conservativehome--2020-07-23--Andrew Boff: The London Assembly needs more power to hold the Mayor to account

Andrew Boff is a member of the London Assembly .
Twenty years on from its formation , the London Assembly desperately needs to be granted greater powers to hold the Mayor of London to account .
If the serious power imbalance between the two persists , London ’ s mayoralty will increasingly become unaccountable to Londoners , undermining the legitimacy of the city ’ s devolved Government .
Never before has a Mayor been so willing to pass blame , avoid his responsibilities , and play the part of a broke powerless Mayor .
It ’ s a tragedy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to deliver for the city and chosen instead , to use City Hall as a PR machine to attack the Government .
However , the answer to a Mayor like Khan is to strengthen the London Assembly , a body which the Conservatives can maintain a strong foothold in , and hold the Mayor ’ s feet firmly to the fire .
In the past two decades , the responsibilities of the Mayor of London have expanded rapidly .
Since 2000 , City Hall is now responsible for adult education , housebuilding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance , and has the power to establish Mayoral Development Corporations .
In comparison , the Assembly ’ s toolbox has only grown very slightly after being granted the limited power to reject Mayoral strategies with a two-thirds majority in 2011 .
Despite the vital importance of the London Assembly , it is struggling to keep up with the Mayor ’ s expansive role .
In Khan ’ s term alone , City Hall ’ s budget has increased by about £2 billion with more than 300 extra staff .
In comparison , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £8.4 million with only two extra staff .
The huge expansion of the Mayor ’ s responsibilities and budget has left the Assembly far behind .
The case for the London Assembly remains strong .
It is a unique scrutiny body in the UK and a necessary part of London ’ s devolved regional Government , comprising 25 elected Assembly Members .
Our sole focus is on turning over every stone in City Hall , scrutinising each mayoral decision , and investigating the concerns of Londoners .
It also offers London taxpayers good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only 0.04 per cent of the Greater London Authority ’ s budget .
The often-discussed alternative is the combined authority model which would bring council leaders together to scrutinise the Mayor .
This is an unsuitable scrutiny body for an office as powerful as the Mayor of London .
As a sitting London Assembly Member , and an admirer of London ’ s hard-working council leaders , I can not see how the two jobs could be done by one individual .
Ultimately , it would be a step backwards and result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If London is going to have a directly-elected Mayor , it needs to be checked and balanced by a dedicated and powerful Assembly .
Without the Assembly , the Mayor would go unchallenged , and inevitably the lack of scrutiny would lead to poorer , lazier decisions from City Hall .
But after two decades of the Mayor of London gaining additional responsibilities and an even larger budget , there are five additional powers that the Assembly must be granted to do its job .
Firstly , the London Assembly should be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s strategies , plans , and budget by a simple majority .
Currently , the Assembly needs a two thirds majority to stop or amend the Mayor ’ s proposals ; in practice , this neuters the Assembly and prevents it from acting .
Scrapping the excessively high number of votes needed would make cross-party efforts to intervene more likely , and in turn , make the Mayor of London more likely to listen to any opposition in the Assembly .
Secondly , an independent Budget Office for London should be established .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers for the Assembly , would ensure that City Hall ’ s budgetary process is more accountable .
This reform is vital after Khan ’ s failed transport policies created a black hole in Transport for London ’ s budget which in part led to its bailout during this crisis and recent concerns about the Mayor ’ s plans to fix City Hall ’ s finances by cutting the Metropolitan Police budget by £109.3 million .
Greater transparency and a greater opportunity for the Assembly to amend the Mayor ’ s budget will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thirdly , the Mayor ’ s planning powers should be transferred to a Planning Decisions Committee .
At the moment , the Mayor has the sole responsibility to decide the outcome of planning applications in secret when they referred to him .
A committee would provide greater transparency and scrutiny .
Fourthly , the London Assembly should be granted the power to call-in Mayoral decisions .
This would allow the Assembly to review , debate , and ultimately send decisions back to the Mayor to reconsider .
Granting this power would enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safeguard against the Mayor ’ s currently unconstrained exercise of executive power .
Finally , Mayor ’ s Question time should be reformed .
This is the main opportunity for the Assembly to question the Mayor directly but it happens too little .
In this crisis , the Mayor went two months without facing the Assembly .
This allowed him to escape timely questions , for example , about his decision to cut the Tube services , which led to overcrowding .
By the time we can hold him to account on these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
MQT should be held twice a month , which will allow each session to be shorter , sharper , and more engaging .
A weak Assembly and a powerful Mayor is an unsustainable democratic disaster .
To do its job , the London Assembly needs greater powers to hold the Mayor of London to account .
This would not weaken the Mayor , but strengthen London ’ s regional Government at City Hall .
Twenty years on , the Assembly is needed more than ever , but it is in dire need @ @ @

Andrew Boff is a member of the London Assembly.
Twenty years on from its formation, the London Assembly desperately needs to be granted greater powers to hold the Mayor of London to account. If the serious power imbalance between the two persists, London’s mayoralty will increasingly become unaccountable to Londoners, undermining the legitimacy of the city’s devolved Government.
Never before has a Mayor been so willing to pass blame, avoid his responsibilities, and play the part of a broke powerless Mayor. It’s a tragedy for Londoners that Sadiq Khan has squandered his opportunity to deliver for the city and chosen instead, to use City Hall as a PR machine to attack the Government. However, the answer to a Mayor like Khan is to strengthen the London Assembly, a body which the Conservatives can maintain a strong foothold in, and hold the Mayor’s feet firmly to the fire.
In the past two decades, the responsibilities of the Mayor of London have expanded rapidly. Since 2000, City Hall is now responsible for adult education, housebuilding, ruling on planning applications with strategic importance, and has the power to establish Mayoral Development Corporations. In comparison, the Assembly’s toolbox has only grown very slightly after being granted the limited power to reject Mayoral strategies with a two-thirds majority in 2011. Despite the vital importance of the London Assembly, it is struggling to keep up with the Mayor’s expansive role.
In Khan’s term alone, City Hall’s budget has increased by about £2 billion with more than 300 extra staff. In comparison, the Assembly’s budget sits at £8.4 million with only two extra staff. The huge expansion of the Mayor’s responsibilities and budget has left the Assembly far behind.
The case for the London Assembly remains strong. It is a unique scrutiny body in the UK and a necessary part of London’s devolved regional Government, comprising 25 elected Assembly Members. Our sole focus is on turning over every stone in City Hall, scrutinising each mayoral decision, and investigating the concerns of Londoners. It also offers London taxpayers good value for money. The Assembly budget is only 0.04 per cent of the Greater London Authority’s budget. The often-discussed alternative is the combined authority model which would bring council leaders together to scrutinise the Mayor. This is an unsuitable scrutiny body for an office as powerful as the Mayor of London. As a sitting London Assembly Member, and an admirer of London’s hard-working council leaders, I cannot see how the two jobs could be done by one individual. Ultimately, it would be a step backwards and result in less scrutiny, not more.
If London is going to have a directly-elected Mayor, it needs to be checked and balanced by a dedicated and powerful Assembly. Without the Assembly, the Mayor would go unchallenged, and inevitably the lack of scrutiny would lead to poorer, lazier decisions from City Hall. But after two decades of the Mayor of London gaining additional responsibilities and an even larger budget, there are five additional powers that the Assembly must be granted to do its job.
Firstly, the London Assembly should be allowed to reject and amend the Mayor’s strategies, plans, and budget by a simple majority. Currently, the Assembly needs a two thirds majority to stop or amend the Mayor’s proposals; in practice, this neuters the Assembly and prevents it from acting. Scrapping the excessively high number of votes needed would make cross-party efforts to intervene more likely, and in turn, make the Mayor of London more likely to listen to any opposition in the Assembly.
Secondly, an independent Budget Office for London should be established. This office, combined with greater budgetary powers for the Assembly, would ensure that City Hall’s budgetary process is more accountable. This reform is vital after Khan’s failed transport policies created a black hole in Transport for London’s budget which in part led to its bailout during this crisis and recent concerns about the Mayor’s plans to fix City Hall’s finances by cutting the Metropolitan Police budget by £109.3 million. Greater transparency and a greater opportunity for the Assembly to amend the Mayor’s budget will help ensure every penny is spent properly.
Thirdly, the Mayor’s planning powers should be transferred to a Planning Decisions Committee. At the moment, the Mayor has the sole responsibility to decide the outcome of planning applications in secret when they referred to him. A committee would provide greater transparency and scrutiny.
Fourthly, the London Assembly should be granted the power to call-in Mayoral decisions. This would allow the Assembly to review, debate, and ultimately send decisions back to the Mayor to reconsider. Granting this power would enable the Assembly to act as a democratic safeguard against the Mayor’s currently unconstrained exercise of executive power.
Finally, Mayor’s Question time should be reformed. This is the main opportunity for the Assembly to question the Mayor directly but it happens too little. In this crisis, the Mayor went two months without facing the Assembly. This allowed him to escape timely questions, for example, about his decision to cut the Tube services, which led to overcrowding. By the time we can hold him to account on these issues, it can be weeks later. MQT should be held twice a month, which will allow each session to be shorter, sharper, and more engaging.
A weak Assembly and a powerful Mayor is an unsustainable democratic disaster. To do its job, the London Assembly needs greater powers to hold the Mayor of London to account. This would not weaken the Mayor, but strengthen London’s regional Government at City Hall. Twenty years on, the Assembly is needed more than ever, but it is in dire need of reform.


conservativehome--2020-07-23--As a leading epidemiologist says school closures may have been a “mistake”, did the decision lack ad

As a leading epidemiologist says school closures may have been a “mistake”, did the decision lack adequate debate?

In early May , readers of ConservativeHome may remember that this site was critical of teaching unions , several of which had campaigned against schools reopening .
In a joint statement , some of them accused the Government of “ showing a lack of understanding about the dangers of the spread of coronavirus within schools ” , and encouraged teachers not to “ engage in planning meetings ” .
ConservativeHome felt the unions were wrong for several reasons , one being that their moves came across as politically opportunistic .
The Government was always going to have a much tougher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown – than go into it – and some members of the Left have capitalised on this , stoking fears so as to obstruct the Conservatives ’ plans .
The second issue is that , despite accusing the Government of “ showing a lack of understanding ” , unions seemed utterly uninterested in scientific data on the safety of reopening schools , nor what was happening around Europe , where such moves had gone ahead successfully .
While there are still a huge number of unknowns about this virus – and no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evidence appears more in favour of showing that children do not get – or transmit – the virus as severely as adults .
Hence why I wrote in May : “ Adult to adult contact seems the big danger ” , and pointed out that the World Health Organisation had said that “ serious illness due to COVID-19 is seen infrequently in children ” .
Furthermore , one study by the Health Information and Quality Authority concluded that “ children are not substantially contributing to the spread of COVID-19 in their household @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are further along in the crisis , this position has become more openly discussed .
Yesterday The Times had an interview with Mark Woolhouse , a leading epidemiologist and member of the Government ’ s SAGE committee , who said : “ [ Children ] are probably less susceptible and vanishingly unlikely to end up in hospital or to die from [ Coronavirus ] .
” He also said : “ There is increasing evidence that [ children ] rarely transmit .
For example , it is extremely difficult to find any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single example of a child transmitting to a teacher in school .
There may have been one in Australia but it is incredibly rare ” , and he added that there “ are certain environments where this virus transmits very well and children are not present in these environments.
” So what does this all mean ?
First of all , it ’ s worth saying that , no matter what the Government , unions , Labour Party or media did or said , a huge number of parents decided for themselves that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be present at school .
The Government had been fairly firm about keeping schools open in the beginning of the pandemic , but lost its nerve after families started removing their kids from schools regardless of what they were instructed to do .
It ’ s difficult to say whether closing schools was the right thing to do ; it will be one of the questions brought up in a future inquiry , which Boris Johnson has promised will go ahead .
One thing , it seems to me , about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to show that the Government was not cautious enough .
Members of the media no doubt think that the Government should have ordered lockdown weeks earlier , and that schools should have been shut down sooner , and so forth .
But , what ’ s been missing from mainstream debates , and may come out in an inquiry is evidence for a more hawkish position ; questions about whether Britain ’ s safety measures – and indeed measures elsewhere – have been proportionate to risk .
On schools , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much more from the Labour Party about whether they should have closed at all .
Not least because let ’ s consider the risks .
If children do not get Coronavirus severely , or transmit it much to adults – if at all , the decision to close schools looks like it ’ ll lead to worse outcomes .
Research from University College London ’ s Institute of Education has even shown that around 2.3 million children either did not learning at all or less than one hour a day .
There will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents struggling to keep work ( due to childcare arrangements ) and more children at risk of domestic violence .
The list of negatives is very long , but these arguments received little attention , and anyone who questioned the schools closures – and lockdown generally – was portrayed as uncaring .
The Labour Party ’ s complacency over school reopenings – essentially letting the unions speak on their behalf – was shocking given what a terrible economic impact it will have on many families .
I ’ m not saying that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there should have been two sides to the debate , one pointing out the educational and economic consequences .
As we approach September , there will probably be even more complaints about schools trying to get started .
But the Government , and the opposition , must take Woolhouse ’ s words – and wider scientific perspectives – on board .
In fighting Covid-19 , we have been too knee-jerk at times in deciding the right thing to do .

In early May, readers of ConservativeHome may remember that this site was critical of teaching unions, several of which had campaigned against schools reopening.
In a joint statement, some of them accused the Government of “showing a lack of understanding about the dangers of the spread of coronavirus within schools”, and encouraged teachers not to “engage in planning meetings”.
ConservativeHome felt the unions were wrong for several reasons, one being that their moves came across as politically opportunistic.
The Government was always going to have a much tougher time convincing people to come out of lockdown – than go into it – and some members of the Left have capitalised on this, stoking fears so as to obstruct the Conservatives’ plans.
The second issue is that, despite accusing the Government of “showing a lack of understanding”, unions seemed utterly uninterested in scientific data on the safety of reopening schools, nor what was happening around Europe, where such moves had gone ahead successfully.
While there are still a huge number of unknowns about this virus – and no one should make bold proclamations either way – the evidence appears more in favour of showing that children do not get – or transmit – the virus as severely as adults.
Hence why I wrote in May: “Adult to adult contact seems the big danger”, and pointed out that the World Health Organisation had said that “serious illness due to COVID-19 is seen infrequently in children”.
Furthermore, one study by the Health Information and Quality Authority concluded that “children are not substantially contributing to the spread of COVID-19 in their household or in schools”.
Now that we are further along in the crisis, this position has become more openly discussed. Yesterday The Times had an interview with Mark Woolhouse, a leading epidemiologist and member of the Government’s SAGE committee, who said: “[Children] are probably less susceptible and vanishingly unlikely to end up in hospital or to die from [Coronavirus].”
He also said: “There is increasing evidence that [children] rarely transmit. For example, it is extremely difficult to find any instance anywhere in the world as a single example of a child transmitting to a teacher in school. There may have been one in Australia but it is incredibly rare”, and he added that there “are certain environments where this virus transmits very well and children are not present in these environments.”
So what does this all mean? First of all, it’s worth saying that, no matter what the Government, unions, Labour Party or media did or said, a huge number of parents decided for themselves that they didn’t want their children to be present at school.
The Government had been fairly firm about keeping schools open in the beginning of the pandemic, but lost its nerve after families started removing their kids from schools regardless of what they were instructed to do.
It’s difficult to say whether closing schools was the right thing to do; it will be one of the questions brought up in a future inquiry, which Boris Johnson has promised will go ahead.
One thing, it seems to me, about this inquiry, is that many are expecting it to show that the Government was not cautious enough. Members of the media no doubt think that the Government should have ordered lockdown weeks earlier, and that schools should have been shut down sooner, and so forth.
But, what’s been missing from mainstream debates, and may come out in an inquiry is evidence for a more hawkish position; questions about whether Britain’s safety measures – and indeed measures elsewhere – have been proportionate to risk.
On schools, for instance, the Government should have been challenged much more from the Labour Party about whether they should have closed at all.
Not least because let’s consider the risks. If children do not get Coronavirus severely, or transmit it much to adults – if at all, the decision to close schools looks like it’ll lead to worse outcomes.
Research from University College London’s Institute of Education has even shown that around 2.3 million children either did not learning at all or less than one hour a day.
There will be other terrible consequences, such as parents struggling to keep work (due to childcare arrangements) and more children at risk of domestic violence.
The list of negatives is very long, but these arguments received little attention, and anyone who questioned the schools closures – and lockdown generally – was portrayed as uncaring.
The Labour Party’s complacency over school reopenings – essentially letting the unions speak on their behalf – was shocking given what a terrible economic impact it will have on many families.
I’m not saying that all MPs had to be pro-reopening, incidentally, but there should have been two sides to the debate, one pointing out the educational and economic consequences.
As we approach September, there will probably be even more complaints about schools trying to get started. But the Government, and the opposition, must take Woolhouse’s words – and wider scientific perspectives – on board. In fighting Covid-19, we have been too knee-jerk at times in deciding the right thing to do.


conservativehome--2020-07-24--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commiss

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Scottish National Investment Bank Act ( ‘ the Act ’ ) received Royal Assent in February 2020 , paving the way to establish the Bank as a public limited company and public body accountable to Scottish Ministers who own and set its strategic missions .
The Act sets out how the Bank should operate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be set by Scottish Ministers as the sole-shareholder .
In response to these missions the Bank is required to develop an Investment Strategy which will help create and shape future markets , spark innovation and tackle socio-economic challenges in Scotland .
Additionally , the Bank will have a key role to play in Scotland ’ s emerging economy post Covid-19.
” Time : Up to 25 days per annum .
“ The TRA as a statutory body would perform an independent function , investigating and recommending to Ministers when to impose trade remedies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfair trading practices , such as dumping , subsidies , or unforeseen surges in imports .
Ministers would decide whether to agree the TRA ’ s recommendations .
The TRA will also carry out reviews of those existing EU measures transitioned into the UK system to ensure that they are specific to the UK market , in line with WTO rules .
The TRA will also be responsible for providing support and assistance to DIT on trade… The TRA Board sets the strategic direction and priorities of the organisation , monitoring its performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Executive and executive team to account.
” Remuneration : £15,000 per annum ( additional £3,000 for the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee ) .
“ The chair is responsible for leading and managing the Panel .
They must lead development and implementation of a strategic vision for the Panel and ensure the reviews under their supervision identify improvements safeguarding partners or others should make to better safeguard and promote the welfare of children…Successful applicants will demonstrate the ability to : provide strong strategic leadership ; chair high level meetings ; effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of others , including child safeguarding professionals , Ministers and the public .
The right candidate will also demonstrate a strong understanding of multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements , policy and frontline delivery.
” “ The Chair of the College of Policing is appointed by the Home Secretary to ensure the long-term success of the College .
Together with the College Board of Directors , the Chair ( who must not have a background in operational policing ) will set the College ’ s strategic direction and aims against budgets and priorities .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team of Executive Directors with the necessary leadership , support and monitoring that will help them to meet the College and Home Secretary ’ s goals .
The College plays a critical role in helping to increase the diversity within the police to reflect the communities they serve.
” “ The Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities is seeking a strong , strategic leader who will continue to develop the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) and set the Commission ’ s overall direction to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body and National Human Rights Institution .
This appointment fulfils the requirement of the Equality Act 2006 that the Secretary of State should appoint a Chair to the Commission .
Although the Commission is an independent organisation , the Chair is accountable to the above sponsoring Minister .
You will develop and maintain high-value relationships with Ministers , influential partners , governments at home and abroad , opinion formers , industry and others , demonstrating judgment , integrity and resilience in the face of challenge.
” “ National Citizen Service ( NCS ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England and Northern Ireland .
We exist to engage , unite and empower young people , building their confidence so they can go out there and achieve their dreams , no matter where they ’ re from or what their background is .
Our programme is managed and supported by NCS Trust , our central team who are constantly working to make sure we deliver the most impactful experience we can to as many young people as possible .
National Citizen Service is seeking three Trustees with experience and skills at a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and demonstrable senior leadership in the parliamentary/public sector ( 1 Trustee ) ; human resources specialist with commercial experience and a particular focus on people strategy , culture and coaching high performance teams ( 1 Trustee ) ; [ and ] an education leader with strong links to schools and young people ( 1 Trustee ) .
” “ The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner role aims to promote police compliance with the rules on the collection and retention of DNA , fingerprints and surveillance cameras respectively .
The roles were created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ POFA ) , which set out the regime for police use of DNA , fingerprints and the regulation of surveillance cameras .
We have decided to appoint a single person to both roles because of the confluence of existing and emerging regulatory issues around police use of automated facial recognition .
The post will cover the duties of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner , while the Government is considering reforms in this area.
” Home Office – Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Rescue Services ( HMICFRS ) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales , fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies .
It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends , challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement , and making performance information accessible .
The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities in England ; providing the public with a clear , consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their local area .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Scottish National Investment Bank – Non-Executive Directors
“The Scottish National Investment Bank Act (‘the Act’) received Royal Assent in February 2020, paving the way to establish the Bank as a public limited company and public body accountable to Scottish Ministers who own and set its strategic missions. The Act sets out how the Bank should operate in order to meet missions which will be set by Scottish Ministers as the sole-shareholder. In response to these missions the Bank is required to develop an Investment Strategy which will help create and shape future markets, spark innovation and tackle socio-economic challenges in Scotland. Additionally, the Bank will have a key role to play in Scotland’s emerging economy post Covid-19.”
Time: Up to 25 days per annum.
Remuneration: £21,250 per annum.
Closes: 24 July
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Trade Remedies Authority – Non-Executive Directors
“The TRA as a statutory body would perform an independent function, investigating and recommending to Ministers when to impose trade remedies measures in response to injury caused by unfair trading practices, such as dumping, subsidies, or unforeseen surges in imports. Ministers would decide whether to agree the TRA’s recommendations. The TRA will also carry out reviews of those existing EU measures transitioned into the UK system to ensure that they are specific to the UK market, in line with WTO rules. The TRA will also be responsible for providing support and assistance to DIT on trade… The TRA Board sets the strategic direction and priorities of the organisation, monitoring its performance against its objectives and holding the Chief Executive and executive team to account.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum (additional £3,000 for the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee).
Closes: 24 July
– – – – – – – – – –
Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel – Chair
“The chair is responsible for leading and managing the Panel. They must lead development and implementation of a strategic vision for the Panel and ensure the reviews under their supervision identify improvements safeguarding partners or others should make to better safeguard and promote the welfare of children…Successful applicants will demonstrate the ability to: provide strong strategic leadership; chair high level meetings; effectively manage team dynamics and maintain the confidence of others, including child safeguarding professionals, Ministers and the public. The right candidate will also demonstrate a strong understanding of multi-agency child safeguarding arrangements, policy and frontline delivery.”
Time: 6-8 days per month.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 31 July
– – – – – – – – – –
College of Policing – Chair
“The Chair of the College of Policing is appointed by the Home Secretary to ensure the long-term success of the College. Together with the College Board of Directors, the Chair (who must not have a background in operational policing) will set the College’s strategic direction and aims against budgets and priorities. They will provide the College Chief Executive and team of Executive Directors with the necessary leadership, support and monitoring that will help them to meet the College and Home Secretary’s goals. The College plays a critical role in helping to increase the diversity within the police to reflect the communities they serve.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £135,000 pro rata.
Closes: 03 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Equality & Human Rights Commission – Chair
“The Secretary of State for International Trade and Minister for Women and Equalities is seeking a strong, strategic leader who will continue to develop the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and set the Commission’s overall direction to reflect its crucial role as an equality body and National Human Rights Institution. This appointment fulfils the requirement of the Equality Act 2006 that the Secretary of State should appoint a Chair to the Commission. Although the Commission is an independent organisation, the Chair is accountable to the above sponsoring Minister. You will develop and maintain high-value relationships with Ministers, influential partners, governments at home and abroad, opinion formers, industry and others, demonstrating judgment, integrity and resilience in the face of challenge.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 03 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport – National Citizen Service Trustees
“National Citizen Service (NCS) is a youth programme that runs across England and Northern Ireland. We exist to engage, unite and empower young people, building their confidence so they can go out there and achieve their dreams, no matter where they’re from or what their background is. Our programme is managed and supported by NCS Trust, our central team who are constantly working to make sure we deliver the most impactful experience we can to as many young people as possible. National Citizen Service is seeking three Trustees with experience and skills at a senior level in the following areas: experience and demonstrable senior leadership in the parliamentary/public sector (1 Trustee); human resources specialist with commercial experience and a particular focus on people strategy, culture and coaching high performance teams (1 Trustee); [and] an education leader with strong links to schools and young people (1 Trustee).”
Time: 5-10 days per week.
Remuneration: “Reasonable expenses”.
Closes: 09 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner
“The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner role aims to promote police compliance with the rules on the collection and retention of DNA, fingerprints and surveillance cameras respectively. The roles were created by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), which set out the regime for police use of DNA, fingerprints and the regulation of surveillance cameras. We have decided to appoint a single person to both roles because of the confluence of existing and emerging regulatory issues around police use of automated facial recognition. The post will cover the duties of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, while the Government is considering reforms in this area.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 09 August
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and of Fire & Rescue Authorities
“HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) is an independent body that inspects and reports to the public on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales, fire and rescue authorities in England and national law enforcement agencies. It aims to ensure that the public and their elected representatives can hold inspected organisations to account by monitoring trends, challenging practice and identifying areas for improvement, and making performance information accessible. The principal role of HMICFRS is undertaking the all-force inspections of policing in England and Wales, and of all fire & rescue authorities in England; providing the public with a clear, consistent and independent view of the quality of services in their local area.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £175,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 August


conservativehome--2020-07-24--Remainers cannot re-write history: it is Covid-19, not Brexit, that challenges the Union

During the EU referendum campaign , it was an article of faith amongst Remainers that a vote to stay in the EU was a vote to protect the Union .
Brexiteer unionists , including those of us who wrote on the subject for this site , were accused of allowing our preoccupation with Europe to put at risk the very existence of the United Kingdom .
There are few excuses for continuing to indulge this myth in 2020 .
But such is its extraordinary staying power that Lewis Goodall , of Newsnight , has accrued thousands of likes for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is undoubtedly a challenging period for the UK .
But trying to stretch the fallout from Covid-19 to retrospectively validate the Remain position on the Union is re-writing history .
So let ’ s set the record straight , again .
First , one can only assume that when Goodall writes that “ few answers were/are forthcoming ” from Brexiteer unionists about the potential impact of leaving the EU , he is not an assiduous reader of this site .
We set out detailed cases for why voters should be sceptical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign in relation both to Scotland and to Wales .
Our central point was that EU membership actually made it much easier to break up the Union , both by providing a high ceiling for ongoing relations and legal harmonisation post-divorce and by laundering British cash ( as a net contributor ) back into Scotland and Wales as ‘ EU funds ’ .
Disagree with this if you wish – people did – but it is therefore simply inaccurate to claim that there wasn ’ t a perfectly serviceable unionist justification for Brexit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this was borne out by events .
Nicola Sturgeon came out hard for a second referendum the morning after the referendum but soon found herself beached , marooned by the failure of Scottish public opinion to follow her cue .
In fact ( and again , as we covered at the time ) the SNP went on to become a committed partner in the ‘ Stop Brexit ’ coalition precisely because they recognised how difficult Britain ’ s departure from the EU would make their project .
The key quotation again : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Scottish Nationalists .
A senior SNP figure told me this week that Scottish independence all but depends on Brexit being cancelled : without the economic safety net of the single market , Scots won ’ t risk a leap out of the UK .
Only a second EU vote could provide that reassurance.
” The fact that more recent circumstances , specifically the massive pandemic , have revived the SNP ’ s fortunes should not mean that Remainers get to throw the above down the memory hole and re-write 2016-19 to bolster @ @ @ @ @ @

During the EU referendum campaign, it was an article of faith amongst Remainers that a vote to stay in the EU was a vote to protect the Union.
Brexiteer unionists, including those of us who wrote on the subject for this site, were accused of allowing our preoccupation with Europe to put at risk the very existence of the United Kingdom.
There are few excuses for continuing to indulge this myth in 2020. But such is its extraordinary staying power that Lewis Goodall, of Newsnight, has accrued thousands of likes for a short Twitter thread extolling this decayed orthodoxy.
Panic in No 10 about the union but surprising it’s taken them by surprise. Trying to retain Scotland, after a period where its lack of veto power on fundamental political questions (Ie Brexit/no deal) has been/is being revealed repeatedly, was always going to be very difficult. — Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) July 23, 2020
This is undoubtedly a challenging period for the UK. But trying to stretch the fallout from Covid-19 to retrospectively validate the Remain position on the Union is re-writing history. So let’s set the record straight, again.
First, one can only assume that when Goodall writes that “few answers were/are forthcoming” from Brexiteer unionists about the potential impact of leaving the EU, he is not an assiduous reader of this site. We set out detailed cases for why voters should be sceptical about the doom-laden predictions of the Remain campaign in relation both to Scotland and to Wales.
Our central point was that EU membership actually made it much easier to break up the Union, both by providing a high ceiling for ongoing relations and legal harmonisation post-divorce and by laundering British cash (as a net contributor) back into Scotland and Wales as ‘EU funds’.
Disagree with this if you wish – people did – but it is therefore simply inaccurate to claim that there wasn’t a perfectly serviceable unionist justification for Brexit.
Moreover, in the years since this was borne out by events. Nicola Sturgeon came out hard for a second referendum the morning after the referendum but soon found herself beached, marooned by the failure of Scottish public opinion to follow her cue.
In fact (and again, as we covered at the time) the SNP went on to become a committed partner in the ‘Stop Brexit’ coalition precisely because they recognised how difficult Britain’s departure from the EU would make their project. The key quotation again:
“Labour could well find an ally in the Scottish Nationalists. A senior SNP figure told me this week that Scottish independence all but depends on Brexit being cancelled: without the economic safety net of the single market, Scots won’t risk a leap out of the UK. Only a second EU vote could provide that reassurance.”
The fact that more recent circumstances, specifically the massive pandemic, have revived the SNP’s fortunes should not mean that Remainers get to throw the above down the memory hole and re-write 2016-19 to bolster their original, threadbare thesis.


conservativehome--2020-07-24--Iain Dale: My end of term school report on the Cabinet. Grades below. Open with care.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith .
Parliament has broken up for the summer , and there ’ s a bit of an end of term feeling around Westminster at the moment .
So what better time to look at how politicians are performing ?
Here ’ s Part One of my School Report on the Cabinet – what a great way to make a few new enemies… A tumultuous first year in power .
It was supposed to be all about the bright new post-Brexit era , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus , and Johnson himself being hospitalised .
Delegation is a great thing , and he did it very well as Mayor of London .
Being Prime Minister is much more complicated .
Number Ten is too centralised , and Cabinet Ministers need to be given their head if they are to prove themselves .
I ’ m not alone in thinking Johnson hasn ’ t totally got over his near death experience , but the old Boris is showing signs of returning .
There is a degree of Parliamentary unrest , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back on track MPs will rally round .
In short , did well in the winter term , but needs to concentrate more and give a lead to the class .
It ’ s easy to be popular when you ’ re dishing out the sweeties , and Sunak hasn ’ t put too many feet wrong since he because Chancellor in February .
His business rescue package and furlough programme were effective , albeit with a few teething problems .
Yet he has utterly failed to help the so-called ‘ excluded three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company directors .
These are natural Conservative voters , and they won ’ t forget how they have been ignored .
Tipped to be the next Head Boy , but he mustn ’ t rest on his laurels .
If he manages to revive the economy in double quick time , he will be unassailable .
But then again , so was a previous Chancellor… A difficult start to the job , but has increasingly grown into it , and has started to display a more humble side to his character .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he deputised in a very non-showy way , which drew praise from many of the Cabinet .
His response to the problems in Hong Kong and China portray a Foreign Secretary who has begun to lose any sense of imposter syndrome .
Endured a difficult start to the job , and has suffered from some appalling misogynistic prejudice , and some racism too , not least from deluded Labour MPs .
She ’ s come across as a gritty fighter , and knows how to find the party ’ s G spot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her bubbly , funny persona in the media .
If she can conquer that , and increase her public visibility , she will become indispensable to the boss , who reportedly blows hot and cold about her .
Michael Gove – Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster One of the government ’ s few transformational gamechangers , Gove ’ s job is to coordinate the Government ’ s Brexit and Coronavirus responses .
No pressure , then .
In recent weeks , he ’ s become more of a behind the scenes operator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are lingering suspicions that he ’ s tolerated rather than embraced by his line boss .
But Johnson should remember , that if Gove is successful , the government in general will be successful .
He was desperate to get back into the cabinet , but seemed an odd choice for this job .
It ’ s one he ’ s never appeared comfortable in , and his media appearances have sometimes been a tad uncertain .
Needs to get his head down and come to terms that this post is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onein you can make real change and have a real impact .
Sharma ’ s niceness is an asset , but his promotion into one of the most important jobs in British politics is seen by many as not having worked .
He ’ s very loyal to the Prime Minister and that loyalty has been repaid in spades but , given the economic recovery should be driven and encouraged by his department , he needs to be far clearer about what his industrial strategy is .
Needs to do his homework on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sleep inducing .
A long time Johnson ally , Wallace was tipped by many for the sack in the last reshuffle but was given a reprieve .
Defence has largely been out of the headlines over the last year , but that ’ s about to change .
Will Wallace seriously tolerate yet further cuts in the British Army , as is rumoured ?
Hancock has become one of the most well-known faces in government , largely due to Coronavirus .
On top of the detail , tiggerish in his enthusiasm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than they perhaps ever thought they would .
His frustration with the Health Service establishment has become plain for all to see .
Given he ’ s one of the government ’ s most trusted performers , his appointment in the apparent backwater of the Northern Ireland Office came as a surprise to many .
He inherited a tricky job given the popularity in the Province of his predecessor .
He ’ s tasked with keeping the parties talking and implementing the Northern Ireland protocol .
So far so good .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be expected doing the morning media rounds .
The post of Party Chairman used to rank number 5 in the hierarchy .
Now it seems to be an afterthought .
James Cleverly was neutered in the role , and Amanda Milling is largely anonymous .
She has little public profile and most party members wouldn ’ t recognise her .
Without upsetting the boss , she needs to up her profile and do it quickly .
One of the surprise successes of the Cabinet .
It ’ s the job he wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure-footed grasp of the different Transport policy nettles .
In the Coronavirus press conferences he was by far the most confident and human performers .
He ’ s also got the ability to say ‘ I don ’ t know ’ without losing face .

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.
Parliament has broken up for the summer, and there’s a bit of an end of term feeling around Westminster at the moment.
So what better time to look at how politicians are performing? Here’s Part One of my School Report on the Cabinet – what a great way to make a few new enemies…
Boris Johnson – Prime Minister
B –
A tumultuous first year in power. It was supposed to be all about the bright new post-Brexit era, but everything was turned upside down by Coronavirus, and Johnson himself being hospitalised. Delegation is a great thing, and he did it very well as Mayor of London. Being Prime Minister is much more complicated. Number Ten is too centralised, and Cabinet Ministers need to be given their head if they are to prove themselves. I’m not alone in thinking Johnson hasn’t totally got over his near death experience, but the old Boris is showing signs of returning. There is a degree of Parliamentary unrest, but if he can get his domestic agenda back on track MPs will rally round. In short, did well in the winter term, but needs to concentrate more and give a lead to the class.
Rishi Sunak – Chancellor of the Exchequer
A –
It’s easy to be popular when you’re dishing out the sweeties, and Sunak hasn’t put too many feet wrong since he because Chancellor in February. His business rescue package and furlough programme were effective, albeit with a few teething problems. Yet he has utterly failed to help the so-called ‘excluded three million’ – the self employed and company directors. These are natural Conservative voters, and they won’t forget how they have been ignored. Tipped to be the next Head Boy, but he mustn’t rest on his laurels. If he manages to revive the economy in double quick time, he will be unassailable. But then again, so was a previous Chancellor…
Dominic Raab – Foreign Secretary
B
A difficult start to the job, but has increasingly grown into it, and has started to display a more humble side to his character. When the Prime Minister was in hospital, he deputised in a very non-showy way, which drew praise from many of the Cabinet. His response to the problems in Hong Kong and China portray a Foreign Secretary who has begun to lose any sense of imposter syndrome.
Priti Patel – Home Secretary
B –
Endured a difficult start to the job, and has suffered from some appalling misogynistic prejudice, and some racism too, not least from deluded Labour MPs. She’s come across as a gritty fighter, and knows how to find the party’s G spot. She suffers from being unable to project her bubbly, funny persona in the media. If she can conquer that, and increase her public visibility, she will become indispensable to the boss, who reportedly blows hot and cold about her.
Michael Gove – Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
B
One of the government’s few transformational gamechangers, Gove’s job is to coordinate the Government’s Brexit and Coronavirus responses. No pressure, then. In recent weeks, he’s become more of a behind the scenes operator rather than front of house, and there are lingering suspicions that he’s tolerated rather than embraced by his line boss. But Johnson should remember, that if Gove is successful, the government in general will be successful.
Gavin Williamson – Secretary of State for Education
C
He was desperate to get back into the cabinet, but seemed an odd choice for this job. It’s one he’s never appeared comfortable in, and his media appearances have sometimes been a tad uncertain. Needs to get his head down and come to terms that this post is one of the best in government, and onein you can make real change and have a real impact.
Alok Sharma – Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
C
Sharma’s niceness is an asset, but his promotion into one of the most important jobs in British politics is seen by many as not having worked. He’s very loyal to the Prime Minister and that loyalty has been repaid in spades but, given the economic recovery should be driven and encouraged by his department, he needs to be far clearer about what his industrial strategy is. Needs to do his homework on his media performances, which can often be sleep inducing.
Ben Wallace – Secretary of State for Defence
C +
A long time Johnson ally, Wallace was tipped by many for the sack in the last reshuffle but was given a reprieve. Defence has largely been out of the headlines over the last year, but that’s about to change. Will Wallace seriously tolerate yet further cuts in the British Army, as is rumoured?
Matt Hancock – Secretary of State for Health & Social Care
B
Hancock has become one of the most well-known faces in government, largely due to Coronavirus. On top of the detail, tiggerish in his enthusiasm, his colleagues have come to respect him more than they perhaps ever thought they would. His frustration with the Health Service establishment has become plain for all to see.
Brandon Lewis – Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
B +
Given he’s one of the government’s most trusted performers, his appointment in the apparent backwater of the Northern Ireland Office came as a surprise to many. He inherited a tricky job given the popularity in the Province of his predecessor. He’s tasked with keeping the parties talking and implementing the Northern Ireland protocol. So far so good. He’s also been used more than might be expected doing the morning media rounds.
Amanda Milling – Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party
C –
The post of Party Chairman used to rank number 5 in the hierarchy. Now it seems to be an afterthought. James Cleverly was neutered in the role, and Amanda Milling is largely anonymous. She has little public profile and most party members wouldn’t recognise her. Without upsetting the boss, she needs to up her profile and do it quickly.
Grant Shapps – Secretary of State for Transport
B +
One of the surprise successes of the Cabinet. It’s the job he wanted, and he’s shown a sure-footed grasp of the different Transport policy nettles. In the Coronavirus press conferences he was by far the most confident and human performers. He’s also got the ability to say ‘I don’t know’ without losing face.


conservativehome--2020-07-24--Peter Golds: The Electoral Commission has failed to take action against fake newspapers – or fake po

Peter Golds: The Electoral Commission has failed to take action against fake newspapers – or fake political parties

Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets .
He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association .
In wide-ranging evidence to a recent House of Lords Select Committee Richard Mawrey QC referred to the creation of a political party by Lutfur Rahman and how the Electoral Commission registered this corrupt and by any reasonable standard , non-existent party .
The transcript of Mr Mawrey ’ s evidence says : “ As you know , he ( Lutfur Rahman ) created his own political party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely of his own associates .
It was a wonderful political party that had no bank account and no headquarters .
I do not know how the Electoral Commission passed it , but they were intimidated as well ; they just nodded it through—a political party that does not have a bank account , but there we are .
His coterie were undoubtedly , as I found , as corrupt as he was .
They manipulated this thing as what used to be called a rotten borough.
” What I can confirm is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police were notified in writing well before the corrupt 2014 elections that Tower Hamlets First was a sham .
Both organisations were provided with written evidence as to this .
Both organisations ignored this evidence .
Compare and contrast the way in which the Electoral Commission did nothing , until they were forced to do so , to remove a sham and corrupt political “ party ” whilst pursuing Darren Grimes through the courts for incorrectly ticking a box .
The contrast between Darren Grimes a young , gay , working class man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt , London based solicitor , is hard to avoid .
Yet this indolence by the Commission in taking action to use their powers of regulation regarding fake political parties continues into the 2019 election .
Last December I was election agent in Stevenage .
One afternoon we discovered leaflets viciously and personally attacking the Conservative candidate for Hitchin and Harpenden distributed in roads in Stevenage that form the boundary between the two constituencies .
Shortly afterwards , Guido Fawkes did a brilliant job identifying similar leaflets in four other constituencies .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of personal attacks on the local conservative candidate .
In each case they were supposedly on behalf of the “ Advance Together ” party although this would be very difficult to identify , apart from the imprint , as the candidates name appeared just once in the tiniest of fonts .
This “ party , ” registered by the Electoral Commission , had been founded and led by Amanda Mullin , the 2017 Liberal Democrat candidate for Kensington and the nominating officer had previously worked on a number of campaigns connected to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead a campaign in Kensington and Chelsea in the 2018 elections on behalf of this “ party.
” She was rewarded with an extensive interview in the Evening Standard .
As a resident of Lambeth she could not actually stand for election to Kensington and Chelsea council and in the event her candidates obtained just over two per cent of the vote .
In the 2019 General Election , Amanda Mullin publicly said that the candidates standing for her party were “ to be tactical and not to win.
” The results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each of these five candidates is disturbing : That is an expenditure of £40,870 to secure a total of 351 votes .
However , as their leader said , their intention was not to secure votes , it was to move voters from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats .
Esher and Walton and Wokingham were Liberal Democrat targets .
Chipping Barnet was a Conservative/Labour marginal .
The campaign in Mid Sussex was an attack on the Conservative candidate for changing constituency , presumably hoping this would garner Liberal Democrat votes .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obscure .
The literature of this party in these constituencies did nothing to promote their candidate who was on the ballot paper .
It was personal attack documentation against the Conservative candidate and there was a lot of this literature available for distribution .
There were just 52 Advance supporters in Esher and Walton and yet this “ non party ” produced and distributed tens of thousands of leaflets .
How did they manage this ?
In Chipping Barnet , Liberal Democrat activists were identified by local Conservative campaigners as distributers of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close contest and the “ Advance ” campaign effectively doubled the expenditure available to the Liberal Democrat candidate .
The front of the Esher and Walton leaflet was a picture of Dominic Raab overprinted with the words ” not wanted here.
” Guido Fawkes perfectly described the effect of this campaign ; “ It ’ s unlikely voters will remember the name Advance Together when they get to the ballot box .
They will remember the attack on Raab.
” Let me again record the quote of Amanda Mullin , “ our object @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lib Dems.
” The leaflets in the four other constituencies had similar layout but were completely different lines of personal attacks and they were deeply personal attacks .
The result is a fake political party whose leading members had connections with another political party , using extreme negative campaign methods and considerable campaign expenditure , to the benefit of the party with which they were originally connected and not for that for which they were standing in an election .
One may ask what has the Electoral Commission done with regard to Advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered political party which does not campaign to secure votes but exists to campaign against named candidates using personal campaigns to , in the words of the leader “ syphon tory votes to the Lib Dems.
” The answer is nothing .
Their silence on this matter is overwhelming and creates yet another example of what appears to be bias .
That all of the five MPs targeted by Advance are Euro sceptic may just be a coincidence .
In Hitchin and Harpenden , Bim Afolami had opposed a second referendum describing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaflet in his constituency called for an MP who would not accept instructions from Nigel Farage .
The Electoral Commission does publish numerous , wordy reports on electoral matters .
So far , fake political parties has been absent from their output .
Let us consider two other matters , which cause concern but in both cases it would be difficult to legislate for .
They are however sufficiently serious that the commission could at least look at and comment on them .
Last December , concerns were raised about the growth of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local newspapers .
This has been a Liberal Democrat staple for years .
This was the first time that fake newspapers have been raised by reputable journalists across the country .
The Yorkshire Post in an editorial said in reference to a fake newspaper in Leeds : “ Here we have someone peddling imitation newspapers around the country in the hope that those reading them will be fooled into thinking the messages are checked and endorsed by the same local journalists who fought for their libraries ; demanded their A & Es were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or found out the politician who was up to no good.
” The Yorkshire Post was not alone .
The Editorial Director of Newsquest , owner of titles across the south east of England , complained about Liberal Democrat newspapers called “ The Gazette ” which was being circulated in Basingstoke whose local Newspaper is the “ Basingstoke Gazette.
” Significantly the Society of Editors has called for guidelines to prevent political parties hiding partisan messages by masquerading as independent newspapers .
This story was covered by The Guardian , no less , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Electoral Commission .
The Electoral Commission is a body that has produced protocol after protocol .
Guidelines regarding imitating actual newspapers to disguise political propaganda should not be too difficult .
It would be very interesting to see how the Liberal Democrats , who are long term supporters of the Electoral Commission , would avoid supporting such a protocol .
Finally , there is that great favourite “ the dodgy barchart , ” long a staple of Liberal Democrat leaflets .
Guido Fawkes regularly publishes copies of some of the more extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the start of the general election campaign a Lib Dem bar chart was circulated in North East Somerset suggesting that the party was just eight per cent behind Jacob Rees Mogg .
At the 2017 election they came in third polling eight per cent of the vote .
Guido published this information and both Jo Swinson and Layla Moran were asked to comment in interviews in early November .
The result , apart from Jo Swinson ’ s embarrassing interview , was a slew of stories and even more revelations about bar charts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ informed that the Liberal Democrats had “ won the previous election , ” despite the Labour MP having a majority of 15,500 in that election .
In a northern constituency voters were informed that the Liberal Democrats had won the constituency in the Euro Elections .
This was achieved by deleting all reference to the Brexit Party who had topped the poll in the May Euro Election in the constituency .
Layla Moran informed listeners in her interview that she was a former maths teacher and checked her bar chart with a ruler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to why other parties were omitted from her ruler checked bar chart .
What was not raised in the interview was that the bar chart appeared in a so-called “ Observer ” newspaper printed , produced and circulated by the Liberal Democrats , looking like a local newspaper but being no more than a propaganda sheet for Layla Moran .
Polling organisations have strict guidelines as to questions and methodology .
Voters may look at a leaflet with a poll result and assume that it is a reprint of a genuine poll .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whilst the Electoral Commission continues it could include “ dodgy bar charts ” and “ fake newspapers ” in its codes and protocols for the political parties and enable Layla Moran to put her ruler to good use .

Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets. He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association.
In wide-ranging evidence to a recent House of Lords Select Committee Richard Mawrey QC referred to the creation of a political party by Lutfur Rahman and how the Electoral Commission registered this corrupt and by any reasonable standard, non-existent party.
The transcript of Mr Mawrey’s evidence says:
“As you know, he (Lutfur Rahman) created his own political party, Tower Hamlets First, which consisted very largely of his own associates. It was a wonderful political party that had no bank account and no headquarters. I do not know how the Electoral Commission passed it, but they were intimidated as well; they just nodded it through—a political party that does not have a bank account, but there we are. His coterie were undoubtedly, as I found, as corrupt as he was. They manipulated this thing as what used to be called a rotten borough.”
What I can confirm is that the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police were notified in writing well before the corrupt 2014 elections that Tower Hamlets First was a sham. Both organisations were provided with written evidence as to this. Both organisations ignored this evidence.
Compare and contrast the way in which the Electoral Commission did nothing, until they were forced to do so, to remove a sham and corrupt political “party” whilst pursuing Darren Grimes through the courts for incorrectly ticking a box. The contrast between Darren Grimes a young, gay, working class man from Durham and Lutfur Rahman, a corrupt, London based solicitor, is hard to avoid.
Yet this indolence by the Commission in taking action to use their powers of regulation regarding fake political parties continues into the 2019 election.
Last December I was election agent in Stevenage. One afternoon we discovered leaflets viciously and personally attacking the Conservative candidate for Hitchin and Harpenden distributed in roads in Stevenage that form the boundary between the two constituencies.
Shortly afterwards, Guido Fawkes did a brilliant job identifying similar leaflets in four other constituencies. All were expensive, well printed and consisted of personal attacks on the local conservative candidate. In each case they were supposedly on behalf of the “Advance Together” party although this would be very difficult to identify, apart from the imprint, as the candidates name appeared just once in the tiniest of fonts.
This “party,” registered by the Electoral Commission, had been founded and led by Amanda Mullin, the 2017 Liberal Democrat candidate for Kensington and the nominating officer had previously worked on a number of campaigns connected to the Liberal Democrats. Amanda Mullin had proposed to lead a campaign in Kensington and Chelsea in the 2018 elections on behalf of this “party.” She was rewarded with an extensive interview in the Evening Standard. As a resident of Lambeth she could not actually stand for election to Kensington and Chelsea council and in the event her candidates obtained just over two per cent of the vote.
In the 2019 General Election, Amanda Mullin publicly said that the candidates standing for her party were “to be tactical and not to win.” The results and the return of election expenses for each of these five candidates is disturbing:
Chipping Barnet. Conservative candidate – Theresa Villiers. Votes for Advance – 71. Advance Expenses Returned – £8,353.
Hitchin and Harpenden. Conservative candidate – Bim Afolami. Votes for Advance – 101. Advance Expenses Returned – £8,710.
Esher and Walton. Conservative candidate – Dominic Raab. Votes for Advance – 52. Advance Expenses Returned – £8,618.
Mid Sussex. Conservative candidate – Mimms Davis. Votes for Advance – 47. Advance Expenses Returned – £7,443.
Wokingham. Conservative candidate – John Redwood. Votes for Advance – 80. Advance Expenses Returned – £7,746.
That is an expenditure of £40,870 to secure a total of 351 votes. However, as their leader said, their intention was not to secure votes, it was to move voters from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats. Esher and Walton and Wokingham were Liberal Democrat targets. Chipping Barnet was a Conservative/Labour marginal. The campaign in Mid Sussex was an attack on the Conservative candidate for changing constituency, presumably hoping this would garner Liberal Democrat votes. Their choice of Hitchin and Harpenden has remained obscure.
The literature of this party in these constituencies did nothing to promote their candidate who was on the ballot paper. It was personal attack documentation against the Conservative candidate and there was a lot of this literature available for distribution.
There were just 52 Advance supporters in Esher and Walton and yet this “non party” produced and distributed tens of thousands of leaflets. How did they manage this? In Chipping Barnet, Liberal Democrat activists were identified by local Conservative campaigners as distributers of these leaflets. Esher and Walton was a close contest and the “Advance” campaign effectively doubled the expenditure available to the Liberal Democrat candidate.
The front of the Esher and Walton leaflet was a picture of Dominic Raab overprinted with the words ”not wanted here.” Guido Fawkes perfectly described the effect of this campaign; “It’s unlikely voters will remember the name Advance Together when they get to the ballot box. They will remember the attack on Raab.” Let me again record the quote of Amanda Mullin, “our object is to syphon tory votes to the Lib Dems.”
The leaflets in the four other constituencies had similar layout but were completely different lines of personal attacks and they were deeply personal attacks.
The result is a fake political party whose leading members had connections with another political party, using extreme negative campaign methods and considerable campaign expenditure, to the benefit of the party with which they were originally connected and not for that for which they were standing in an election.
One may ask what has the Electoral Commission done with regard to Advance? What is their view of a registered political party which does not campaign to secure votes but exists to campaign against named candidates using personal campaigns to, in the words of the leader “syphon tory votes to the Lib Dems.”
The answer is nothing.
Their silence on this matter is overwhelming and creates yet another example of what appears to be bias. That all of the five MPs targeted by Advance are Euro sceptic may just be a coincidence. In Hitchin and Harpenden, Bim Afolami had opposed a second referendum describing the possibility as “divisive.” The Advance leaflet in his constituency called for an MP who would not accept instructions from Nigel Farage.
The Electoral Commission does publish numerous, wordy reports on electoral matters. So far, fake political parties has been absent from their output.
Let us consider two other matters, which cause concern but in both cases it would be difficult to legislate for. They are however sufficiently serious that the commission could at least look at and comment on them.
Last December, concerns were raised about the growth of party political broadsheets disguised to look like local newspapers. This has been a Liberal Democrat staple for years. This was the first time that fake newspapers have been raised by reputable journalists across the country. The Yorkshire Post in an editorial said in reference to a fake newspaper in Leeds:
“Here we have someone peddling imitation newspapers around the country in the hope that those reading them will be fooled into thinking the messages are checked and endorsed by the same local journalists who fought for their libraries; demanded their A&Es were saved; exposed that corrupt business person or found out the politician who was up to no good.”
The Yorkshire Post was not alone. The Editorial Director of Newsquest, owner of titles across the south east of England, complained about Liberal Democrat newspapers called “The Gazette” which was being circulated in Basingstoke whose local Newspaper is the “Basingstoke Gazette.”
Significantly the Society of Editors has called for guidelines to prevent political parties hiding partisan messages by masquerading as independent newspapers.
This story was covered by The Guardian, no less, which would surely have alerted somebody within the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is a body that has produced protocol after protocol. Guidelines regarding imitating actual newspapers to disguise political propaganda should not be too difficult. It would be very interesting to see how the Liberal Democrats, who are long term supporters of the Electoral Commission, would avoid supporting such a protocol.
Finally, there is that great favourite “the dodgy barchart,” long a staple of Liberal Democrat leaflets. Guido Fawkes regularly publishes copies of some of the more extreme examples of these. Last year at the start of the general election campaign a Lib Dem bar chart was circulated in North East Somerset suggesting that the party was just eight per cent behind Jacob Rees Mogg. At the 2017 election they came in third polling eight per cent of the vote. Guido published this information and both Jo Swinson and Layla Moran were asked to comment in interviews in early November. The result, apart from Jo Swinson’s embarrassing interview, was a slew of stories and even more revelations about bar charts. In Hampstead and Kilburn voters were informed that the Liberal Democrats had “won the previous election,” despite the Labour MP having a majority of 15,500 in that election. In a northern constituency voters were informed that the Liberal Democrats had won the constituency in the Euro Elections. This was achieved by deleting all reference to the Brexit Party who had topped the poll in the May Euro Election in the constituency.
Layla Moran informed listeners in her interview that she was a former maths teacher and checked her bar chart with a ruler. She could give no explanation as to why other parties were omitted from her ruler checked bar chart. What was not raised in the interview was that the bar chart appeared in a so-called “Observer” newspaper printed, produced and circulated by the Liberal Democrats, looking like a local newspaper but being no more than a propaganda sheet for Layla Moran.
Polling organisations have strict guidelines as to questions and methodology. Voters may look at a leaflet with a poll result and assume that it is a reprint of a genuine poll. Legislation on this could be problematic but whilst the Electoral Commission continues it could include “dodgy bar charts” and “fake newspapers” in its codes and protocols for the political parties and enable Layla Moran to put her ruler to good use.


conservativehome--2020-07-24--Starmer’s desire to “draw a line” under anti-Semitism in Labour will be harder than he thinks

Since becoming Labour Party leader in March of this year , Keir Starmer has made tackling anti-Semitism a top priority .
In his acceptance speech he promised to “ tear out this poison by its roots ” , and one of his first actions was to set up a video conference with Jewish leaders , in which he told them he would create an independent complaints procedure .
They welcomed these actions , and said that he had “ achieved more in four days ” than Jeremy Corbyn had “ in four years ” .
The extent to which Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in June 2020 , when he sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey , Shadow Education Secretary , for retweeting an interview with the actress Maxine Peake .
In it , Peake had said an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory , namely that the tactic deployed in the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis “ was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.
” Upon becoming aware of Long-Bailey ’ s Retweet , Starmer acted quickly and decisively in sacking her , winning praise from people across the political spectrum .
After years of Corbyn ’ s ineffective ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even in spite of these efforts , though , recent events demonstrate just how difficult it will be for Starmer to stamp out anti-Semitism in his party , due to disagreements about Corbyn ’ s tenure .
The factionalism of Labour was highlighted this week after the party apologised and paid damages of around £200,000 to a group of ex-staffer whistleblowers , who Corbyn ’ s Labour had criticised for appearing in a BBC documentary titled Is Labour anti-Semitic ?
During this they ’ d spoken about various incidents within the party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal and political axes to grind ” , hence why legal action was brought forward .
Starmer no doubt believed the settlement would help everything .
“ I made it clear that we would draw a line under anti-Semitism .
Settling this case was important in that respect ” , were his words .
Case closed , some might think ( Starmer was a barrister , after all . )
But instead , Corbyn contradicted his successor ’ s words , issuing a statement in which he called the decision “ disappointing ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal ” one , which risked giving “ credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations about action taken to tackle anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in recent years.
” John Ware , who made the documentary , and some of the whistleblowers have since instructed Mark Lewis to pursue a defamation case against Corbyn .
( Lewis , incidentally , has said he ’ s been approached by 32 individuals who want to take action against Labour ) .
In response to this , some have called for Starmer to withdraw the whip from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But he is clearly wary of doing this , as it would lead to an “ uncontrollable civil war ” , as Tom Harris put it for The Telegraph , “ that would conceivably split the party and leave each half as unelectable as the other.
” Other Labour figures , such as Len McCluskey , have already argued against the court settlement .
It has met strong resistance .
The other thought that will linger at the back of many people ’ s minds is that Starmer , for all his decisiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister .
He did this at the same time that Jewish MPs , such as Luciana Berger , were the targets of anti-Semitic abuse and death threats .
MPs and many party members couldn ’ t stand by as this happened .
Frank Field quit the party , saying that the leadership had become “ a force for anti-Semitism in British politics ” , and nine MPs left in 2019 for the same reason .
In essence , Starmer can apologise and try to correct things all he wants , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mattered the most – will stay in hearts and minds .
With Starmer recently receiving a draft report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission as to how Labour handled anti-Semitism allegations under Corbyn ’ s leadership , there will be significant pressure for him to continue to “ tear out this poison ” , as he put it .
He reassured parliament on Wednesday that Labour was “ under new management ” , and he clearly believes that he is the man to end this dire era .
Let ’ s hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the instabilities in his party , along with his past lack of action on anti-Semitism , his wish to “ draw a line ” under it will be harder than he thinks .

Since becoming Labour Party leader in March of this year, Keir Starmer has made tackling anti-Semitism a top priority. In his acceptance speech he promised to “tear out this poison by its roots”, and one of his first actions was to set up a video conference with Jewish leaders, in which he told them he would create an independent complaints procedure. They welcomed these actions, and said that he had “achieved more in four days” than Jeremy Corbyn had “in four years”.
The extent to which Starmer is determined to address anti-Semitism was clear in June 2020, when he sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey, Shadow Education Secretary, for retweeting an interview with the actress Maxine Peake. In it, Peake had said an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, namely that the tactic deployed in the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis “was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.”
Upon becoming aware of Long-Bailey’s Retweet, Starmer acted quickly and decisively in sacking her, winning praise from people across the political spectrum. After years of Corbyn’s ineffective ways, it was quite a change.
Even in spite of these efforts, though, recent events demonstrate just how difficult it will be for Starmer to stamp out anti-Semitism in his party, due to disagreements about Corbyn’s tenure. The factionalism of Labour was highlighted this week after the party apologised and paid damages of around £200,000 to a group of ex-staffer whistleblowers, who Corbyn’s Labour had criticised for appearing in a BBC documentary titled Is Labour anti-Semitic? During this they’d spoken about various incidents within the party, only to be accused of having “personal and political axes to grind”, hence why legal action was brought forward.
Starmer no doubt believed the settlement would help everything. “I made it clear that we would draw a line under anti-Semitism. Settling this case was important in that respect”, were his words. Case closed, some might think (Starmer was a barrister, after all.)
But instead, Corbyn contradicted his successor’s words, issuing a statement in which he called the decision “disappointing”, a “political” not “legal” one, which risked giving “credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations about action taken to tackle anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in recent years.”
John Ware, who made the documentary, and some of the whistleblowers have since instructed Mark Lewis to pursue a defamation case against Corbyn. (Lewis, incidentally, has said he’s been approached by 32 individuals who want to take action against Labour).
In response to this, some have called for Starmer to withdraw the whip from Corbyn, suspend or expel him. But he is clearly wary of doing this, as it would lead to an “uncontrollable civil war”, as Tom Harris put it for The Telegraph, “that would conceivably split the party and leave each half as unelectable as the other.” Other Labour figures, such as Len McCluskey, have already argued against the court settlement. It has met strong resistance.
The other thought that will linger at the back of many people’s minds is that Starmer, for all his decisiveness now, campaigned for Corbyn to be Prime Minister. He did this at the same time that Jewish MPs, such as Luciana Berger, were the targets of anti-Semitic abuse and death threats.
MPs and many party members couldn’t stand by as this happened. Frank Field quit the party, saying that the leadership had become “a force for anti-Semitism in British politics”, and nine MPs left in 2019 for the same reason.
In essence, Starmer can apologise and try to correct things all he wants, but that legacy of doing nothing – when it mattered the most – will stay in hearts and minds.
With Starmer recently receiving a draft report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission as to how Labour handled anti-Semitism allegations under Corbyn’s leadership, there will be significant pressure for him to continue to “tear out this poison”, as he put it. He reassured parliament on Wednesday that Labour was “under new management”, and he clearly believes that he is the man to end this dire era.
Let’s hope so, of course. But due to the instabilities in his party, along with his past lack of action on anti-Semitism, his wish to “draw a line” under it will be harder than he thinks.


conservativehome--2020-07-27--The Government’s obesity strategy risks pleasing no one

Last week , ConservativeHome wrote that Boris Johnson would have to abandon his libertarian instincts to tackle the obesity crisis ; a fact fairly well hinted at , due to his own experience with the Coronavirus .
It was said that he ’ d had a Damascene conversion after his previous resistance to interventionist methods .
Today , Johnson appears to have confirmed that through the Government ’ s new strategy , titled : Tackling obesity : empowering adults and children to live healthier lives .
It outlines a series of measures that will do little to please freedom fighters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not win over pro-interventionist minds either .
As everyone knows , the obesity crisis has long been in successive governments ’ sights .
The document calls it “ one of the greatest long-term health challenges this country faces ” with “ around two-thirds ( 63 % ) of adults above a healthy weight ” and “ 1 in 3 children leaving primary school who are already overweight ” .
The need to reduce obesity levels has become more urgent as a result of Covid-19 .
During the crisis it was well known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of hospitalisation , and Government statistics show that nearly eight per cent of critically ill patients in intensive care units with the virus were morbidly obese , compared to 2.9 per cent of the general population .
Furthermore , the Government document says that “ [ o ] besity prevalence is highest amongst the most deprived groups in society ” .
Given Johnson ’ s “ levelling up agenda ” , and the clear exposure of social inequalities throughout the crisis , the Government felt it had a mandate to tackle obesity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for high fat , salt or sugar products on TV and online before 9pm ; • None ending the promotion of high fat , sugar or salt products in store and online ( meaning no more “ buy one get one free meals ” ) , and • None further down the line there will be a consultation on calorie labelling for pre-packaged drinks .
Alongside these plans , Public Health England has brought out softer measures , such as a “ Better Health ” campaign .
It encourages users to lose weight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a free NHS 12-week weight loss plan app .
In addition , the NHS will extend its weight management services , as well as its Diabetes Prevention Programme , meaning that tens of thousands more people will be able to use the services than ever before .
The Government is also engaging in nudge theory .
It has noticed , for instance , that “ 43 % of all drink and products located in prominent areas… were for sugary foods and drinks and less than 1 % of food and drink products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores were fruit and vegetables.
” These insights are important , as they lay out small , not particularly drastic measures that shops can embrace to influence consumer behaviour , such as putting healthy snacks nearer to checkouts .
Some say the Government has no right to tell people what to eat , but the truth is that society currently does that – in the opposite direction to the one complained about .
There are numerous offers encouraging people towards unhealthy habits , which have a negative effect on people ’ s finances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ buy one get one free offers ” increase the amount people spend by 20 per cent .
So it makes sense to take action .
What ’ s the verdict on these moves , however ?
By all indications , the Government ’ s plans may not please either libertarians or those more pro-interventionist for a number of reasons .
In regards to the former group , there will be considerable disappointment about the direction Johnson has gone in , not least because many will have voted for him on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes and his claim of being a “ libertarian ” in regards to obesity .
There are also economic concerns about whether the obesity campaign will harm a nation trying to find its feet after Covid-19 .
Sue Eustace , Director of Public Affairs at the Advertising Association , has said that the measures were “ extreme ” and that : “ [ w ] e have some of the strictest [ advertising ] rules in the world already and children ’ s exposure to high fat , salt , and sugar adverts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last 15 years or so , but there ’ s been no change to obesity , so we don ’ t think these measures are going to work.
” Others say that the Government ’ s strategy undermines its “ Eat Out to Help Out ” ; Rishi Sunak is trying to get people going to restaurants , which will no doubt boost the nation ’ s waistlines , all the while there is this strategy .
ConservativeHome believes that there ’ s no getting away from the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the Government was realistic and right to take bold steps .
The question is whether these methods will work , or if they target the wrong things .
The Government ’ s strategy , for instance , rests on the assumption that with the “ [ r ] ight information ” in stores , people ’ s behaviour will change , hence why it wants to put calorie content everywhere .
Its guidance reads : “ It ’ s hard to make the healthy choice if you don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are eating ” .
But is this going to stop someone from making a trip to McDonalds ?
The point is that temptation often overrides information .
It may be that actions such as investing more in gastric bands ( which , as I wrote last time in ConHome “ seem dramatic – but can improve people ’ s quality of life and the coping ability of the NHS in enormous ways ” ) , and substantially increasing sports lessons at schools , can have a more sizeable effect .
The other issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-establishing his political brand , having steered far away from his libertarian principles .
Coronavirus , in general , has challenged what people expected from the Conservatives ; there have been huge levels of spending and , with the public now forced to wear face masks in shops , many voters will need assurances of a return to a small state .
Some of this confusion over what Conservatives now stand for will be exacerbated by the obesity document , which sounds incredibly left-leaning in parts .
One statement suggests that “ tackling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s effort , it is also about the environment we live in ” .
Even though others have preached about “ personal responsibility ” .
One hopes , of course , that the Government makes some breakthroughs in regards to its obesity strategy .
But it may be about to achieve the worst of both worlds , exaggerating the role adverts play in promoting obesity ( and causing economic damage in regulating them ) , while alienating libertarian voters .
This “ worst of both worlds ” pattern seems prevalent in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are trying to revive the economy , for instance , but there are so many rules and regulations on restaurants , shops and bars now that it may be the case we neither protect the NHS/ people from Covid-19 , nor businesses .
Whether fighting obesity , or reopening the economy , “ going for broke ” may be the philosophy this Government needs – whichever direction it takes .

Last week, ConservativeHome wrote that Boris Johnson would have to abandon his libertarian instincts to tackle the obesity crisis; a fact fairly well hinted at, due to his own experience with the Coronavirus. It was said that he’d had a Damascene conversion after his previous resistance to interventionist methods.
Today, Johnson appears to have confirmed that through the Government’s new strategy, titled: Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives. It outlines a series of measures that will do little to please freedom fighters – and, by some indications, may not win over pro-interventionist minds either.
As everyone knows, the obesity crisis has long been in successive governments’ sights. The document calls it “one of the greatest long-term health challenges this country faces” with “around two-thirds (63%) of adults above a healthy weight” and “1 in 3 children leaving primary school who are already overweight”.
The need to reduce obesity levels has become more urgent as a result of Covid-19. During the crisis it was well known that being overweight or obese increased the risk of hospitalisation, and Government statistics show that nearly eight per cent of critically ill patients in intensive care units with the virus were morbidly obese, compared to 2.9 per cent of the general population.
Furthermore, the Government document says that “[o]besity prevalence is highest amongst the most deprived groups in society”. Given Johnson’s “levelling up agenda”, and the clear exposure of social inequalities throughout the crisis, the Government felt it had a mandate to tackle obesity more radically.
The Government’s main proposals include:
Banning adverts for high fat, salt or sugar products on TV and online before 9pm;
calorie labelling in restaurants, cafes and takeaways;
ending the promotion of high fat, sugar or salt products in store and online (meaning no more “buy one get one free meals”), and
further down the line there will be a consultation on calorie labelling for pre-packaged drinks.
Alongside these plans, Public Health England has brought out softer measures, such as a “Better Health” campaign. It encourages users to lose weight through a new NHS BMI tool, and a free NHS 12-week weight loss plan app.
In addition, the NHS will extend its weight management services, as well as its Diabetes Prevention Programme, meaning that tens of thousands more people will be able to use the services than ever before.
The Government is also engaging in nudge theory. It has noticed, for instance, that “43% of all drink and products located in prominent areas… were for sugary foods and drinks and less than 1% of food and drink products were promoted in high profile locations in stores were fruit and vegetables.”
These insights are important, as they lay out small, not particularly drastic measures that shops can embrace to influence consumer behaviour, such as putting healthy snacks nearer to checkouts.
Some say the Government has no right to tell people what to eat, but the truth is that society currently does that – in the opposite direction to the one complained about. There are numerous offers encouraging people towards unhealthy habits, which have a negative effect on people’s finances, too. It has been shown that “buy one get one free offers” increase the amount people spend by 20 per cent. So it makes sense to take action.
What’s the verdict on these moves, however? By all indications, the Government’s plans may not please either libertarians or those more pro-interventionist for a number of reasons.
In regards to the former group, there will be considerable disappointment about the direction Johnson has gone in, not least because many will have voted for him on the basis of his past aversion to sin taxes and his claim of being a “libertarian” in regards to obesity.
There are also economic concerns about whether the obesity campaign will harm a nation trying to find its feet after Covid-19.
Sue Eustace, Director of Public Affairs at the Advertising Association, has said that the measures were “extreme” and that: “[w]e have some of the strictest [advertising] rules in the world already and children’s exposure to high fat, salt, and sugar adverts on TV has fallen by 70% over the last 15 years or so, but there’s been no change to obesity, so we don’t think these measures are going to work.”
Others say that the Government’s strategy undermines its “Eat Out to Help Out”; Rishi Sunak is trying to get people going to restaurants, which will no doubt boost the nation’s waistlines, all the while there is this strategy.
ConservativeHome believes that there’s no getting away from the fact that the nation has a growing obesity crisis, and that the Government was realistic and right to take bold steps.
The question is whether these methods will work, or if they target the wrong things.
The Government’s strategy, for instance, rests on the assumption that with the “[r]ight information” in stores, people’s behaviour will change, hence why it wants to put calorie content everywhere.
Its guidance reads: “It’s hard to make the healthy choice if you don’t know what’s in the food you are eating”. But is this going to stop someone from making a trip to McDonalds? The point is that temptation often overrides information.
It may be that actions such as investing more in gastric bands (which, as I wrote last time in ConHome “seem dramatic – but can improve people’s quality of life and the coping ability of the NHS in enormous ways”), and substantially increasing sports lessons at schools, can have a more sizeable effect.
The other issue Johnson will have to address is his re-establishing his political brand, having steered far away from his libertarian principles.
Coronavirus, in general, has challenged what people expected from the Conservatives; there have been huge levels of spending and, with the public now forced to wear face masks in shops, many voters will need assurances of a return to a small state.
Some of this confusion over what Conservatives now stand for will be exacerbated by the obesity document, which sounds incredibly left-leaning in parts. One statement suggests that “tackling obesity is not just about an individual’s effort, it is also about the environment we live in”. Even though others have preached about “personal responsibility”.
One hopes, of course, that the Government makes some breakthroughs in regards to its obesity strategy. But it may be about to achieve the worst of both worlds, exaggerating the role adverts play in promoting obesity (and causing economic damage in regulating them), while alienating libertarian voters.
This “worst of both worlds” pattern seems prevalent in other parts of the Coronavirus crisis. We are trying to revive the economy, for instance, but there are so many rules and regulations on restaurants, shops and bars now that it may be the case we neither protect the NHS/ people from Covid-19, nor businesses.
Whether fighting obesity, or reopening the economy, “going for broke” may be the philosophy this Government needs – whichever direction it takes.