conservativehome--2020-02-20--Henry Hill: Carlaw kicks off comprehensive policy review to take the fight to the SNP

As generally anticipated , Jackson Carlaw won the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives by a very comfortable margin , taking more than three quarters of the vote versus rival MSP Michelle Ballantyne .
He has since dropped her from the Tories ’ shadow front bench in a reshuffle which saw Murdo Fraser , an advocate of “ quasi-federalism ” whose long-standing ambition has been splitting the Scottish party away from the UK one , moved to the constitutional brief .
Carlaw has also pledged a “ comprehensive review ” of the Party ’ s policies , with the goal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collar ’ party which is capable of supplanting the “ morally and politically bankrupt ” SNP as Scotland ’ s party of government .
This is an overdue move .
The Tories have for a while now been trying to shift the spotlight onto the Nationalists ’ woeful record on day-to-day issues , but such a strategy is ideally a one-two punch and the second strike is a plausible and attractive policy offer with which to contrast the Scottish Government ’ s record .
But although endlessly focusing on the constitution is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is easy to see how they might get trapped in that comfort zone .
Just this week there has been another spate of stories about the possibility of a so-called ‘ wildcat ’ referendum , i.e .
one conducted without the legal authorisation of Westminster .
Pete Wishart , an MP not typically known as one of the SNP ’ s wise heads , has warned Nicola Sturgeon not to indulge such talk because it “ terrifies ” wavering voters who might be tempted into the separatist camp by Brexit .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly desperate effort to stay in the news , has talked up the idea .
Welsh Nationalists fined almost £30,000 by the Electoral Commission Plaid Cymru have been hit with a £29,000 fine for “ finance reporting failures ” , according to Wales Online .
The levy is reportedly a response to “ nine inaccurate reports ” regarding donations totalling almost half a million pounds .
According to the Commission : “ The investigation found that the party submitted nine inaccurate reports over a two-year period , omitting a total of 36 cash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director of Regulation added that : “ The total number and value of donations omitted from Plaid Cymru ’ s quarterly reports is significant and reveals a substantial degree of non-compliance.
” This comes just a week after Neil McAvoy , an independent Assembly Member who previously sat for Plaid , announced his intention to set up a rival Welsh National Party , which will apparently put a ‘ sovereigntist ’ spin on the theme with a programme which advocates not only independence for Wales but for the individual .
McAvoy was expelled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrevocable breakdown of trust ” arising from a dispute over policy .
He has apparently been followed out by several councillors , and has claimed that a “ senior staff member ” at Plaid has been trying to set up dummy WNP social media accounts .
In a wearisomely predictable move that illustrates just how little they ’ re actually thinking about the subject , all the MPs contending for the Labour leadership have backed the devolution of yet more powers to the Scottish Parliament .
All three argued that the Party needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back power , although this did not stop Rebecca Long-Bailey from confirming she would authorise a re-run of the 2014 independence referendum .
Sir Keir Starmer is on the record as backing “ radical federalism ” , whatever that is .
The most potentially intriguing response was from Lisa Nandy , who struck and unabashedly unionist tone and suggested that Labour needed a plan “ much more radical power settlement than federalism with power pushed out to local authorities ” .
That ’ s an intriguing idea , especially in light of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squeeze genuinely local government and centralise as much power as possible in Edinburgh .
Meanwhile Ian Murray , Labour ’ s sole Scottish MP and candidate for the deputy leadership , urged his comrades to explore why the Opposition lost their ‘ Tartan Wall ’ , the collapse of which preceded the similar implosion of the ‘ Red Wall ’ in northern England .
Foster urges Lewis to limit the scope of Troubles probe Last week , we wrote that Boris Johnson ’ s decision to dismiss Julian Smith offered him a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Northern Ireland ’ s place in the United Kingdom .
It ’ s too early to start judging Brandon Lewis ’ performance , but one mooted reason for the decision to drop Smith was that the Prime Minister intends to adopt a tougher line on the question of so-called legacy inquiries , specifically those into the conduct of British troops and officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary .
This week Arlene Foster , the First Minister of Northern Ireland , publicly urged the new Northern Irish Secretary to grasp this nettle – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish the ‘ Historic Investigations Unit ’ within a hundred days was presented as a key part of the package which persuaded Sinn Fein to re-establish Stormont .
Downing Street sources claimed that the Prime Minister had been “ blindsided ” by the implications of Smith ’ s deal for important bits of Government policy ( as we warned at the time ) , but for his part Lewis ’ predecessor says Johnson signed off on it .
P.S .
This Saturday , I ’ m speaking at the first-ever These Islands conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a panel with Lord Salisbury and Carwyn Jones , both of the Constitution Reform Group , to discuss whether their New Act of Union Bill , with its provisions for a ‘ federal ’ UK , are the way to save the Union .
( Spoiler : probably not . )

Carlaw wins Scottish Tory leadership
As generally anticipated, Jackson Carlaw won the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives by a very comfortable margin, taking more than three quarters of the vote versus rival MSP Michelle Ballantyne.
He has since dropped her from the Tories’ shadow front bench in a reshuffle which saw Murdo Fraser, an advocate of “quasi-federalism” whose long-standing ambition has been splitting the Scottish party away from the UK one, moved to the constitutional brief.
Carlaw has also pledged a “comprehensive review” of the Party’s policies, with the goal of positioning the Conservatives as a ‘blue collar’ party which is capable of supplanting the “morally and politically bankrupt” SNP as Scotland’s party of government.
This is an overdue move. The Tories have for a while now been trying to shift the spotlight onto the Nationalists’ woeful record on day-to-day issues, but such a strategy is ideally a one-two punch and the second strike is a plausible and attractive policy offer with which to contrast the Scottish Government’s record.
But although endlessly focusing on the constitution is not sufficient as a Tory strategy, it is easy to see how they might get trapped in that comfort zone. Just this week there has been another spate of stories about the possibility of a so-called ‘wildcat’ referendum, i.e. one conducted without the legal authorisation of Westminster.
Pete Wishart, an MP not typically known as one of the SNP’s wise heads, has warned Nicola Sturgeon not to indulge such talk because it “terrifies” wavering voters who might be tempted into the separatist camp by Brexit. On the other hand John Bercow, in an increasingly desperate effort to stay in the news, has talked up the idea.
Welsh Nationalists fined almost £30,000 by the Electoral Commission
Plaid Cymru have been hit with a £29,000 fine for “finance reporting failures”, according to Wales Online. The levy is reportedly a response to “nine inaccurate reports” regarding donations totalling almost half a million pounds.
According to the Commission: “The investigation found that the party submitted nine inaccurate reports over a two-year period, omitting a total of 36 cash donations worth more than £497,000.” Their Director of Regulation added that: “The total number and value of donations omitted from Plaid Cymru’s quarterly reports is significant and reveals a substantial degree of non-compliance.”
This comes just a week after Neil McAvoy, an independent Assembly Member who previously sat for Plaid, announced his intention to set up a rival Welsh National Party, which will apparently put a ‘sovereigntist’ spin on the theme with a programme which advocates not only independence for Wales but for the individual.
McAvoy was expelled from Plaid in 2018 over an “irrevocable breakdown of trust” arising from a dispute over policy. He has apparently been followed out by several councillors, and has claimed that a “senior staff member” at Plaid has been trying to set up dummy WNP social media accounts.
Labour hopefuls back ‘more powers’ as route to Scottish hearts
In a wearisomely predictable move that illustrates just how little they’re actually thinking about the subject, all the MPs contending for the Labour leadership have backed the devolution of yet more powers to the Scottish Parliament.
All three argued that the Party needed Scotland to have any hope of winning back power, although this did not stop Rebecca Long-Bailey from confirming she would authorise a re-run of the 2014 independence referendum. Sir Keir Starmer is on the record as backing “radical federalism”, whatever that is.
The most potentially intriguing response was from Lisa Nandy, who struck and unabashedly unionist tone and suggested that Labour needed a plan “much more radical power settlement than federalism with power pushed out to local authorities”. That’s an intriguing idea, especially in light of the Scottish Government’s well-established tendency to squeeze genuinely local government and centralise as much power as possible in Edinburgh.
Meanwhile Ian Murray, Labour’s sole Scottish MP and candidate for the deputy leadership, urged his comrades to explore why the Opposition lost their ‘Tartan Wall’, the collapse of which preceded the similar implosion of the ‘Red Wall’ in northern England.
Foster urges Lewis to limit the scope of Troubles probe
Last week, we wrote that Boris Johnson’s decision to dismiss Julian Smith offered him a second chance to show that he was serious about Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom.
It’s too early to start judging Brandon Lewis’ performance, but one mooted reason for the decision to drop Smith was that the Prime Minister intends to adopt a tougher line on the question of so-called legacy inquiries, specifically those into the conduct of British troops and officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
This week Arlene Foster, the First Minister of Northern Ireland, publicly urged the new Northern Irish Secretary to grasp this nettle – despite the fact that a pledge to establish the ‘Historic Investigations Unit’ within a hundred days was presented as a key part of the package which persuaded Sinn Fein to re-establish Stormont.
Downing Street sources claimed that the Prime Minister had been “blindsided” by the implications of Smith’s deal for important bits of Government policy (as we warned at the time), but for his part Lewis’ predecessor says Johnson signed off on it.
P.S. This Saturday, I’m speaking at the first-ever These Islands conference in Newcastle. I’ll be on a panel with Lord Salisbury and Carwyn Jones, both of the Constitution Reform Group, to discuss whether their New Act of Union Bill, with its provisions for a ‘federal’ UK, are the way to save the Union. (Spoiler: probably not.)


conservativehome--2020-02-20--The new points-based immigration system gives ministers a lot of room for manoeuvre

After a couple of months in which the Government has sometimes given the impression of having stalled in the wake of December ’ s election victory , this week we ’ ve got details of a major plank of its agenda : the points-based immigration system .
It ’ s a simple enough system on the surface .
An applicants needs 70 points to get into the UK , across nine categories .
Three of these – ‘ Offer of job by approved sponsor ’ , ‘ Job at appropriate skill level ’ , and ‘ Speaks English at required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ add up to 50 points .
The remaining 20 points can be made up by having a PhD in a STEM subject , securing a job in a ‘ shortage occupation ’ , one with a salary north of £25,600 , or a combination of a ‘ relevant ’ PhD and a salary between £23,040 and £25,599 .
As you might expect , this has prompted howls from business and pro-immigration commentators , and Downing Street probably won ’ t be displeased at having the new system ’ s reputation for toughness burnished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the plan , as stated , gives the Government quite a lot of flexibility .
It really depends on what meaning the Government ends up giving to “ approved sponsor ” , “ appropriate skill level ” , and “ shortage occupation ” .
Between them those words give Priti Patel the leeway to create an overall impression of control whilst authorising a pretty laissez-faire approach on a sector-by-sector basis .
And should the voters ’ attitudes – which are currently relatively relaxed about immigration – harden again , the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of valve to ease or impose restrictions in line with public opinion .
This plan seems to tick the boxes set out by Vote Leave in their referendum campaigning on the issue : it ‘ takes back control ’ , it offers a more equal regime for EU and non-EU migrants , and it at least gives the Government the tools to bring down the headline numbers – although we should not forget that rules for work visas do not comprise the whole of the immigration system .
What remains to be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this actually happens .
Not for nothing have people familiar with the Australian system long pointed out that it actually facilitates immigration .
Proposals floated in today ’ s papers to ease the requirement for a job offer , are in the spirit of the original .
As one analyst points out : “ In Australia , the single biggest cohort of new economic permanent resident visas each year are awarded to people without a job offer.
” The Tory manifesto promised lower overall numbers , and ministers must be alive to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by reduced income or job offer requirements , could offset falling numbers from the EU .
It may be that even this most flexible system won ’ t spare Boris Johnson the choice between meeting that commitment an avoiding a showdown with business .

After a couple of months in which the Government has sometimes given the impression of having stalled in the wake of December’s election victory, this week we’ve got details of a major plank of its agenda: the points-based immigration system.
It’s a simple enough system on the surface. An applicants needs 70 points to get into the UK, across nine categories. Three of these – ‘Offer of job by approved sponsor’, ‘Job at appropriate skill level’, and ‘Speaks English at required level’ – are mandatory, and add up to 50 points.
The remaining 20 points can be made up by having a PhD in a STEM subject, securing a job in a ‘shortage occupation’, one with a salary north of £25,600, or a combination of a ‘relevant’ PhD and a salary between £23,040 and £25,599.
As you might expect, this has prompted howls from business and pro-immigration commentators, and Downing Street probably won’t be displeased at having the new system’s reputation for toughness burnished in this way. But the reality is that the plan, as stated, gives the Government quite a lot of flexibility.
It really depends on what meaning the Government ends up giving to “approved sponsor”, “appropriate skill level”, and “shortage occupation”. Between them those words give Priti Patel the leeway to create an overall impression of control whilst authorising a pretty laissez-faire approach on a sector-by-sector basis.
And should the voters’ attitudes – which are currently relatively relaxed about immigration – harden again, the Government can use this system as a sort of valve to ease or impose restrictions in line with public opinion.
This plan seems to tick the boxes set out by Vote Leave in their referendum campaigning on the issue: it ‘takes back control’, it offers a more equal regime for EU and non-EU migrants, and it at least gives the Government the tools to bring down the headline numbers – although we should not forget that rules for work visas do not comprise the whole of the immigration system.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not this actually happens. Not for nothing have people familiar with the Australian system long pointed out that it actually facilitates immigration. Proposals floated in today’s papers to ease the requirement for a job offer, are in the spirit of the original. As one analyst points out: “In Australia, the single biggest cohort of new economic permanent resident visas each year are awarded to people without a job offer.”
The Tory manifesto promised lower overall numbers, and ministers must be alive to the possibility that increased non-EU immigration, facilitated by reduced income or job offer requirements, could offset falling numbers from the EU. It may be that even this most flexible system won’t spare Boris Johnson the choice between meeting that commitment an avoiding a showdown with business.


conservativehome--2020-02-20--Introducing ConservativeHome’s new Deputy Editor: Charlotte Gill

We had a fantastic response when we advertised last month for the next Deputy Editor of ConservativeHome .
The role attracted high-calibre applicants from across journalism and politics , which is a great testament to the position this site has secured in the media and Westminster landscape .
We are delighted to announce that the search was successful , and a new Deputy Editor will be joining the team in March .
Please welcome Charlotte Gill to the ConservativeHome family .
Charlotte will be familiar to many readers as a journalist and commentator who has been published in the Daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sunday , The Spectator and elsewhere , and has appeared numerous times on Sky News and the BBC .
She ’ s also a doughty champion of conservatism on social media ( you can find her on Twitter here ) .
She will be a great addition to our editorial team .
In the 15 years since its foundation , ConservativeHome has flourished in a variety of political conditions : in opposition under Labour ; as a voice for conservatism and the Tory grassroots under the Coalition ; then throughout the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now we are faced with the first truly viable majority Conservative government in the site ’ s history , a goal which we have long sought .
Those new circumstances bring new opportunities and challenges .
As ever we will bring you , our readers , the very best Conservative news , analysis , insight and opinion .
We are sure that Charlotte ’ s arrival will greatly bolster that work .

We had a fantastic response when we advertised last month for the next Deputy Editor of ConservativeHome. The role attracted high-calibre applicants from across journalism and politics, which is a great testament to the position this site has secured in the media and Westminster landscape.
We are delighted to announce that the search was successful, and a new Deputy Editor will be joining the team in March. Please welcome Charlotte Gill to the ConservativeHome family.
Charlotte will be familiar to many readers as a journalist and commentator who has been published in the Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Mail on Sunday, The Spectator and elsewhere, and has appeared numerous times on Sky News and the BBC. She’s also a doughty champion of conservatism on social media (you can find her on Twitter here). She will be a great addition to our editorial team.
In the 15 years since its foundation, ConservativeHome has flourished in a variety of political conditions: in opposition under Labour; as a voice for conservatism and the Tory grassroots under the Coalition; then throughout the EU referendum and all the ensuing Brexit battles. Now we are faced with the first truly viable majority Conservative government in the site’s history, a goal which we have long sought.
Those new circumstances bring new opportunities and challenges. As ever we will bring you, our readers, the very best Conservative news, analysis, insight and opinion. We are sure that Charlotte’s arrival will greatly bolster that work.
Paul Goodman, Editor
Mark Wallace, Chief Executive


conservativehome--2020-02-20--Ricky Bower: The Lib Dems are providing chaotic leadership on Arun District Council

Cllr Ricky Bower is an East Preston Ward Councillor on Arun District Council .
He is a former Cabinet Member for Planning and Chairman of the Development Control Committee .
Until the Local Elections of May 2019 , Arun District Council had been a highly regarded Conservative controlled Council .
It is now on the verge of being a basket case .
Control was taken in May , on the back of the disastrous policy of Theresa May on Brexit , by an alliance of Liberal Democrats and Independents – the overwhelming number of whom had served on Parish Councils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Following the May 2019 election , the Liberal Democrats had twenty two seats , the Independents were in two sub-groups – one of seven seats – and one Independent who refused to join the others in a group .
The Conservatives had twentyone seats , Greens two , and Labour just one .
Subsequently , one Lib Dem resigned from the Lib Dem group , and one was suspended pending a legal issue , making the Conservative group the largest on this Lib Dem/Independent council .
The members of the larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election on parochial platforms – to return the Council to a Committee-based decision-making system and revoking the 2018 adopted Local Plan .
Here ’ s the rub .
The Arun council officers have disabused these independents of their plans for the Local Plan – it being a statutory policy document that if revoked would result in planning by Appeal Inspector .
The Lib Dems have more or less persuaded the Independents to accept preparation of a five year review of the Local Plan but in the meantime the Independents voted last September for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an expression of no confidence in the Local Plan .
( None of the Independents or the Lib Dems who voted for that motion have withdrawn from the Development Control committee .
They are therefore voting to apply Local Plan policies they don ’ t agree with . )
The decision to implement a Committee system was bulldozed through the Council following a process of review of decision making that was neither open nor transparent .
It , in itself , could in no way be described as conforming to the main articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making should be open and transparent .
In fact , it points to the way Liberal Democrats operate .
The evidence is clear .
The Lib Dem Leadership set themselves an objective without conducting an open critical review of current processes and without public consultation .
Even the Audit and Governance committee ( tasked under the Constitution to ‘ Independently ’ oversee the Council ’ s Governance arrangements ) called for an all council members seminar .
This was overruled by the Lib Dem leadership with the LD Chairman of the Audit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indeed , it became apparent at the Full Council meeting that both the Lib Dems and the larger Independent Group had been whipped .
It appears the Lib Dems think , that as the Council has taken the decision , however the decision was reached , Arun District Council is locked into a committee system for the next six years without the possibility of review .
The fact is that council members have been forced to take this decision without fully assessing the costs or staffing implications of such a change .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the operational detail any ‘ game stopper ’ would have to be overcome without the possibility of reviewing the decision .
As for the larger Independent Group , their leader said in one closed meeting ‘ Hundreds of Councils up and down the country operate the committee system so why can ’ t Arun just change ’ .
It was pointed out that the Committee system was made illegal by the Local Government Act 2000 and it didn ’ t apply to parishes .
Obviously he hadn ’ t done his homework before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manifesto .
Yes the Localism Act allowed for such a change – but that doesn ’ t excuse treating council members like sheep .
One thing that is clear : with so many new members whose only experience of Councils is Town or Parish – they have an aim to turn a District Council into a replica of what they know as council processes .
In a debate about the future of a civic gardens site , one Liberal Democrat Cabinet member was asked ‘ where is the business plan ’ for what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Council is not a business it is a service ’ .
With 87 lines of statutory business at District level , and only one line at Town/Parish , it is hard to accept the naivety of this new breed of Liberal Democrat .
Liberal Democrats and the Independents are struggling to prevent members resigning for fear the Conservatives will regain control .
Certainly the Conservatives on Arun have no fear of by-elections .

Cllr Ricky Bower is an East Preston Ward Councillor on Arun District Council. He is a former Cabinet Member for Planning and Chairman of the Development Control Committee.
Until the Local Elections of May 2019, Arun District Council had been a highly regarded Conservative controlled Council. It is now on the verge of being a basket case.
Control was taken in May, on the back of the disastrous policy of Theresa May on Brexit, by an alliance of Liberal Democrats and Independents – the overwhelming number of whom had served on Parish Councils and had never faced a ballot box election.
Following the May 2019 election, the Liberal Democrats had twenty two seats, the Independents were in two sub-groups – one of seven seats – and one Independent who refused to join the others in a group. The Conservatives had twentyone seats, Greens two, and Labour just one. Subsequently, one Lib Dem resigned from the Lib Dem group, and one was suspended pending a legal issue, making the Conservative group the largest on this Lib Dem/Independent council.
The members of the larger Independent Group had mostly stood at the Election on parochial platforms – to return the Council to a Committee-based decision-making system and revoking the 2018 adopted Local Plan.
Here’s the rub. The Arun council officers have disabused these independents of their plans for the Local Plan – it being a statutory policy document that if revoked would result in planning by Appeal Inspector. The Lib Dems have more or less persuaded the Independents to accept preparation of a five year review of the Local Plan but in the meantime the Independents voted last September for a motion in full Council that included an expression of no confidence in the Local Plan. (None of the Independents or the Lib Dems who voted for that motion have withdrawn from the Development Control committee. They are therefore voting to apply Local Plan policies they don’t agree with.)
The decision to implement a Committee system was bulldozed through the Council following a process of review of decision making that was neither open nor transparent. It, in itself, could in no way be described as conforming to the main articles of the Councils Constitution – that decision making should be open and transparent. In fact, it points to the way Liberal Democrats operate. The evidence is clear. The Lib Dem Leadership set themselves an objective without conducting an open critical review of current processes and without public consultation. Even the Audit and Governance committee (tasked under the Constitution to ‘Independently’ oversee the Council’s Governance arrangements) called for an all council members seminar. This was overruled by the Lib Dem leadership with the LD Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee reversing her committee vote. Indeed, it became apparent at the Full Council meeting that both the Lib Dems and the larger Independent Group had been whipped.
It appears the Lib Dems think, that as the Council has taken the decision, however the decision was reached, Arun District Council is locked into a committee system for the next six years without the possibility of review.
The fact is that council members have been forced to take this decision without fully assessing the costs or staffing implications of such a change. This means that while officers are working up the operational detail any ‘game stopper’ would have to be overcome without the possibility of reviewing the decision. As for the larger Independent Group, their leader said in one closed meeting ‘Hundreds of Councils up and down the country operate the committee system so why can’t Arun just change’. It was pointed out that the Committee system was made illegal by the Local Government Act 2000 and it didn’t apply to parishes.
Obviously he hadn’t done his homework before promising his electors this change in his manifesto. Yes the Localism Act allowed for such a change – but that doesn’t excuse treating council members like sheep.
One thing that is clear: with so many new members whose only experience of Councils is Town or Parish – they have an aim to turn a District Council into a replica of what they know as council processes.
In a debate about the future of a civic gardens site, one Liberal Democrat Cabinet member was asked ‘where is the business plan’ for what was being proposed? He replied ‘A Council is not a business it is a service’. With 87 lines of statutory business at District level, and only one line at Town/Parish, it is hard to accept the naivety of this new breed of Liberal Democrat.
Liberal Democrats and the Independents are struggling to prevent members resigning for fear the Conservatives will regain control.
Certainly the Conservatives on Arun have no fear of by-elections.


conservativehome--2020-02-19--The Left’s shameful history on eugenics

The Left’s shameful history on eugenics

The call went out for “ misfits and weirdos ” to come and work in Downing Street .
Andrew Sabisky , a “ super forecaster ” decided this was his time .
He answered the call and was , very briefly , ushered into the heart of Government .
He was given a role as a contractor , which seems to have avoided a lot of pesky vetting .
The hitch came when evidence emerged that he is , or at least was , rather keen on eugenics .
In 2014 he wrote : “ One way to get around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty .
Vaccination laws give it a precedent , I would argue.
” A pretty shocking proposal , which is not destined to become Government policy , despite Sabisky ’ s claim that “ in transhumanist circles I believe these problems have been discussed for a while.
” I ’ m not sure if Sabisky was entirely serious about the proposition .
Perhaps he was just shooting the breeze .
The words quoted above were written when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a reference to “ good dystopian sci-fi ” .
They were followed by conceding that “ some people reading this will definitely think I ’ m crazy ” and that bold plan was likely to face some backchat from “ the God squad.
” Was he wanting to stop all teenagers from breeding ?
The conception rate for under 18s is already at a record low .
That was not all .
Earlier that year he made another comment about American data showing that white people have a higher IQ on average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sure that IQ is a particularly worthwhile measure of intelligence .
It certainly doesn ’ t seem much guarantee of success – as anyone who has been to a Mensa gathering will confirm .
My advice for anyone who believes that black people are of lower intelligence who be to visit the Michaela School in Brent which has a high proportion of black pupils and last summer celebrated GCSE results that put the school at the top of the league tables .
If Sabisky does have wacky , even offensive , views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure be whether he was able to do a good job with his “ super forecasting ” , or whatever it was , that would have been benefited all of us ?
Our criteria in our daily lives is whether people whose services we employ are good at their jobs .
Does it matter if your dentist is a Buddhist ?
Or your plumber is a Communist ?
Others will retort that working in Downing Street is a different matter .
Either way , some on the Left have taken this rather bizarre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Before they get too carried away , they might care to reflect on their own ideological roots .
If they thought Sabisky ’ s comments were bad then perhaps the Twitter lynch-mob should put down their pitchforks just for a moment and reflect on the some of the following .
“ The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man.
” “ A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber .
A great many people would have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wastes other people ’ s time to look after them.
” Bertrand Russell offered a milder policy proposal that the state should issue colour-coded “ procreation tickets ” .
Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine .
Beatrice Webb , who with her husband Sidney founded the Fabian Society , regarded eugenics as “ the most important question ” of all , while her husband declared that ‘ no eugenicist can be a laissez faire individualist… he must interfere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of “ detrimental types and characteristics ” and the “ fostering of desirable types ” instead .
He offered this message to the working class : “ We can not go on giving you health , freedom , enlargement , limitless wealth , if all our gifts to you are to be swamped by an indiscriminate torrent of progeny…and we can not make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make , with the ill-bred , ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 1931 the Labour MP Archibald Church sought legislation to halt the reproduction of those “ who are in every way a burden to their parents , a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community ” .
The same month the New Statesman declared : “ The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement .
On the contrary , they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Manchester Guardian backed his call .
Despite such cheerleaders , forced sterilisation was not adopted .
Though it was implemented by Social Democrats in Sweden .
A few minutes walk from my home is a block of council flats named in honour of Ellen Wilkinson , a cabinet minister in the Attlee Government .
She wanted the Eugenics Society to form a special committee of Labour sympathisers .
John Maynard Keynes served on the society ’ s governing council and was its director from 1937 to 1944 .
Will Cooks , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiast .
Speaking in support of the Feeble Minded Person Control Bill he remarked : “ There is only one fitting description… they are almost like human vermin .
They crawl about , doing absolutely nothing , except polluting and corrupting everything they touch .
We talk about the liberty of the subject .
What nonsense !
What a waste of words !
” Harold Laski , the Chairman of the Labour Party from 1945-46 wrote an essay on The Scope of Genetics : “ Extreme emphasis must be laid on the danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expense of the fit… The different rates of fertility in the sound and pathological stocks point to a future swamping of the better by the worse .
As a nation , we are faced by racial suicide… The parentage of the fit must be encouraged , the propagation of the unfit must be prevented… The time is surely coming in our history when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself.
” “ Sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood to be made an immediate possibility , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attended the International Congress for Population Science in Berlin , sponsored by the Nazi regime and just before the War she sent Hitler some of her poems .
Karl Marx wrote in the New York Tribune , in 1853 : “ The classes and the races , too weak to master the new conditions of life , must give way.
” “ Among all the large and small nations of Austria , only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history , and still retain their vitality—the Germans , the Poles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now revolutionary .
All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm .
For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.
” To their credit , some of the Left , notably Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian , have acknowledged this uncomfortable history .
After the Holocaust the climate of acceptable opinion certainly changed very significantly .
Nor was it only socialists who advocated eugenics .
But it should also be noted that plenty of others defended the cause of freedom and civilisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poisonous schemes it tended to be Conservatives , such as GK Chesterton , who robustly refuted them .
For us individual life is precious – we are not units to be allocated or discarded according to some central plan .
It was probably necessary for Sabisky to go .
I feel sorry that a young nerd should be hounded out for silly comments he made when younger .
But doubtless , he will find alternative gainful employment in a less sensitive building .
The irony is that some of those denouncing him with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their intellectual heroes .

The call went out for “misfits and weirdos” to come and work in Downing Street. Andrew Sabisky, a “super forecaster” decided this was his time. He answered the call and was, very briefly, ushered into the heart of Government. He was given a role as a contractor, which seems to have avoided a lot of pesky vetting. The hitch came when evidence emerged that he is, or at least was, rather keen on eugenics. In 2014 he wrote:
“One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.”
A pretty shocking proposal, which is not destined to become Government policy, despite Sabisky’s claim that “in transhumanist circles I believe these problems have been discussed for a while.” I’m not sure if Sabisky was entirely serious about the proposition. Perhaps he was just shooting the breeze. The words quoted above were written when he was 24. He preceded them by a reference to “good dystopian sci-fi”. They were followed by conceding that “some people reading this will definitely think I’m crazy” and that bold plan was likely to face some backchat from “the God squad.” Was he wanting to stop all teenagers from breeding? The conception rate for under 18s is already at a record low.
That was not all. Earlier that year he made another comment about American data showing that white people have a higher IQ on average than black people. I’m not sure that IQ is a particularly worthwhile measure of intelligence. It certainly doesn’t seem much guarantee of success – as anyone who has been to a Mensa gathering will confirm. My advice for anyone who believes that black people are of lower intelligence who be to visit the Michaela School in Brent which has a high proportion of black pupils and last summer celebrated GCSE results that put the school at the top of the league tables.
If Sabisky does have wacky, even offensive, views does it matter? Should not the measure be whether he was able to do a good job with his “super forecasting”, or whatever it was, that would have been benefited all of us? Our criteria in our daily lives is whether people whose services we employ are good at their jobs. Does it matter if your dentist is a Buddhist? Or your plumber is a Communist? Others will retort that working in Downing Street is a different matter.
Either way, some on the Left have taken this rather bizarre incident to associate Conservatives with eugenics. Before they get too carried away, they might care to reflect on their own ideological roots. If they thought Sabisky’s comments were bad then perhaps the Twitter lynch-mob should put down their pitchforks just for a moment and reflect on the some of the following.
George Bernard Shaw wrote:
“The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man.”
He added:
“A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Bertrand Russell offered a milder policy proposal that the state should issue colour-coded “procreation tickets”. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine.
Beatrice Webb, who with her husband Sidney founded the Fabian Society, regarded eugenics as “the most important question” of all, while her husband declared that ‘no eugenicist can be a laissez faire individualist… he must interfere, interfere, interfere!’
HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of “detrimental types and characteristics” and the “fostering of desirable types” instead. He offered this message to the working class:
“We cannot go on giving you health, freedom, enlargement, limitless wealth, if all our gifts to you are to be swamped by an indiscriminate torrent of progeny…and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict upon us.”
In July 1931 the Labour MP Archibald Church sought legislation to halt the reproduction of those “who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community”.
The same month the New Statesman declared:
“The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics.”
The Manchester Guardian backed his call. Despite such cheerleaders, forced sterilisation was not adopted. Though it was implemented by Social Democrats in Sweden.
A few minutes walk from my home is a block of council flats named in honour of Ellen Wilkinson, a cabinet minister in the Attlee Government. She wanted the Eugenics Society to form a special committee of Labour sympathisers. John Maynard Keynes served on the society’s governing council and was its director from 1937 to 1944.
Will Cooks, one of the first Labour MPs was another enthusiast. Speaking in support of the Feeble Minded Person Control Bill he remarked:
“There is only one fitting description… they are almost like human vermin. They crawl about, doing absolutely nothing, except polluting and corrupting everything they touch. We talk about the liberty of the subject. What nonsense! What a waste of words!”
Harold Laski, the Chairman of the Labour Party from 1945-46 wrote an essay on The Scope of Genetics:
“Extreme emphasis must be laid on the danger of breeding from the unfit at the expense of the fit… The different rates of fertility in the sound and pathological stocks point to a future swamping of the better by the worse. As a nation, we are faced by racial suicide… The parentage of the fit must be encouraged, the propagation of the unfit must be prevented… The time is surely coming in our history when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself.”
Marie Stopes called for:
“Sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood to be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.”
In 1935 Stopes attended the International Congress for Population Science in Berlin, sponsored by the Nazi regime and just before the War she sent Hitler some of her poems.
Karl Marx wrote in the New York Tribune, in 1853:
“The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.”
In 1849, Friedrich Engels wrote in Marx’s newspaper, Neue Rheinische
“Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality—the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.”
To their credit, some of the Left, notably Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian, have acknowledged this uncomfortable history. After the Holocaust the climate of acceptable opinion certainly changed very significantly. Nor was it only socialists who advocated eugenics. But it should also be noted that plenty of others defended the cause of freedom and civilisation. When the eugenicists were advocating their poisonous schemes it tended to be Conservatives, such as GK Chesterton, who robustly refuted them. For us individual life is precious – we are not units to be allocated or discarded according to some central plan.
It was probably necessary for Sabisky to go. I feel sorry that a young nerd should be hounded out for silly comments he made when younger. But doubtless, he will find alternative gainful employment in a less sensitive building. The irony is that some of those denouncing him with the loudest voices seem unaware of views of their intellectual heroes.


conservativehome--2020-02-19--Ministers must act to spur a tougher, more pro-active police response to Extinction Rebellion

Extinction Rebellion ( ‘ XR ’ ) are back in the headlines , inflicting on Cambridge a ‘ Scouring of the Shire ’ -style small-scale re-enactment of their bid to grind the capital to a halt last year .
And once again , the story is accompanied by mounting public anger at a woefully inadequate police response which seems more interested in indulging the protests than maintaining public order .
In fact in some cases Cambridgeshire Constabulary even appear to be facilitating XR ’ s actions .
Using emergency powers to close a couple of roads blockaded by protesters may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it also lends the force of the state to their ultimate ambition of blocking a public highway – a move which paramedics have told the press could put lives at risk .
As yet , the people of Cambridge have confined themselves to a petition calling for an end to the roadblock , which has been signed by thousands .
There has been no repeat of the attack on XR activists by commuters which seemed to spur the Metropolitan Police to action in 2019 .
But that action still stands as a warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities fail to adequately enforce order , alongside the precedent and example it sets for other protest groups if boundaries are not properly enforced .
This is worth keeping in mind because the logic of XR ’ s position is that they will escalate their actions – and they are already not only closing roads but council meetings – if their demands aren ’ t met .
In fairness , there have now been some arrests .
But why are has the authorities ’ response taken this form ?
The local police appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the protections afforded to the right to protest under the Human Rights Act and a ‘ tortured ’ reading of the College of Policing ’ s advice , which one observer points out “ amounts to legalising almost all illegal activity if one can claim that it ’ s in the cause of a protest ” .
Meanwhile the Times reports that the police are caught between a rock and a hard place because the courts ruled in favour of a legal challenge by XR against the blanket ban employed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign against London .
Given the Government ’ s intention to overhaul judicial review , this might prompt another round of criticism of the judges .
But we should not forget that a Government with a comfortable overall majority has the basis to change legislation to authorise , and indeed mandate , more pro-active and effective police action against campaigns against campaigns of this kind .
Priti Patel doesn ’ t need to wait for the results of Michael Gove ’ s constitutional commission ( which may well in any event prove disappointing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill to that effect – indeed John Apter , the Chairman of the Police Federation , has called for such legislation .
Nor to look at what powers Police & Crime Commissioners have to act on public anger about the performance of their local force in a crisis .
It ought to be perfectly possible for the Home Secretary to lend her full support to rank-and-file officers whilst bringing Government pressure to bear on their often timorous senior leadership .

Extinction Rebellion (‘XR’) are back in the headlines, inflicting on Cambridge a ‘Scouring of the Shire’-style small-scale re-enactment of their bid to grind the capital to a halt last year.
And once again, the story is accompanied by mounting public anger at a woefully inadequate police response which seems more interested in indulging the protests than maintaining public order.
In fact in some cases Cambridgeshire Constabulary even appear to be facilitating XR’s actions. Using emergency powers to close a couple of roads blockaded by protesters may well ‘mitigate disruption’, but it also lends the force of the state to their ultimate ambition of blocking a public highway – a move which paramedics have told the press could put lives at risk.
As yet, the people of Cambridge have confined themselves to a petition calling for an end to the roadblock, which has been signed by thousands. There has been no repeat of the attack on XR activists by commuters which seemed to spur the Metropolitan Police to action in 2019.
But that action still stands as a warning as to what can happen if the authorities fail to adequately enforce order, alongside the precedent and example it sets for other protest groups if boundaries are not properly enforced. This is worth keeping in mind because the logic of XR’s position is that they will escalate their actions – and they are already not only closing roads but council meetings – if their demands aren’t met.
In fairness, there have now been some arrests. But why are has the authorities’ response taken this form?
The local police appear to be citing a very broad interpretation of the protections afforded to the right to protest under the Human Rights Act and a ‘tortured’ reading of the College of Policing’s advice, which one observer points out “amounts to legalising almost all illegal activity if one can claim that it’s in the cause of a protest”. Meanwhile the Times reports that the police are caught between a rock and a hard place because the courts ruled in favour of a legal challenge by XR against the blanket ban employed by the police to bring an end to their campaign against London.
Given the Government’s intention to overhaul judicial review, this might prompt another round of criticism of the judges. But we should not forget that a Government with a comfortable overall majority has the basis to change legislation to authorise, and indeed mandate, more pro-active and effective police action against campaigns against campaigns of this kind.
Priti Patel doesn’t need to wait for the results of Michael Gove’s constitutional commission (which may well in any event prove disappointing) in order to draw up a Bill to that effect – indeed John Apter, the Chairman of the Police Federation, has called for such legislation. Nor to look at what powers Police & Crime Commissioners have to act on public anger about the performance of their local force in a crisis.
It ought to be perfectly possible for the Home Secretary to lend her full support to rank-and-file officers whilst bringing Government pressure to bear on their often timorous senior leadership.


conservativehome--2020-02-21--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct A

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority – 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 .
“ Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year , after 10 years in post .
We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR ’ s staff .
This is a high profile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills and integrity .
Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity .
Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term .
There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms .
This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.
” “ The Treasure Valuation Committee provides independent advice to the Secretary of State for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport , on the fair market value of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Northern Ireland , which museums wish to acquire .
Its membership comprises experts on the range of antiquities submitted for valuation , on museums and their collections , and on the law relating to antiquities .
In addition , the membership includes an individual drawn from those who represent the interests of finders.
” “ The Secretary of State , working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency , is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds .
Applicants will need to demonstrate they are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills , knowledge and expertise .
Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero , climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.
” “ The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership ( LEP ) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our ambitious economic plans .
The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership , and through this latest round of appointments , have committed to achieve 50 % female representation on the LEP board in 2020 .
Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term , we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background , experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area ’ s economic success .
The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders , while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government .
We want you to have a voice , make a difference and give something back to the region .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector ( Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website ) .
” Time : Minimum one day per week on average .
“ As Chair of the STRB , you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body ; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it ; where necessary challenging existing assumptions ; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB ; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees… ” “ The Office of the Children ’ s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work .
It is a small organisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is highly respected .
The Children ’ s Commissioner ’ s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children ’ s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions .
The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals , with a wide breadth of experience , to join this Board , which meets quarterly in London .
Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children , particularly the most vulnerable , and be interested in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer a different perspective on her work.
” “ We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors ( NEDs ) with substantial experience of leading complex , delivery focused organisations , to support the Home Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office .
They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department ’ s work through a fresh , independent , and external @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.
” “ The Office for Nuclear Regulation ( ONR ) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK .
Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect , trust and confidence .
ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) who have principal responsibility for governance , finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strategy ( BEIS ) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director ( NED ) to the ONR Board.
” “ This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services , leading a sizeable and complex organisation .
There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role .
Under Andrew Bailey , the FCA has formulated a transformation programme , to equip the organisation for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers ; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified ; [ and ] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal , and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Budget Responsibility – Chair
“Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year, after 10 years in post. We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR’s staff. This is a high profile and influential role, requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity. Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity. Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term. There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms. This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.”
Time: Full- or part-time.
Remuneration: £158,762 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 20 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Treasure Valuation Committee – Chair
“The Treasure Valuation Committee provides independent advice to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on the fair market value of declared Treasure finds from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which museums wish to acquire. Its membership comprises experts on the range of antiquities submitted for valuation, on museums and their collections, and on the law relating to antiquities. In addition, the membership includes an individual drawn from those who represent the interests of finders.”
Time: Two days per month (“likely”).
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence.
Closes: 24 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Environment Agency – Board Member
“The Secretary of State, working closely with the Chair of the Environment Agency, is seeking to appoint four new members to the Board of the Environment Agency to boost resilience and replace outgoing members. The Secretary of State wants to attract high-calibre and forward-thinking applicants from diverse backgrounds. Applicants will need to demonstrate they are able to carry out a full range of non-executive responsibilities and have relevant skills, knowledge and expertise. Board members have the opportunity to shape the strategic vision of the Environment Agency and think in different ways putting net zero, climate adaptation and innovative finance at the heart of its ambitions.”
Time: Four days per month.
Remuneration: £350 per diem, reasonable expenses.
Closes: 25 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Tees Valley Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Tees Valley Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) are looking to recruit a new LEP Chair and new LEP members from the private sector to deliver our ambitious economic plans. The Combined Authority and LEP strive to ensure an equal and diverse membership, and through this latest round of appointments, have committed to achieve 50% female representation on the LEP board in 2020. Due to the current LEP Chair coming to the end of his term, we are looking to appoint a new LEP Chair who has a strong private sector background, experience of building effective organisations and has the motivation to fully commit to and represent the LEP on a local and national scale.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: Travel and subsistence expenses.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
Solent Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Solent LEP is seeking to recruit a Chair who is an influential local leader and who can bring energy and passion to act as a champion for the area’s economic success. The Chair requires sufficient standing to be able to convene the local business community and public sector stakeholders, while having the insight to oversee the development of an economic strategy and the relationship skills to work effectively with government. We want you to have a voice, make a difference and give something back to the region. The Chair must come from the private sector (Individuals can only be classed as private sector if their organisations do not appear on the Public Sector Classifications guide which can be viewed on the Office for National Statistics website).”
Time: Minimum one day per week on average.
Remuneration: ‘Reasonable expenses’.
Closes: 29 February
– – – – – – – – – –
School Teachers’ Review Body – Chair
“As Chair of the STRB, you will be responsible for providing strategic leadership and direction to the STRB in fulfilling its functions as a public body; and for delivering high quality recommendations in response to the matters that have been referred to the STRB by the Secretary of State. You will do this by leading the work of the STRB in a way that deals comprehensively with the matters that have been referred to it; where necessary challenging existing assumptions; making effective use of the skills and expertise of the other members of the STRB; and providing effective challenge to the evidence and representations that are submitted to the STRB by the wide range of consultees…”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 01 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Children’s Commissioner’s Office – Advisory Board Member
“The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work. It is a small organisation, but it has a loud voice and is highly respected. The Children’s Commissioner’s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children’s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions. The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals, with a wide breadth of experience, to join this Board, which meets quarterly in London. Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children, particularly the most vulnerable, and be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work.”
Time: 3-4 meetings per year.
Remuneration: Reasonable expenses.
Closes: 03 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Non-Executive Directors
“We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) with substantial experience of leading complex, delivery focused organisations, to support the Home Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office. They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department’s work through a fresh, independent, and external perspective. You will work closely with ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.”
Time: “3 years”.
Remuneration: £15,000.
Closes: 08 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Nuclear Regulation – Security Non-Executive Director
“The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK. Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect, trust and confidence. ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) who have principal responsibility for governance, finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director (NED) to the ONR Board.”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 plus expenses.
Closes: 22 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Conduct Authority – Chief Executive
“This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services, leading a sizeable and complex organisation. There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role. Under Andrew Bailey, the FCA has formulated a transformation programme, to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development: a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified; [and] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal, and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Competitive.
Closes: 27 March


conservativehome--2020-02-21--Labour will ignore Blair’s speech yesterday. But Tories should take note.

“ This idea of purity and that you ’ re never compromised and you ’ re always politically woke — you should get over that quickly .
The world is messy .
There are ambiguities .
People who do really good stuff have flaws .
People who you are fighting may love their kids , and share certain things with you .
“ I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people , and this is accelerated by social media — there is this sense sometimes of the way of me making change is to be as judgmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s enough .
If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn ’ t do something right or used the wrong verb , then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself .
Did you see how woke I was , I called you out .
Then I ’ m going to get on my TV and watch my show … That ’ s not activism .
That ’ s not bringing about change .
If all you ’ re doing is casting stones , you ’ re probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tony Blair gave an equivalent message when he spoke at King ’ s College London yesterday .
There was the old showman .
The voice a little more hesitant but the grin as broad as ever .
All the familiar rhetorical ticks were used – that fey diffidence when he wanted to emphasise a point on which he was especially emphatic .
( “ Saying to the people you need to win ‘ we don ’ t like you ’ is not a great start to a political conversation to be honest….
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anniversary of the Labour Party .
Blair is not one for nostalgia , his great theme is wanting everything to be “ new ” .
Yet he did manage the following reference : “ I thought hard about taking stock on the Labour Party ’ s 120th anniversary .
It ’ s not as if my advice is particularly welcome to today ’ s Party .
But then it occurred to me that there are only two people born in the last 120 years who have actually won an election for Labour .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As for the other two Labour Leaders to have won an election , Ramsay MacDonald was born in 1866 and Clement Attlee in 1883 .
Out of 120 years , Labour has been in power for just over 30 of them .
That is a stark statistic.
” To say his advice is not “ particularly welcome ” – he went on to say he wouldn ’ t endorse any leadership contender to avoid harming anyone ’ s chances – was not self-deprecatory humour .
It ’ s an understatement .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large swathes of current Labour Party members .
A YouGov poll of Labour members found 62 per cent unfavourable – including 42 per cent who declared themselves “ very unfavourable ” .
If anything , the Lib Dems are even less keen on him .
So his vague pitch about some kind of merger or alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems is unlikely to be well received .
In an echo of Obama , he cautioned against “ shouty denunciation of anyone who disagrees ” .
Then Blair told his audience : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NGO , and not a pressure group .
Its aim is not to trend on twitter , or to have celebrities ( temporarily ) fawn over it , or to glory in a bubble of adulation pricked by the sharp point of the first tough decision .
“ Our task is to win power and get our hands stuck into the muddy mangle of governing , where out of it can be pulled the prize of progress measured not in fine words spoken at a distance , but in real grounded changes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which they may thank us for and many of which they will never even know were down to our struggle to place self discipline over self indulgence.
” Though Labour supporters may not have much inclination to listen to Blair , I think he does have some useful message for Conservatives – both in his speech and the Q & A session afterwards with Rachel Sylvester of The Times .
On Brexit he is vulnerable , of course .
He is keen to tell the Lefties ( or “ progressives ” as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to refuse to compromsie is a mistake , as you end up with no power at all .
Yet did he apply this lesson to himself when it came to his refusal to accept the referendum result to leave the EU ?
He did not .
Blair said that patriotism was “ preconditional ” for a party to be elected : “ You may decide you will vote on the basis on the health service but if you have got any doubts about a party ’ s patriotism…I ’ m afraid people had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Labour ’ s resistance to Brexit did not enhance its patriotic credentials .
Still , I did think it interesting when Sylvester asked him if Labour should campaign for the UK to rejoin the EU .
He said : “ No .
You just can ’ t I ’ m afraid .
Long term , who knows .
But you have got to give it a chance….The country does not want to redebate Brexit.
” If Blair is not going to push for this then who will ?
It does help to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interesting point from Blair on opinion polling : “ I learnt through the 1980s and 1990s the fallacy of polling individual policy and thinking you are learning something .
Each individual policy might be popular but you put them altogether and it ’ s not popular…You go back to the 1980s and all Labour ’ s policies , except unilateral nuclear disarmament , were popular .
So how come Margaret Thatcher kept winning by a landslide .
I kept puzzling over it.
” Finally there was firm criticism of the Labour embracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a culture war – on such issues as transgender rights : “ We don ’ t need to be fighting that culture war .
If you are going out and you are going to start trying to advocate things in a kind of finger-jabbing , sectarian way .
You don ’ t sign up to what I ’ m saying or I ’ m going to disrupt your meetings and shout at you…then you are not going to win that battle .
You are just going to put people off.
” I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blair years seemed to include a fair bit of identity politics – gay rights , feminism , all-women shortlists .
Great attention was paid to keeping ethnic minority votes in Labour ’ s electoral coalition .
But the threat to free speech from some of the demands from special interest groups has become much more serious .
Either way , Blair ’ s warning is welcome .
“ Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink , whilst thousands of great cattle , reposed beneath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chew the cud and are silent , pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.
” So often Conservatives have been craven towards unreasonable demands that might be favoured by the media class but not by public opinion more broadly .
Blair is right to warn Labour that they will lose by seeking to placate such lobby groups and hounding those who disagree .
All the more reason why Conservatives should stand firm .
Being true to our principles means championing individual freedom rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sectional grievances .
That approach is also popular .

Last year, Barack Obama told a student audience in Chicago:
“This idea of purity and that you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke — you should get over that quickly. The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids, and share certain things with you.
“I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media — there is this sense sometimes of the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people, and that’s enough. If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself. Did you see how woke I was, I called you out. Then I’m going to get on my TV and watch my show … That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.”
Tony Blair gave an equivalent message when he spoke at King’s College London yesterday. There was the old showman. The voice a little more hesitant but the grin as broad as ever. All the familiar rhetorical ticks were used – that fey diffidence when he wanted to emphasise a point on which he was especially emphatic. (“Saying to the people you need to win ‘we don’t like you’ is not a great start to a political conversation to be honest….”). The event marked the 120th anniversary of the Labour Party. Blair is not one for nostalgia, his great theme is wanting everything to be “new”. Yet he did manage the following reference:
“I thought hard about taking stock on the Labour Party’s 120th anniversary. It’s not as if my advice is particularly welcome to today’s Party. But then it occurred to me that there are only two people born in the last 120 years who have actually won an election for Labour. And alas Harold Wilson is long gone.
As for the other two Labour Leaders to have won an election, Ramsay MacDonald was born in 1866 and Clement Attlee in 1883.
Out of 120 years, Labour has been in power for just over 30 of them. That is a stark statistic.”
To say his advice is not “particularly welcome” – he went on to say he wouldn’t endorse any leadership contender to avoid harming anyone’s chances – was not self-deprecatory humour. It’s an understatement. There is a deep hostility towards him among large swathes of current Labour Party members. A YouGov poll of Labour members found 62 per cent unfavourable – including 42 per cent who declared themselves “very unfavourable”. If anything, the Lib Dems are even less keen on him. So his vague pitch about some kind of merger or alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems is unlikely to be well received.
In an echo of Obama, he cautioned against “shouty denunciation of anyone who disagrees”. Then Blair told his audience:
“The Labour Party is not an NGO, and not a pressure group. Its aim is not to trend on twitter, or to have celebrities (temporarily) fawn over it, or to glory in a bubble of adulation pricked by the sharp point of the first tough decision.
“Our task is to win power and get our hands stuck into the muddy mangle of governing, where out of it can be pulled the prize of progress measured not in fine words spoken at a distance, but in real grounded changes in the wellbeing of the people, some of which they may thank us for and many of which they will never even know were down to our struggle to place self discipline over self indulgence.”
Though Labour supporters may not have much inclination to listen to Blair, I think he does have some useful message for Conservatives – both in his speech and the Q&A session afterwards with Rachel Sylvester of The Times. On Brexit he is vulnerable, of course. He is keen to tell the Lefties (or “progressives” as they like to call themselves) that to refuse to compromsie is a mistake, as you end up with no power at all. Yet did he apply this lesson to himself when it came to his refusal to accept the referendum result to leave the EU? He did not. Blair said that patriotism was “preconditional” for a party to be elected:
“You may decide you will vote on the basis on the health service but if you have got any doubts about a party’s patriotism…I’m afraid people had a lot of doubts.”
Indeed. But Labour’s resistance to Brexit did not enhance its patriotic credentials.
Still, I did think it interesting when Sylvester asked him if Labour should campaign for the UK to rejoin the EU. He said:
“No. You just can’t I’m afraid. Long term, who knows. But you have got to give it a chance….The country does not want to redebate Brexit.”
If Blair is not going to push for this then who will? It does help to settle the question.
There was then an interesting point from Blair on opinion polling:
“I learnt through the 1980s and 1990s the fallacy of polling individual policy and thinking you are learning something. Each individual policy might be popular but you put them altogether and it’s not popular…You go back to the 1980s and all Labour’s policies, except unilateral nuclear disarmament, were popular. So how come Margaret Thatcher kept winning by a landslide. I kept puzzling over it.”
Finally there was firm criticism of the Labour embracing identity politics and seeking to engage in a culture war – on such issues as transgender rights:
“We don’t need to be fighting that culture war. If you are going out and you are going to start trying to advocate things in a kind of finger-jabbing, sectarian way. You don’t sign up to what I’m saying or I’m going to disrupt your meetings and shout at you…then you are not going to win that battle. You are just going to put people off.”
I was a bit surprised by this. The Blair years seemed to include a fair bit of identity politics – gay rights, feminism, all-women shortlists. Great attention was paid to keeping ethnic minority votes in Labour’s electoral coalition. But the threat to free speech from some of the demands from special interest groups has become much more serious. Either way, Blair’s warning is welcome.
Edmond Burke said:
“Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.”
So often Conservatives have been craven towards unreasonable demands that might be favoured by the media class but not by public opinion more broadly. Blair is right to warn Labour that they will lose by seeking to placate such lobby groups and hounding those who disagree. All the more reason why Conservatives should stand firm. Being true to our principles means championing individual freedom rather than engaging in a bidding competition over sectional grievances. That approach is also popular.


conservativehome--2020-02-21--Iain Dale: Frost’s address on Brexit is just as important as were Thatcher’s words at Bruges

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN .
Congratulations to Jackson Carlaw for becoming leader of the Scottish Conservative Party .
It ’ s without doubt one of the most demanding jobs in British politics .
And what an act he has to follow .
When Ruth Davidson became leader of the party in Scotland , no one rated her chances of success .
She was a ‘ rookie ’ .
A ‘ political knave ’ .
She lacked experience .
Well , everyone was wrong .
She was an outstanding success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its neck and gave it a good shake .
She took the Conservatives to a level of electoral representation they had previously only dreamed of .
Their opinion poll ratings are still far higher than anyone could have expected at the time .
So Carlaw starts his tenure with a fantastic legacy .
He may not have the charisma of Davidson , but he ’ s a formidable debator and operator and like his predecessor , her should not be underestimated .
If I were him , I ’ d do two things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the Labour unionist vote and , secondly , articulate the case for the Union better than anyone else .
It ’ s no good just slagging off the SNP or just undermining their case ; Unionists need to win hearts and minds by being positive about Scotland ’ s role in the UK .
And I say this as someone who not wholly opposed to independence for Scotland .
Whatever you think about Priti Patel ’ s new immigration policy , I do not understand why a succession of Government ministers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s airwaves explaining how the new system is going to work , and why it ’ s right for the country .
All we had yesterday was Patel doing a morning round – excluding The Today Programme and Good Morning Britain , natch .
The media world has changed .
There are many more outlets now , and they all need to be serviced .
The Home Office has seven ministers .
They should all have been out there selling the policy on any show that would have them .
Instead , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did any interviews at all ( though I stand to be corrected ) .
If Ministers aren ’ t going to explain their policies on the nation ’ s airwaves , who do they think will do it for them ?
Message discipline is all very well , but there has to be someone to promulgate that message .
Hands up if you ’ ve read David Frost ’ s speech in Brussels .
If not , do yourself a favour and do so .
Future historians will look back on it and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Margaret Thatcher ’ s 1988 Bruges speech .
t ’ s actually a speech that Boris Johnson should have made , and quite why cameras weren ’ t allowed to film it , God only knows .
It articulated the Government ’ s plans for a post-Brexit Britain better than anyone else has done .
It set down its approach to the free trade deal negotiations in a way that that no one could misunderstand .
It set some red lines which Brussels will actually believe we won ’ t cross .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , well , yet again they may be in for a big surprise .
Barnier and his little helpers are tying themselves up in knots with their utter hypocrisy over their about turn on offering us a Canadian-style deal , and they think we can ’ t see it .
It ’ s obvious that both sides do a lot of chest-beating at the start of any negotiation , so this one is no different .
There will be an element of compromise on both sides but one thing I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on is the notion of regulatory alignment .
If Britain doesn ’ t have the right to make its own laws after Brexit and is obliged to mirror EU legislation , despite having no input into its drafting , we might as well not have left .
That doesn ’ t mean that regulatory equivalence on some ( but not all ) issues isn ’ t something that we shouldn ’ t consider .
One other red line that must not be crossed is the arbitration method for resolving disputes .
This can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU has arbitration methods with Canada and Japan which do not involve the supremacy of the European Court .
Canada wouldn ’ t stand for it .
Japan wouldn ’ t stand for it .
Nor will we .
The grandstanding of Barnier on proximity demonstrates their fear that Britain will outcompete the EU on the world stage .
And they will use any means – fair or foul – to prevent that from happening .
Reading David Frost ’ s speech , it is clear to me that he understand that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Frost ’ s speech .
It ’ s well worth your time reading it .
Once you ’ ve done so , spread the word on social media about its brilliance .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.
Congratulations to Jackson Carlaw for becoming leader of the Scottish Conservative Party. It’s without doubt one of the most demanding jobs in British politics.
And what an act he has to follow. When Ruth Davidson became leader of the party in Scotland, no one rated her chances of success. She was a ‘rookie’. A ‘political knave’. She lacked experience.
Well, everyone was wrong. She was an outstanding success who grabbed the party by the scruff its neck and gave it a good shake. She took the Conservatives to a level of electoral representation they had previously only dreamed of. Their opinion poll ratings are still far higher than anyone could have expected at the time.
So Carlaw starts his tenure with a fantastic legacy. He may not have the charisma of Davidson, but he’s a formidable debator and operator and like his predecessor, her should not be underestimated.
If I were him, I’d do two things. Firstly, do everything to go after the Labour unionist vote and, secondly, articulate the case for the Union better than anyone else.
It’s no good just slagging off the SNP or just undermining their case; Unionists need to win hearts and minds by being positive about Scotland’s role in the UK. And I say this as someone who not wholly opposed to independence for Scotland.
– – – – – – – – – –
Whatever you think about Priti Patel’s new immigration policy, I do not understand why a succession of Government ministers have not been not flooding the nation’s airwaves explaining how the new system is going to work, and why it’s right for the country.
All we had yesterday was Patel doing a morning round – excluding The Today Programme and Good Morning Britain, natch.
The media world has changed. There are many more outlets now, and they all need to be serviced. The Home Office has seven ministers. They should all have been out there selling the policy on any show that would have them.
Instead, so far as I know, only Patel did any interviews at all (though I stand to be corrected). If Ministers aren’t going to explain their policies on the nation’s airwaves, who do they think will do it for them? Message discipline is all very well, but there has to be someone to promulgate that message.
– – – – – – – – – –
Hands up if you’ve read David Frost’s speech in Brussels. If not, do yourself a favour and do so. Future historians will look back on it and regard it as just as significant as Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 Bruges speech.
t’s actually a speech that Boris Johnson should have made, and quite why cameras weren’t allowed to film it, God only knows. It articulated the Government’s plans for a post-Brexit Britain better than anyone else has done. It set down its approach to the free trade deal negotiations in a way that that no one could misunderstand. It set some red lines which Brussels will actually believe we won’t cross.
And if they don’t believe in them, well, yet again they may be in for a big surprise. Barnier and his little helpers are tying themselves up in knots with their utter hypocrisy over their about turn on offering us a Canadian-style deal, and they think we can’t see it.
It’s obvious that both sides do a lot of chest-beating at the start of any negotiation, so this one is no different. There will be an element of compromise on both sides but one thing I don’t see Johnson’s government compromising on is the notion of regulatory alignment. If Britain doesn’t have the right to make its own laws after Brexit and is obliged to mirror EU legislation, despite having no input into its drafting, we might as well not have left.
That doesn’t mean that regulatory equivalence on some (but not all) issues isn’t something that we shouldn’t consider. One other red line that must not be crossed is the arbitration method for resolving disputes. This cannot involve the European Court. The EU has arbitration methods with Canada and Japan which do not involve the supremacy of the European Court. Canada wouldn’t stand for it. Japan wouldn’t stand for it. Nor will we.
The grandstanding of Barnier on proximity demonstrates their fear that Britain will outcompete the EU on the world stage. And they will use any means – fair or foul – to prevent that from happening. Reading David Frost’s speech, it is clear to me that he understand that.
This site has the full text of David Frost’s speech. It’s well worth your time reading it. Once you’ve done so, spread the word on social media about its brilliance.