conservativehome--2020-11-02--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Prime Minister’s Council for Science and T

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board ( including its various sub-committees ) , the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass ’ affairs , and that Cafcass ’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for : establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State ; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets , and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks ; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department , and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds… ” Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement “ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit .
The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority ( the UK Health Ministers ) and its executive arm , the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ( MHRA ) , on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe , efficacious and of good quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required .
They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues , many of which would be out of any one practitioner ’ s area of expertise , and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.
” Remuneration : Up to £500 per meeting “ We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the BBC and maintain the Corporation ’ s independence .
As per the BBC Royal Charter , the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition .
The Governance Code , including the public appointment principles , must be followed in making the appointment .
The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code .
Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Time : 3-4 days per week ( Chair ) / Up to 2 days per week .
“ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board .
Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Prime Minister ’ s Council for Science and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments .
It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions , and in building a robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the UK , post Covid .
The Government is seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Council for Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser ( GCSA ) .
” “ The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy , responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress , tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors .
It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain .
We are seeking to appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation , delivers key Government commitments , and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair , the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors .
The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service , with particular emphasis on its strategic direction , management controls , and corporate governance.
” Bank of England – External Member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system .
The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability .
The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ The Steering Board ’ s role is to : advise on external drivers , strategic direction and development of targets , within the framework of the UK Space Agency ’ s objectives , BEIS and wider Government objectives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer ; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance , including process of setting of targets and performance against them ; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency ’ s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk ; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency @ @ @ @ @ @

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – Chair
“The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board (including its various sub-committees), the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass’ affairs, and that Cafcass’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State. The Board is specifically responsible for: establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds…”
Time: 80 days per annum.
Remuneration: £400 per diem.
Closes: 03 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £100,000 – £130,000 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 08 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Commission on Human Medicines – Chair
“The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit. The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority (the UK Health Ministers) and its executive arm, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe, efficacious and of good quality. The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required. They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues, many of which would be out of any one practitioner’s area of expertise, and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.”
Time: Approx. 33 days per annum.
Remuneration: Up to £500 per meeting
Closes: 10 November
– – – – – – – – – –
British Broadcasting Corporation – Chair/Member for England
“We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting, to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation’s independence. As per the BBC Royal Charter, the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition. The Governance Code, including the public appointment principles, must be followed in making the appointment. The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code. Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.”
Time: 3-4 days per week (Chair) / Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £160,000 (Chair) / £33,000 per annum, +£5,000 for committee chairs, reasonable expenses (Member)
Closes: 11 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Consumer Council for Water – Independent Board Members
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: Three days per month.
Remuneration: £11,718 per annum.
Closes: 16 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Insolvency Service – Chair
“The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors. It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain. We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation, delivers key Government commitments, and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair, the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors. The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service, with particular emphasis on its strategic direction, management controls, and corporate governance.”
Time: 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Space Agency – Non-Executive Members/Audit Chair
“The Steering Board’s role is to: advise on external drivers, strategic direction and development of targets, within the framework of the UK Space Agency’s objectives, BEIS and wider Government objectives; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance, including process of setting of targets and performance against them; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency’s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 20/22 days per annum.
Remuneration: £8,000/10,000 per annum honorarium.
Closes: 29 November


conservativehome--2020-11-03--Andy Street: As we enter lockdown, we must protect our precious open spaces

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands , and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis .
As I write , England is once again preparing to enter lockdown .
Families will hang their hopes on Christmas , as they say a temporary farewell to each other .
Cafes , pubs , restaurants , gyms and businesses of all kinds are preparing to close their doors as the nation tries to bring infection under control and protect the NHS .
The extension of the furlough scheme throughout November and the unprecedented financial support already set out by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as we balance the need to save lives with the need to protect the economy .
As before , some sectors will carry on throughout lockdown – this time the NHS , supermarkets , manufacturers and public services will be joined by schools , colleges and universities as they keep the nation ticking over .
And of course the construction sites , at the heart of the strategy to Build Back Better , will work on .
In this column I want to write about the opportunities that lie ahead as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potential pitfalls if we get things wrong .
Last week , the consultation ended on potential changes to the planning system – “ Planning for the Future – which “ proposes reforms to streamline and modernise the planning process , bring a new focus to design and sustainability , improve the system of developer contributions to infrastructure , and ensure more land is available for development ” .
Driving this push for reform is the need to build more housing .
Demand far outstrips supply for homes .
As the Party which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ‘ s vital that we address this properly , and develop long-term solutions .
Clearly the current planning system is far from perfect – indeed , it has got us to where we are today .
In the West Midlands we are ambitious – we have set the target of 215,000 new homes by 2031 .
When the pandemic struck , we were well on our way to that target , with our rate of housebuilding doubling in 8 years to just under 17,000 last year .
In the last three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of housebuilding in the region .
Instead of tearing into the Green Belt , we have moved to a ‘ Brownfield First ’ policy , reclaiming and cleaning up old derelict sites for new development .
The result is that we have protected green fields while regenerating former industrial sites , removing eyesores in often neglected communities .
The policy has been a great success , with the vast majority of new homes built in our recent surge put up on reclaimed land .
We ’ ve only been able to do this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our business plan , with a £350m investment in our game-changing Housing Deal which was recently topped up with another £84m .
A new science of land reclamation is being pioneered right here , with a £24 million National Brownfield Institute planned for Wolverhampton .
We have achieved this by working together across the region ’ s seven member boroughs of Birmingham , Coventry , Dudley , Sandwell , Solihull , Walsall and Wolverhampton .
After all , by helping one community that is crying out to see a derelict eyesore removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save its cherished open spaces .
We see this application of local knowledge within our boroughs too – developing on old factory sites in Walsall town centre to protect neighbouring green spaces in Pheasey and Streetly , or building in Dudley town centre to protect fields around Halesowen and Stourbridge .
So , my response to Government ’ s “ Planning for the Future ” consultation is simple – let ’ s build on what we have been doing together so far .
However , there are aspects of the proposals which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First , the algorithm and methodology at is core tilts more homes onto Councils with more green space , and away from those with more brownfield sites .
This is , of course , to try and address the issue of housing where demand is high .
But , in this case , I believe it is tilting the playing field too far .
It would mean , for example , increasing pressure on Councils like Solihull where we already have a Green Belt under intense pressure , whilst easing the need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites and a pressing need for regeneration .
We must not let developers ‘ off the hook ’ by allowing them to pile into greenfield sites and turn away from more challenging regeneration sites .
And they will pile in – we are seeing it now in Coventry , where a misguided Local Plan has opened up too many green spaces for development .
For developers , these sites present a more lucrative and easier option .
For the local community , they represent a loss of much-loved green space .
Down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old derelict industrial sites , they represent a missed opportunity to reverse years of neglect .
So , I have argued that this should be looked at again to reflect the need not to let an algorithm – which is prone to all sorts of unintended consequences – drive planning diktats that imperil the Green Belt .
Second , I believe this timely planning reform is a chance to seize the moment to provide additional protection to critically important Green Belt sites .
Across the West Midlands at sites like the Seven Cornfields @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , residents are battling to save cherished countryside .
The new “ Protected ” status should represent a strengthening of Green Belt protection for sites .
The Green Belt came into being in the 1950 ’ s and now is the time to look at reinforcing it through this reform .
We should , for example , identify some Green Belt sites where development is simply inconceivable – in our region , the “ Meriden Gap ” which sits between Solihull and Coventry , and Saltwells Nature Reserve in Dudley leap to mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That added protection would ensure no developer would attempt a frivolous planning application designed to test the resolve of councils under pressure to build .
And let ’ s recognise where some places have contributed some of their Green Belt land already to meet local and national need – like land for HS2 – and see if we can compensate them with more Green Belt protection in their area .
I have , in the past , described Birmingham City Council ’ s plans to build thousands of homes on Green Belt in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ – and there is a strong argument that the town has now made a significant contribution to a city which has plenty of brownfield sites .
We aren ’ t Nimbys in the West Midlands .
But it is vital that Whitehall understands that if the cold data supplied by an algorithm offers up cherished green spaces to hungry developers , there will be a backlash from local communities – and from voters .
We want and need more homes and we are working in partnership with Government , councils and developers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoors for a month of lockdown , many of us will miss the open spaces that surround our communities , where we walk our dogs , run for exercise and our children play .
We must Build Back Better , but let ’ s never forget the critical importance of the Green Belt – indeed , let ’ s seize the opportunity to do more to defend it .

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands, and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.
As I write, England is once again preparing to enter lockdown. Families will hang their hopes on Christmas, as they say a temporary farewell to each other. Cafes, pubs, restaurants, gyms and businesses of all kinds are preparing to close their doors as the nation tries to bring infection under control and protect the NHS.
The extension of the furlough scheme throughout November and the unprecedented financial support already set out by the Government will provide some relief for businesses, as we balance the need to save lives with the need to protect the economy.
As before, some sectors will carry on throughout lockdown – this time the NHS, supermarkets, manufacturers and public services will be joined by schools, colleges and universities as they keep the nation ticking over.
And of course the construction sites, at the heart of the strategy to Build Back Better, will work on. In this column I want to write about the opportunities that lie ahead as we build the homes of tomorrow – and the potential pitfalls if we get things wrong.
Last week, the consultation ended on potential changes to the planning system – “Planning for the Future – which “proposes reforms to streamline and modernise the planning process, bring a new focus to design and sustainability, improve the system of developer contributions to infrastructure, and ensure more land is available for development”.
Driving this push for reform is the need to build more housing. Demand far outstrips supply for homes. As the Party which made home ownership possible for everyone, it‘s vital that we address this properly, and develop long-term solutions. Clearly the current planning system is far from perfect – indeed, it has got us to where we are today.
In the West Midlands we are ambitious – we have set the target of 215,000 new homes by 2031. When the pandemic struck, we were well on our way to that target, with our rate of housebuilding doubling in 8 years to just under 17,000 last year.
In the last three years, we have shifted the whole basis of housebuilding in the region. Instead of tearing into the Green Belt, we have moved to a ‘Brownfield First’ policy, reclaiming and cleaning up old derelict sites for new development. The result is that we have protected green fields while regenerating former industrial sites, removing eyesores in often neglected communities.
The policy has been a great success, with the vast majority of new homes built in our recent surge put up on reclaimed land. We’ve only been able to do this thanks to Government support and their backing for our business plan, with a £350m investment in our game-changing Housing Deal which was recently topped up with another £84m. A new science of land reclamation is being pioneered right here, with a £24 million National Brownfield Institute planned for Wolverhampton.
We have achieved this by working together across the region’s seven member boroughs of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. After all, by helping one community that is crying out to see a derelict eyesore removed, we are helping another fighting to save its cherished open spaces.
We see this application of local knowledge within our boroughs too – developing on old factory sites in Walsall town centre to protect neighbouring green spaces in Pheasey and Streetly, or building in Dudley town centre to protect fields around Halesowen and Stourbridge.
So, my response to Government’s “Planning for the Future” consultation is simple – let’s build on what we have been doing together so far. However, there are aspects of the proposals which I fear go in the wrong direction.
First, the algorithm and methodology at is core tilts more homes onto Councils with more green space, and away from those with more brownfield sites. This is, of course, to try and address the issue of housing where demand is high.
But, in this case, I believe it is tilting the playing field too far. It would mean, for example, increasing pressure on Councils like Solihull where we already have a Green Belt under intense pressure, whilst easing the need for homes elsewhere where there are more brownfield sites and a pressing need for regeneration.
We must not let developers ‘off the hook’ by allowing them to pile into greenfield sites and turn away from more challenging regeneration sites. And they will pile in – we are seeing it now in Coventry, where a misguided Local Plan has opened up too many green spaces for development. For developers, these sites present a more lucrative and easier option. For the local community, they represent a loss of much-loved green space. Down the road, in neighbouring communities blighted by old derelict industrial sites, they represent a missed opportunity to reverse years of neglect.
So, I have argued that this should be looked at again to reflect the need not to let an algorithm – which is prone to all sorts of unintended consequences – drive planning diktats that imperil the Green Belt.
Second, I believe this timely planning reform is a chance to seize the moment to provide additional protection to critically important Green Belt sites. Across the West Midlands at sites like the Seven Cornfields in Wolverhampton and Tack Farm in Halesowen, residents are battling to save cherished countryside.
The new “Protected” status should represent a strengthening of Green Belt protection for sites. The Green Belt came into being in the 1950’s and now is the time to look at reinforcing it through this reform.
We should, for example, identify some Green Belt sites where development is simply inconceivable – in our region, the “Meriden Gap” which sits between Solihull and Coventry, and Saltwells Nature Reserve in Dudley leap to mind – and give them more protection. That added protection would ensure no developer would attempt a frivolous planning application designed to test the resolve of councils under pressure to build.
And let’s recognise where some places have contributed some of their Green Belt land already to meet local and national need – like land for HS2 – and see if we can compensate them with more Green Belt protection in their area. I have, in the past, described Birmingham City Council’s plans to build thousands of homes on Green Belt in Sutton Coldfield as a ‘land grab’ – and there is a strong argument that the town has now made a significant contribution to a city which has plenty of brownfield sites.
We aren’t Nimbys in the West Midlands. But it is vital that Whitehall understands that if the cold data supplied by an algorithm offers up cherished green spaces to hungry developers, there will be a backlash from local communities – and from voters.
We want and need more homes and we are working in partnership with Government, councils and developers to deliver them. As we head indoors for a month of lockdown, many of us will miss the open spaces that surround our communities, where we walk our dogs, run for exercise and our children play.
We must Build Back Better, but let’s never forget the critical importance of the Green Belt – indeed, let’s seize the opportunity to do more to defend it.


conservativehome--2020-11-03--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Prime Minister’s Council for Science and T


conservativehome--2020-11-03--What matters most for deciding on lockdown is hospitalisations – not deaths

As the pandemic gears up for round two , the political consensus on combating it continues to erode .
Over the summer we saw the breakdown of the ‘ four nations ’ coordinated approach across the United Kingdom .
Now dissent boils away inside the Conservative Party .
Senior figures , including Sir Graham Brady on this site , are calling on ministers to do much more to account for the negative consequences of lockdown – in terms of other health issues , mental health , and more – in the anti-Covid utility calculus .
Now the data used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from his newly-minted tier system towards a second full lockdown is coming under attack .
According to the Daily Telegraph , the Cambridge University data used to sell the policy is weeks out of date , and Ross Clark points out that much of the evidence apparently underlying the move is not publicly available .
Fraser Nelson also takes the Prime Minister to task for failing to set up a ‘ red team ’ of experts to challenge the assumptions of his advisors .
By limiting himself to one source of expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves himself unable to weigh alternatives or choose between plausible options , and exposes himself to extreme political danger if he defies his advisors .
But ranged against this tendency are those who argue that ‘ Covid deaths ’ isn ’ t the best way to understand the public health consequences : and that hospital capacity is .
Once lockdown started to bite , there was no shortage of people going sour on the phrase ‘ protect the NHS ’ .
Should it not , after all , be there to protect us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we explained at the time , was making sure that the number of serious cases remained within the capacity of the Health Service to treat .
The alternative was catastrophe .
Whilst the data about deaths is not clear , and dogged with disputes over definition , models and projections , hospitalisation data is publicly available on the Government ’ s dashboard .
It shows admissions climbing steadily since the start of September , on a trajectory that would see the UK hit the first peak well before Christmas .
But this doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because patients and beds are not evenly distributed across the country .
Much in the same way that the UK still has a housing crisis despite there being lots of stock in the wrong bits of the country , a surge in cases could overwhelm the NHS locally or regionally without the top-line figures showing that NHS England had toppled completely .
Furthermore , some lessons have been learned from the first wave , especially about the human toll of delayed treatments , surgeries , and the rest of the NHS ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted , there is now much greater recognition that Health Service ‘ capacity ’ must include these things , rather than just focusing on whether or not it can treat every coronavirus patient .
But maintaining sufficient slack in the system to do this , during the months when the NHS undergoes its annual ‘ winter crisis ’ , requires a more assertive response to the pandemic , not less .
This looming squeeze on capacity from other causes also explains why the decision can ’ t be based purely on the basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latter are declining , there will be a crunch if bed vacancies are falling faster .
Ultimately , the Government is paying the price for how badly it has handled public messaging during this crisis .
From the early insistence that hand-washing would be sufficient to mixed messaging over masks , from trying to force people back to the office to shutting everything down , and from fighting with Manchester over a few million before turning on the taps for a UK-wide furlough scheme , ministers have lost at least a little chunk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scoffing at the prospect of forcing businesses in the South West to shut to fight the virus in the North , days before appearing to do just that , exemplifies the problem .
This has created a fertile atmosphere for those suspicious of today ’ s strategy , and it isn ’ t just the commentators and hacks taking advantage .
Another political life for Nigel Farage will be far from the worst consequence of the Government continuing to get this wrong .
But it ’ s one we can do without .

As the pandemic gears up for round two, the political consensus on combating it continues to erode. Over the summer we saw the breakdown of the ‘four nations’ coordinated approach across the United Kingdom. Now dissent boils away inside the Conservative Party.
Senior figures, including Sir Graham Brady on this site, are calling on ministers to do much more to account for the negative consequences of lockdown – in terms of other health issues, mental health, and more – in the anti-Covid utility calculus.
Now the data used to justify Boris Johnson’s hard pivot away from his newly-minted tier system towards a second full lockdown is coming under attack. According to the Daily Telegraph, the Cambridge University data used to sell the policy is weeks out of date, and Ross Clark points out that much of the evidence apparently underlying the move is not publicly available.
Fraser Nelson also takes the Prime Minister to task for failing to set up a ‘red team’ of experts to challenge the assumptions of his advisors. By limiting himself to one source of expert information, this argument runs, Johnson leaves himself unable to weigh alternatives or choose between plausible options, and exposes himself to extreme political danger if he defies his advisors.
But ranged against this tendency are those who argue that ‘Covid deaths’ isn’t the best way to understand the public health consequences: and that hospital capacity is.
Once lockdown started to bite, there was no shortage of people going sour on the phrase ‘protect the NHS’. Should it not, after all, be there to protect us? But the central point, as we explained at the time, was making sure that the number of serious cases remained within the capacity of the Health Service to treat. The alternative was catastrophe.
Whilst the data about deaths is not clear, and dogged with disputes over definition, models and projections, hospitalisation data is publicly available on the Government’s dashboard. It shows admissions climbing steadily since the start of September, on a trajectory that would see the UK hit the first peak well before Christmas.
But this doesn’t tell the whole story, because patients and beds are not evenly distributed across the country. Much in the same way that the UK still has a housing crisis despite there being lots of stock in the wrong bits of the country, a surge in cases could overwhelm the NHS locally or regionally without the top-line figures showing that NHS England had toppled completely.
Furthermore, some lessons have been learned from the first wave, especially about the human toll of delayed treatments, surgeries, and the rest of the NHS’s normal business. As Bernard Jenkin recently noted, there is now much greater recognition that Health Service ‘capacity’ must include these things, rather than just focusing on whether or not it can treat every coronavirus patient.
But maintaining sufficient slack in the system to do this, during the months when the NHS undergoes its annual ‘winter crisis’, requires a more assertive response to the pandemic, not less. This looming squeeze on capacity from other causes also explains why the decision can’t be based purely on the basis of Covid admissions – even if the latter are declining, there will be a crunch if bed vacancies are falling faster.
Ultimately, the Government is paying the price for how badly it has handled public messaging during this crisis. From the early insistence that hand-washing would be sufficient to mixed messaging over masks, from trying to force people back to the office to shutting everything down, and from fighting with Manchester over a few million before turning on the taps for a UK-wide furlough scheme, ministers have lost at least a little chunk of the public with every u-turn. Scoffing at the prospect of forcing businesses in the South West to shut to fight the virus in the North, days before appearing to do just that, exemplifies the problem.
This has created a fertile atmosphere for those suspicious of today’s strategy, and it isn’t just the commentators and hacks taking advantage. Another political life for Nigel Farage will be far from the worst consequence of the Government continuing to get this wrong. But it’s one we can do without.


conservativehome--2020-11-03--Johnson is pressed in the Commons by Tory MPs about an end to shutdown by Christmas

Even when Conservative MPs vote in the Commons , there can be ambiguity about what they ’ re up to .
You might think that , with only a Yes or else a No lobby to go through , there would be none at all .
But there are also abstentions – and no single way to read these .
Has an MP refused to cast his vote deliberately ?
Or was he abroad ?
Is he ill ?
Was he slipped on constituency business ?
And when it comes to what Tory MPs say rather than do , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonetheless is a risky take on their reaction to Boris Johnson ’ s Commons statement yesterday .
• Sionhan Bailey , Duncan Baker , Alberto Costa , Jeremy Hunt , Bernard Jenkin , Andrea Leadsom , Andrew Percy and Julian Smith were essentially supportive .
That doesn ’ t mean that they didn ’ t have particular ideas , criticisms , or points to make – as Hunt did , for example , about NHS staff and regular testing .
• This group tends to merge into those who were a bit more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy or constituency points to make .
We count among these : Steve Baker , Andy Carter , Rehman Chisti , Greg Clark , David Davis , Nigel Fletcher , Gareth Johnson , Antony Higginbotham , Faye Jones , Edward Leigh , Jason McCartney , Tom Tugendhat and Craig Williams .
• A special mention for Peter Aldhuous , Ben Bradley , Sara Britcliffe , Pauline Latham , Stephen Metcalfe , James Sutherland and William Wragg – all of whom are concerned about restrictions on activities outdoors and indoors , such as golf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Next comes a cluster of MPs who , like ConservativeHome , want an impact assessment of the effects of the virus , lockdown and restrictions ; or else regular reports on their impact on lives and livelihoods – the same thing in effect .
They were : John Baron , Graham Brady ( an opponent of the new lockdown ) , Anne Marie-Morris , Bob Seely and Mel Stride , Chair of the Treasury Select Committee .
• Moving towards outright opposition , there were a series of MPs who didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indeed may be fairly and squarely behind the new shutdown , but who pressed the Prime Minister on whether it will be over by December 2 , or at least by Christmas .
These were : Saqib Bhatti , Bob Blackman , Laura Ferris , Richard Holden , Simon Jump , Anthony Mangnall and Mark Pawsey .
All these will presumably vote with the Government on Wednesday , but are swing voters to watch during the weeks ahead .
• Finally in this spectrum , those who were either unambiguously opposed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those who essentially sounded unsupportive .
Our list of these is as follows : Peter Bone , Steve Brine , Davies , Geoffrey Clifton-Brown , Huw Merriman , Robbie Moore , Greg Smith and Charles Walker .
That leaves two contributions to make a special note of .
First , Douglas Ross , confirming that he intends to place clear tartan water between the Scottish Conservatives and Johnson is he considers it necessary : “ will he explain why it seems that an English job is more important than a Welsh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he asked about furlough .
Second , Liam Fox , who believes that “ a new parliamentary Committee—perhaps time limited , or made up of Privy Counsellors—should be established to reassure the British public that the cure is not worse than the disease ?
” It would “ determine that decisions across all parts of Government have been taken on the best available evidence ” .
That suggestion is very much in tune with what we and others have been calling for , and really ought to be a runner .
Lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will like it : expect to hear more of it .
Johnson replied that “ I leave it up to the House to decide what arrangements it chooses to make ” .
Fox followed his question up with a point of order designed to draw the Speaker into the discussion – and of which he had given notice .
Nigel Evans replied , setting out the means by which such a committee might be set up , and suggested that Fox might seek further guidance from the Clerk of the House .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Even when Conservative MPs vote in the Commons, there can be ambiguity about what they’re up to. You might think that, with only a Yes or else a No lobby to go through, there would be none at all.
But there are also abstentions – and no single way to read these. Has an MP refused to cast his vote deliberately? Or was he abroad? Is he ill? Was he slipped on constituency business?
And when it comes to what Tory MPs say rather than do, we are in even deeper water. Here nonetheless is a risky take on their reaction to Boris Johnson’s Commons statement yesterday.
Siobhan Baillie, Duncan Baker, Alberto Costa, Jeremy Hunt, Bernard Jenkin, Andrea Leadsom, Andrew Percy and Julian Smith were essentially supportive. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have particular ideas, criticisms, or points to make – as Hunt did, for example, about NHS staff and regular testing.
This group tends to merge into those who were a bit more neutral in tone, or had particular policy or constituency points to make. We count among these: Steve Baker, Andy Carter, Rehman Chisti, Greg Clark, David Davis, Nigel Fletcher, Gareth Johnson, Antony Higginbotham, Faye Jones, Edward Leigh, Jason McCartney, Tom Tugendhat and Craig Williams.
A special mention for Peter Aldous, Ben Bradley, Sara Britcliffe, Pauline Latham, Stephen Metcalfe, James Sunderland and William Wragg – all of whom are concerned about restrictions on activities outdoors and indoors, such as golf, swimming and the use of gyms.
Next comes a cluster of MPs who, like ConservativeHome, want an impact assessment of the effects of the virus, lockdown and restrictions; or else regular reports on their impact on lives and livelihoods – the same thing in effect. They were: John Baron, Graham Brady (an opponent of the new lockdown), Anne Marie-Morris, Bob Seely and Mel Stride, Chair of the Treasury Select Committee.
Moving towards outright opposition, there were a series of MPs who didn’t go that far, and indeed may be fairly and squarely behind the new shutdown, but who pressed the Prime Minister on whether it will be over by December 2, or at least by Christmas. These were: Saqib Bhatti, Bob Blackman, Laura Ferris, Richard Holden, Simon Jump, Anthony Mangnall and Mark Pawsey. All these will presumably vote with the Government on Wednesday, but are swing voters to watch during the weeks ahead.
Finally in this spectrum, those who were either unambiguously opposed to the lockdown, such as Philip Davies, and those who essentially sounded unsupportive. Our list of these is as follows: Peter Bone, Steve Brine, Davies, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Huw Merriman, Robbie Moore, Greg Smith and Charles Walker.
That leaves two contributions to make a special note of.
First, Douglas Ross, confirming that he intends to place clear tartan water between the Scottish Conservatives and Johnson is he considers it necessary: “will he explain why it seems that an English job is more important than a Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish one?” he asked about furlough.
Second, Liam Fox, who believes that “a new parliamentary Committee—perhaps time limited, or made up of Privy Counsellors—should be established to reassure the British public that the cure is not worse than the disease?” It would “determine that decisions across all parts of Government have been taken on the best available evidence”.
That suggestion is very much in tune with what we and others have been calling for, and really ought to be a runner. Lots of MPs on all sides of the Chamber will like it: expect to hear more of it. Johnson replied that “I leave it up to the House to decide what arrangements it chooses to make”.
Fox followed his question up with a point of order designed to draw the Speaker into the discussion – and of which he had given notice. Nigel Evans replied, setting out the means by which such a committee might be set up, and suggested that Fox might seek further guidance from the Clerk of the House. That sounds like a door being left ajar.


conservativehome--2020-11-03--Rosalind Beck: Punishing private landlords is a flawed method to bring about “generation buy”

Dr Rosalind Beck is a doctor of Criminology and a Conservative Party member in South Wales .
Boris Johnson ’ s announcement that he will turn ‘ generation rent ’ into ‘ generation buy ’ by introducing five per cent deposit mortgages for two million first-time buyers ( FTBs ) will have been widely welcomed by young people keen to get a foot on the property ladder .
According to an estimate by the Centre for Policy Studies ( CPS ) there may be as many as 3.6 million ‘ resentful renters ’ who could have been home-owners by now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great idea to help these buy .
Unfortunately however , I believe this policy is not only a non-starter but frankly outrageous , for reasons outlined below .
The first problem is : where would these homes come from ?
An obvious answer is ‘ new-build properties.
’ However , why would the Government ’ s poor track record on getting developers to build sufficient supply be any different this time ?
These properties are also often expensive options .
Help to Buy has meant young people paying over the odds while developers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the line , many are unable to re-mortgage and are stuck on high interest rates .
The CPS ’ s idea that they instead have long-term fixed rates would not solve this if those rates are uncompetitive .
This is what has previously happened .
The only other way of sourcing homes for FTBs involves a transfer of assets from the private rented sector ( PRS ) to owner-occupation .
However , when I conducted a straw poll of landlords it was their view that only two per cent of tenants would currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were gifted the entire deposit by the taxpayer .
My own experience confirms it is very rare for a tenant to buy the home they are renting ( reasons for this below ) .
If we put this to one side though and assume these resentful renters and perhaps young adults still living at home are in a position to purchase , what type of existing properties would they want ?
We can discount larger properties in the PRS , 500,000 of which in England and Wales are Houses in Multiple Occupation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two to three million tenants could be decanted so their homes could be sold to people who would under-occupy them is ludicrous .
What ’ s more , where would the displaced tenants go ?
At the other extreme , studio flats are not usually bought by FTBs as they can be difficult to obtain mortgages on .
Also undesirable since the Grenfell disaster are flats in high-rise blocks and/or any in buildings with safety concerns .
three-bed homes are also not feasible for FTBs , except in cheaper areas .
So probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be one and two bed flats in low-rise buildings and two-bed houses .
If FTBs are somehow to be given access to these , what is the Government ’ s plan for the millions of individuals , couples and families already living in them ?
This reminds me of the time someone told me that as a landlord I should be housing Syrian refugees .
As I pointed out , having no vacancies , I would first have to evict my tenants .
Judging from Johnson ’ s negative comments about the PRS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s consistently damaging and misguided policies towards the sector , the grand plan is to drive landlords into evicting their tenants in order to sell .
The most vulnerable to this would be those in cheaper rental homes ; people who before successive governments ’ sell-off of social housing would have been accommodated by that sector .
The majority of these would not be in a position to buy ; they couldn ’ t save a five per cent deposit , they wouldn ’ t meet mortgage criteria , millions rely on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a poor credit rating , are foreign nationals , or are of an age which would disqualify them .
Home ownership is not on their radar ; something I know , coming from this segment of the population myself .
If in this ridiculous scenario , these people were evicted , they would find no refuge in the social sector .
Supply has been restricted here for years , for obvious reasons .
Even handing over a gift-wrapped council house to many lower-paid people would not guarantee a Conservative vote .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problematic relationship with social housing .
The PRS is the only possibility for them ; but available homes in this fantasy world would presumably be reserved for FTBs ( as that would be the whole point ) .
Incidentally , what is not mentioned is how hard it would be to sell ; the Government has extended even non-payers ’ rights to remain for up to two years in properties which therefore can not be sold with vacant possession .
The CPS paper concludes that an increase in home-ownership ‘ is deeply , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly emotive way to put it .
In fact , a roof over everyone ’ s head trumps the type of tenure .
It would plainly be immoral to evict tenants in order to create new owners .
Although this policy has been promoted with the acknowledgement that private landlords will be affected , with the CPS stating they must be persuaded or forced to sell , it is evident that tenants would bear the brunt in what would constitute a type of social cleansing .
In terms of emotive language , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , with Boris Johnson saying it is ‘ disgraceful ’ that people can ’ t buy their own homes .
This was a curious word to use and , looking it up , I found one definition of ‘ disgraceful ’ is ‘ scandalous behaviour.
’ So , who exactly has behaved scandalously ?
Developers for not building enough homes ?
Why should they ?
Or is it private landlords for the crime of meeting the housing needs of more than nine million people by financing new-builds and buying old housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government took a back seat ?
If the Government wants to blame anyone , it can start with itself .

Dr Rosalind Beck is a doctor of Criminology and a Conservative Party member in South Wales.
Boris Johnson’s announcement that he will turn ‘generation rent’ into ‘generation buy’ by introducing five per cent deposit mortgages for two million first-time buyers (FTBs) will have been widely welcomed by young people keen to get a foot on the property ladder.
According to an estimate by the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) there may be as many as 3.6 million ‘resentful renters’ who could have been home-owners by now. Superficially, it looks like a great idea to help these buy.
Unfortunately however, I believe this policy is not only a non-starter but frankly outrageous, for reasons outlined below.
The first problem is: where would these homes come from?
An obvious answer is ‘new-build properties.’ However, why would the Government’s poor track record on getting developers to build sufficient supply be any different this time? These properties are also often expensive options. Help to Buy has meant young people paying over the odds while developers make a handsome profit.
Further down the line, many are unable to re-mortgage and are stuck on high interest rates. The CPS’s idea that they instead have long-term fixed rates would not solve this if those rates are uncompetitive. This is what has previously happened.
The only other way of sourcing homes for FTBs involves a transfer of assets from the private rented sector (PRS) to owner-occupation. However, when I conducted a straw poll of landlords it was their view that only two per cent of tenants would currently be viable and willing purchasers even if they were gifted the entire deposit by the taxpayer. My own experience confirms it is very rare for a tenant to buy the home they are renting (reasons for this below).
If we put this to one side though and assume these resentful renters and perhaps young adults still living at home are in a position to purchase, what type of existing properties would they want?
We can discount larger properties in the PRS, 500,000 of which in England and Wales are Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). The idea that two to three million tenants could be decanted so their homes could be sold to people who would under-occupy them is ludicrous. What’s more, where would the displaced tenants go?
At the other extreme, studio flats are not usually bought by FTBs as they can be difficult to obtain mortgages on. Also undesirable since the Grenfell disaster are flats in high-rise blocks and/or any in buildings with safety concerns. three-bed homes are also not feasible for FTBs, except in cheaper areas.
So probably the key target properties for FTBs would be one and two bed flats in low-rise buildings and two-bed houses. If FTBs are somehow to be given access to these, what is the Government’s plan for the millions of individuals, couples and families already living in them?
This reminds me of the time someone told me that as a landlord I should be housing Syrian refugees. As I pointed out, having no vacancies, I would first have to evict my tenants.
Judging from Johnson’s negative comments about the PRS though in his speech and the Government’s consistently damaging and misguided policies towards the sector, the grand plan is to drive landlords into evicting their tenants in order to sell.
The most vulnerable to this would be those in cheaper rental homes; people who before successive governments’ sell-off of social housing would have been accommodated by that sector. The majority of these would not be in a position to buy; they couldn’t save a five per cent deposit, they wouldn’t meet mortgage criteria, millions rely on benefits, are on low pay, have a poor credit rating, are foreign nationals, or are of an age which would disqualify them. Home ownership is not on their radar; something I know, coming from this segment of the population myself.
If in this ridiculous scenario, these people were evicted, they would find no refuge in the social sector. Supply has been restricted here for years, for obvious reasons. Even handing over a gift-wrapped council house to many lower-paid people would not guarantee a Conservative vote. I have previously written about the Conservatives’ problematic relationship with social housing.
The PRS is the only possibility for them; but available homes in this fantasy world would presumably be reserved for FTBs (as that would be the whole point).
Incidentally, what is not mentioned is how hard it would be to sell; the Government has extended even non-payers’ rights to remain for up to two years in properties which therefore cannot be sold with vacant possession.
The CPS paper concludes that an increase in home-ownership ‘is deeply, urgently necessary.’ I find that a highly emotive way to put it. In fact, a roof over everyone’s head trumps the type of tenure. It would plainly be immoral to evict tenants in order to create new owners.
Although this policy has been promoted with the acknowledgement that private landlords will be affected, with the CPS stating they must be persuaded or forced to sell, it is evident that tenants would bear the brunt in what would constitute a type of social cleansing.
In terms of emotive language, this is not unusual in housing discussions, of course, with Boris Johnson saying it is ‘disgraceful’ that people can’t buy their own homes. This was a curious word to use and, looking it up, I found one definition of ‘disgraceful’ is ‘scandalous behaviour.’
So, who exactly has behaved scandalously? Developers for not building enough homes? Why should they? Or is it private landlords for the crime of meeting the housing needs of more than nine million people by financing new-builds and buying old housing stock to refurbish for rent, while the Government took a back seat? If the Government wants to blame anyone, it can start with itself.


conservativehome--2020-11-05--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Prime Minister’s Council for Science and T


conservativehome--2020-11-05--Garvan Walshe: How to shape UK foreign policy for the new administration

Garvan Walshe is a former national and international security policy adviser to the Conservative Party .
He runs TRD Policy As I write , it is almost certain that Joe Biden will be the next president of the United States .
He leads in Nevada , Arizona , Wisconsin , Michigan , and could yet overtake Donald Trump in Georgia .
Without Georgia , his electoral college margin would match Trump ’ s against Hillary Clinton ’ s ( and hang-on margins as thin in key midwestern states ) .
Counting in Pennsylvania will take a little longer , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his favour to allow him to narrowly carry the state .
Recounts and litigation may slow down a final result , but it ’ s hard to see how Trump can overturn this lead .
Bush v Gore in 2000 this is not .
However , elections for the Senate aren ’ t however going so well for Biden .
Republicans will probably retain their majority , and therefore be able to block his domestic legislative agenda .
Stymied at home , Biden , once a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign affairs .
But he will have his work cut out .
Trump gutted the State Department , failing to appoint the political staff to which he was entitled , and doing nothing to prevent an exodus of career foreign service officers .
Biden will have to put it back together .
The new President will also have to show how he can deliver for the Midwest that so narrowly put him in the White House .
So though he ’ ll keep the United States in the WTO , he can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
This clashes with his other main policy goal – to repair relationships with America ’ s democratic allies and rebuild the international system .
Expect strong gestures of support for NATO and South Korea , both neglected by Trump , and a restoration of good relations with the EU .
Like Trump , he ’ ll want its members to spend more on defence ; whether his more conciliatory approach will meet with more success is another matter .
Nevertheless , a Biden administration will remove the main source of instability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK ’ s attempt to find a foreign policy role after Brexit , and given any attempt to give definition to “ Global Britain ” an air of unreality .
After all , how can a medium-sized power contribute to a rules based international order when the existing superpower seems determined to destroy it , and the emerging one , in Beijing , to bend it to its own imperial ends ?
The return to stability gives the UK the chance to define its national interests outside the EU .
While a substantive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be extremely difficult , contributing to the defence of the Baltic and Eastern Europe ( particularly in maritime and air theatres where the UK still has relevant capacity ) , support for America ’ s return to the Paris Climate Change Accords , and even sparking a renewed effort to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons , are all ways the UK can work with the US and European partners to contribute to international stability .
Britain can also act alongside the US , the other Five Eyes powers , Japan , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to craft a strategy to counter Chinese expansionism .
It will , unfortunately , also need to continue cooperation in the fight against Islamist terrorism , which has not receded as a threat , as the recent attacks in France and Austria have shown .
If Biden does indeed win , Britain will find a familiar foreign policy world that it can work in .
Though it is hard to see how the UK can be a global full-spectrum military power without spending far more on defence than is currently contemplated , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the question , it can slot into a space as a “ Bigger Sweden ” : an independent-minded , respected , capable , and effective part of the international system .
Britain is a nuclear power , a permanent member of the UN Security Council ( not to mention a key supplier of defence equipment ) , and leading participant in the multilateral efforts in support of international peace and security that a Biden administration would like to promote .
If this is is not the most romantic vision available , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources the UK is willing to deploy .
If the White House would be delighted by a large and sustained increase in UK defence and security expenditure , that is hardly something that can realistically be sold to furloughed voters closer to home .
A medium-sized power like the UK depends on international structures to exercise power on the world stage .
Biden would restore them , and it should be our duty to be present at their recreation .

Garvan Walshe is a former national and international security policy adviser to the Conservative Party. He runs TRD Policy
As I write, it is almost certain that Joe Biden will be the next president of the United States. He leads in Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, and could yet overtake Donald Trump in Georgia.
Without Georgia, his electoral college margin would match Trump’s against Hillary Clinton’s (and hang-on margins as thin in key midwestern states). Counting in Pennsylvania will take a little longer, but postal votes appear to be sufficiently in his favour to allow him to narrowly carry the state. Recounts and litigation may slow down a final result, but it’s hard to see how Trump can overturn this lead. Bush v Gore in 2000 this is not.
However, elections for the Senate aren’t however going so well for Biden. Republicans will probably retain their majority, and therefore be able to block his domestic legislative agenda. Stymied at home, Biden, once a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will have far more freedom in foreign affairs.
But he will have his work cut out.
Trump gutted the State Department, failing to appoint the political staff to which he was entitled, and doing nothing to prevent an exodus of career foreign service officers. Biden will have to put it back together.
The new President will also have to show how he can deliver for the Midwest that so narrowly put him in the White House. So though he’ll keep the United States in the WTO, he can be expected to lead an extremely tough trade policy.
This clashes with his other main policy goal – to repair relationships with America’s democratic allies and rebuild the international system. Expect strong gestures of support for NATO and South Korea, both neglected by Trump, and a restoration of good relations with the EU. Like Trump, he’ll want its members to spend more on defence; whether his more conciliatory approach will meet with more success is another matter.
Nevertheless, a Biden administration will remove the main source of instability in international affairs that has bedevilled the UK’s attempt to find a foreign policy role after Brexit, and given any attempt to give definition to “Global Britain” an air of unreality. After all, how can a medium-sized power contribute to a rules based international order when the existing superpower seems determined to destroy it, and the emerging one, in Beijing, to bend it to its own imperial ends?
The return to stability gives the UK the chance to define its national interests outside the EU. While a substantive trade deal with the US is likely to be extremely difficult, contributing to the defence of the Baltic and Eastern Europe (particularly in maritime and air theatres where the UK still has relevant capacity), support for America’s return to the Paris Climate Change Accords, and even sparking a renewed effort to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, are all ways the UK can work with the US and European partners to contribute to international stability.
Britain can also act alongside the US, the other Five Eyes powers, Japan, and major European nations including France and Germany to craft a strategy to counter Chinese expansionism. It will, unfortunately, also need to continue cooperation in the fight against Islamist terrorism, which has not receded as a threat, as the recent attacks in France and Austria have shown.
If Biden does indeed win, Britain will find a familiar foreign policy world that it can work in. Though it is hard to see how the UK can be a global full-spectrum military power without spending far more on defence than is currently contemplated, and direct involvement in EU defence structures is out of the question, it can slot into a space as a “Bigger Sweden”: an independent-minded, respected, capable, and effective part of the international system. Britain is a nuclear power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council (not to mention a key supplier of defence equipment), and leading participant in the multilateral efforts in support of international peace and security that a Biden administration would like to promote.
If this is is not the most romantic vision available, it is at least commensurate with the resources the UK is willing to deploy. If the White House would be delighted by a large and sustained increase in UK defence and security expenditure, that is hardly something that can realistically be sold to furloughed voters closer to home.
A medium-sized power like the UK depends on international structures to exercise power on the world stage. Biden would restore them, and it should be our duty to be present at their recreation.


conservativehome--2020-11-05--Ricky Bower: Some of the proposed planning reforms are welcome. But localism should not be sacrifice

Ricky Bower: Some of the proposed planning reforms are welcome. But localism should not be sacrificed.

Cllr Ricky Bower is an East Preston Ward Councillor on Arun District Council .
He is a former Cabinet Member for Planning and Chairman of the Development Control Committee .
The Planning White Paper is predicated on the assumption that there is something wrong with the planning system , which slows the increase in housing completions .
I ’ ll start with this fallacy .
According to the Local Government Association , there are 400,000 houses with planning permission that have yet to be commenced .
In my own authority there are 4,000 such permissions .
So , if obtaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the LGA has proved it isn ’ t ) where is the blockage ?
I contend it is outside the control of the local planning authorities .
Most planning permissions are issued on the conclusion of section 106 agreements being negotiated to cover all the required infrastructure and community benefit needed to support new developments .
Back in 2006 , I was discussing with Cllr Gordon Keymer ( then a leading member on the LGA ) how a future Conservative Government could replace the dreaded Regional Plan system without returning to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each local planning authority should be obligated to make agreements with one or more other local planning authority to address strategic and cross-border issues .
The Coalition Government , to my delight , included the ‘ Duty to Cooperate ’ in the changes to the planning system that followed .
Only they made the duty horizontal when I think it should have been vertical as well .
That is to say , the same duty should have been placed on infrastructure providers .
All too often it is these infrastructure providers who cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reputation of the planners .
They have different business plan periods to the duration of a Local Plan .
They have significant staff turnovers , so those who have negotiated Section 106 agreements with planning applicants are no longer with the same organisation when it comes to delivering on the agreement .
Consequently the commitment is reviewed and sometimes changed to the detriment of the overall planning permission .
In my experience the worst offenders are the Primary Care Groups who assess their needs against a developing Local Plan , state how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only to find some existing surgeries close because of retirements or some other reason .
Likewise , education providers have an alarming habit of constantly recalculating the school-age population and thus reassessing their new-build needs against new developments – only to redirect their Section 106 resources away from the new development to expand some other existing provision .
Highways authorities are notorious for desk-top exercises when considering access issues .
As for those responsible for drainage and waste water , the least said the better !
Affordable housing contributions are usually built into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that conforms to the Local Plan and is normally met early on .
It seems rare to find all the infrastructure providers on the same page as the developer , at the same time .
Is it any wonder that developers sit on their approved schemes constantly reassessing the viability and hoping for an uplift in land values ?
The White Paper is suggesting the removal of the Duty to Cooperate from Local Plans .
This is a huge mistake .
Removing the duty will overnight make all Local Plans non-compliant with Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been wasted .
Many Local Plans have end dates beyond 2030 so there should be no rush .
However , the proposal to reduce the lifespan of a plan to five years is welcome , together with the reduction in evidence gathering that would follow .
It would also follow that the business plans of infrastructure providers would be more likely to be in line with Local Plans .
Nevertheless , the replacement of some localised parts of a Local Plan with national or regional based policies raises an important question about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smells like the centralised or regional planning we got rid of back in 2010 .
A revision of the Manual for Streets would be popular , particularly outside the Met areas .
All too often it is used by highway authorities to respond to planning applications with ‘ no comment ’ or ‘ the proposal complies with Manual for Streets ’ so local knowledge of road conditions is overruled .
When applied to new large-scale developments , we often end up with a large amount of on-street parking and roads meant as bus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fire appliance .
Of course , in Unitary LPAs the same elected members can have direct democratic control of Highways Departments and most local planning authorities are not highways authorities .
Only today my LPA has had its recently adopted development parking standard nullified by a Planning Inspector ’ s decision ( with costs ) where off-street under provision was judged to be outweighed by on-street availability .
So , my response to the White Paper is ‘ Planning – keep it local ’ .

Cllr Ricky Bower is an East Preston Ward Councillor on Arun District Council. He is a former Cabinet Member for Planning and Chairman of the Development Control Committee.
The Planning White Paper is predicated on the assumption that there is something wrong with the planning system, which slows the increase in housing completions.
I’ll start with this fallacy. According to the Local Government Association, there are 400,000 houses with planning permission that have yet to be commenced. In my own authority there are 4,000 such permissions.
So, if obtaining planning permission is not the problem (and the LGA has proved it isn’t) where is the blockage? I contend it is outside the control of the local planning authorities. Most planning permissions are issued on the conclusion of section 106 agreements being negotiated to cover all the required infrastructure and community benefit needed to support new developments.
Back in 2006, I was discussing with Cllr Gordon Keymer (then a leading member on the LGA) how a future Conservative Government could replace the dreaded Regional Plan system without returning to the County Structure plan process. I suggested each local planning authority should be obligated to make agreements with one or more other local planning authority to address strategic and cross-border issues. The Coalition Government, to my delight, included the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ in the changes to the planning system that followed. Only they made the duty horizontal when I think it should have been vertical as well. That is to say, the same duty should have been placed on infrastructure providers.
All too often it is these infrastructure providers who cause damage to the planning system and harm the reputation of the planners. They have different business plan periods to the duration of a Local Plan. They have significant staff turnovers, so those who have negotiated Section 106 agreements with planning applicants are no longer with the same organisation when it comes to delivering on the agreement. Consequently the commitment is reviewed and sometimes changed to the detriment of the overall planning permission.
In my experience the worst offenders are the Primary Care Groups who assess their needs against a developing Local Plan, state how many new or expanded surgeries they need only to find some existing surgeries close because of retirements or some other reason. Likewise, education providers have an alarming habit of constantly recalculating the school-age population and thus reassessing their new-build needs against new developments – only to redirect their Section 106 resources away from the new development to expand some other existing provision.
Highways authorities are notorious for desk-top exercises when considering access issues. As for those responsible for drainage and waste water, the least said the better! Affordable housing contributions are usually built into the original planning application to a level that conforms to the Local Plan and is normally met early on.
It seems rare to find all the infrastructure providers on the same page as the developer, at the same time. Is it any wonder that developers sit on their approved schemes constantly reassessing the viability and hoping for an uplift in land values?
The White Paper is suggesting the removal of the Duty to Cooperate from Local Plans. This is a huge mistake. Removing the duty will overnight make all Local Plans non-compliant with Government policy and the last ten years will have been wasted. Many Local Plans have end dates beyond 2030 so there should be no rush. However, the proposal to reduce the lifespan of a plan to five years is welcome, together with the reduction in evidence gathering that would follow. It would also follow that the business plans of infrastructure providers would be more likely to be in line with Local Plans. Nevertheless, the replacement of some localised parts of a Local Plan with national or regional based policies raises an important question about the democratic accountability of such policies. Smells like the centralised or regional planning we got rid of back in 2010.
A revision of the Manual for Streets would be popular, particularly outside the Met areas. All too often it is used by highway authorities to respond to planning applications with ‘no comment’ or ‘the proposal complies with Manual for Streets’ so local knowledge of road conditions is overruled. When applied to new large-scale developments, we often end up with a large amount of on-street parking and roads meant as bus routes being unable to give access to a fire appliance. Of course, in Unitary LPAs the same elected members can have direct democratic control of Highways Departments and most local planning authorities are not highways authorities. Only today my LPA has had its recently adopted development parking standard nullified by a Planning Inspector’s decision (with costs) where off-street under provision was judged to be outweighed by on-street availability.
So, my response to the White Paper is ‘Planning – keep it local’.


conservativehome--2020-11-04--America’s election results – and the Blue Wave That Never Was. Biden will be constrained if he wins.

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
So much of the 2020 election remains unknown , and so this column is laced with caution .
What do we know ?
That the final outcome of the presidential election is not yet known .
Predictably , that did not stop Donald Trump from asserting victory in the early hours of the morning in front of his supporters .
Claims were made of fraudulent voting , but they remain unproven .
It was all very President Trump – and you should read that in a pejorative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is those excesses , idiosyncrasies and eccentricities that make the maverick so popular amongst his base .
He has once again defied the odds and fended off the suggestion from pollsters that was down and out of this race .
The President is evidently frustrated with the slow pace of returns , and he is perhaps not alone .
Americans are not used to waiting this long for their results – although in 2000 , it took 36 days , a recount and the Supreme Court to make a determination in Gore v @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone .
The stress put on the election system by Covid-19 means that record numbers of Americans have voted early or by mail .
Counting those votes takes time .
Crucially , the system varies on a state-by-state basis .
For example , in the absolutely vital swing state of Pennsylvania , the deadline for military and overseas ballots is next Tuesday .
Whilst the final outcome of the presidential race is not clear , we do know that it the result was not that which many expected .
Pollsters and forecasters ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely , albeit by no means guaranteed .
At this stage , we do know that it has not materialised .
An early indication of a blue wave would have been victory for Joe Biden in Florida or Texas – the latter a Republican stronghold but recent object of Democratic desires .
But Trump has won both .
He and Joe Biden are locked in a razor-sharp battle for a handful of swing states which will determine the outcome of the election .
There will be no Democratic demolition of the electoral map @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democrats will take control of the Senate .
Under the ( correct ) assumption that the Republicans would flip a seat in Alabama , the path to picking up four additional Senate seats seems unclear .
That will have a seismic impact on the next four years on Capitol Hill should Biden win the presidency .
If weeks of recounts and litigation end with Mr Biden securing the White House , a Republican majority in the Senate will severely curtail his ability to govern .
In this event , Senate Republicans will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – so his ambitious $ 2 trillion green energy and climate plans will be trimmed in order to protect traditional energy production in states like Texas Such a result will all but guarantee gridlock ensues on Capitol Hill , with the Senate providing a serious check on the President ’ s power .
A President Biden would therefore rely on Executive Order to govern , while trying to find bipartisan issues that he can work with Congressional Republicans on like infrastructure .
Finally , it may be that the most volatile and unpredictable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar outcome .
Continuity on Capitol Hill look set to ensue , with Republicans holding the Senate and Democrats keeping the House .
That will mean Speaker McConnell in the Senate and Speaker Pelosi in the House continue to be the two most important figures on the Hill for years to come .
The great unknown , of course , is whether there will be change or continuity in the White House .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
So much of the 2020 election remains unknown, and so this column is laced with caution.
What do we know? That the final outcome of the presidential election is not yet known. Predictably, that did not stop Donald Trump from asserting victory in the early hours of the morning in front of his supporters. Claims were made of fraudulent voting, but they remain unproven.
It was all very President Trump – and you should read that in a pejorative way. In many ways, it is those excesses, idiosyncrasies and eccentricities that make the maverick so popular amongst his base. He has once again defied the odds and fended off the suggestion from pollsters that was down and out of this race.
The President is evidently frustrated with the slow pace of returns, and he is perhaps not alone. Americans are not used to waiting this long for their results – although in 2000, it took 36 days, a recount and the Supreme Court to make a determination in Gore v Bush in the swing state of Florida alone.
The stress put on the election system by Covid-19 means that record numbers of Americans have voted early or by mail. Counting those votes takes time. Crucially, the system varies on a state-by-state basis. For example, in the absolutely vital swing state of Pennsylvania, the deadline for military and overseas ballots is next Tuesday.
Whilst the final outcome of the presidential race is not clear, we do know that it the result was not that which many expected. Pollsters and forecasters’ models had suggested a blue wave looked likely, albeit by no means guaranteed.
At this stage, we do know that it has not materialised. An early indication of a blue wave would have been victory for Joe Biden in Florida or Texas – the latter a Republican stronghold but recent object of Democratic desires. But Trump has won both. He and Joe Biden are locked in a razor-sharp battle for a handful of swing states which will determine the outcome of the election. There will be no Democratic demolition of the electoral map.
Next, it looks increasingly unlikely that Democrats will take control of the Senate. Under the (correct) assumption that the Republicans would flip a seat in Alabama, the path to picking up four additional Senate seats seems unclear. That will have a seismic impact on the next four years on Capitol Hill should Biden win the presidency.
If weeks of recounts and litigation end with Mr Biden securing the White House, a Republican majority in the Senate will severely curtail his ability to govern. In this event, Senate Republicans will frustrate and handicap Biden’s agenda – so his ambitious $2 trillion green energy and climate plans will be trimmed in order to protect traditional energy production in states like Texas
Such a result will all but guarantee gridlock ensues on Capitol Hill, with the Senate providing a serious check on the President’s power. A President Biden would therefore rely on Executive Order to govern, while trying to find bipartisan issues that he can work with Congressional Republicans on like infrastructure.
Finally, it may be that the most volatile and unpredictable election in recent history returns a strangely familiar outcome. Continuity on Capitol Hill look set to ensue, with Republicans holding the Senate and Democrats keeping the House. That will mean Speaker McConnell in the Senate and Speaker Pelosi in the House continue to be the two most important figures on the Hill for years to come. The great unknown, of course, is whether there will be change or continuity in the White House.


conservativehome--2020-11-04--The 32 Conservative MPs who voted against lockdown

Steve Baker and Philip Hollobone were tellers for the Noes .

Afriyie, Adam
Bone, Peter
Brady, Graham
Brine, Steve
Chope, Christopher
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Jonathan
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duncan Smith, Iain
Fysh, Marcus
Green, Chris
Grundy, James
Harper, Mark
Henderson, Stephen
Jones, David
Loughton, Tim
Mackinlay, Craig
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Merriman, Hugh
Morris, Anne-Marie
Penning, Mike
Redwood, John
Rosindell, Andrew
Smith, Henry
Swayne , Desmond
Syms, Robert
Thomas, Derek
Walker, Charles
Whittaker, Craig
Wragg, William
Steve Baker and Philip Hollobone were tellers for the Noes.


conservativehome--2020-11-04--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson seduces the House, and talks away his mistakes, by promising a

Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson seduces the House, and talks away his mistakes, by promising a rosy future

Boris Johnson began by referring to “ a heavily contested election ” .
Could he be about to trespass into the affairs of certain benighted colonies which went their own way in 1776 ?
No .
He was about to tell a joke .
He meant the election “ a year ago to the day ” in which Sir Lindsay Hoyle was chosen as Speaker of the House of Commons .
The Prime Minister thanked Sir Lindsay “ for making the Speakership great again ” .
Here was a pretty piece of flattery , and the Speaker – who on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling the Commons first about the new lockdown – could not forbear to laugh .
What unscrupulous use of charm .
The PM is a seducer .
John Wilkes , an eighteenth-century libertine and liberal for whom Johnson feels a vast admiration , used to boast that it took him half an hour to talk away his face , and make some beautiful woman his mistress .
Johnson set out to seduce his fellow parliamentarians .
Few of them , of either sex , can be described as beautiful .
Nor , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of personal attractiveness by using beautiful language or creating beautiful houses .
So far as one can see – and in this age of public speaking by video link from one ’ s own home one can often see – they possess wretched taste in interior decoration .
It is possible that in order to avoid exciting the envy of their constituents , they have selected the least charming corners of their homes from which to broadcast to the nation .
But the pictures on the walls are dismal , the ornaments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bookcases are often half-empty , a state of affairs which never endures for long in any household that loves books .
Sir Keir Starmer was present in person , and determined not to be seduced .
“ I just want some basic honesty , ” he said .
This wholesome ingredient was not on offer .
Johnson was in no mood to provide basic anything .
Like Wilkes , he takes a more sophisticated approach .
He rose above Sir Keir , called on him to “ put aside party political wrangling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of using the crisis “ as an opportunity to make political capital ” .
Sir Keir should instead imitate “ the former member for Sedgefield ” , and former Labour Leader , who , according to the PM , “ broadly supports ” the Government ’ s approach in an article for today ’ s Daily Mail .
Let Sir Keir “ take a leaf out of the Blair book ” .
By now Sir Keir himself was laughing .
Though not actually seduced , he had failed to impose a high moral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elaborately polite towards almost every Labour backbencher who raised some point .
To Chi Onwurah ( Lab , Newcastle upon Tyne Central ) , who raised the dreadful financial predicament of a coach operator in her constituency , he said : “ I ’ ll do my best to oblige her.
” But when Kelly Foy ( Lab , City of Durham ) brought up Dominic Cummings ’ visit to Durham , and accused the PM of having “ a blind spot that even a trip to Barnard Castle can ’ t fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point scoring ” .
In the speech with which , soon after PMQs , he opened the debate on the lockdown , Johnson continued to call for national unity , thanking the public for responding “ magnificently and selflessly ” , “ bearing any burden ” ( an echo of JFK ) , even accepting any inconsistency , so “ they can do the right thing ” .
Johnson , in short , was unscrupulous enough to sound as moral as Sir Keir , but in a more amusing way .
So when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Westbury ) for reading a newspaper during the PM ’ s speech , Johnson leapt to Murrison ’ s defence and said “ it ’ s absolutely right for honourable members to consult relevant documents that may contain information to the advantage and betterment of the House ” .
The Speaker suggested Murrison had been reading the horoscope .
Johnson to Murrison : “ I can assure my honourable friend that his future is rosy.
” Johnson offers , after the travails of the forthcoming lockdown , a rosy future to us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moments on our way to the grave .
With this prospectus , resorted to by seducers down the ages , he dominated a House many of whose members , on both sides of the House , regard him as unprincipled and incompetent .

Boris Johnson began by referring to “a heavily contested election”. Could he be about to trespass into the affairs of certain benighted colonies which went their own way in 1776?
No. He was about to tell a joke. He meant the election “a year ago to the day” in which Sir Lindsay Hoyle was chosen as Speaker of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister thanked Sir Lindsay “for making the Speakership great again”. Here was a pretty piece of flattery, and the Speaker – who on Monday was enraged with him for not telling the Commons first about the new lockdown – could not forbear to laugh.
What unscrupulous use of charm. The PM is a seducer. John Wilkes, an eighteenth-century libertine and liberal for whom Johnson feels a vast admiration, used to boast that it took him half an hour to talk away his face, and make some beautiful woman his mistress.
Johnson set out to seduce his fellow parliamentarians. Few of them, of either sex, can be described as beautiful.
Nor, in general, do they compensate for their lack of personal attractiveness by using beautiful language or creating beautiful houses.
So far as one can see – and in this age of public speaking by video link from one’s own home one can often see – they possess wretched taste in interior decoration.
It is possible that in order to avoid exciting the envy of their constituents, they have selected the least charming corners of their homes from which to broadcast to the nation.
But the pictures on the walls are dismal, the ornaments mean, and worst of all, the bookcases are often half-empty, a state of affairs which never endures for long in any household that loves books.
Sir Keir Starmer was present in person, and determined not to be seduced. “I just want some basic honesty,” he said.
This wholesome ingredient was not on offer. Johnson was in no mood to provide basic anything. Like Wilkes, he takes a more sophisticated approach.
He rose above Sir Keir, called on him to “put aside party political wrangling and point-scoring”, and accused him of using the crisis “as an opportunity to make political capital”.
Sir Keir should instead imitate “the former member for Sedgefield”, and former Labour Leader, who, according to the PM, “broadly supports” the Government’s approach in an article for today’s Daily Mail.
Let Sir Keir “take a leaf out of the Blair book”. By now Sir Keir himself was laughing. Though not actually seduced, he had failed to impose a high moral tone.
The PM proceeded to be elaborately polite towards almost every Labour backbencher who raised some point. To Chi Onwurah (Lab, Newcastle upon Tyne Central), who raised the dreadful financial predicament of a coach operator in her constituency, he said: “I’ll do my best to oblige her.”
But when Kelly Foy (Lab, City of Durham) brought up Dominic Cummings’ visit to Durham, and accused the PM of having “a blind spot that even a trip to Barnard Castle can’t fix”, Johnson deplored “constant party-political point scoring”.
In the speech with which, soon after PMQs, he opened the debate on the lockdown, Johnson continued to call for national unity, thanking the public for responding “magnificently and selflessly”, “bearing any burden” (an echo of JFK), even accepting any inconsistency, so “they can do the right thing”.
Johnson, in short, was unscrupulous enough to sound as moral as Sir Keir, but in a more amusing way. So when the Speaker rebuked Andrew Murrison (Con, Westbury) for reading a newspaper during the PM’s speech, Johnson leapt to Murrison’s defence and said “it’s absolutely right for honourable members to consult relevant documents that may contain information to the advantage and betterment of the House”.
The Speaker suggested Murrison had been reading the horoscope. Johnson to Murrison: “I can assure my honourable friend that his future is rosy.”
Johnson offers, after the travails of the forthcoming lockdown, a rosy future to us all, or at least some lighter moments on our way to the grave. With this prospectus, resorted to by seducers down the ages, he dominated a House many of whose members, on both sides of the House, regard him as unprincipled and incompetent.


conservativehome--2020-11-05--WATCH: Sunak announces the extension of furlough until the end of March

`` The furlough scheme… will be extended until the end of March '' Chancellor Rishi Sunak says , `` Our @ @ @ @ @ , to protect jobs and livelihoods '' https : //t.co/HP93SiMiQc pic.twitter.com/6LHzjZpUTS

"The furlough scheme… will be extended until the end of March"
Chancellor Rishi Sunak says, "Our highest priority remains the same, to protect jobs and livelihoods"https://t.co/HP93SiMiQc pic.twitter.com/6LHzjZpUTS
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) November 5, 2020