester .
This is resulting in a high risk of the Green Belt in Trafford , and the Altrincham and Sale West seat of Sir Graham Brady MP , being decided upon by the Labour leaders in the rest of Greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it clear that they do not want residential development on our precious Green Belt and we hear them loud and clear .
The clear fact , if we learnt one thing in Trafford , is that Labour lies and tries to win votes by offering giveaways , whilst we work with a fiscally responsible mind-set .
How will we fare in 2020 local elections ?
With Brexit being done , and the Northern Powerhouse being fired up , we are hopeful that this will translate into a decent election for us .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our Green Belt as the lungs of Trafford .
We will protect Altrincham , winner under the Conservatives of the ‘ Great British High Street ’ from erroneous planned parking charges .
We will demand our fair share of the additional police officers made available by Boris Johnson to Mayor Andy Burnham .
Trafford is still the safest Borough in Greater Manchester , no thanks to Mayor Burnham and his deputy Mayor in charge of policing .
Conservatives will continue to protect and enhance our new University – UA92 which was the brainchild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council , Cllr Sean Anstee CBE .
Labour hasn ’ t got the skill set to make such amazing projects a reality .
Labour has offered nothing since they came in power , other than increasing Council Tax to subsidise the sweeteners that they offered voters , increasing the Corporate Leadership Team which has nearly doubled senior leadership costs , and horrifically in the last year , seeing Trafford Children Services go from “ outstanding ” to being placed in special measures by Ofsted due to their neglect .
Even though Labour ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without a meaningful position on Brexit , we saw over a hundred Momentum- lead Corbyn supporters knocking on doors almost every day in support of the Labour candidate , and Council Leader , Andrew Western .
Their efforts were not reflected in the result in Altrincham and Sale West , with the needle barely moving , but helped us enormously in places like Bolton North East , Bury North , Bury South , Leigh and Heywood and Middleton where we gained previously Labour-held Parliamentary seats .
There was also the anomaly of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on doors in Altrincham and Sale West in the General Election for the Lib Dems , as she refused to stand with Corbyn .
We also had the breathtaking spectacle of the Labour Leader of Trafford Council standing for the same seat , pontificating the virtues of Corbyn and his pseudo-Marxist , anti-Semitic , Labour Party .
The good people of Trafford need a solid fiscally responsible hand which will save the green belt , fix the potholes , support our small businesses with free parking , plant more trees , and bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Conservatives in Trafford have a message to sell and we are eager to gain a mandate from the people to bring about the change Trafford needs , and once again unleash its huge potential .

Cllr Nathan Evans is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Trafford Council.
In Trafford, Conservatives lost control of the council in 2018 for various reasons. There was a large turnout of those who were previously non-voters. We had a flood of Labour canvassers come into the borough. But ultimately we lost because of potholes. Believing that we could collaborate with Labour on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) also played a part in our downfall as we felt sure that Labour would listen to Trafford which contains the largest employment site in the whole of Greater Manchester – Trafford Park. Labour actually considered residential development on Trafford Park and if left in charge for too long, no doubt will go ahead with this.
Labour had promised they would save a surplus-to-requirements leisure centre from our plans to redevelop it, in order to house a 2,000-capacity arena for Manchester Giants basketball team, along with a new health centre, 60 affordable homes for key workers including nurses, social workers, and teachers. The Centre’s keys are now due to be handed back to the Council from the leisure operator in February with still no clear indication from Labour as to what they want to do with the site. Perhaps we will find out after the local elections in May.
Control of Trafford’s Green Belt has now effectively been handed to Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester. This is resulting in a high risk of the Green Belt in Trafford, and the Altrincham and Sale West seat of Sir Graham Brady MP, being decided upon by the Labour leaders in the rest of Greater Manchester. Trafford’s residents have made it clear that they do not want residential development on our precious Green Belt and we hear them loud and clear.
The clear fact, if we learnt one thing in Trafford, is that Labour lies and tries to win votes by offering giveaways, whilst we work with a fiscally responsible mind-set.
How will we fare in 2020 local elections?
With Brexit being done, and the Northern Powerhouse being fired up, we are hopeful that this will translate into a decent election for us.
We are formulating policies starting with protecting our Green Belt as the lungs of Trafford.
We will protect Altrincham, winner under the Conservatives of the ‘Great British High Street’ from erroneous planned parking charges.
We will demand our fair share of the additional police officers made available by Boris Johnson to Mayor Andy Burnham. Trafford is still the safest Borough in Greater Manchester, no thanks to Mayor Burnham and his deputy Mayor in charge of policing.
Conservatives will continue to protect and enhance our new University – UA92 which was the brainchild of the former Conservative leader of Trafford Council, Cllr Sean Anstee CBE. Labour hasn’t got the skill set to make such amazing projects a reality.
Labour has offered nothing since they came in power, other than increasing Council Tax to subsidise the sweeteners that they offered voters, increasing the Corporate Leadership Team which has nearly doubled senior leadership costs, and horrifically in the last year, seeing Trafford Children Services go from “outstanding” to being placed in special measures by Ofsted due to their neglect.
Even though Labour ran a bitter General Election campaign, and without a meaningful position on Brexit, we saw over a hundred Momentum- lead Corbyn supporters knocking on doors almost every day in support of the Labour candidate, and Council Leader, Andrew Western. Their efforts were not reflected in the result in Altrincham and Sale West, with the needle barely moving, but helped us enormously in places like Bolton North East, Bury North, Bury South, Leigh and Heywood and Middleton where we gained previously Labour-held Parliamentary seats.
There was also the anomaly of the ex-Labour MP, Angela Smith, knocking on doors in Altrincham and Sale West in the General Election for the Lib Dems, as she refused to stand with Corbyn. We also had the breathtaking spectacle of the Labour Leader of Trafford Council standing for the same seat, pontificating the virtues of Corbyn and his pseudo-Marxist, anti-Semitic, Labour Party.
The good people of Trafford need a solid fiscally responsible hand which will save the green belt, fix the potholes, support our small businesses with free parking, plant more trees, and bring in more electric vehicle charging points.
The Conservatives in Trafford have a message to sell and we are eager to gain a mandate from the people to bring about the change Trafford needs, and once again unleash its huge potential.


conservativehome--2020-01-27--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Tees Valley Local Enterprise

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – and more

Seven years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
Since then , the figures have varied , and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts .
Nonetheless , it remains the case that , since it took office in 2010 , our Party has punched beneath its 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry .
CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy , and works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met .
CITB seeks to create the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways of working , embracing new technologies , creating a demand in construction for more skills , new skills and higher level skills .
CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.
” “ The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board .
They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident , clear and consistent leadership .
They will also lead the Agency ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Housing , Communities and Local Government , who they will meet on a regular basis .
The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England , helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England ’ s core mission .
The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming… ” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Northern Ireland Office ( NIO ) is seeking to appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Board .
In addition to his/her responsibilities as a Board Member , the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department ’ s Audit and Risk Committee .
The successful candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2020 .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office .
They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice , support , constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area ’ s economic success .
The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders , while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government .
We want you to have a voice , make a difference and give something back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the private sector ( Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website ) .
” Time : Minimum one day per week on average .
“ The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee .
The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC ’ s work and is responsible for overseeing the operation and output of the Committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To date , the MAC has operated “ hands-on ” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat .
The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee , across the Secretariat and with government departments.
” “ The Secretary of State , working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency , is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members .
The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills , knowledge and expertise .
Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero , climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.
” “ The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership ( LEP ) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans .
The Combined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal and diverse membership , and through this latest round of appointments , have committed to achieve 50 % female representation on the LEP board in 2020 .
Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term , we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background , experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.
” “ As Chair of the STRB , you will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body ; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State .
You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it ; where necessary challenging existing assumptions ; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB ; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the wide range of consultees… ”

Seven years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
Since then, the figures have varied, and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that, since it took office in 2010, our Party has punched beneath its 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, every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Construction Industry Training Board – Board Trustee
“CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry. CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy, and works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met. CITB seeks to create the culture and conditions that will deliver new ways of working, embracing new technologies, creating a demand in construction for more skills, new skills and higher level skills. CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.”
Time: Around 16 hours per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 28 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Homes England – Chair
“The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board. They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident, clear and consistent leadership. They will also lead the Agency’s relationship with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who they will meet on a regular basis. The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England, helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England’s core mission. The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming…”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £95,000 per annum.
Closes: 31 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Northern Ireland Office – Lead Non-Executive Director
“The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) is seeking to appoint a Lead Non-Executive Director to its Management Board. In addition to his/her responsibilities as a Board Member, the role of the Lead Non-Executive Director is to chair the Department’s Audit and Risk Committee. The successful candidate will be expected to take up the position in May 2020. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in the strategic and operational leadership of the Northern Ireland Office. They complement the balance of skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing independent advice, support, constructive challenge and a fresh external perspective to help shape a department’s work.”
Time: Approx. 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £12,500 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 03 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Solent Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area’s economic success. The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders, while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government. We want you to have a voice, make a difference and give something back to the region. The Chair must come from the private sector (Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website).”
Time: Minimum one day per week on average.
Remuneration: ‘Reasonable expenses’.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Migration Advisory Committee – Chair
“The Chair of the MAC is appointed by the Home Secretary to oversee the operation of the Committee. The Chair has overall accountability for the MAC’s work and is responsible for overseeing the operation and output of the Committee, in collaboration with the Home Office Secretariat. To date, the MAC has operated “hands-on” in its analysis and interaction with the Secretariat. The Chair is responsible for establishing effective working relationships within the Committee, across the Secretariat and with government departments.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Environment Agency – Board Member
“The Secretary of State, working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency, is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members. The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds. Applicants will need to demonstrate they are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills, knowledge and expertise. Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero, climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.”
Time: Four days per month.
Remuneration: £350 per diem, reasonable expenses.
Closes: 25 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans. The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership, and through this latest round of appointments, have committed to achieve 50% female representation on the LEP board in 2020. Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term, we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background, experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence expenses.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
School Teachers’ Review Body – Chair
“As Chair of the STRB, you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State. You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it; where necessary challenging existing assumptions; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees…”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 01 March


conservativehome--2020-01-28--Andy Street: The Government is providing the investment we need to make our communities safer

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands , and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis .
At a recent event in Birmingham , hundreds of young people from the Second City revealed just how concerned they are about spiralling crime rates .
The findings of the Brum Youth Trends Summit , organised by a social enterprise , revealed that 64 per cent of young people feel either unsafe or that the police don ’ t protect them , an increase of almost 20 per cent from the previous year .
The findings came as young people face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as rising knife crime and homelessness .
This was not surprising , given that there were 84,039 violent crimes recorded by West Midlands Police in the year to September 2019 , a 27 per cent rise in a year , from 65,914 a year before .
The summit ’ s findings showed , however , that fear of crime in the West Midlands affects all generations , young and old , in all of our communities .
Crime , anti-social behaviour , and resourcing our police force are key concerns right across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the urban Black Country .
As Mayor , oversight of policing does not sit with me – only Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have that responsibility in Manchester and London .
Yet I know that residents expect their Mayor to have an opinion on the matters they care the most about – and I fully understand their concerns over crime .
Since December 2017 I have been lobbying the Government to provide more resources for West Midlands Police , who protect and serve 2.9million inhabitants across Birmingham , Coventry , Dudley , Sandwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England and Wales ’ s second biggest police force behind the Met .
Now things are changing .
The new Government is delivering that investment in spades , in a new era for policing that began here in the West Midlands .
It was in Edgbaston , Birmingham that Boris Johnson – in one of his first acts as Prime Minister -announced that an extra 20,000 new police officers were to be recruited .
Since then , the Government has been decisive in addressing the police funding issue .
Last week , West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent increase in funding , the third highest in the country .
Across the UK the amount of funding available to the policing system for 2020 to 2021 will increase by £1.1 billion , totalling £15.2 billion and will build on a number of existing government commitments to tackle crime .
In the West Midlands , that equates to an extra £49.6million for local policing .
By next March , 6,000 of the 20,000 additional police will be out working in communities – with at least 366 of those new recruits hitting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region will also benefit from a share of £39 million ring-fenced nationally to tackle serious violence .
Another £20 million has been set aside to deal with ‘ county lines ’ drug dealing .
Birmingham was recently identified as one of the UK ’ s three hotspots for this scourge of 21st Century life .
This is not a simple tweak to a funding formula .
This is a bold and significant change which will provide very considerable resources to our police going forward .
However , there is scope to get even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making better use of the resources we have at our disposal and taking a more collaborative , practical approach to crime and policing .
After all , whenever the Government releases money to the regions , it is our duty to ensure that every penny is well spent .
In May , there will be an election to select a new Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands .
So far , the position has always been Labour-held , and their record has not been good .
As we enter this new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides the opportunity to direct resources to deal with the real priorities identified by local people .
That means bolstering community policing and ensuring a visible and tangible police presence in local communities , providing reassurance for local people and a deterrent to the criminal element .
In Jay Singh-Sohal , the Conservatives have a candidate who will do that .
A Brummie born and bred , Jay not only grasps the complexities of policing one of the most densely populated areas in Europe , he also understands the concerns of local people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see put at the forefront of crime fighting .
As a serving Captain in the Army Reserve , he also has the organisational drive and clear vision to get his message across to communities across the conurbation .
A Sikh raised in Handsworth , Jay is the epitome of the new brand of urban Conservatism we are successfully building here in the West Midlands .
He has never stood for public office before , but his grounding in business , media and the armed services have shaped a driven individual who will tackle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
He is already committed to a new plan that will make visible , local police presence the centrepiece of his term as PCC .
For a start , that means halting Labour ’ s planned closure of police stations in communities across the region , for a period of reassessment .
And crucially , just as the Mayor ’ s office has been successful by bringing together the communities and agencies of the West Midlands , Jay understands that collaborative working is the secret to tackling crime in such a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing the way on policing .
We need a PCC locally who can be rigorous in ensuring that every pound is spent effectively , on frontline resource to reduce crime and serve communities .
We also need a PCC who can work with Government to make the case for our police to get even more resources .
The role of West Midlands Mayor has shown that with a single accountable person working positively with government , investment can be brought in .
Finally , we need a PCC who can work with local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tackling crime – like Dudley Council , which has sought to progress match funding for PCSO officers in the borough .
This is not about posturing , it ’ s about delivering .
Jay ’ s priority will be police , not politics .
It ’ s about providing real change on the ground .
The extra firepower we have been given by Government in this funding round will make this possible .
For those who haven ’ t had enough of elections , 7th May will bring three in the West Midlands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choosing their local councillors , the candidates for Mayor and PCC will be on the ballot papers too .
There are few issues more important than crime , and we must engage with this election both locally and nationally to deliver a Conservative PCC for the West Midlands .
The Government is providing the resources to kick-start a new era in policing – it ’ s up to us in the regions to grasp the opportunity to make our citizens ’ lives safer and happier .

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands, and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.
At a recent event in Birmingham, hundreds of young people from the Second City revealed just how concerned they are about spiralling crime rates.
The findings of the Brum Youth Trends Summit, organised by a social enterprise, revealed that 64 per cent of young people feel either unsafe or that the police don’t protect them, an increase of almost 20 per cent from the previous year. The findings came as young people face growing threats to their safety, such as rising knife crime and homelessness.
This was not surprising, given that there were 84,039 violent crimes recorded by West Midlands Police in the year to September 2019, a 27 per cent rise in a year, from 65,914 a year before.
The summit’s findings showed, however, that fear of crime in the West Midlands affects all generations, young and old, in all of our communities.
Crime, anti-social behaviour, and resourcing our police force are key concerns right across the conurbation, from leafy Sutton Coldfield to the urban Black Country.
As Mayor, oversight of policing does not sit with me – only Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have that responsibility in Manchester and London. Yet I know that residents expect their Mayor to have an opinion on the matters they care the most about – and I fully understand their concerns over crime.
Since December 2017 I have been lobbying the Government to provide more resources for West Midlands Police, who protect and serve 2.9million inhabitants across Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton – England and Wales’s second biggest police force behind the Met.
Now things are changing. The new Government is delivering that investment in spades, in a new era for policing that began here in the West Midlands.
It was in Edgbaston, Birmingham that Boris Johnson – in one of his first acts as Prime Minister -announced that an extra 20,000 new police officers were to be recruited. Since then, the Government has been decisive in addressing the police funding issue.
Last week, West Midlands Police were handed an 8.7 per cent increase in funding, the third highest in the country. Across the UK the amount of funding available to the policing system for 2020 to 2021 will increase by £1.1 billion, totalling £15.2 billion and will build on a number of existing government commitments to tackle crime.
In the West Midlands, that equates to an extra £49.6million for local policing. By next March, 6,000 of the 20,000 additional police will be out working in communities – with at least 366 of those new recruits hitting the streets of the West Midlands.
Our region will also benefit from a share of £39 million ring-fenced nationally to tackle serious violence. Another £20 million has been set aside to deal with ‘county lines’ drug dealing. Birmingham was recently identified as one of the UK’s three hotspots for this scourge of 21st Century life.
This is not a simple tweak to a funding formula. This is a bold and significant change which will provide very considerable resources to our police going forward.
However, there is scope to get even more from this investment locally, by making better use of the resources we have at our disposal and taking a more collaborative, practical approach to crime and policing. After all, whenever the Government releases money to the regions, it is our duty to ensure that every penny is well spent.
In May, there will be an election to select a new Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands. So far, the position has always been Labour-held, and their record has not been good.
As we enter this new era of police funding, this role provides the opportunity to direct resources to deal with the real priorities identified by local people.
That means bolstering community policing and ensuring a visible and tangible police presence in local communities, providing reassurance for local people and a deterrent to the criminal element.
In Jay Singh-Sohal, the Conservatives have a candidate who will do that.
A Brummie born and bred, Jay not only grasps the complexities of policing one of the most densely populated areas in Europe, he also understands the concerns of local people, and the priorities they expect to see put at the forefront of crime fighting.
As a serving Captain in the Army Reserve, he also has the organisational drive and clear vision to get his message across to communities across the conurbation.
A Sikh raised in Handsworth, Jay is the epitome of the new brand of urban Conservatism we are successfully building here in the West Midlands. He has never stood for public office before, but his grounding in business, media and the armed services have shaped a driven individual who will tackle the challenges of policing in a business-like way.
He is already committed to a new plan that will make visible, local police presence the centrepiece of his term as PCC. For a start, that means halting Labour’s planned closure of police stations in communities across the region, for a period of reassessment.
And crucially, just as the Mayor’s office has been successful by bringing together the communities and agencies of the West Midlands, Jay understands that collaborative working is the secret to tackling crime in such a large and diverse region.
The Government is showing the way on policing. We need a PCC locally who can be rigorous in ensuring that every pound is spent effectively, on frontline resource to reduce crime and serve communities.
We also need a PCC who can work with Government to make the case for our police to get even more resources. The role of West Midlands Mayor has shown that with a single accountable person working positively with government, investment can be brought in.
Finally, we need a PCC who can work with local councils to lever in their support for tackling crime – like Dudley Council, which has sought to progress match funding for PCSO officers in the borough.
This is not about posturing, it’s about delivering. Jay’s priority will be police, not politics. It’s about providing real change on the ground. The extra firepower we have been given by Government in this funding round will make this possible.
For those who haven’t had enough of elections, 7th May will bring three in the West Midlands. Local people will not only be choosing their local councillors, the candidates for Mayor and PCC will be on the ballot papers too.
There are few issues more important than crime, and we must engage with this election both locally and nationally to deliver a Conservative PCC for the West Midlands. The Government is providing the resources to kick-start a new era in policing – it’s up to us in the regions to grasp the opportunity to make our citizens’ lives safer and happier.


conservativehome--2020-01-28--We’ve avoided making up our minds about how to deal with China. Hence the Huawei quandary.

We admit defeat .
This site isn ’ t usually shy of expressing a view on the issue of the day : we have this in common with other journals , MPs – and many of our readers .
But we have to admit that the Huawei decision which Boris Johnson is set to make has us stumped .
ConHome is in no position to know whether or not a distinction can really be made between core and non-core elements of the network .
Or , to put it more plainly , if the Chinese company can be let into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first .
We don ’ t have the technical knowledge – and doubt whether the politicians who sound off on the matter one way or the other do so either .
So the site has to proceed by hunch , prejudice – in what we hope is the best sense of the word – and above all by experience .
Are the security services and the top echelons of the civil service right to say that there is nothing to fear ?
The Huawei question is in many respects unlike the HS2 one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we are nagged by the uneasy feeling that in one respect they have something in common .
Namely , that a big chunk of political and administrative capital has already been spent on both projects .
And that once such investment has been made , it is only human nature to double down .
This may be especially so if there is no alternative technology to hand , and Ministers have promises to keep about a 5G rollout .
Furthermore , the politicians , security service leaders and civil servants who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the time any security breach becomes evident .
What we certainly know is that they have no coherent agreed collective answer to the question : what ’ s Britain ’ s view of China ?
To some , it is an opponent : see the pieces on this site to that effect on Huawei by Tom Tugendhat and Bob Seely , who are competing to become the next Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee .
To others , it is not : remember George Osborne promising a “ golden decade ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a country that can ’ t make up its mind ?
It drifts .
And Chinese involvement in Britain ’ s national infrastructure is a sign of that irresolution .
Westminster and Whitehall may not see the problem until both grasp that it is one .
Either way , it is alarming that the Government is asking America for an alternative that will deliver 5G as quickly and at no more cost that the Chinese company , and that none seems to be to hand .
Ultimately , Number Ten seems to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hand is worth the Trump trade deal in the bush ( assuming that it must have one or the other , which may well not be the case ) .
Our monthly panel of Conservative Party members has made up its mind .
Almost eight out of ten believe that the company should be barred from participation in the project .
Behind that view will lurk an instinct : that western liberal democracy and China ’ s one-party system are competing for the future .
Which is an answer to the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of China – one which the British state itself is unwilling to confront .

We admit defeat. This site isn’t usually shy of expressing a view on the issue of the day: we have this in common with other journals, MPs – and many of our readers. But we have to admit that the Huawei decision which Boris Johnson is set to make has us stumped.
ConHome is in no position to know whether or not a distinction can really be made between core and non-core elements of the network. Or, to put it more plainly, if the Chinese company can be let into the second but kept out of the first. We don’t have the technical knowledge – and doubt whether the politicians who sound off on the matter one way or the other do so either.
So the site has to proceed by hunch, prejudice – in what we hope is the best sense of the word – and above all by experience. Are the security services and the top echelons of the civil service right to say that there is nothing to fear?
The Huawei question is in many respects unlike the HS2 one that we attempted to answer yesterday. But we are nagged by the uneasy feeling that in one respect they have something in common. Namely, that a big chunk of political and administrative capital has already been spent on both projects. And that once such investment has been made, it is only human nature to double down.
This may be especially so if there is no alternative technology to hand, and Ministers have promises to keep about a 5G rollout. Furthermore, the politicians, security service leaders and civil servants who will make the decision could be long gone by the time any security breach becomes evident.
What we certainly know is that they have no coherent agreed collective answer to the question: what’s Britain’s view of China? To some, it is an opponent: see the pieces on this site to that effect on Huawei by Tom Tugendhat and Bob Seely, who are competing to become the next Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. To others, it is not: remember George Osborne promising a “golden decade” for Anglo-Chinese relations?
What happens to a country that can’t make up its mind? It drifts. And Chinese involvement in Britain’s national infrastructure is a sign of that irresolution. Westminster and Whitehall may not see the problem until both grasp that it is one.
Either way, it is alarming that the Government is asking America for an alternative that will deliver 5G as quickly and at no more cost that the Chinese company, and that none seems to be to hand. Ultimately, Number Ten seems to have decided that ultimately the Huawei bird in the hand is worth the Trump trade deal in the bush (assuming that it must have one or the other, which may well not be the case).
Our monthly panel of Conservative Party members has made up its mind. Almost eight out of ten believe that the company should be barred from participation in the project. Behind that view will lurk an instinct: that western liberal democracy and China’s one-party system are competing for the future. Which is an answer to the question we posed early about Britain’s view of China – one which the British state itself is unwilling to confront.


conservativehome--2020-01-28--Stephen Greenhalgh and Nick Botterill: Under Labour, Hammersmith & Fulham has become a borough of mi

Stephen Greenhalgh and Nick Botterill: Under Labour, Hammersmith & Fulham has become a borough of missed opportunity

Stephen Greenhalgh and Nick Botterill are former leaders of Hammersmith and Fulham Council .
Some of the wealthiest households in the country are located in Hammersmith and Fulham .
The borough ranks fourth highest in London , with the average home costing £921,297 , according to a report last November by Right Move .
But the borough also has significant areas of deprivation , where people ’ s lives are blighted by crime , poor environment , and low aspiration .
Hammersmith and Fulham remains a highly polarised borough .
A Conservative Council was elected in Hammersmith and Fulham on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for positive change .
We won over 50 per cent of the popular vote and , with 33 out of 46 councillors , had outright control of the authority for the first time in 38 years .
This was the only inner-city gain in 2006 for the Conservatives in the entire UK .
With such high levels of poverty and inequality , we set ourselves a mission to create ‘ a Borough of Opportunity ’ .
This involved : • Offering excellent state education and school choice .
In 2006 , there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils at the vital secondary school level .
By the end of our two terms in office , we had become the most Academy friendly and Free School friendly borough in the country , with the opening of outstanding schools such as the Hammersmith Academy , the West London Free School , and most recently , the Fulham Boy ’ s School .
• Creating a housing ladder of opportunity with home ownership at its core .
We believed that Hammersmith and Fulham would be better off with more people owning their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the community .
Building assets such as a home is central to advancing social mobility and an important foundation for personal security .
To support our objectives we launched a home ownership unit called ‘ H & F Home Buy ’ at the beginning of 2007 .
In just seven weeks , nearly 3,000 people on household incomes of less than £60,000 expressed an interest in low-cost home ownership .
First , we scrapped the previous Labour administration ’ s restrictive planning policies that discouraged change of use to anything other than social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-cost home ownership schemes and discounting mechanisms .
By the end of our eight years in administration , we had helped nearly a thousand local residents onto the housing ladder .
In contrast , and allowing for the pipeline of developments under construction , the Labour administration has only managed to average around 80 social housing completions per year of all types , with no low-cost home ownership or open market completions in the last year .
• Regenerating the most deprived parts of the borough with a focus on physical , economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was for the borough to grow along the West London Line and so we worked with Boris Johnson , when he was the Mayor of London , to create new Opportunity Areas in both Earl ’ s Court and Old Oak , alongside the White City Opportunity Area that already existed .
However , the significant challenge has always been to attract the required huge levels of investment required to make the Opportunity Areas a reality .
That is why we needed a borough that was open for business .
The role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prime , and councils need to be creative with public land .
Sadly , the Labour administration elected in 2014 has turned Hammersmith and Fulham into a ‘ Borough of missed Opportunity ’ .
They celebrate the return of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates .
Instead they should hang their heads in shame at consigning Sir Terry Farrell ’ s brilliant masterplan for Earl ’ s Court to the bin .
Built in the 1970s on land acquired from British Rail , the West Kensington estate first gained prominence when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the High Court in a dispute over the quality of the build .
Within a couple of years , more was spent on estate refurbishment than the original cost of construction and it has remained in a pretty shabby state with many inherent problems since , despite repeated maintenance programmes .
Can we really expect the West Ken buildings to survive as decent homes for the next 50 years ?
Our scheme would have seen every single council flat replaced with new homes of a far higher standard , as well as providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of low-cost home ownership properties .
The overall package to tenants negotiated was the best of any proposed in London , with a guaranteed single move to an area close to where they already lived , in groups along with their neighbours , and to new flats fully fitted out including with all new white goods .
Given the Earl ’ s Court/West Ken land for this scheme was under the various ownerships of TfL , Hammersmith and Fulham Council , and the owner of the Earl ’ s Court Exhibition site ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delancey ) , the only way it was ever going to be developed with the hundreds of new replacement Council homes was by a big scheme like this .
The deal negotiated with CapCo was fair and judged good value by all the market professionals who were involved .
That was because the Conservative council was led by two successful entrepreneurs who understand how to engage with the developers and secure the best deal for the borough .
The Labour council after it was elected , by contrast , refused even to meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is now dead , because of a tin-eared Labour council , that has only ever been interested in stopping all major regeneration schemes .
The status quo suits their political ends .
For five years they have been in office rather than in power and have failed lamentably to use their mandate for the greater good of Hammersmith and Fulham residents .
Instead , they have spent all their efforts and public money , including a recent £100,000 forensic audit of the scheme , in a crude failed attempt to construct a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a new vibrant district of West Kensington and Earl ’ s Court has been missed and instead the borough will at best only see piecemeal development , instead of the thousands of new homes and jobs which could have resulted from the creation of a new district for West London .
We should not be surprised that this lamentable Labour council scheme away , rather than try to govern in the interests of Hammersmith and Fulham residents .
As the great Iain Macleod once said : “ Let the Liberals dream their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schemes , but we Conservatives have a serious job of work to do .
”

Stephen Greenhalgh and Nick Botterill are former leaders of Hammersmith and Fulham Council.
Some of the wealthiest households in the country are located in Hammersmith and Fulham. The borough ranks fourth highest in London, with the average home costing £921,297, according to a report last November by Right Move.
But the borough also has significant areas of deprivation, where people’s lives are blighted by crime, poor environment, and low aspiration. Hammersmith and Fulham remains a highly polarised borough.
A Conservative Council was elected in Hammersmith and Fulham on May 4th 2006 with a strong mandate for positive change. We won over 50 per cent of the popular vote and, with 33 out of 46 councillors, had outright control of the authority for the first time in 38 years. This was the only inner-city gain in 2006 for the Conservatives in the entire UK.
With such high levels of poverty and inequality, we set ourselves a mission to create ‘a Borough of Opportunity’. This involved:
Offering excellent state education and school choice. In 2006, there were very limited opportunities for Hammersmith and Fulham pupils at the vital secondary school level. By the end of our two terms in office, we had become the most Academy friendly and Free School friendly borough in the country, with the opening of outstanding schools such as the Hammersmith Academy, the West London Free School, and most recently, the Fulham Boy’s School.
Creating a housing ladder of opportunity with home ownership at its core. We believed that Hammersmith and Fulham would be better off with more people owning their own homes and having a real stake in the community. Building assets such as a home is central to advancing social mobility and an important foundation for personal security. To support our objectives we launched a home ownership unit called ‘H&F Home Buy’ at the beginning of 2007. In just seven weeks, nearly 3,000 people on household incomes of less than £60,000 expressed an interest in low-cost home ownership. First, we scrapped the previous Labour administration’s restrictive planning policies that discouraged change of use to anything other than social housing. We then set about promoting low-cost home ownership schemes and discounting mechanisms. By the end of our eight years in administration, we had helped nearly a thousand local residents onto the housing ladder. In contrast, and allowing for the pipeline of developments under construction, the Labour administration has only managed to average around 80 social housing completions per year of all types, with no low-cost home ownership or open market completions in the last year.
Regenerating the most deprived parts of the borough with a focus on physical, economic, and social renewal. Our vision was for the borough to grow along the West London Line and so we worked with Boris Johnson, when he was the Mayor of London, to create new Opportunity Areas in both Earl’s Court and Old Oak, alongside the White City Opportunity Area that already existed. However, the significant challenge has always been to attract the required huge levels of investment required to make the Opportunity Areas a reality. That is why we needed a borough that was open for business. The role of public money should only be to pump prime, and councils need to be creative with public land.
Sadly, the Labour administration elected in 2014 has turned Hammersmith and Fulham into a ‘Borough of missed Opportunity’. They celebrate the return of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates. Instead they should hang their heads in shame at consigning Sir Terry Farrell’s brilliant masterplan for Earl’s Court to the bin. Built in the 1970s on land acquired from British Rail, the West Kensington estate first gained prominence when the then council took the original builders to the High Court in a dispute over the quality of the build. Within a couple of years, more was spent on estate refurbishment than the original cost of construction and it has remained in a pretty shabby state with many inherent problems since, despite repeated maintenance programmes. Can we really expect the West Ken buildings to survive as decent homes for the next 50 years?
Our scheme would have seen every single council flat replaced with new homes of a far higher standard, as well as providing for a huge increase in the number of low-cost home ownership properties. The overall package to tenants negotiated was the best of any proposed in London, with a guaranteed single move to an area close to where they already lived, in groups along with their neighbours, and to new flats fully fitted out including with all new white goods.
Given the Earl’s Court/West Ken land for this scheme was under the various ownerships of TfL, Hammersmith and Fulham Council, and the owner of the Earl’s Court Exhibition site (which was CapCo until they sold to Delancey), the only way it was ever going to be developed with the hundreds of new replacement Council homes was by a big scheme like this. The deal negotiated with CapCo was fair and judged good value by all the market professionals who were involved. That was because the Conservative council was led by two successful entrepreneurs who understand how to engage with the developers and secure the best deal for the borough. The Labour council after it was elected, by contrast, refused even to meet CapCo.
The masterplan to achieve all this is now dead, because of a tin-eared Labour council, that has only ever been interested in stopping all major regeneration schemes. The status quo suits their political ends. For five years they have been in office rather than in power and have failed lamentably to use their mandate for the greater good of Hammersmith and Fulham residents. Instead, they have spent all their efforts and public money, including a recent £100,000 forensic audit of the scheme, in a crude failed attempt to construct a false political narrative. The opportunity to create a new vibrant district of West Kensington and Earl’s Court has been missed and instead the borough will at best only see piecemeal development, instead of the thousands of new homes and jobs which could have resulted from the creation of a new district for West London.
We should not be surprised that this lamentable Labour council scheme away, rather than try to govern in the interests of Hammersmith and Fulham residents. As the great Iain Macleod once said: “Let the Liberals dream their dreams, and let Labour scheme their schemes, but we Conservatives have a serious job of work to do.”


conservativehome--2020-01-28--WATCH: Raab outlines plans for Huawei’s role in UK’s 5G network

UK government is `` establishing one of the strongest regimes for telecoms security anywhere in the world ''

UK government is "establishing one of the strongest regimes for telecoms security anywhere in the world"
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab outlines plans for Huawei's role in UK's 5G networkhttps://t.co/ivnyXIVqlc pic.twitter.com/yvE0b2Teuj
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) January 28, 2020


conservativehome--2020-01-28--WATCH: The Brexit Story 10) The Joint Report is agreed. It keeps Northern Ireland in Single Market a

WATCH: The Brexit Story 10) The Joint Report is agreed. It keeps Northern Ireland in Single Market and Customs Union “full alignment”

WATCH : The Brexit Story 10 ) The Joint Report is agreed .
It keeps Northern Ireland in Single Market @ @ @ @ @ alignment ”

“In best interest for whole of UK” – PM Theresa May on Brexit breakthrough https://t.co/xq76yMLaFF pic.twitter.com/QrFdtwN3qH
— Jenni Missye White (@Missycilious) December 8, 2017


conservativehome--2020-01-28--WATCH: The Brexit Story 9) Heseltine – “The case for sacking Johnson is very strong”

“ The case for sacking Boris Johnson is very strong ” says Lord Heseltine # Paterson pic.twitter.com/9TaKiAmeDA

“The case for sacking Boris Johnson is very strong” says Lord Heseltine #Paterson pic.twitter.com/9TaKiAmeDA
— Sunday with Paterson (@RidgeOnSunday) October 1, 2017


conservativehome--2020-01-28--Jack Airey: If we want younger people to share in Britain’s prosperity, the planning system must be

Jack Airey: If we want younger people to share in Britain’s prosperity, the planning system must be turned on its head

Jack Airey is Head of Housing at Policy Exchange Clement Attlee ’ s post-1945 Government is rightly held aloft as one with unparalleled achievements .
Radical policies like free universal healthcare and the creation of a ‘ cradle to grave ’ welfare state have not only stood the test of time , but become more relevant as our economy and society have changed .
There is , however , one glaring exception to this rule : the planning system established via the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 that more or less continues in the same form today .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban growth and new development .
Although it has regularly been tinkered with in the past few decades , the fundamental principles of the planning system are the same as when it was established in the forties as part of a government programme to establish a command-and-control economy .
One of these principles is that property owners are not allowed to develop their land unless they are given a specific license by the local authority .
This gives the state quasi-ownership of all property .
The right to build is granted on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority members and officers according to their interpretation of state guidance .
There are no fixed rules for gaining the right to build , which amplifies uncertainty at every stage of the planning process .
Another principle that continues to be fundamental to the planning system is that the state both can and should know how many and what type of homes and jobs will be needed and direct where they should go .
Local authorities are required to micro-manage land markets and set a use for every plot of land in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ‘ needed ’ over the next two decades .
Land uses unpopular with local voters ( e.g .
land for new homes ) are tightly rationed which artificially inflates their value , often to obscene amounts .
As Policy Exchange argues in its new report published today , neither of these principles are remotely suitable to the country ’ s twenty-first century liberalised economy and society .
They assume that local planning departments have a crystal ball to predict how the wants of people and businesses will change over the next few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preposterous idea .
Like most of us , planners entirely failed to foresee the impact of internet shopping on the high street , or of digital technology on the need for office space .
The overwhelming effect of our planning system has been to restrict development where it has been needed and wanted – both the construction of new buildings and the conversion of existing buildings to new uses .
Given the extent of political control in the planning system ( councillors control local planning frameworks as well as individual planning decisions ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What local politician is going to stand for office on a platform of promising more development , when voters in local elections are predominantly homeowners who , polling shows , are most likely to oppose new building ?
Excessive planning restrictions impose very real costs on those least able to afford them .
When renters pass over half their monthly income to their landlord , they should blame a planning system that protects existing property wealth at the expense of people who work hard and get on in life .
Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anywhere to set up shop that is affordable and close enough to clients and customers , they should blame a planning system that protects incumbent businesses at the expense of those who have better ideas and are more productive .
Even if some see these factors as tolerable implications of a restrictive planning system , one thing that should concern us all is how generally bad we have been at managing urban growth and development .
Ever since the state took full control of what land use goes where , the process by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrupted .
Traditional street patterns have been replaced by entirely new urban patterns like cul-de-sacs .
Local authorities have decided where growth should go , and will often choose the most politically convenient location rather than the most suitable .
Take , for instance , the housing estates being built next to motorways – is this where we want children to grow up ?
The exorbitant cost of acquiring land with planning permission – whose value is made artificially high by state rationing – also means that builders have to skimp on quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain profitable .
Wholly reforming the way land use and development have been regulated for the last seven decades will not be easy .
But if we want a more beautiful environment and for younger people to share in the prosperity of this country and believe in the possibilities of capitalism , the planning system needs to be turned on its head .

Jack Airey is Head of Housing at Policy Exchange
Clement Attlee’s post-1945 Government is rightly held aloft as one with unparalleled achievements. Radical policies like free universal healthcare and the creation of a ‘cradle to grave’ welfare state have not only stood the test of time, but become more relevant as our economy and society have changed.
There is, however, one glaring exception to this rule: the planning system established via the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 that more or less continues in the same form today. The reforms handed the state ultimate power over urban growth and new development. Although it has regularly been tinkered with in the past few decades, the fundamental principles of the planning system are the same as when it was established in the forties as part of a government programme to establish a command-and-control economy.
One of these principles is that property owners are not allowed to develop their land unless they are given a specific license by the local authority. This gives the state quasi-ownership of all property. The right to build is granted on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of local authority members and officers according to their interpretation of state guidance. There are no fixed rules for gaining the right to build, which amplifies uncertainty at every stage of the planning process.
Another principle that continues to be fundamental to the planning system is that the state both can and should know how many and what type of homes and jobs will be needed and direct where they should go. Local authorities are required to micro-manage land markets and set a use for every plot of land in their borough depending on what administrators think will be ‘needed’ over the next two decades. Land uses unpopular with local voters (e.g. land for new homes) are tightly rationed which artificially inflates their value, often to obscene amounts.
As Policy Exchange argues in its new report published today, neither of these principles are remotely suitable to the country’s twenty-first century liberalised economy and society. They assume that local planning departments have a crystal ball to predict how the wants of people and businesses will change over the next few decades. Yet, this is a preposterous idea. Like most of us, planners entirely failed to foresee the impact of internet shopping on the high street, or of digital technology on the need for office space.
The overwhelming effect of our planning system has been to restrict development where it has been needed and wanted – both the construction of new buildings and the conversion of existing buildings to new uses. Given the extent of political control in the planning system (councillors control local planning frameworks as well as individual planning decisions), this should not be a surprise. What local politician is going to stand for office on a platform of promising more development, when voters in local elections are predominantly homeowners who, polling shows, are most likely to oppose new building?
Excessive planning restrictions impose very real costs on those least able to afford them. When renters pass over half their monthly income to their landlord, they should blame a planning system that protects existing property wealth at the expense of people who work hard and get on in life. Similarly, when start-ups and entrepreneurs cannot find anywhere to set up shop that is affordable and close enough to clients and customers, they should blame a planning system that protects incumbent businesses at the expense of those who have better ideas and are more productive.
Even if some see these factors as tolerable implications of a restrictive planning system, one thing that should concern us all is how generally bad we have been at managing urban growth and development. Ever since the state took full control of what land use goes where, the process by which places naturally change has been wholly disrupted. Traditional street patterns have been replaced by entirely new urban patterns like cul-de-sacs. Local authorities have decided where growth should go, and will often choose the most politically convenient location rather than the most suitable. Take, for instance, the housing estates being built next to motorways – is this where we want children to grow up?
The exorbitant cost of acquiring land with planning permission – whose value is made artificially high by state rationing – also means that builders have to skimp on quality design and construction for their development to remain profitable.
Wholly reforming the way land use and development have been regulated for the last seven decades will not be easy. But if we want a more beautiful environment and for younger people to share in the prosperity of this country and believe in the possibilities of capitalism, the planning system needs to be turned on its head.