conservativehome--2020-09-11--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Independent Committee on Police Conduct –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Independent Committee on Police Conduct – 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 .
“ This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry , and who has a track record of board leadership , to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors .
The selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors ’ recovery from Covid-19 , and long-term success thereafter .
To do so , the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry , business , a major charitable or cultural institution , or government.
” Time : Up to two days per month .
“ The Charity Commission has a clear purpose : to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society .
To help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity , and meet the challenges we face , in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital , Culture , Media and Sport , the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP , wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales .
A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020 .
This is a senior role requiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission .
” “ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate : Her Majesty ’ s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ( HMCPSI ) .
The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation , efficiency , and effectiveness of the public prosecutors ( the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) and the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO ) ) .
The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held to account and to improve , thereby strengthening the public ’ s trust in the prosecution process .
Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.
” “ The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards .
They are responsible for : identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards ; leading on the development of new standards ; and where necessary , providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards .
The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field , encompassing at least one of the following : leadership in a forensic , or related , scientific discipline ; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment ; the regulatory process involving scientific standards ; or the criminal justice system.
” “ The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole , sponsored by the Department for Education and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education .
The Commissioner ’ s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England .
The legislative basis for the office of Children ’ s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004 .
This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder .
The legislation relating to the Children ’ s Commissioner is permissive , allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and , in general , can not conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.
” “ We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience , international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair .
The central priority of Innovate UK , under a new Executive Chair , will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK ’ s innovation capacity and capability , taking full advantage of its considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation ’ s position within key markets , providing impactful thought leadership to the UK ’ s innovation system .
As the pivotal funding body for business R & D , especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country , the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R & D and technologies of the future.
” Remuneration : £180,000 per annum base , up to £37,500 performance-related .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964 , now section 63 of the Police Act 1996 .
Under the remit of the Board , sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee .
In addition to this , the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum ( PCF ) , a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW .
We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000 , the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
British Film Institute (BFI) – Chair
“This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry, and who has a track record of board leadership, to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors. The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors’ recovery from Covid-19, and long-term success thereafter. To do so, the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry, business, a major charitable or cultural institution, or government.”
Time: Up to two days per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 11 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Charity Commission – Board Member
“The Charity Commission has a clear purpose: to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society. To help us meet that purpose, fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity, and meet the challenges we face, in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP, wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020. This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission. ”
Time: Approx. 24 days per year.
Remuneration: £350 per diem plus expenses.
Closes: 13 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Forensic Science Regulator
“The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards. They are responsible for: identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards; leading on the development of new standards; and where necessary, providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards. The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field, encompassing at least one of the following: leadership in a forensic, or related, scientific discipline; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment; the regulatory process involving scientific standards; or the criminal justice system.”
Time: 3-4 days per week.
Remuneration: £96,000 per annum FTE.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Police Advisory Board for England and Wales – Chair
“The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964, now section 63 of the Police Act 1996. Under the remit of the Board, sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee. In addition to this, the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum (PCF), a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW. We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing. The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000, the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.”
Time: Approx. 21 days per annum.
Remuneration: £437 per diem, plus expenses.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October


conservativehome--2020-09-11--A problem for Johnson. The Agreement he concedes is flawed is one that he signed.

Yesterday , we wrote that Boris Johnson was vulnerable to a pincer movement on the UK lnternal Market Bill – part of which , the Government said again yesterday , provides for the breaking of international law .
And today , there are what may be the first signs of it – reports of an amendment to give Parliament , not the Government , the final say in triggering the relevant clauses .
This could attract support from former Remainers , those Tory MPs who object in principle to breaking international law , and Brexiteers who prize the role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only the first shot in the procedural skirmishing on the Bill , which will surely see a mass of amendments .
There are at least three developments to watch for .
The first is what Downing Street may do .
Don ’ t be surprised if “ helpful ” amendments are tabled by backbenchers that are Government ones in all but name .
Or if Ministers meet their critics halfway ( or more ) .
Second , there is what Keir Starmer will do .
If he takes the view that Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tear themselves apart , the party may not push against the Bill in the Lords as hard as some suggest .
Third , there is a questionmark about how far those who oppose breaking international law will go .
ConHome is getting mixed reports .
We will see what they do at Third Reading if rebel amendments have not been carried .
Finally , there is the ERG .
On this site today , Bernard Jenkin , Chair of its steering group , writes that as a last resort Parliament should “ enact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect and direct applicability of the EU laws ” .
Number Ten ’ s position is that this would also breach international law .
By contrast , Martin Howe ( and Jenkin ) claim that the Government ’ s own proposals do not break international law .
His argument is that these are justified under that law primarily because the EU ’ s interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol over tariffs threatens the Good Friday Agreement .
Downing Street was pushing the same concern yesterday ( despite its different view of the legalities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other sources in Number Ten stressed the need to curb the power of the European Court , UK-wide .
The difficulty for both the Government and the EU is that the Protocol is incoherent , as Roderick Crawford pointed out on this site earlier this week .
It declares that arrangements under the Agreement must “ maintain the conditions necessary for continued North-South cooperation , avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions ” .
The core of the problem is that Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sets out .
To Unionists , tariffs in the Irish Sea would break the consent principle .
To Nationalists , tariffs on the Northern Ireland land border would , by definition , constitute a hard border .
That Boris Johnson is now conceding that an Agreement he signed and lauded , less than a year ago , is nonetheless an Agreement that leaves the UK exposed and vulnerable is humiliating .
Furthermore , the Agreement was the basis of his big general election victory last December – the deal was “ oven-ready ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn out to be inedible .
But the Prime Minister is not the only one to be left exposed .
The then Cabinet backed him up .
So did Conservative MPs pre-election ( the Withdrawal Agreement Bill won at Second Reading ) .
As Jenkin admits this morning , so did he and his ERG colleagues .
They then stood in the election on the basis of a Tory Manifesto which endorsed it .
And the Agreement was also backed by the massed ranks of the Tory press , this site , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tory activists who worked for a Johnson victory .
It is just as well that most voters will be more preoccupied by the latest Covid Government clampdown , and the potential effects of the “ rule of six ” on their Christmas , than with international law .
And that if there is a trade deal , which on balance we still think there will be , this entire row will come to nothing – because the relevant clauses of the UK Internal Market Bill will never be enacted .
None the less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Michael Howard and Norman Lamont are tearing into you over international law , you have just a bit of problem .

Yesterday, we wrote that Boris Johnson was vulnerable to a pincer movement on the UK lnternal Market Bill – part of which, the Government said again yesterday, provides for the breaking of international law.
And today, there are what may be the first signs of it – reports of an amendment to give Parliament, not the Government, the final say in triggering the relevant clauses.
This could attract support from former Remainers, those Tory MPs who object in principle to breaking international law, and Brexiteers who prize the role of Parliament.
It is, of course, only the first shot in the procedural skirmishing on the Bill, which will surely see a mass of amendments. There are at least three developments to watch for.
The first is what Downing Street may do. Don’t be surprised if “helpful” amendments are tabled by backbenchers that are Government ones in all but name. Or if Ministers meet their critics halfway (or more).
Second, there is what Keir Starmer will do. If he takes the view that Labour should stand back and let the Conservatives tear themselves apart, the party may not push against the Bill in the Lords as hard as some suggest.
Third, there is a questionmark about how far those who oppose breaking international law will go. ConHome is getting mixed reports. We will see what they do at Third Reading if rebel amendments have not been carried.
Finally, there is the ERG. On this site today, Bernard Jenkin, Chair of its steering group, writes that as a last resort Parliament should “enact domestic legislation that will nullify the direct effect and direct applicability of the EU laws”.
Number Ten’s position is that this would also breach international law. By contrast, Martin Howe (and Jenkin) claim that the Government’s own proposals do not break international law.
His argument is that these are justified under that law primarily because the EU’s interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol over tariffs threatens the Good Friday Agreement.
Downing Street was pushing the same concern yesterday (despite its different view of the legalities). Earlier in the week, other sources in Number Ten stressed the need to curb the power of the European Court, UK-wide.
The difficulty for both the Government and the EU is that the Protocol is incoherent, as Roderick Crawford pointed out on this site earlier this week.
It declares that arrangements under the Agreement must “maintain the conditions necessary for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions”.
The core of the problem is that Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland have different readings of what the Agreement sets out.
To Unionists, tariffs in the Irish Sea would break the consent principle. To Nationalists, tariffs on the Northern Ireland land border would, by definition, constitute a hard border.
That Boris Johnson is now conceding that an Agreement he signed and lauded, less than a year ago, is nonetheless an Agreement that leaves the UK exposed and vulnerable is humiliating.
Furthermore, the Agreement was the basis of his big general election victory last December – the deal was “oven-ready”, remember? Parts of it now turn out to be inedible.
But the Prime Minister is not the only one to be left exposed. The then Cabinet backed him up. So did Conservative MPs pre-election (the Withdrawal Agreement Bill won at Second Reading).
As Jenkin admits this morning, so did he and his ERG colleagues. They then stood in the election on the basis of a Tory Manifesto which endorsed it.
And the Agreement was also backed by the massed ranks of the Tory press, this site, most conservative commentators, and the mass of Tory activists who worked for a Johnson victory.
It is just as well that most voters will be more preoccupied by the latest Covid Government clampdown, and the potential effects of the “rule of six” on their Christmas, than with international law.
And that if there is a trade deal, which on balance we still think there will be, this entire row will come to nothing – because the relevant clauses of the UK Internal Market Bill will never be enacted.
None the less, when Brexiteers of such impeccable credentials as Michael Howard and Norman Lamont are tearing into you over international law, you have just a bit of problem.


conservativehome--2020-09-11--Iain Dale: Why have Buckland and Braverman signed up to breaking international law?

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
Few people believe in Brexit more than I do , but I also believe in the rule of law .
Quite how a democratic government can brazenly admit that it intends to break the law , albeit in a “ strictly limited and specific ” way , is quite beyond me .
The Supreme Court must be licking its lips in anticipation .
Perhaps that ’ s part of the reason the new Bill is being introduced .
I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Downing Street would wish to deliberately foment yet another clash between the Executive and the Judiciary , but anything is possible .
Rather than introduce this squalid Bill , it would have been far better to say that in the event that the EU doesn ’ t meet its pledge in the Political Declaration – to come to a Free Trade Agreement – then the Withdrawal Agreement ceases to apply .
At least this would have had some logic to it , even if it would still be incendiary .
Countries often withdraw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves with Switzerland not too long ago , when they object to how the Swiss had voted to limit EU migration into the country .
But to introduce this new Bill without even using the mechanisms for discussion set out in the Withdrawal Agreement is an audacious move to say the least .
Those , like John Major , who predict that this will affect trust in Britain into the future and make trade agreements less likely , certainly have a point .
It ’ s hard to argue about the logic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m wrong .
It may be that these hardball tactics with the EU will result in them rushing to an agreement .
I hope they do , but I have more doubts about that than I did a week ago .
Michel Barnier was on the ropes , but this move will have given him a renewed spring in his step .
What puzzles me is how Suella Braverman and Robert Buckland signed off on this .
Perhaps we will find out in the Sunday Times , where I hope Tim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how this came about .
Because I , for one , am totally perplexed and somewhat horrified .
I just knew it .
On Wednesday , when the Prime Minister announced the new Coronavirus restrictions , I predicted to a colleague that one of the big beast political journos would ask a question purely designed to get themselves a headline , and sure enough the task fell to Robert Peston to ask the Prime Minister if he was effectively cancelling Christmas .
I expected it to be a headline in The Sun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the depths too .
This is what political reporting has come to .
Slow handclap .
One thing the Coronavirus crisis has made us all realise is that we are no longer a United Kingdom .
The other constituent parts of the country seem to have revelled in doing things differently to the Westminster government .
In some cases , this has been entirely justified , but much of the time it has been gratuitous .
Given that all four nations make their policies from the same data , sometimes one is left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different decision that are arrived at .
No wonder many people think there ’ s a lack of clear messaging from government .
You ’ d think the four health ministers could have a Zoom call and agree a way forward , wouldn ’ t you ?
And if they can ’ t then explain why one part of the country is acting differently to another .
Perish the thought .
Today is the nineteenth anniversary of the event which helped shaped the world we live in now .
It was the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of plans on the eastern seaboard of the United States , and caused the death of more than 3,000 people .
The date is stained into history as 9-11 .
Next year ’ s 20th anniversary will be a more significant one in many ways , as America and the world continue to try to come to terms with what happened , and the consequences we are still living through now .
It ’ s not an exaggeration to claim that most of the terror attacks we have experienced in this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not have happened without 9-11 .
It ’ s a sobering thought

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
Few people believe in Brexit more than I do, but I also believe in the rule of law. Quite how a democratic government can brazenly admit that it intends to break the law, albeit in a “strictly limited and specific” way, is quite beyond me.
The Supreme Court must be licking its lips in anticipation. Perhaps that’s part of the reason the new Bill is being introduced. I’d like to think that no one in Downing Street would wish to deliberately foment yet another clash between the Executive and the Judiciary, but anything is possible.
Rather than introduce this squalid Bill, it would have been far better to say that in the event that the EU doesn’t meet its pledge in the Political Declaration – to come to a Free Trade Agreement – then the Withdrawal Agreement ceases to apply.
At least this would have had some logic to it, even if it would still be incendiary. Countries often withdraw from Treaties – the EU did this themselves with Switzerland not too long ago, when they object to how the Swiss had voted to limit EU migration into the country.
But to introduce this new Bill without even using the mechanisms for discussion set out in the Withdrawal Agreement is an audacious move to say the least. Those, like John Major, who predict that this will affect trust in Britain into the future and make trade agreements less likely, certainly have a point. It’s hard to argue about the logic of that position.
It may be that I’m wrong. It may be that these hardball tactics with the EU will result in them rushing to an agreement. I hope they do, but I have more doubts about that than I did a week ago. Michel Barnier was on the ropes, but this move will have given him a renewed spring in his step.
What puzzles me is how Suella Braverman and Robert Buckland signed off on this. Perhaps we will find out in the Sunday Times, where I hope Tim Shipman has one of his long reads about how this came about. Because I, for one, am totally perplexed and somewhat horrified.
– – – – – – – – – –
I just knew it. On Wednesday, when the Prime Minister announced the new Coronavirus restrictions, I predicted to a colleague that one of the big beast political journos would ask a question purely designed to get themselves a headline, and sure enough the task fell to Robert Peston to ask the Prime Minister if he was effectively cancelling Christmas.
I expected it to be a headline in The Sun yesterday but even The Times sunk to the depths too. This is what political reporting has come to. Slow handclap.
– – – – – – – – – –
One thing the Coronavirus crisis has made us all realise is that we are no longer a United Kingdom. The other constituent parts of the country seem to have revelled in doing things differently to the Westminster government.
In some cases, this has been entirely justified, but much of the time it has been gratuitous. Given that all four nations make their policies from the same data, sometimes one is left scratching one’s barnet at the different decision that are arrived at.
No wonder many people think there’s a lack of clear messaging from government. You’d think the four health ministers could have a Zoom call and agree a way forward, wouldn’t you? And if they can’t then explain why one part of the country is acting differently to another. Perish the thought.
– – – – – – – – – –
Today is the nineteenth anniversary of the event which helped shaped the world we live in now. It was the day when Islamist terrorists seized control of a series of plans on the eastern seaboard of the United States, and caused the death of more than 3,000 people.
The date is stained into history as 9-11. Next year’s 20th anniversary will be a more significant one in many ways, as America and the world continue to try to come to terms with what happened, and the consequences we are still living through now.
It’s not an exaggeration to claim that most of the terror attacks we have experienced in this country, and many around the world, would not have happened without 9-11. It’s a sobering thought


conservativehome--2020-09-11--Mark Henderson: The boost for shared home ownership is very welcome. Not everyone can afford to buy

Mark Henderson: The boost for shared home ownership is very welcome. Not everyone can afford to buy outright.

Mark Henderson is the Chief Executive of the Home Group , one of the UK ’ s largest providers of homes for sale and affordable rent , and a leader in long-term integrated health and housing .
In the UK it ’ s a plain fact that many more people want to own their home , rather than rent .
Ownership can be a very positive thing : it gives people ‘ skin in the game ’ with their community and a real chance to hand on a legacy to their families .
The instinct to own a home is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional or someone living in social housing .
87 % of Home Group customers want to get on to the housing ladder .
Every poll I ’ ve seen shows the general population are within a few basic percentage points of that .
That shouldn ’ t be a surprise , but it is all too often overlooked .
Ownership seems to be an all or nothing proposition , but need not be .
If , at Home Group , as a housing provider , we are genuinely listening to our customer base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector we will be actively promoting home ownership .
This isn ’ t an either or .
We still have a huge program to build more affordable homes and we are actively investing £1.7bn in our current business plan doing just that .
The announcement this week of a new Government backed model for Shared Ownership is something we know our 120,000 Home Group customers will welcome .
By reducing the minimum from a 25 per cent stake to ten per cent , more of our customers will be able to benefit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessens the most significant barrier to ownership .
When buying a Shared Ownership home , you will still need to put down a deposit , but in showing flexibility and reducing the stake required , the Government are making that barrier so much easier to overcome .
At Home Group we ’ ve tried to bring fresh thinking to this area in the last three years with our own product to support our customers onto the housing ladder .
The product , namely ‘ Deposit Builder ’ , supports customers who might struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows customers to save up to £7,000 in just five years through a combination of rent reduction , access to the Government ’ s ISA scheme , and match funding from Home Group .
Virtually every housing association and local authority has their own shared ownership scheme , with a myriad of rules , and each branded under a slightly different name or logo .
Hopefully the Government can now work with us and create the right conditions so that it is simpler and easier to understand for those looking at the product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government backed advertising blitz to promote the new model .
Shared Ownership isn ’ t perfect , and we ’ ve still got questions about what next .
But with a constructive spirit , we can work together with the Government to iron out many of the issues which can cause confusion or leave customers disappointed .
As a large national provider of social and affordable homes , let ’ s just look at what this all means in practical terms in two different parts of the country in which we have homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house price in leafy Wandsworth is a staggering £770,060 .
Up in Whitehaven , Cumbria , the average house price is a much more modest £144,877 .
At a stroke , anyone wanting to get on the property ladder has gone from needing to borrow £36,000 to a more manageable £14,500 .
It may not seem like a huge amount but the average Whitehaven employee according to PayScale earns £19,000 per year .
That is well below the national average , so context is vital .
Incidentally , the median annual earnings for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approximately £30,350 last year .
The comparison in Wandsworth is £39,600 .
I ’ d like to see the Government go further .
As the Government outlines , you can now move in as little as one per cent increments ( up to outright ownership ) .
Surely if you can find a mortgage then why not ?
Ten per cent should be the guide and not a hard stop .
What is crucial here is having a process in place which means fees , valuations , and all the other vital technical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ten per cent , the cash equivalent in Wandsworth is still high at over £77,000 .
That would mean the customer could own half the property up in Whitehaven .
£14,500 would get you a two per cent share in Wandsworth .
It might be all that some can afford it and we should encourage that .
Given the way in which rising house prices have outstripped wages , many people , especially those on low incomes , may never get the chance to own outright .
So we have to help them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For some people having a stake in the property is simply about choice .
In a YouGov poll , 29 per cent of social tenants ’ surveyed wanted more choice over issues like fitting a new kitchen or bathroom .
For others , it was about how they want to leave something behind or build up a sum they could call upon in hard times .
15 per cent wanted to provide a legacy for their family .
Some of this is about basic fairness and people on lower incomes deserving the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , regardless of whether they live inside the M25 or anywhere else .
At Home Group , aspiration is important to us , as is listening to our customers .
We know that for many , that might mean getting into work or it might mean owning .
We want people to have the opportunity to get on the housing ladder – and we are going to continue to play our part in delivering that .

Mark Henderson is the Chief Executive of the Home Group, one of the UK’s largest providers of homes for sale and affordable rent, and a leader in long-term integrated health and housing.
In the UK it’s a plain fact that many more people want to own their home, rather than rent.
Ownership can be a very positive thing: it gives people ‘skin in the game’ with their community and a real chance to hand on a legacy to their families.
The instinct to own a home is no different if you are a young professional or someone living in social housing. 87% of Home Group customers want to get on to the housing ladder. Every poll I’ve seen shows the general population are within a few basic percentage points of that.
That shouldn’t be a surprise, but it is all too often overlooked. Ownership seems to be an all or nothing proposition, but need not be.
If, at Home Group, as a housing provider, we are genuinely listening to our customer base, then like many others in the sector we will be actively promoting home ownership. This isn’t an either or. We still have a huge program to build more affordable homes and we are actively investing £1.7bn in our current business plan doing just that.
The announcement this week of a new Government backed model for Shared Ownership is something we know our 120,000 Home Group customers will welcome. By reducing the minimum from a 25 per cent stake to ten per cent, more of our customers will be able to benefit. This is a great step forward and lessens the most significant barrier to ownership.
When buying a Shared Ownership home, you will still need to put down a deposit, but in showing flexibility and reducing the stake required, the Government are making that barrier so much easier to overcome.
At Home Group we’ve tried to bring fresh thinking to this area in the last three years with our own product to support our customers onto the housing ladder. The product, namely ‘Deposit Builder’, supports customers who might struggle to raise a deposit. The product allows customers to save up to £7,000 in just five years through a combination of rent reduction, access to the Government’s ISA scheme, and match funding from Home Group.
Virtually every housing association and local authority has their own shared ownership scheme, with a myriad of rules, and each branded under a slightly different name or logo. Hopefully the Government can now work with us and create the right conditions so that it is simpler and easier to understand for those looking at the product. We would all benefit from a Government backed advertising blitz to promote the new model.
Shared Ownership isn’t perfect, and we’ve still got questions about what next. But with a constructive spirit, we can work together with the Government to iron out many of the issues which can cause confusion or leave customers disappointed.
As a large national provider of social and affordable homes, let’s just look at what this all means in practical terms in two different parts of the country in which we have homes.
According to Zoopla, the average house price in leafy Wandsworth is a staggering £770,060. Up in Whitehaven, Cumbria, the average house price is a much more modest £144,877. At a stroke, anyone wanting to get on the property ladder has gone from needing to borrow £36,000 to a more manageable £14,500. It may not seem like a huge amount but the average Whitehaven employee according to PayScale earns £19,000 per year. That is well below the national average, so context is vital. Incidentally, the median annual earnings for full-time employees in the United Kingdom was approximately £30,350 last year. The comparison in Wandsworth is £39,600.
I’d like to see the Government go further. As the Government outlines, you can now move in as little as one per cent increments (up to outright ownership). Surely if you can find a mortgage then why not? Ten per cent should be the guide and not a hard stop. What is crucial here is having a process in place which means fees, valuations, and all the other vital technical aspects are dealt with.
Even at ten per cent, the cash equivalent in Wandsworth is still high at over £77,000. That would mean the customer could own half the property up in Whitehaven. £14,500 would get you a two per cent share in Wandsworth. It might be all that some can afford it and we should encourage that.
Given the way in which rising house prices have outstripped wages, many people, especially those on low incomes, may never get the chance to own outright. So we have to help them own as much as they can. For some people having a stake in the property is simply about choice. In a YouGov poll, 29 per cent of social tenants’ surveyed wanted more choice over issues like fitting a new kitchen or bathroom. For others, it was about how they want to leave something behind or build up a sum they could call upon in hard times. 15 per cent wanted to provide a legacy for their family.
Some of this is about basic fairness and people on lower incomes deserving the same chance to get on the housing ladder, regardless of whether they live inside the M25 or anywhere else.
At Home Group, aspiration is important to us, as is listening to our customers. We know that for many, that might mean getting into work or it might mean owning. We want people to have the opportunity to get on the housing ladder – and we are going to continue to play our part in delivering that.


conservativehome--2020-09-11--Belgium hasn’t “flattened the curve” – and should not be used to justify UK curfews

During the Government ’ s press conference on Wednesday , Chris Whitty explained that the latest lockdown rules , which mean it ’ s now illegal for over six people to socialise indoors or outdoors from Monday , had been inspired by Belgium .
On July 29 , the country introduced similar guidelines , reducing the number of people who are allowed to socialise together from 15 to five , as well as enforcing a 10pm national curfew ( which , depressingly , has been applied to bars and restaurants in Bolton – and could be extended to other parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Belgium , Whitty said it had been a “ clear indication that if you act rapidly and decisively when these changes ( rises in cases ) are happening , there is a reasonable or good chance of bringing the rates back down under control ” .
Newspapers were quick to praise the country .
The Daily Mail suggested that it had been “ able to curtail a second wave of coronavirus ” , and The Evening Standard even referred to Belgium as a “ success “ .
On the other hand , Spain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases rise rapidly , have been portrayed unfavourably .
In the press conference , Whitty used this dramatic graph ( below ) to highlight their situation .
The conclusion is clear : the UK now needs to “ act decisively ” – aka apply similar measures to Belgium ’ s – to save it from a similar fate .
Matt Hancock , too , echoed Whitty ’ s sentiments .
“ If you look at what ’ s happened in Belgium , they saw an increase and then they ’ ve brought it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that just hasn ’ t happened ” , he said .
Yet , in the last few days the idea that Belgium is a “ success ” look rather dubious ( to say the least ) .
Indeed , as The Brussels Times points out , the country has recorded a rapid rise in the number of new Coronavirus infections .
According to the latest figures by Sciensano ( the Belgian institute for health ) , an average of 547.4 people per day tested positive for Covid-19 in the country during the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising by 22 per cent over the seven-day period ( from September 1 to 7 ) .
It ’ s the sixth day in the row that the average number of new confirmed Covid-19 infections in Belgium has risen again .
Furthermore , while the Government ’ s graph was plotted from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control , others look less flattering .
Take the site Worldometer , as an alternative source , which released these yesterday : Although it ’ s worth pointing out that Belgium did experience a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections in August , the trend clearly hasn ’ t been sustained as people return to work and school .
And on a more contentious note , it ’ s not obvious whether the dip was due to the interventions ( limiting parties to five and curfews ) or something else .
There is still much that we do not know about the virus , and why it moves through countries at different rates .
Another question to ask is what hospitalisations look like in all this ; from September 4 to 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 new hospital admissions per day in Belgium – an increase on the previous week ( 15.7 ) .
Compared to cases , these figures are relatively low , and another reminder that scientists still don ’ t understand how cases translate to hospitalisations and deaths ( partly because no one knows what cases were at the beginning of the outbreak ) .
Already there ’ s been talk of whether Britain could copy Belgium more in its approach , with a troubling YouGov poll showing that 62 per cent of the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But any moves must be made on more clear-cut data .
By all indications , the latest figures are not that .

During the Government’s press conference on Wednesday, Chris Whitty explained that the latest lockdown rules, which mean it’s now illegal for over six people to socialise indoors or outdoors from Monday, had been inspired by Belgium.
On July 29, the country introduced similar guidelines, reducing the number of people who are allowed to socialise together from 15 to five, as well as enforcing a 10pm national curfew (which, depressingly, has been applied to bars and restaurants in Bolton – and could be extended to other parts of the UK).
Speaking about Belgium, Whitty said it had been a “clear indication that if you act rapidly and decisively when these changes (rises in cases) are happening, there is a reasonable or good chance of bringing the rates back down under control”.
Newspapers were quick to praise the country. The Daily Mail suggested that it had been “able to curtail a second wave of coronavirus”, and The Evening Standard even referred to Belgium as a “success“.
On the other hand, Spain and France, which have both seen cases rise rapidly, have been portrayed unfavourably. In the press conference, Whitty used this dramatic graph (below) to highlight their situation.
The conclusion is clear: the UK now needs to “act decisively” – aka apply similar measures to Belgium’s – to save it from a similar fate.
Matt Hancock, too, echoed Whitty’s sentiments. “If you look at what’s happened in Belgium, they saw an increase and then they’ve brought it down, whereas in France and Spain that just hasn’t happened”, he said.
Yet, in the last few days the idea that Belgium is a “success” look rather dubious (to say the least).
Indeed, as The Brussels Times points out, the country has recorded a rapid rise in the number of new Coronavirus infections. According to the latest figures by Sciensano (the Belgian institute for health), an average of 547.4 people per day tested positive for Covid-19 in the country during the last week, with new infections per day rising by 22 per cent over the seven-day period (from September 1 to 7).
It’s the sixth day in the row that the average number of new confirmed Covid-19 infections in Belgium has risen again.
Furthermore, while the Government’s graph was plotted from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, others look less flattering. Take the site Worldometer, as an alternative source, which released these yesterday:
Although it’s worth pointing out that Belgium did experience a slight dip in the number of new infections in August, the trend clearly hasn’t been sustained as people return to work and school. And on a more contentious note, it’s not obvious whether the dip was due to the interventions (limiting parties to five and curfews) or something else. There is still much that we do not know about the virus, and why it moves through countries at different rates.
Another question to ask is what hospitalisations look like in all this; from September 4 to 10, there has been an average of 22 new hospital admissions per day in Belgium – an increase on the previous week (15.7). Compared to cases, these figures are relatively low, and another reminder that scientists still don’t understand how cases translate to hospitalisations and deaths (partly because no one knows what cases were at the beginning of the outbreak).
Already there’s been talk of whether Britain could copy Belgium more in its approach, with a troubling YouGov poll showing that 62 per cent of the public would support a 10pm to 5am curfew.
But any moves must be made on more clear-cut data. By all indications, the latest figures are not that.


conservativehome--2020-09-12--What the new Anglo-Japanese trade deal tells us about ‘Global Britain’

Amidst all the challenging stories dogging the Government at the moment , yesterday ’ s newspapers offered a rare bright spot : the conclusion of an ‘ historic ’ trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan .
With talks with the European Union having almost completely broken down , and negotiations with the United States also having stalled , it offers a much-needed sense of momentum to the idea of a free-trading ‘ global Britain ’ so cherished by Brexiteers .
It also undercuts the impression that Boris Johnson ’ s brinkmanship over the UK Internal Market Bill has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timing reportedly owes more to the imminent departure of Abe Shinzō , the Japanese premier .
Yet the detail also highlights the challenges of the new approach .
The headline figure of a £15.2 billion boost to Anglo-Japanese trade sounds impressive , but is a relative drop in the ocean in GDP terms .
Likewise on agriculture , a sensitive topic which is one of the key stumbling blocks to a deal with the US , Britain has only managed to secure access to any unused capacity in a tariff deal negotiated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it does illustrate that it is possible for the Government to effectively ‘ roll over ’ trading relationships built whilst the UK was inside the EU – and indeed , deepen them in areas of particular interest to Britain , such as digital and financial services .
Liz Truss , the Trade Secretary , has also indicated that she hopes the deal will be a stepping stone towards British membership of the Trans-Pacific Partnership – which the Financial Times describes as “ a sprawling multinational trade pact ” – and thus further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What seems unlikely is that deals like this will have much cut-through with the electorate , who have never been greatly interested in the minutiae of trade or regulatory policy .
As the Vote Leave team recognised during the referendum , ‘ global Britain ’ is not a narrative which greatly excites the voters , especially not those voters who have been won over to the Conservatives since 2016 .
If the Government wants to convert trade policy into an electoral dividend , then , it will need to package them up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appealing , and more digestible narrative with more concrete benefits , as advocates of CANZUK are doing .
The deal with Tokyo is undoubtedly good news .
But the detail of the agreement , and the way it has been completely swallowed by the news cycle , spotlights both the challenges involved in operating an independent trade policy and the limited political rewards of doing so .

Amidst all the challenging stories dogging the Government at the moment, yesterday’s newspapers offered a rare bright spot: the conclusion of an ‘historic’ trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan.
With talks with the European Union having almost completely broken down, and negotiations with the United States also having stalled, it offers a much-needed sense of momentum to the idea of a free-trading ‘global Britain’ so cherished by Brexiteers.
It also undercuts the impression that Boris Johnson’s brinkmanship over the UK Internal Market Bill has left it internationally isolated, although the timing reportedly owes more to the imminent departure of Abe Shinzō, the Japanese premier.
Yet the detail also highlights the challenges of the new approach. The headline figure of a £15.2 billion boost to Anglo-Japanese trade sounds impressive, but is a relative drop in the ocean in GDP terms. Likewise on agriculture, a sensitive topic which is one of the key stumbling blocks to a deal with the US, Britain has only managed to secure access to any unused capacity in a tariff deal negotiated by the EU.
On the other hand, it does illustrate that it is possible for the Government to effectively ‘roll over’ trading relationships built whilst the UK was inside the EU – and indeed, deepen them in areas of particular interest to Britain, such as digital and financial services. Liz Truss, the Trade Secretary, has also indicated that she hopes the deal will be a stepping stone towards British membership of the Trans-Pacific Partnership – which the Financial Times describes as “a sprawling multinational trade pact” – and thus further out of the EU’s orbit.
What seems unlikely is that deals like this will have much cut-through with the electorate, who have never been greatly interested in the minutiae of trade or regulatory policy. As the Vote Leave team recognised during the referendum, ‘global Britain’ is not a narrative which greatly excites the voters, especially not those voters who have been won over to the Conservatives since 2016.
If the Government wants to convert trade policy into an electoral dividend, then, it will need to package them up as part of a broader, more appealing, and more digestible narrative with more concrete benefits, as advocates of CANZUK are doing.
The deal with Tokyo is undoubtedly good news. But the detail of the agreement, and the way it has been completely swallowed by the news cycle, spotlights both the challenges involved in operating an independent trade policy and the limited political rewards of doing so.
Image credit: LSE Digital Library.


conservativehome--2020-09-12--David Gauke: May should lead the Commons struggle against her successor’s plan to break internationa

David Gauke: May should lead the Commons struggle against her successor’s plan to break international law if necessary

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
The reputations of Prime Ministers tend to follow much the same trajectory .
First , there is a honeymoon period on the back of a Party leadership or general election victory .
Their qualities are compared favourably with their predecessor and the country gives them the benefit of the doubt .
This period is usually as good as it gets .
Popularity may fluctuate but eventually the attributes that once seemed refreshing begin to grate .
A Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disappointments accumulate and enemies become emboldened .
Whether suddenly ( think John Major and the exit from the ERM or Gordon Brown and the election that never was ) or gradually , they become damaged .
A Prime Minister ’ s term in office usually ends on a low ebb .
At which point , the reputation of an ex-Prime Minister also tends to follow a familiar trajectory .
Their qualities are compared unfavourably with their successor , and the country refuses to give them the benefit of the doubt .
The troubled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public ’ s memory .
Former allies gravitate to the new powerbase or drift into well-remunerated obscurity .
An ex-Prime Minister almost becomes a figure of pity and ridicule – the mighty fallen .
Their reputation continues to decline .
And then , at some point , it begins to recover .
The comparison with their successor becomes more nuanced .
It is appreciated that the problems that beset their time in office were real and complex , and that maybe changing the captain hadn ’ t solved all the problems aboard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Ministers fit this profile to some extent , but none more so than Theresa May .
On assuming office in 2016 , her obvious diligence and decency won her the respect of much the nation .
Her reserved , unshowy personality was seen as an asset .
She was sensible and pragmatic , but also steely and determined .
She polled extraordinarily well .
But , as is familiar to all readers of this website , this is all came to end – and very quickly .
Over the course of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unshowy personality was seen as uncommunicative and unsympathetic .
A strength became a weakness and , when the Conservative majority was lost , she became a loser not a winner .
She then faced the almost impossible task of getting a Brexit deal through with a minority government , a deeply split Parliamentary Party and an increasingly polarised public .
Her attempts at compromise failed to satisfy both sides of the arguments .
When she reached a deal with the EU – a compromise that had to address the contradictions and fantasies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – she lacked the shamelessness necessary to persuade a sceptical Party and nation that she had achieved a triumph .
In the critical months that followed , she suffered Parliamentary defeat after defeat .
Even those of us in her Cabinet did not know how she would try to find a way of out of the situation .
In the end , she would not countenance what she saw as a risk of the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with the potential implications for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not attempt to force through a No Deal Brexit .
The wider Conservative Party neither understood nor accepted her position and she was forced out .
For the next few months , many compared her unfavourably with her successor .
Boris Johnson secured a deal which permitted greater regulatory and customs freedom ( for Great Britain ) and won a majority for it at Second Reading .
Rather than allow the Withdrawal Agreement be subject to extended Parliamentary scrutiny , he pulled the legislation and managed to force the opposition parties into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s efforts in 2017 , he triumphed with a thumping majority .
Six weeks later , we had finally left the EU .
He had achieved what she had not .
In the 30 months after the start of the 2017 general election campaign , May ’ s reputation had fallen further and faster than most .
But , I would argue , it then began to recover somewhat earlier than happened with her predecessors .
The Covid crisis would have played to her strengths .
Her moral seriousness and attention to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the circumstances .
She would have provided grip .
People remembered that these were useful qualities for a Prime Minister .
And when it came to the ‘ fabulous , oven-ready Brexit deal ’ obtained by her successor , all was not as it was portrayed .
The Northern Irish question was always immensely difficult with the Brexit-seeking UK holding contradictory objectives .
Boris Johnson had got a deal by selling out the Unionists , but failed to recognise publicly that this is what he had done .
This was either staggeringly incompetent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either explanation is plausible ) but it has come unstuck .
Ministers ’ explanations for the problems the Government now perceives – ‘ it was all done in a hurry and now we must not jeopardise the peace process ’ – only make matters worse .
They certainly destroy the argument that Johnson had proven to be a masterful and triumphant negotiator .
In order to try to interpret the Northern Ireland Protocol in a manner that is consistent with what the Prime Minister has been saying about it , as opposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to come forward with legislation that gives the Government the power to breach international law .
I am not going to dwell on why this is an appalling course of action that will do immense damage to our international reputation and destroy trust in the EU negotiations ( they stagger on , but I wonder if they are now just zombie negotiations ) .
This is not a specifically Brexit issue , or even a No Deal Brexit issue , but it is wider than that .
That is why staunch Brexiteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Tim Montgomerie and Iain Dale have been so condemnatory .
So has May .
All those who worked with her would not be surprised by her principled objections to the proposal , and her concern that future international partners will not trust the UK to ‘ abide by the legal obligations of the agreements it signs ’ .
It would have been inconceivable to May to have brought forward legislation such as this .
From my point of view , this is just as well .
As her Lord Chancellor , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt compelled to resign in order to uphold the rule of law .
In the next few days , the Commons will have to decide whether it is willing to endorse the proposed breach of international law .
There is considerable disquiet in the Parliamentary Party about this , but caution about rebelling .
It will be a stain upon the reputation of this country and the Conservative Party if the legislation , in its current form , were to pass .
There is only person who might be able to stop this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Theresa May were to indicate that she will vote against reneging on our commitments , it would embolden others .
Voting against the Conservative whip is not in her nature .
She is not a natural rebel but were she to defy the whip – in a very specific and limited way – it would be immensely to her credit and very clearly in the national interest .
History would judge her kindly .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
The reputations of Prime Ministers tend to follow much the same trajectory.
First, there is a honeymoon period on the back of a Party leadership or general election victory. Their qualities are compared favourably with their predecessor and the country gives them the benefit of the doubt.
This period is usually as good as it gets. Popularity may fluctuate but eventually the attributes that once seemed refreshing begin to grate. A Prime Minister’s strengths become weaknesses. Disappointments accumulate and enemies become emboldened.
Whether suddenly (think John Major and the exit from the ERM or Gordon Brown and the election that never was) or gradually, they become damaged. A Prime Minister’s term in office usually ends on a low ebb.
At which point, the reputation of an ex-Prime Minister also tends to follow a familiar trajectory. Their qualities are compared unfavourably with their successor, and the country refuses to give them the benefit of the doubt. The troubled last period in office is fresh in the public’s memory. Former allies gravitate to the new powerbase or drift into well-remunerated obscurity. An ex-Prime Minister almost becomes a figure of pity and ridicule – the mighty fallen. Their reputation continues to decline.
And then, at some point, it begins to recover. The comparison with their successor becomes more nuanced. It is appreciated that the problems that beset their time in office were real and complex, and that maybe changing the captain hadn’t solved all the problems aboard the ship.
All of our recent Prime Ministers fit this profile to some extent, but none more so than Theresa May. On assuming office in 2016, her obvious diligence and decency won her the respect of much the nation. Her reserved, unshowy personality was seen as an asset. She was sensible and pragmatic, but also steely and determined. She polled extraordinarily well.
But, as is familiar to all readers of this website, this is all came to end – and very quickly. Over the course of the 2017 general election campaign, her reserved, unshowy personality was seen as uncommunicative and unsympathetic. A strength became a weakness and, when the Conservative majority was lost, she became a loser not a winner.
She then faced the almost impossible task of getting a Brexit deal through with a minority government, a deeply split Parliamentary Party and an increasingly polarised public. Her attempts at compromise failed to satisfy both sides of the arguments.
When she reached a deal with the EU – a compromise that had to address the contradictions and fantasies that had been peddled in previous years – she lacked the shamelessness necessary to persuade a sceptical Party and nation that she had achieved a triumph.
In the critical months that followed, she suffered Parliamentary defeat after defeat. Even those of us in her Cabinet did not know how she would try to find a way of out of the situation. In the end, she would not countenance what she saw as a risk of the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with the potential implications for the peace process. Consequently, she did not attempt to force through a No Deal Brexit. The wider Conservative Party neither understood nor accepted her position and she was forced out.
For the next few months, many compared her unfavourably with her successor. Boris Johnson secured a deal which permitted greater regulatory and customs freedom (for Great Britain) and won a majority for it at Second Reading.
Rather than allow the Withdrawal Agreement be subject to extended Parliamentary scrutiny, he pulled the legislation and managed to force the opposition parties into a general election. In contrast to May’s efforts in 2017, he triumphed with a thumping majority. Six weeks later, we had finally left the EU. He had achieved what she had not.
In the 30 months after the start of the 2017 general election campaign, May’s reputation had fallen further and faster than most. But, I would argue, it then began to recover somewhat earlier than happened with her predecessors.
The Covid crisis would have played to her strengths. Her moral seriousness and attention to detail would have been well suited to the circumstances. She would have provided grip. People remembered that these were useful qualities for a Prime Minister.
And when it came to the ‘fabulous, oven-ready Brexit deal’ obtained by her successor, all was not as it was portrayed. The Northern Irish question was always immensely difficult with the Brexit-seeking UK holding contradictory objectives. Boris Johnson had got a deal by selling out the Unionists, but failed to recognise publicly that this is what he had done.
This was either staggeringly incompetent or extraordinarily mendacious (I am afraid either explanation is plausible) but it has come unstuck. Ministers’ explanations for the problems the Government now perceives – ‘it was all done in a hurry and now we must not jeopardise the peace process’ – only make matters worse. They certainly destroy the argument that Johnson had proven to be a masterful and triumphant negotiator.
In order to try to interpret the Northern Ireland Protocol in a manner that is consistent with what the Prime Minister has been saying about it, as opposed to what he actually agreed, he has had to come forward with legislation that gives the Government the power to breach international law.
I am not going to dwell on why this is an appalling course of action that will do immense damage to our international reputation and destroy trust in the EU negotiations (they stagger on, but I wonder if they are now just zombie negotiations). This is not a specifically Brexit issue, or even a No Deal Brexit issue, but it is wider than that. That is why staunch Brexiteers such as Michael Howard, Norman Lamont, Tim Montgomerie and Iain Dale have been so condemnatory.
So has May. All those who worked with her would not be surprised by her principled objections to the proposal, and her concern that future international partners will not trust the UK to ‘abide by the legal obligations of the agreements it signs’.
It would have been inconceivable to May to have brought forward legislation such as this. From my point of view, this is just as well. As her Lord Chancellor, had she done so, I would have felt compelled to resign in order to uphold the rule of law.
In the next few days, the Commons will have to decide whether it is willing to endorse the proposed breach of international law. There is considerable disquiet in the Parliamentary Party about this, but caution about rebelling. It will be a stain upon the reputation of this country and the Conservative Party if the legislation, in its current form, were to pass.
There is only person who might be able to stop this in the House of Commons. If Theresa May were to indicate that she will vote against reneging on our commitments, it would embolden others.
Voting against the Conservative whip is not in her nature. She is not a natural rebel but were she to defy the whip – in a very specific and limited way – it would be immensely to her credit and very clearly in the national interest. History would judge her kindly.


conservativehome--2020-09-13--WATCH: ‘If I see the rule of law being broken in a way that I find unacceptable then of course I wil

WATCH: ‘If I see the rule of law being broken in a way that I find unacceptable then of course I will go’

“ If I see the rule of law being broken in a way that I find unacceptable then of course @ @ @ @ @ says Justice Secretary Robert Buckland , about the government ’ s internal market bill which @ @ @ @ @ Marr https : //t.co/Qoevttrfze pic.twitter.com/9vawyPqPmG

“If I see the rule of law being broken in a way that I find unacceptable then of course I will go,” says Justice Secretary Robert Buckland, about the government’s internal market bill which could breach international law#Marr https://t.co/Qoevttrfze pic.twitter.com/9vawyPqPmG
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-13--WATCH: Labour accuses the Government of ‘unnecessarily inflicting’ a Brexit standoff

‘ Argument over Brexit is the last thing the country needs right now ’ Shadow NI Secretary @ LouHaigh says @ @ @ @ @ inflicting ” debate on # Brexit on the country during the # COVID19 pandemic.
# @ @ @ @ @

‘Argument over Brexit is the last thing the country needs right now’
Shadow NI Secretary @LouHaigh says the government are “unnecessarily inflicting” debate on #Brexit on the country during the #COVID19 pandemic.#Ridge https://t.co/HwxhaaWQWo pic.twitter.com/jooGPGO4mf
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) September 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-13--WATCH: Coveney – Claim that EU would blockade UK shipments to Ulster ‘inflammatory language’

# Marr : Would the EU block goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain ?
Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney : @ @ @ @ @ coming from No 10 is “ spin and not the truth ” # Brexit https @ @ @

#Marr: Would the EU block goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain?
Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney: This “inflammatory language” coming from No 10 is “spin and not the truth”#Brexit https://t.co/bGfFiQ3VjM pic.twitter.com/zG3l0rKAvd
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-13--WATCH: Buckland says UK Internal Market Bill offers ‘insurance policy’ on the Northern Ireland Proto

WATCH: Buckland says UK Internal Market Bill offers ‘insurance policy’ on the Northern Ireland Protocol

The UK ’ s plan to override the Brexit deal is “ an insurance policy ” if negotiations with the @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t something we want to have to use ” says Lord Chancellor @ @ @ @ @ @ has a “ steely determination ” to get a deal with the EU.
# Ridge @

The UK’s plan to override the Brexit deal is “an insurance policy” if negotiations with the EU fail and it “isn’t something we want to have to use” says Lord Chancellor @RobertBuckland
He says the government has a “steely determination” to get a deal with the EU.#Ridge pic.twitter.com/STIPecdVWt
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) September 13, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-13--What would have happened if Johnson hadn’t signed the Withdrawal Agreement?

So Boris Johnson is willing to resile in the event of No Deal from parts of the Withdrawal Agreement that he signed .
What would have happened if he hadn ’ t done so in the first place ?
Your guess is as good as ours , as ever , but here is ConservativeHome ’ s take .
We are back in the Commons last year with a Johnson premiership , no majority , no Agreement – and Philip Hammond , Oliver Letwin , Dominic Grieve , Amber Rudd and all the rest of them .
Jeremy Corbyn is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a second referendum , and the Liberal Democrats plus the SNP are waiting in the wings .
Our judgement is that there would have been a big Commons push for a second plebiscite , Labour ’ s opponents of a Norway-type option having ruthlessly killed that off .
But we are not at sure that there would have been the numbers for it , at least immediately .
The effect of No Deal would have been , very crudely , to reduce the potential Conservative vote in Remain-leaning London and its hinterlands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provincial England .
Such is our take , but we can ’ t be sure – and nor would MPs .
The enthusiasm of Tory MPs in Remainland for a poll would have lessened substantially .
Jeremy Corbyn was always keen to fight an election because he always believed that his brand of socialism could win it .
The SNP would have seen No Deal as a chance to hammer the Conservatives .
The Liberal Democrats would have seen it as an opportunity for them in Remain country .
The Brexit Party would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must make your own assessment of whether the rise in support for an election among Labour MPs would have cancelled out the fall among Tory ones .
Letwin and company would have opposed it .
So would the Independent Group for Change ( or whatever it was calling itself at the time ) .
Plus most of the odds and sods .
If Johnson had got his election , the logic of a strong Conservative vote in provincial England and a strong Labour one in London and its outposts would have applied .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tories would doubtless have been improved .
So would the Liberal Democrats ’ – who would not have been saddled with Labour ’ s absurd policy of a Labour deal or Remain as second referendum options .
Grieve would perhaps have been competitive in Beaconsfield ; Gauke in South-West Hertforshire .
How would all that have panned out ?
In our view , with either a smaller Conservative majority or a hung Parliament .
And Johnson under fire from the residual Remainers his own benches .
And if he hadn ’ t got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have struggled on for a while no majority for anything .
If it really wasn ’ t prepared to move towards an election , it would eventually have shifted towards the only remaining option – a second referendum .
Johnson ’ s winning card at the election that did happen – Get Brexit Done , with his deal signed and the offer of closure – was ruthlessly played by Isaac Levido .
It duly won him a big majority , as predicted by Dominic Cummings .
So one can see why Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Withdrawal Agreement – one which was better than May ’ s deal for Great Britain , because it left it with more room for economic manoeuvre , but worse for Northern Ireland , because it left it closer to the EU .
Conservative MPs , the European Research Group , the Tory press , this site , even Nigel Farage ( up to a point ) – all were willing to give the Agreement a thumbs-up .
Which helps to explain where we are today .
Such have been our counter-factuals on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what , in our view , Conservative MPs should do next .

So Boris Johnson is willing to resile in the event of No Deal from parts of the Withdrawal Agreement that he signed. What would have happened if he hadn’t done so in the first place?
Your guess is as good as ours, as ever, but here is ConservativeHome’s take. We are back in the Commons last year with a Johnson premiership, no majority, no Agreement – and Philip Hammond, Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve, Amber Rudd and all the rest of them.
Jeremy Corbyn is still Labour leader, Keir Starmer is pressing for a second referendum, and the Liberal Democrats plus the SNP are waiting in the wings.
Our judgement is that there would have been a big Commons push for a second plebiscite, Labour’s opponents of a Norway-type option having ruthlessly killed that off. But we are not at sure that there would have been the numbers for it, at least immediately.
The effect of No Deal would have been, very crudely, to reduce the potential Conservative vote in Remain-leaning London and its hinterlands, while pushing it up in Leave-backing provincial England.
Such is our take, but we can’t be sure – and nor would MPs. The enthusiasm of Tory MPs in Remainland for a poll would have lessened substantially. Jeremy Corbyn was always keen to fight an election because he always believed that his brand of socialism could win it.
The SNP would have seen No Deal as a chance to hammer the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats would have seen it as an opportunity for them in Remain country. The Brexit Party would have agonised about standing down.
You must make your own assessment of whether the rise in support for an election among Labour MPs would have cancelled out the fall among Tory ones. Letwin and company would have opposed it. So would the Independent Group for Change (or whatever it was calling itself at the time). Plus most of the odds and sods.
If Johnson had got his election, the logic of a strong Conservative vote in provincial England and a strong Labour one in London and its outposts would have applied.
The SNP’s position vis-a-vis the Tories would doubtless have been improved. So would the Liberal Democrats’ – who would not have been saddled with Labour’s absurd policy of a Labour deal or Remain as second referendum options. Grieve would perhaps have been competitive in Beaconsfield; Gauke in South-West Hertforshire.
How would all that have panned out? In our view, with either a smaller Conservative majority or a hung Parliament. And Johnson under fire from the residual Remainers his own benches.
And if he hadn’t got his election? Impasse. The Commons would have struggled on for a while no majority for anything. If it really wasn’t prepared to move towards an election, it would eventually have shifted towards the only remaining option – a second referendum.
Johnson’s winning card at the election that did happen – Get Brexit Done, with his deal signed and the offer of closure – was ruthlessly played by Isaac Levido.
It duly won him a big majority, as predicted by Dominic Cummings. So one can see why Johnson was always so keen to agree a Withdrawal Agreement – one which was better than May’s deal for Great Britain, because it left it with more room for economic manoeuvre, but worse for Northern Ireland, because it left it closer to the EU.
Conservative MPs, the European Research Group, the Tory press, this site, even Nigel Farage (up to a point) – all were willing to give the Agreement a thumbs-up.
Which helps to explain where we are today. Such have been our counter-factuals on this Sunday morning. We will turn tomorrow to what, in our view, Conservative MPs should do next.


conservativehome--2020-09-14--Andy Cook: New stop and search powers are backed by the public – whatever the fashionable commentari

Andy Cook: New stop and search powers are backed by the public – whatever the fashionable commentariat says

Andy Cook is Chief Executive of the Centre for Social Justice .
This week is law and order week , with the Government re-booting its domestic narrative using a series of tough on crime messages .
It would be easy to dismiss this as simply managing a party hungry to see the benefits of a sizeable Conservative majority .
Getting tough on crime isn ’ t just red-meat to the party faithful ; it ’ s fundamental to any ambition to re-build local economies .
You can ’ t even begin to spread opportunity or prosperity if the streets around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a social justice issue , every but as much as it is about public safety .
We ’ ve seen an upward national trend of offenders being caught repeatedly carrying knives over the last ten years , and in our major cities , especially London , this is becoming the norm in neighbourhoods that have been left behind .
That ’ s why we should cheer the announcement of a new form of stop and search which targets those carrying knives or weapons intent on doing harm to others .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers to intervene are backed by the public and , crucially , from all white and non-white voters .
If you live on a street where you children stand a good chance of being stabbed by someone carrying a knife , you ’ re going to support measures to put an end to the violence on your door-step .
Don ’ t listen to the fashionable ‘ commentariat ’ ; this is a bold and popular move , even in London the polling is clear-cut with fewer than one in 10 Londoners actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We found just 15 per cent of non-white Londoners and eight per cent of white Londoners opposed a new form of ‘ suspicionless ’ stop and search for limited periods in areas they believe will experience serious violence .
These Serious Violence Reduction Orders ( SVROs ) , which were a manifesto commitment , were first proposed by the Centre for Social Justice in our 2018 report , It Can Be Stopped .
SVROs are designed to ensure repeat offenders are more likely to be caught and put in prison .
SVROs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying weapons can and will be stopped .
SVROs apply to individuals previously convicted of carrying a knife or an offensive weapon , including those who have received non-custodial sentences such as community orders or suspended sentences .
The orders would be imposed by a court , which could also decide on the exact length of the order .
Police are then given the powers they need to stop and search those who are subject to an SVRO to check if they are unlawfully carrying a knife or offensive weapon again .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fundamental issue that came from the huge collapse in stop and search : a significant minority of people who feel they can carry weapons without reasonable fear of detection .
This measure backs the police to take action at a time when they need a government on their side to make our streets safer .
It would require those most likely to possess a weapon after being sentenced , on contact with police , to prove to them they aren ’ t carrying one or be subjected to a search .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many police officers , especially newer recruits , reluctant to use the powers given to them .
After the largest and most sustained collapse in stop and search since records began , the effect of such a targeted intervention on gangsters used to carrying and using weapons is an important message to officers patrolling our streets that we understand they need to hear support for stepping in .
The Government ’ s commitment to rolling out SVROs is one of the many tools we need to land a knock-out blow required to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s £70million announced to develop Violence Reduction Units to divert people away from crime and changing the law to make it a legal requirement for public bodies to work together to address the root causes of serious violence .
It ’ s not enough , we ’ ll be calling for bigger investment in years to come but it is the right move .
The Government trumpeted its intent to recruit an extra 20,000 bobbies on the beat , a bold vote winning move .
But at the time we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it didn ’ t come with the power and confidence to step in and do the job they were recruited for .
Our research tells us that these measures are supported by the great majority of people living in some of our most deprived communities , who want to see the scourge of knife crime and the routine carrying of weapons brought to an end .
The Home Secretary should feel emboldened to carry on and do just that .

Andy Cook is Chief Executive of the Centre for Social Justice.
This week is law and order week, with the Government re-booting its domestic narrative using a series of tough on crime messages. It would be easy to dismiss this as simply managing a party hungry to see the benefits of a sizeable Conservative majority. Getting tough on crime isn’t just red-meat to the party faithful; it’s fundamental to any ambition to re-build local economies. You can’t even begin to spread opportunity or prosperity if the streets around you are too dangerous to walk. It’s a social justice issue, every but as much as it is about public safety. We’ve seen an upward national trend of offenders being caught repeatedly carrying knives over the last ten years, and in our major cities, especially London, this is becoming the norm in neighbourhoods that have been left behind.
That’s why we should cheer the announcement of a new form of stop and search which targets those carrying knives or weapons intent on doing harm to others. What’s more, these new powers to intervene are backed by the public and, crucially, from all white and non-white voters. If you live on a street where you children stand a good chance of being stabbed by someone carrying a knife, you’re going to support measures to put an end to the violence on your door-step. Don’t listen to the fashionable ‘commentariat’; this is a bold and popular move, even in London the polling is clear-cut with fewer than one in 10 Londoners actively opposing ‘stop and search’ powers. We found just 15 per cent of non-white Londoners and eight per cent of white Londoners opposed a new form of ‘suspicionless’ stop and search for limited periods in areas they believe will experience serious violence.
These Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs), which were a manifesto commitment, were first proposed by the Centre for Social Justice in our 2018 report, It Can Be Stopped.
SVROs are designed to ensure repeat offenders are more likely to be caught and put in prison. SVROs send a strong message that violence and carrying weapons can and will be stopped. SVROs apply to individuals previously convicted of carrying a knife or an offensive weapon, including those who have received non-custodial sentences such as community orders or suspended sentences. The orders would be imposed by a court, which could also decide on the exact length of the order. Police are then given the powers they need to stop and search those who are subject to an SVRO to check if they are unlawfully carrying a knife or offensive weapon again.
It takes us a step close to addressing the fundamental issue that came from the huge collapse in stop and search: a significant minority of people who feel they can carry weapons without reasonable fear of detection. This measure backs the police to take action at a time when they need a government on their side to make our streets safer. It would require those most likely to possess a weapon after being sentenced, on contact with police, to prove to them they aren’t carrying one or be subjected to a search.
When we looked into this issue we found too many police officers, especially newer recruits, reluctant to use the powers given to them. After the largest and most sustained collapse in stop and search since records began, the effect of such a targeted intervention on gangsters used to carrying and using weapons is an important message to officers patrolling our streets that we understand they need to hear support for stepping in.
The Government’s commitment to rolling out SVROs is one of the many tools we need to land a knock-out blow required to change things on our increasingly violent streets. There’s £70million announced to develop Violence Reduction Units to divert people away from crime and changing the law to make it a legal requirement for public bodies to work together to address the root causes of serious violence. It’s not enough, we’ll be calling for bigger investment in years to come but it is the right move.
The Government trumpeted its intent to recruit an extra 20,000 bobbies on the beat, a bold vote winning move. But at the time we said it wasn’t enough if it didn’t come with the power and confidence to step in and do the job they were recruited for. Our research tells us that these measures are supported by the great majority of people living in some of our most deprived communities, who want to see the scourge of knife crime and the routine carrying of weapons brought to an end. The Home Secretary should feel emboldened to carry on and do just that.