conservativehome--2020-08-27--Trump is so cunning he has chosen, in Pence, a dull, loyal, evangelical running mate

Mike Pence .
This name makes few hearts beat faster .
Attempts by the Democrats to use Pence , the Republican vice-presidential candidate , as a stick with which to beat Donald Trump were not a success in 2016 , and this year have been pretty much abandoned .
Kamala Harris , recently chosen as the Democrats ’ vice-presidential candidate , has attracted more attention , in part because Joe Biden is 77 , so might not see out a presidential term .
But Trump is 74 and looks less healthy than Biden , or indeed than Ronald Reagan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term was 73 .
If , as some commentators predict , Trump manages in November to defy the polls and win a second term , he may not survive to the end of it .
So Pence , who would then become President , ought to be of considerable interest .
But he isn ’ t , and in that respect he is in accordance with the American tradition .
Running mates are chosen for their electoral value , their appeal to some group of voters , not because they possess the qualities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pence ’ s speeches , including his address last night at the Republican Convention in praise of Trump ’ s handling of the economy , do not excite people .
They communicate instead a worthy , God-fearing , embattled decency : a calm determination to uphold the armed forces , the right to life , the right to bear arms , “ the thin blue line…we ’ re not going to defund the police ” , manufacturing jobs , the lowest rate of unemployment for women in 65 years , an America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving in to “ socialism and decline ” .
Such rhetoric may be scorned by clever liberals , but millions of Americans still want to believe theirs is the kind of country described by Pence .
Although Trump at the end of February made Pence head of the federal coronavirus task force , the Vice-President has remained almost comically self-effacing in that role , and has never criticised the President for driving a coach and horses through the administration ’ s attempts to bring the pandemic under control .
Generally speaking , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vice-presidential role , who will not overshadow the presidential candidate , who has himself usually been chosen by his party not because of his outstanding gifts as a statesman , but because he has the best chance of winning the election and rewarding his supporters with the fruits of office .
Pence is an evangelical , implacably opposed to abortion and to gay rights .
This loyal and respectable figure , married to the same woman since 1985 , in 2016 performed the invaluable role of reassuring the quarter of American adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , despite his scandalous private life , could be trusted to champion their beliefs .
The liberal mind recoils at such low calculations .
It wants to see democracy as a noble contest between brilliant , high-minded figures , so ignores or downplays the many presidents who could by no stretch of the imagination be described as brilliant or high-minded .
John Nance Garner , the Texan who served as Vice-President for two terms under Franklin D. Roosevelt , is supposed to have warned Lyndon B. Johnson , who in 1960 was wondering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John F. Kennedy ’ s running mate , that the vice-presidency “ isn ’ t worth a pitcher of warm piss ” .
In a more respectable moment , Garner explained that “ there can not be a great vice president .
A great man may occupy the office , but there is no way for him to become a great vice president because the office in itself is almost wholly unimportant.
” Except that eight American presidents have died in office , whereupon the vice-president has suddenly become very important .
Jared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Accidental Presidents , that those eight figures “ are all part of a history of presidential succession which has been frivolous and has left the country exposed to Constitutional crisis or vulnerable to luck and chance ” .
He adds that “ the matter of succession has been trivialised by voters , candidates and lawmakers ” .
Stern words .
But since so many of the elected presidents were ropy , or at least went through desperately ropy patches , it seems a bit unfair to single out the selection of the eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for criticism .
Two of those eight , Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman , became great presidents : about the same proportion as among those holders of the office who first entered the White House by winning a presidential election .
The American Constitution is remarkable not because it has ensured the election of an unending stream of world historical figures , but because it has survived the election , down to the present incumbent , of so many presidents who fall far below the level of events .
Gimson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is published by Square Peg ( £10.99 ) .

Mike Pence. This name makes few hearts beat faster. Attempts by the Democrats to use Pence, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, as a stick with which to beat Donald Trump were not a success in 2016, and this year have been pretty much abandoned.
Kamala Harris, recently chosen as the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate, has attracted more attention, in part because Joe Biden is 77, so might not see out a presidential term.
But Trump is 74 and looks less healthy than Biden, or indeed than Ronald Reagan, who at the start of his second term was 73.
If, as some commentators predict, Trump manages in November to defy the polls and win a second term, he may not survive to the end of it.
So Pence, who would then become President, ought to be of considerable interest. But he isn’t, and in that respect he is in accordance with the American tradition.
Running mates are chosen for their electoral value, their appeal to some group of voters, not because they possess the qualities needed to take over in a crisis. Pence’s speeches, including his address last night at the Republican Convention in praise of Trump’s handling of the economy, do not excite people.
They communicate instead a worthy, God-fearing, embattled decency: a calm determination to uphold the armed forces, the right to life, the right to bear arms, “the thin blue line…we’re not going to defund the police”, manufacturing jobs, the lowest rate of unemployment for women in 65 years, an America which “remains America” rather than giving in to “socialism and decline”.
Such rhetoric may be scorned by clever liberals, but millions of Americans still want to believe theirs is the kind of country described by Pence.
Although Trump at the end of February made Pence head of the federal coronavirus task force, the Vice-President has remained almost comically self-effacing in that role, and has never criticised the President for driving a coach and horses through the administration’s attempts to bring the pandemic under control.
Generally speaking, a dull performer tends to be preferred in the vice-presidential role, who will not overshadow the presidential candidate, who has himself usually been chosen by his party not because of his outstanding gifts as a statesman, but because he has the best chance of winning the election and rewarding his supporters with the fruits of office.
Pence is an evangelical, implacably opposed to abortion and to gay rights. This loyal and respectable figure, married to the same woman since 1985, in 2016 performed the invaluable role of reassuring the quarter of American adults who describe themselves as evangelicals that Trump, despite his scandalous private life, could be trusted to champion their beliefs.
The liberal mind recoils at such low calculations. It wants to see democracy as a noble contest between brilliant, high-minded figures, so ignores or downplays the many presidents who could by no stretch of the imagination be described as brilliant or high-minded.
John Nance Garner, the Texan who served as Vice-President for two terms under Franklin D. Roosevelt, is supposed to have warned Lyndon B. Johnson, who in 1960 was wondering whether to accept the invitation to become John F. Kennedy’s running mate, that the vice-presidency “isn’t worth a pitcher of warm piss”.
In a more respectable moment, Garner explained that “there cannot be a great vice president. A great man may occupy the office, but there is no way for him to become a great vice president because the office in itself is almost wholly unimportant.”
Except that eight American presidents have died in office, whereupon the vice-president has suddenly become very important. Jared Cohen says in his recent study, Accidental Presidents, that those eight figures “are all part of a history of presidential succession which has been frivolous and has left the country exposed to Constitutional crisis or vulnerable to luck and chance”.
He adds that “the matter of succession has been trivialised by voters, candidates and lawmakers”.
Stern words. But since so many of the elected presidents were ropy, or at least went through desperately ropy patches, it seems a bit unfair to single out the selection of the eight vice-presidents who succeeded to the highest office for criticism.
Two of those eight, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, became great presidents: about the same proportion as among those holders of the office who first entered the White House by winning a presidential election.
The American Constitution is remarkable not because it has ensured the election of an unending stream of world historical figures, but because it has survived the election, down to the present incumbent, of so many presidents who fall far below the level of events.
Gimson’s Presidents: Brief Lives from Washington to Trump is published by Square Peg (£10.99).


conservativehome--2020-08-27--Garvan Walshe: Tensions are rising between two NATO members – Greece and Turkey. Britain is well pla

Garvan Walshe: Tensions are rising between two NATO members – Greece and Turkey. Britain is well placed to broker a solution.

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party .
He runs TRD Policy .
If you ’ re a political obsessive who ’ s been unable to tear yourself away from the news on holiday , and if the endless Covid coverage hasn ’ t sapped your will to read , you may have chanced upon some alarming headlines , reporting Greek and Turkish ships colliding , France sending warships to the Eastern Mediterranean , and even the United Arab Emirates , fresh from its rapprochement with Israel , hinting it would base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geopolitical crisis is , after all , what 2020 has been missing – but seeking to resolve it also presents a rare opportunity for the UK to rebuild its diplomatic capital .
Greek newspapers have taken on jingoistic hue , and are calling for foreign powers to intervene against Turkey , with the French deployment presented as a response to Athens ’ s appeal .
To complete the nineteenth century-flavoured picture , Ankara has drawn support from Berlin , with the lumbering US Secretary of State , Mike Pompeo , playing Bismarck to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This crisis brings together four elements , overlooked by a distracted United States , and an EU paralyised by its two inveterately anti-Turkish members ( Greece and Cyprus ) : the treaty of Lausanne , signed 99 years ago as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated ; the evolution of the international law of the sea , which has made that treaty even more favourable to Greece than was thought at the time ; the Libyan civil war , soon to reach its tenth year after the overthrow of Gaddafi , and the discovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the post-World War I reordering of the world , the Treaty of Lausanne set limits to the expansionism of modern Greece , which had been accumulating territory at the Ottoman Empire ’ s expense since its independence in the 1820s , and involved a then-fashionable population exchange between 1.3 million Greek-speaking Orthodox people living in and around Smyrna ( Izmir ) and 400,000 Muslims from Greece .
If Greece lamented the loss of Smyrna , granted ot them by the Treaty of Sevres only a year earlier , to the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepting permanent Greek control of islands a mile or two off its own coast .
Yet , at a time when states only enforced territorial limits at three miles , and freedom of navigation was allowed on the high seas , this was a price that could be paid .
But the development of international practice to include a 12-nautical mile limit would severely impede Turkish freedom of navigation out of the Dardanelles .
Turkey and Greece , naturally , have different interpretations of whether the islands in the Aegean are capable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can , in principle ; but if they form part of a country ’ s share of the continental shelf , then they do not extend it any further ) .
International law is ambigious , and the ICJ has declined to resolve the matter .
Matters were further complicated by the introduction of “ Exclusive Economic Zones ” ( which featured , incidentally in the Falklands War ) , whereby states can assert the right to regulate economic activity within 200 miles of their coastlines .
EEZs are reasonable when states share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Canada , but are hard to demarcate for narrow seas like the Mediterranean .
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does a fat lot of good here , stating only that the conflict should be resolved on the “ basis of equity and in the light of all relevant circumstances.
” This was how things stood before the Arab Spring , but the Libyan civil war , in which Turkey and Italy back the internationally recognised government , while Egypt , France and Russia backed rebels led by General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas reserves at a point in the Eastern Mediterranean some 400 miles wide .
Taking advantage of its alliance with Tripoli , Turkey conjured up an EEZ between itself and Libya , giving itself access to gas near Crete .
Greece then responded by manufacturing its own EEZ with Egypt , to deny Turkey access to the same waters .
American neglect is to blame for the absurdity of two NATO members returning to nineteenth century-style diplomatic rivalry .
A fully engaged United States would not have allowed the situation to deteriorate this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discovery of gas in contested waters would spur a scramble for it , and therefore a mechanism for sharing the spoils to avoid conflict would have to be set up .
Only Washington has the clout to bring such a process to a successful conclusion , but this is an area in which Brexit has enhanced Britain ’ s diplomatic position .
No longer an EU member , the UK is now in a position to act as an honest broker between Greece , Turkey and the other interested regional powers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulate gas exploration in this increasingly volatile region .
What better initiative for a part-Turkish Prime Minister whose father has a house in Greece ?

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party. He runs TRD Policy.
If you’re a political obsessive who’s been unable to tear yourself away from the news on holiday, and if the endless Covid coverage hasn’t sapped your will to read, you may have chanced upon some alarming headlines, reporting Greek and Turkish ships colliding, France sending warships to the Eastern Mediterranean, and even the United Arab Emirates, fresh from its rapprochement with Israel, hinting it would base fighter jets in Crete.
An August geopolitical crisis is, after all, what 2020 has been missing – but seeking to resolve it also presents a rare opportunity for the UK to rebuild its diplomatic capital.
Greek newspapers have taken on jingoistic hue, and are calling for foreign powers to intervene against Turkey, with the French deployment presented as a response to Athens’s appeal. To complete the nineteenth century-flavoured picture, Ankara has drawn support from Berlin, with the lumbering US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, playing Bismarck to the uninterested Kaiser in the White House.
This crisis brings together four elements, overlooked by a distracted United States, and an EU paralyised by its two inveterately anti-Turkish members (Greece and Cyprus): the treaty of Lausanne, signed 99 years ago as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated; the evolution of the international law of the sea, which has made that treaty even more favourable to Greece than was thought at the time; the Libyan civil war, soon to reach its tenth year after the overthrow of Gaddafi, and the discovery of new gas reserves.
Signed as part of the post-World War I reordering of the world, the Treaty of Lausanne set limits to the expansionism of modern Greece, which had been accumulating territory at the Ottoman Empire’s expense since its independence in the 1820s, and involved a then-fashionable population exchange between 1.3 million Greek-speaking Orthodox people living in and around Smyrna (Izmir) and 400,000 Muslims from Greece.
If Greece lamented the loss of Smyrna, granted ot them by the Treaty of Sevres only a year earlier, to the new Turkish Republic, Turkey was stuck with accepting permanent Greek control of islands a mile or two off its own coast.
Yet, at a time when states only enforced territorial limits at three miles, and freedom of navigation was allowed on the high seas, this was a price that could be paid. But the development of international practice to include a 12-nautical mile limit would severely impede Turkish freedom of navigation out of the Dardanelles.
Turkey and Greece, naturally, have different interpretations of whether the islands in the Aegean are capable of generating their own territorial limits (islands can, in principle; but if they form part of a country’s share of the continental shelf, then they do not extend it any further). International law is ambigious, and the ICJ has declined to resolve the matter.
Matters were further complicated by the introduction of “Exclusive Economic Zones” (which featured, incidentally in the Falklands War), whereby states can assert the right to regulate economic activity within 200 miles of their coastlines.
EEZs are reasonable when states share an ocean littoral, like the US and Canada, but are hard to demarcate for narrow seas like the Mediterranean. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does a fat lot of good here, stating only that the conflict should be resolved on the “basis of equity and in the light of all relevant circumstances.”
This was how things stood before the Arab Spring, but the Libyan civil war, in which Turkey and Italy back the internationally recognised government, while Egypt, France and Russia backed rebels led by General Haftar – and the discovery of large gas reserves at a point in the Eastern Mediterranean some 400 miles wide.
Taking advantage of its alliance with Tripoli, Turkey conjured up an EEZ between itself and Libya, giving itself access to gas near Crete. Greece then responded by manufacturing its own EEZ with Egypt, to deny Turkey access to the same waters.
American neglect is to blame for the absurdity of two NATO members returning to nineteenth century-style diplomatic rivalry. A fully engaged United States would not have allowed the situation to deteriorate this far. It would have understood that the discovery of gas in contested waters would spur a scramble for it, and therefore a mechanism for sharing the spoils to avoid conflict would have to be set up.
Only Washington has the clout to bring such a process to a successful conclusion, but this is an area in which Brexit has enhanced Britain’s diplomatic position. No longer an EU member, the UK is now in a position to act as an honest broker between Greece, Turkey and the other interested regional powers, and begin to forge a mechanism to regulate gas exploration in this increasingly volatile region. What better initiative for a part-Turkish Prime Minister whose father has a house in Greece?


conservativehome--2020-08-27--Matthew Barber: The police must tackle non-violent crime too

Matthew Barber is the Conservative candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner for the Thames Valley .
He is currently the Deputy PCC for that area .
In a world of competing demands we must have some way of prioritising .
This is true in our own lives , our personal finances , and in public policy .
We expect our doctors to prioritise those most in need of care , and so similarly we all expect the police to prioritise as well .
In recent years , senior police officers across the country have developed an approach to prioritisation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision making .
The challenge is to balance competing harms .
Police forces up and down the country have adopted various acronyms for their methods of prioritisation such as THOR ( Threat Hear Opportunity Risk ) or THRIVE ( Threat Harm Risk Investigation Vulnerability Engagement ) .
Fundamental to all of these decision making-models is harm – and with good reason .
We all expect the police to protect us and our families from harm .
Some would say it is what the emergency services exist for .
It is easy to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as serious violence , sexual assault , and child abuse .
We would all agree that these are areas that the police should prioritise for prevention and response .
So far so good .
Thankfully , however , a majority of people will not become victims of these “ high harm ” offences .
When presented with a list of possible offences , I would expect most of us would identify these most serious of crimes as the highest priority .
However , in the abstract , the concerns regularly raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relate to anti-social behaviour , speeding , or theft .
These are the issues that are most likely to affect our communities and there remains a need to address these real life concerns .
In the complex system of policing , it must be possible to address multiple priorities at the same time .
There is no simple trade off : a sexual assault may trump speeding , but both matter , albeit in different ways .
This is critical not just because the offences themselves should be dealt with , but more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the police .
Many of the high harm priorities that Forces will rightly put significant resources into tackling will take place behind closed doors , or at least away from the public gaze .
If you have been a victim of what the police will often tellingly refer to as a “ volume crime ” , it could still have a huge impact on your life .
This is where the supremacy of the harm assessment can be problematic .
In many cases the crimes that many people will sadly experience cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involve the loss or damage of property .
No-one has been physically hurt by the events , and so the harm is considered very low .
The logic of this approach is entirely reasonable , however it often ignores the non-physical impacts .
If the bicycle that has been stolen is someone ’ s only means of getting to work , or the theft of tools from a van also stole someone ’ s livelihood , or repeated criminal damage causes someone to live in fear in their own home , then there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken into account because it may not always be obvious .
Beyond the individual cases , the biggest loser in this game of chasing harm may be confidence in the police itself .
In a system that still prides itself of policing by consent , confidence is everything .
The police want , in fact need , the public to report incidents and intelligence in order to do their jobs .
Yet , if the public have little or no confidence that their time spent reporting a crime will be worthwhile then they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems with the 101 non-emergency telephone service are a good example of this .
Much of the country has suffered with poor performance for some time and Thames Valley has been no exception .
Things have improved and continue to do so ( the latest stats show an average wait of just one minute 36 seconds ) .
However problems still exist in reporting “ volume crimes ” , and too many people who have not even used 101 themselves know all too well the stories of being kept on hold for 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer is not simply a populist approach .
I am not advocating for the abandonment of victims of abuse and serious violence , who are numerically thankfully lower , in favour of the larger group who may have experienced lower level crimes .
However in speaking up for the public , Police & Crime Commissioners have a role to hold Chief Constables to account for how they are serving the whole population .
There is another part of the THOR ( Threat Harm Opportunity Risk ) model which is often overlooked , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is increasingly complex and there are sophisticated organised criminals seeking to exploit our weaknesses .
Whether it is cyber criminals working online to defraud people of their savings , or gangs working in rural areas to steal machinery and traffic it out of the country , there is often little physical harm .
In some circumstances there may even be threats of violence , and certainly menace , but once again , if no-one is actually hurt , then it does not always attract the attention it deserves .
There is a fantastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often generate a disproportionate amount of “ volume crime ” .
Some of this work has already begun and certainly in Thames Valley , the Force have taken advantage of the period of lockdown to advance work against some of these groups of organised criminals who cause so much pain to local communities , but do not always score so highly in the normal harm rankings .
There is much more to do , but it is vital that we seize this opportunity for renewal , accompanied by the increase in officer numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times ahead as a result of COVID-19 , but now is the time to reinvigorate local policing and ensure that as well as continuing to deal with the high harm crimes that undoubtedly deserve the utmost attention , the police demonstrate that they can address the concerns of residents that may not directly cause physical harm , but can undoubtedly bring about misery for communities .

Matthew Barber is the Conservative candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner for the Thames Valley. He is currently the Deputy PCC for that area.
In a world of competing demands we must have some way of prioritising. This is true in our own lives, our personal finances, and in public policy. We expect our doctors to prioritise those most in need of care, and so similarly we all expect the police to prioritise as well. In recent years, senior police officers across the country have developed an approach to prioritisation that looks at harm as the driver of decision making. The challenge is to balance competing harms.
Police forces up and down the country have adopted various acronyms for their methods of prioritisation such as THOR (Threat Hear Opportunity Risk) or THRIVE (Threat Harm Risk Investigation Vulnerability Engagement). Fundamental to all of these decision making-models is harm – and with good reason.
We all expect the police to protect us and our families from harm. Some would say it is what the emergency services exist for. It is easy to look at the extremes of harm in society, such as serious violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. We would all agree that these are areas that the police should prioritise for prevention and response. So far so good.
Thankfully, however, a majority of people will not become victims of these “high harm” offences. When presented with a list of possible offences, I would expect most of us would identify these most serious of crimes as the highest priority. However, in the abstract, the concerns regularly raised by residents are much more likely to relate to anti-social behaviour, speeding, or theft. These are the issues that are most likely to affect our communities and there remains a need to address these real life concerns.
In the complex system of policing, it must be possible to address multiple priorities at the same time. There is no simple trade off: a sexual assault may trump speeding, but both matter, albeit in different ways. This is critical not just because the offences themselves should be dealt with, but more fundamentally because we need to maintain confidence in the police.
Many of the high harm priorities that Forces will rightly put significant resources into tackling will take place behind closed doors, or at least away from the public gaze. If you have been a victim of what the police will often tellingly refer to as a “volume crime”, it could still have a huge impact on your life. This is where the supremacy of the harm assessment can be problematic. In many cases the crimes that many people will sadly experience cause very little harm. It will often involve the loss or damage of property. No-one has been physically hurt by the events, and so the harm is considered very low.
The logic of this approach is entirely reasonable, however it often ignores the non-physical impacts. If the bicycle that has been stolen is someone’s only means of getting to work, or the theft of tools from a van also stole someone’s livelihood, or repeated criminal damage causes someone to live in fear in their own home, then there is significant harm that is not always taken into account because it may not always be obvious.
Beyond the individual cases, the biggest loser in this game of chasing harm may be confidence in the police itself. In a system that still prides itself of policing by consent, confidence is everything. The police want, in fact need, the public to report incidents and intelligence in order to do their jobs. Yet, if the public have little or no confidence that their time spent reporting a crime will be worthwhile then they will simply stop doing so.
The problems with the 101 non-emergency telephone service are a good example of this. Much of the country has suffered with poor performance for some time and Thames Valley has been no exception. Things have improved and continue to do so (the latest stats show an average wait of just one minute 36 seconds). However problems still exist in reporting “volume crimes”, and too many people who have not even used 101 themselves know all too well the stories of being kept on hold for 20 minutes. So why bother?
The answer is not simply a populist approach. I am not advocating for the abandonment of victims of abuse and serious violence, who are numerically thankfully lower, in favour of the larger group who may have experienced lower level crimes. However in speaking up for the public, Police & Crime Commissioners have a role to hold Chief Constables to account for how they are serving the whole population.
There is another part of the THOR (Threat Harm Opportunity Risk) model which is often overlooked, and that is opportunity. Dealing with crime is increasingly complex and there are sophisticated organised criminals seeking to exploit our weaknesses. Whether it is cyber criminals working online to defraud people of their savings, or gangs working in rural areas to steal machinery and traffic it out of the country, there is often little physical harm. In some circumstances there may even be threats of violence, and certainly menace, but once again, if no-one is actually hurt, then it does not always attract the attention it deserves.
There is a fantastic opportunity to tackle these gangs that can often generate a disproportionate amount of “volume crime”. Some of this work has already begun and certainly in Thames Valley, the Force have taken advantage of the period of lockdown to advance work against some of these groups of organised criminals who cause so much pain to local communities, but do not always score so highly in the normal harm rankings.
There is much more to do, but it is vital that we seize this opportunity for renewal, accompanied by the increase in officer numbers. There will undoubtedly be difficult financial times ahead as a result of COVID-19, but now is the time to reinvigorate local policing and ensure that as well as continuing to deal with the high harm crimes that undoubtedly deserve the utmost attention, the police demonstrate that they can address the concerns of residents that may not directly cause physical harm, but can undoubtedly bring about misery for communities.


conservativehome--2020-08-26--Ben Roback: What the Republican and Democratic conventions tell us about the state of the race

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
The Democratic convention concluded last week without the traditional ticker tape parade and fireworks .
There were no screaming hordes or huddled delegates .
It was the BBC Proms without Rule Britannia , if you will .
That could not have been helped , of course , given the restrictions imposed by COVID-19 .
Nevertheless , both parties have done their level best to inject energy and enthusiasm into proceedings .
The most notable example was an often overzealous ( and at times borderline fanatical ) speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Trump Victory Finance Committee 2020 .
“ The best is yet to come !
” she yelled , into an empty convention hall .
The speech desperately needed the reaction of an excitable crowd .
Instead it felt overly aggressive .
Instead , at the Republican Convention so far , the standout moment was Nikki Haley ’ s more orthodox convention speech .
The former South Carolina Governor and United States Ambassador to the United Nations ’ serious tone and vision will be viewed for years to come as her launch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unlike most of her Republican colleagues , Haley attempted to deliver a serious answer to the current question of racism in America .
Instead of describing the election as “ shaping up to be church , work and schools versus rioting , looting and vandalism ” ( Donald Trump Jr. ) , Haley addressed the issue through a personal prism , describing her background growing up with Indian immigrant parents and becoming the first female Governor of South Carolina .
Although previously a supporter of Marco Rubio ’ s presidential campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who served in the Trump administration and left on her own terms whilst retaining good relations with the President .
If Trump loses in November , attention will quickly turn to her own aspirations .
The Republicans and Democrats appear to have pursued very different strategies At the start of the year , President Trump would have expected and wanted his convention to be almost entirely about the economy – huge economic growth , low unemployment and record stock market rises .
The Democrats might have turned their attention to his record and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and culture in America .
How times have changed .
It is quite clear from that convention so far that the Republican game plan is now centred on cultural issues – namely crime , patriotism and American identity .
Joe Biden seems to have caught the zeitgeist a little better , recognising that America is jointly experiencing cultural shifts as well as health and economic crises brought about by COVID-19 .
The Trump campaign and Republican convention has ignored coronavirus entirely .
The second abundantly clear difference has been in personnel .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who like people whose surname is Trump : Eric , Donald Jr. , Tiffany and Melania have all spoken so far .
Eric Trump , who has tended to be marginally less visible and antagonistic towards the left that his brother Donald Jr. , used a portion of his speech to speak directly to his father and lavish praise on the President ’ s first term .
But the substance of much of his speech was directed at the Republican base and once again reminded us of the tone the campaign will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days .
“ Cancel culture ” , accusing Democrats of “ lacking patriotism ” and “ disrespecting our national anthem by taking a knee ” both featured heavily .
Those hoping for an insight into four more years of Trumpism were left underwhelmed .
Several speakers on the Republican stage painted a picture of a nation on the precipice of Communist chaos .
Voters must choose between either liberty or looting .
Prosperity or protest .
Advancement or anarchy .
The Democratic candidate , they have argued , is in the pocket of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strength to stop towns and cities across America being blighted by the scenes of civil disorder we have seen time and again this year .
The shooting of a black man by armed police in Kenosha , Wisconsin , has framed the Republican convention .
Street battles have raged between protesters and the police following the shooting of Jacob Blake .
Republicans have pointed to the disorder as proof of their warning that law and order might come to an end the moment Donald Trump leaves the White House .
Democrats counter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgent need to reform police behaviour .
Expect the debate to repeat itself long into the election cycle .
Speakers at the virtual Democratic convention have tried to take a more optimistic tone , painting Biden as a man who can unify a country whose social fabric appears to be cracking at the seams .
But it is impossible to escape the fact that a question of credibility might underline that message .
Barack Obama sailed into the White House – twice – on an upbeat message of hope and change .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to match his optimistic tone , to many Obama embodied his message .
Biden might well be a unifier , but as a career creature of Washington , is he best placed to carry a message of change ?
So far , the underlying message appear to simply be ‘ let ’ s get the other guy out of the White House ’ .
Viewing figures are helpful but can not determine a convention ’ s success or failure This is a White House and President obsessed with viewing figures .
Trump might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Republican convention ’ s figures .
A total of 15.8 million Americans tuned in , nearly 3 million fewer than the 18.7 million viewers who watched the first night of the Democratic National Convention across the same number of networks .
Biden ’ s keynote speech was watched by 21.8 million Americans – a number the President will be desperate to beat when he takes the stage .
For historic context , Trump ’ s acceptance speech at the Republican convention four years ago drew 34.9 million viewers .
Those numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategies taken by the parties .
The stage and big screens at the Democratic convention were graced by the great and the good of Hollywood and high society .
Chaired by Desperate Housewives star Eva Longoria and with comedic interludes from Veep and Seinfeld ’ s Julia Louis-Dreyfus , the Democratic convention felt at times more like a political take on an all-star awards gala .
In stark contrast , the high watermark of the Republican convention ’ s first night was a piece to camera by the St Louis couple who pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they marched past their home .
The American public could be forgiven for opting for a night of Netflix instead .
Trump might be lagging in the opinion polls , but he certainly makes for entertaining viewing .
For some , politics is a more serious business than that – especially when a country is in the grip of simultaneous health , economic and social crises .
When he stands behind the microphone in the White House to deliver his keynote speech , the President does so as the Republican candidate for president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As such , his keynote speech will command the attention of more than just the nation .
You can bet with certainty that his convention speech will be far from conventional .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
The Democratic convention concluded last week without the traditional ticker tape parade and fireworks. There were no screaming hordes or huddled delegates. It was the BBC Proms without Rule Britannia, if you will.
That could not have been helped, of course, given the restrictions imposed by COVID-19. Nevertheless, both parties have done their level best to inject energy and enthusiasm into proceedings.
The most notable example was an often overzealous (and at times borderline fanatical) speech made by Kimberly Guilfoyle, National Chair of the Trump Victory Finance Committee 2020. “The best is yet to come!” she yelled, into an empty convention hall. The speech desperately needed the reaction of an excitable crowd. Instead it felt overly aggressive.
Instead, at the Republican Convention so far, the standout moment was Nikki Haley’s more orthodox convention speech. The former South Carolina Governor and United States Ambassador to the United Nations’ serious tone and vision will be viewed for years to come as her launch pad for a presidential run in 2024. Unlike most of her Republican colleagues, Haley attempted to deliver a serious answer to the current question of racism in America. Instead of describing the election as “shaping up to be church, work and schools versus rioting, looting and vandalism” (Donald Trump Jr.), Haley addressed the issue through a personal prism, describing her background growing up with Indian immigrant parents and becoming the first female Governor of South Carolina.
Although previously a supporter of Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign, Haley is a rare example of someone who served in the Trump administration and left on her own terms whilst retaining good relations with the President. If Trump loses in November, attention will quickly turn to her own aspirations.
The Republicans and Democrats appear to have pursued very different strategies
At the start of the year, President Trump would have expected and wanted his convention to be almost entirely about the economy – huge economic growth, low unemployment and record stock market rises. The Democrats might have turned their attention to his record and remarks on immigration, women, race and culture in America. How times have changed.
It is quite clear from that convention so far that the Republican game plan is now centred on cultural issues – namely crime, patriotism and American identity. Joe Biden seems to have caught the zeitgeist a little better, recognising that America is jointly experiencing cultural shifts as well as health and economic crises brought about by COVID-19. The Trump campaign and Republican convention has ignored coronavirus entirely.
The second abundantly clear difference has been in personnel.
The Republican convention has been popular viewing for those who like people whose surname is Trump: Eric, Donald Jr., Tiffany and Melania have all spoken so far. Eric Trump, who has tended to be marginally less visible and antagonistic towards the left that his brother Donald Jr., used a portion of his speech to speak directly to his father and lavish praise on the President’s first term.
But the substance of much of his speech was directed at the Republican base and once again reminded us of the tone the campaign will pursue in the next 70 or so days. “Cancel culture”, accusing Democrats of “lacking patriotism” and “disrespecting our national anthem by taking a knee” both featured heavily. Those hoping for an insight into four more years of Trumpism were left underwhelmed.
Several speakers on the Republican stage painted a picture of a nation on the precipice of Communist chaos. Voters must choose between either liberty or looting. Prosperity or protest. Advancement or anarchy. The Democratic candidate, they have argued, is in the pocket of the radical left and does not have the strength to stop towns and cities across America being blighted by the scenes of civil disorder we have seen time and again this year.
The shooting of a black man by armed police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has framed the Republican convention. Street battles have raged between protesters and the police following the shooting of Jacob Blake. Republicans have pointed to the disorder as proof of their warning that law and order might come to an end the moment Donald Trump leaves the White House. Democrats counter that it is further evidence of the urgent need to reform police behaviour. Expect the debate to repeat itself long into the election cycle.
Speakers at the virtual Democratic convention have tried to take a more optimistic tone, painting Biden as a man who can unify a country whose social fabric appears to be cracking at the seams. But it is impossible to escape the fact that a question of credibility might underline that message. Barack Obama sailed into the White House – twice – on an upbeat message of hope and change. A young Senator from Chicago with youthful looks to match his optimistic tone, to many Obama embodied his message. Biden might well be a unifier, but as a career creature of Washington, is he best placed to carry a message of change? So far, the underlying message appear to simply be ‘let’s get the other guy out of the White House’.
Viewing figures are helpful but cannot determine a convention’s success or failure
This is a White House and President obsessed with viewing figures. Trump might therefore be concerned with the first night of the Republican convention’s figures. A total of 15.8 million Americans tuned in, nearly 3 million fewer than the 18.7 million viewers who watched the first night of the Democratic National Convention across the same number of networks. Biden’s keynote speech was watched by 21.8 million Americans – a number the President will be desperate to beat when he takes the stage. For historic context, Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention four years ago drew 34.9 million viewers.
Those numbers might have quite understandably reflected the contrasting strategies taken by the parties. The stage and big screens at the Democratic convention were graced by the great and the good of Hollywood and high society. Chaired by Desperate Housewives star Eva Longoria and with comedic interludes from Veep and Seinfeld’s Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the Democratic convention felt at times more like a political take on an all-star awards gala.
In stark contrast, the high watermark of the Republican convention’s first night was a piece to camera by the St Louis couple who pointed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters as they marched past their home. The American public could be forgiven for opting for a night of Netflix instead.
Trump might be lagging in the opinion polls, but he certainly makes for entertaining viewing. For some, politics is a more serious business than that – especially when a country is in the grip of simultaneous health, economic and social crises. When he stands behind the microphone in the White House to deliver his keynote speech, the President does so as the Republican candidate for president but also the sitting Commander in Chief. As such, his keynote speech will command the attention of more than just the nation. You can bet with certainty that his convention speech will be far from conventional.


conservativehome--2020-08-26--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of Innovate UK – 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 .
“ Joint Nature Conservation Committee ( JNCC ) Framework Document provides the legal , administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair .
As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership , direction and effectiveness of JNCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Defra and the Devolved Administrations .
You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee .
You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC , setting strategic and operational direction , ensuring good governance and , together with the Joint Committee , holding the executive to account.
” “ Environmental Standards Scotland will be established , initially , on a non-statutory basis from January 2021 .
It will transition to a statutory , independent body over the course of 2021 .
The Board will initially comprise of the Chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation , further board appointments are expected .
Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role , including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor ; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation ; resolving these through agreement with public authorities , where possible ; and , highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.
” Time : 8-10 days per month initially , ~4 per month thereafter .
“ This role is therefore an extraordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry , and who has a track record of board leadership , to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors .
The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors ’ recovery from Covid-19 , and long-term success thereafter .
To do so , the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry , business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or government.
” Time : Up to two days per month .
“ The Secretary of State for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport is seeking to appoint an outstanding individual to be Chair of the National Lottery Community Fund .
Applications are welcomed from underrepresented groups to ensure the National Lottery Community Fund reflects the diverse society it serves .
The Fund is currently supporting communities across the UK to adjust to and recover from the coronavirus crisis .
It is also a time when the Fund has gone through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it well placed to deliver our ambitious plans to achieve the Fund ’ s purpose : supporting people and communities thrive .
The Fund has many of the building blocks in place to add even greater value to civil society and public life .
Our contribution is as varied as it is vital.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Charity Commission has a clear purpose : to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society .
To help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity , and meet the challenges we face , in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital , Culture , Media and Sport , the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP , wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales .
A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020 .
This is a senior role requiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission .
” “ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate : Her Majesty ’ s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ( HMCPSI ) .
The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation , efficiency , and effectiveness of the public prosecutors ( the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) and the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO ) ) .
The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held to account and to improve , thereby strengthening the public ’ s trust in the prosecution process .
Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.
” “ The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards .
They are responsible for : identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards ; leading on the development of new standards ; and where necessary , providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards .
The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field , encompassing at least one of the following : leadership in a forensic , or related , scientific discipline ; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment ; the regulatory process involving scientific standards ; or the criminal justice system.
” “ The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole , sponsored by the Department for Education and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education .
The Commissioner ’ s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England .
The legislative basis for the office of Children ’ s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004 .
This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder .
The legislation relating to the Children ’ s Commissioner is permissive , allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and , in general , can not conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.
” “ We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience , international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair .
The central priority of Innovate UK , under a new Executive Chair , will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK ’ s innovation capacity and capability , taking full advantage of its considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation ’ s position within key markets , providing impactful thought leadership to the UK ’ s innovation system .
As the pivotal funding body for business R & D , especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country , the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R & D and technologies of the future.
” Remuneration : £180,000 per annum base , up to £37,500 performance-related .

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Joint Nature Conservation Committee – Chair
“Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Framework Document provides the legal, administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair. As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership, direction and effectiveness of JNCC in line with strategies and plans agreed with Defra and the Devolved Administrations. You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee. You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC, setting strategic and operational direction, ensuring good governance and, together with the Joint Committee, holding the executive to account.”
Time: 2.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,059 per annum.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Environmental Standards Scotland – Chair/Members
“Environmental Standards Scotland will be established, initially, on a non-statutory basis from January 2021. It will transition to a statutory, independent body over the course of 2021. The Board will initially comprise of the Chair and two other members. Once Environmental Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation, further board appointments are expected. Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role, including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation; resolving these through agreement with public authorities, where possible; and, highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.”
Time: 8-10 days per month initially, ~4 per month thereafter.
Remuneration: £300/£200 per diem.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
British Film Institute (BFI) – Chair
“This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry, and who has a track record of board leadership, to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors. The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors’ recovery from Covid-19, and long-term success thereafter. To do so, the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry, business, a major charitable or cultural institution, or government.”
Time: Up to two days per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 05 September
– – – – – – – – – –
National Lottery Community Fund – Chair of the Board
“The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is seeking to appoint an outstanding individual to be Chair of the National Lottery Community Fund. Applications are welcomed from underrepresented groups to ensure the National Lottery Community Fund reflects the diverse society it serves. The Fund is currently supporting communities across the UK to adjust to and recover from the coronavirus crisis. It is also a time when the Fund has gone through a period of investment and development, making it well placed to deliver our ambitious plans to achieve the Fund’s purpose: supporting people and communities thrive. The Fund has many of the building blocks in place to add even greater value to civil society and public life. Our contribution is as varied as it is vital.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 07 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Charity Commission – Board Member
“The Charity Commission has a clear purpose: to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society. To help us meet that purpose, fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity, and meet the challenges we face, in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP, wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020. This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission. ”
Time: Approx. 24 days per year.
Remuneration: £350 per diem plus expenses.
Closes: 13 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Forensic Science Regulator
“The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards. They are responsible for: identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards; leading on the development of new standards; and where necessary, providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards. The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field, encompassing at least one of the following: leadership in a forensic, or related, scientific discipline; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment; the regulatory process involving scientific standards; or the criminal justice system.”
Time: 3-4 days per week.
Remuneration: £96,000 per annum FTE.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September


conservativehome--2020-08-26--These BBC Bourbons who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing risk precipitating their own downf

These BBC Bourbons who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing risk precipitating their own downfall

The upper reaches of BBC management suffer from an unfortunate inability to comprehend any opinion which happens not to coincide with what they themselves think .
Almost anyone else would have known that vandalising the Last Night of the Proms would provoke a furious reaction .
It is not necessary to be , oneself , an enthusiastic singer of Rule Britannia !
and Land of Hope and Glory in order to realise that to many people , these performances give enormous and innocent pleasure .
The idea of an innocent pleasure is alien to the modern puritans who run the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear simply a song .
A dreadful literal-mindedness is brought to bear on the interpretation of lyrics , even of single words , whose spirit can never be caught by such pedantry .
“ Britons never , never , never shall be slaves ” is not a line which implies that other people ought to be enslaved .
It is a joyful affirmation of the liberty which Britons are fortunate enough to possess , and are determined to defend .
How absurd to need to spell this out .
But perhaps by behaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has done the country a service .
The Labour leader , Keir Starmer , seized the chance to observe that “ enjoying patriotic songs ” is no barrier to examining our past and learning lessons from it .
Boris Johnson went one better and declared , “ I think it ’ s time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history.
” The pharisaical notion that one can show how high-minded one is by expressing one ’ s shame at the country ’ s history has taken a knock .
There are doubtless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we sing , which in years to come will seem in poor taste , or worse .
The wider public knows how unfair it is to condemn one epoch for failing to meet the standards of another .
Yet more and more , the modern puritans invite us to take this attitude to the past , and to savour the delights of a cost-free self-righteousness .
Anyone who refuses to share in their censoriousness can be condemned as a sinner .
Here is a monstrous intolerance , disguised as a higher morality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ forbidden lyric , and you can be cast into outer darkness , never again to be invited to move in the polite society where BBC managers spend the few hours they can spare from leading the rest of us in the paths of virtue and of truth .
The public is fed up with such condescension .
These BBC Bourbons who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing are in danger of precipitating their own downfall .

The upper reaches of BBC management suffer from an unfortunate inability to comprehend any opinion which happens not to coincide with what they themselves think.
Almost anyone else would have known that vandalising the Last Night of the Proms would provoke a furious reaction.
It is not necessary to be, oneself, an enthusiastic singer of Rule Britannia! and Land of Hope and Glory in order to realise that to many people, these performances give enormous and innocent pleasure.
The idea of an innocent pleasure is alien to the modern puritans who run the BBC. They detect guilt where others hear simply a song.
A dreadful literal-mindedness is brought to bear on the interpretation of lyrics, even of single words, whose spirit can never be caught by such pedantry.
“Britons never, never, never shall be slaves” is not a line which implies that other people ought to be enslaved. It is a joyful affirmation of the liberty which Britons are fortunate enough to possess, and are determined to defend. How absurd to need to spell this out.
But perhaps by behaving in such a ridiculous way the BBC has done the country a service. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, seized the chance to observe that “enjoying patriotic songs” is no barrier to examining our past and learning lessons from it.
Boris Johnson went one better and declared, “I think it’s time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history.”
The pharisaical notion that one can show how high-minded one is by expressing one’s shame at the country’s history has taken a knock.
There are doubtless things we do now, and songs we sing, which in years to come will seem in poor taste, or worse.
The wider public knows how unfair it is to condemn one epoch for failing to meet the standards of another. Yet more and more, the modern puritans invite us to take this attitude to the past, and to savour the delights of a cost-free self-righteousness.
Anyone who refuses to share in their censoriousness can be condemned as a sinner. Here is a monstrous intolerance, disguised as a higher morality.
Employ some forbidden expression, sing some forbidden lyric, and you can be cast into outer darkness, never again to be invited to move in the polite society where BBC managers spend the few hours they can spare from leading the rest of us in the paths of virtue and of truth.
The public is fed up with such condescension. These BBC Bourbons who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing are in danger of precipitating their own downfall.


conservativehome--2020-08-26--Darren Grimes: Out of office but in power. How the Left keeps losing elections, yet gets its way non

Darren Grimes: Out of office but in power. How the Left keeps losing elections, yet gets its way nonetheless.

I appeared on the BBC ’ s Sunday Morning Live last weekend .
To put it bluntly , I was surprised to get the bid from the producer ( who was a delight to work with ) to speak about education .
I know the BBC is set to spend £100 million on boosting its diversity and inclusion , but I felt that diversity would stop short at cultural conservatives from working class backgrounds who don ’ t have degrees .
The appearance itself was over in about ten minutes .
I felt it went pretty well .
I argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 50 per cent of kids that finish their 16-18 education taking A-levels , at the expense of the other half that do not – who tend to be our country ’ s least well off .
And that it ’ s wrong to attack the seven per cent of kids that go to private schools , instead of discussing why it ’ s no longer the case – as it was for an astounding 33 years , from Harold Wilson to John Major – that our Prime Ministers are educated at state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sitting down preparing to stuff my face silly with Yorkshire puddings – I had a text from a mate informing me that I was trending on Twitter , and that the mob was outraged .
“ What the hell have I done now ?
” I pondered aloud , as I read tweets going viral with their own alarming R rate , including offerings from an Oxford professor and those with EU flags in their Twitter biographies .
I grasped that my crime was to be “ uneducated ” – an ignorant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How dare someone who once worked as an apprentice hairdresser offer his views on the BBC ?
And more importantly to them , how dare the BBC offer up the opinions of Someone Who Isn ’ t Like Us ?
Ben Norton sagely pointed out on Twitter that the same Oxford professor who places such a high bar for TV slots , with general snobbery for the likes of me , applies a different standard when it comes to the terrier-sized teenager Greta Thunberg , who lectures us all on the science of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you would generally associate with such a platform .
The incident got me thinking about why the Left keeps losing .
It focuses too much on issues that appeal massively to city-dwelling Twitter , so reinforcing its own biases .
It convinces itself that the endorsements of actors and pop stars will see them through to victory .
They believes that there ’ s a majority which cringes Rule Britannia , and dislikes rituals of national celebration , or having pride in place and nation .
And it seems to think that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-ID reforms for trans men and women .
Does any of this matter ?
You might wonder why I ’ ve chewed your ear off for 500 words on how much of a left-wing cesspit Twitter is : why the hell I even bother myself with it ?
As Jonathan Swift once said , it is “ the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom.
” The same can be said about Twitter .
But the problem arising from it is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media – policy-makers and commentators who are in a position to shape public policy and shape the national debate to their liking .
Their views , mirroring Twitters , are reflected in our institutions .
For a Conservative Government serious about levelling-up , focusing on those that don ’ t do A-levels upon leaving school and ignoring the blather about private schools should be a priority .
For a Conservative Government serious about challenging the Marxist march through our institutions , getting conservatives into positions of power should be a priority .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning again , sorting out the immigration crisis in the English Channel should be a priority .
The consequences of ignoring all this , and comforting yourself with the knowledge that the loony Left keeps losing elections , is this : each time a politician bends the knee , the BBC indulges itself by removing anthems , a museum removes a bust to rewrite history , and rioting is ignored by the police , we move one stop closer to allowing a tyrannical Twitter-dwelling minority to become very powerful indeed .
In responding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Land of Hope and Glory and Rule , Britannia !
will be played at this year ’ s Last Night of the Proms , Boris Johnson said : “ I think it ’ s time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history , about our traditions , and about our culture , and we stopped this general fight of self-recrimination and wetness.
” Wise words , Prime Minister , wise words – but what are you going to do about it ?
It might not be fashionable for people like me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadcaster on Twitter , but for a Government with an 80-seat majority to also be rendered unable to focus on and fix these pressing issues is a sign that , yes , whilst the Left does indeed keep losing , it ’ s not really all that far from the levers of power .

I appeared on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live last weekend. To put it bluntly, I was surprised to get the bid from the producer (who was a delight to work with) to speak about education. I know the BBC is set to spend £100 million on boosting its diversity and inclusion, but I felt that diversity would stop short at cultural conservatives from working class backgrounds who don’t have degrees.
The appearance itself was over in about ten minutes. I felt it went pretty well. I argued that we have a relentless focus on the 50 per cent of kids that finish their 16-18 education taking A-levels, at the expense of the other half that do not – who tend to be our country’s least well off.
And that it’s wrong to attack the seven per cent of kids that go to private schools, instead of discussing why it’s no longer the case – as it was for an astounding 33 years, from Harold Wilson to John Major – that our Prime Ministers are educated at state schools.
Yet later – as I was sitting down preparing to stuff my face silly with Yorkshire puddings – I had a text from a mate informing me that I was trending on Twitter, and that the mob was outraged.
“What the hell have I done now?” I pondered aloud, as I read tweets going viral with their own alarming R rate, including offerings from an Oxford professor and those with EU flags in their Twitter biographies.
I grasped that my crime was to be “uneducated” – an ignorant oik with ideas above his station. How dare someone who once worked as an apprentice hairdresser offer his views on the BBC? And more importantly to them, how dare the BBC offer up the opinions of Someone Who Isn’t Like Us?
Ben Norton sagely pointed out on Twitter that the same Oxford professor who places such a high bar for TV slots, with general snobbery for the likes of me, applies a different standard when it comes to the terrier-sized teenager Greta Thunberg, who lectures us all on the science of climate change without any of the qualifications you would generally associate with such a platform.
The incident got me thinking about why the Left keeps losing. It focuses too much on issues that appeal massively to city-dwelling Twitter, so reinforcing its own biases. It convinces itself that the endorsements of actors and pop stars will see them through to victory. They believes that there’s a majority which cringes Rule Britannia, and dislikes rituals of national celebration, or having pride in place and nation. And it seems to think that the only issue which matters right now is self-ID reforms for trans men and women.
Does any of this matter? You might wonder why I’ve chewed your ear off for 500 words on how much of a left-wing cesspit Twitter is: why the hell I even bother myself with it? As Jonathan Swift once said, it is “the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom.”
The same can be said about Twitter. But the problem arising from it is that those on the platform are disproportionately in the media – policy-makers and commentators who are in a position to shape public policy and shape the national debate to their liking. Their views, mirroring Twitters, are reflected in our institutions.
For a Conservative Government serious about levelling-up, focusing on those that don’t do A-levels upon leaving school and ignoring the blather about private schools should be a priority. For a Conservative Government serious about challenging the Marxist march through our institutions, getting conservatives into positions of power should be a priority. And for a Conservative Government serious about winning again, sorting out the immigration crisis in the English Channel should be a priority.
The consequences of ignoring all this, and comforting yourself with the knowledge that the loony Left keeps losing elections, is this: each time a politician bends the knee, the BBC indulges itself by removing anthems, a museum removes a bust to rewrite history, and rioting is ignored by the police, we move one stop closer to allowing a tyrannical Twitter-dwelling minority to become very powerful indeed.
In responding to the news that only orchestral versions of Land of Hope and Glory and Rule, Britannia! will be played at this year’s Last Night of the Proms, Boris Johnson said: “I think it’s time we stopped our cringing embarrassment about our history, about our traditions, and about our culture, and we stopped this general fight of self-recrimination and wetness.” Wise words, Prime Minister, wise words – but what are you going to do about it?
It might not be fashionable for people like me to express my views about our national broadcaster on Twitter, but for a Government with an 80-seat majority to also be rendered unable to focus on and fix these pressing issues is a sign that, yes, whilst the Left does indeed keep losing, it’s not really all that far from the levers of power.


conservativehome--2020-08-26--Ian Lewis: Housing associations lack transparency. They should face more competition.

Cllr Ian Lewis is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Wirral Council .
Sadly , it has taken a global pandemic to achieve , in a matter of weeks , what has eluded us for years – namely , safe and secure accommodation for around 15,000 homeless and rough sleepers .
This article is an observation about how these 15,000 people , and others , have , until now , been failed by society – politicians , councils , agencies , and housing associations .
Here in Wirral , a metropolitan borough facing Liverpool across the Mersey , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , within days , found accommodation following the Government ’ s “ Everyone In ” directive .
The staff at Wirral Council , like many others , worked tirelessly with local organisations , such as Wirral YMCA , to find accommodation , often permanent for people who had been left behind .
Whatever the reason for people being homeless – whether it is addiction , mental health , relationship breakdown , or domestic violence – it is the responsibility of all of us , and yes , including Government , ANY Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Too often , we forget that it is also the responsibility of those organisations that receive substantial government ( i.e .
taxpayer ) money – housing associations or , as they like to be called nowadays “ registered social landlords ” .
As an observer , and with one or two notable exceptions locally , housing associations have become part of the problem instead of their original purpose , part of the solution .
Housing Associations exist in that shadowy grey area of being neither public nor private , thus avoiding scrutiny from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are regulators but ensuring compliance is not the same as ensuring value for money or a “ positive outcome ” .
Glossy annual reports with carefully selected smiling tenants and littered with awards and logos are of little protection if you are sleeping in a doorway in winter .
Not only are housing associations boosted by capital grants from the Government , but their revenue is supported , almost without question , by Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance .
In 2005 ( under a Labour Government ) , Wirral ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly established housing association that pledged to be “ tenant-led ” .
We did this because the Council could not afford to bring these properties up to the Decent Homes Standard that was first set out in 2000 .
20 years later , and some tenants are still waiting for the most basic improvements – to bathrooms , kitchens or , in the case of flats , communal areas .
At the same time , valuable sites now owned by Associations in “ up market areas ” have been flogged off and tenants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ social cleansing ” .
Trying to obtain factual , unspun information is almost impossible .
In spite of relying on taxpayer support , the Freedom of Information Act does not apply .
Nor does the requirement to publish all monthly spending over £500 , as we require of councils .
Meanwhile , the most vulnerable are left to get on with it – either on the streets , sofa surfing , or in Houses in Multiple Occupation .
These are the very people which housing associations were established to serve but “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viable ” , they say .
Sometimes the big housing associations can be a bit too picky about who they will accommodate –the current Covid 19 situation has possibly forced their hand to be a little more flexible but they do seem to struggle accommodating the highly chaotic tenants we often find have to be temporarily housed , adding to their chaotic situation of disrupted schools , social services , medical support , or family links .
The other key element of the bigger homelessness picture is of course mental health and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatments .
Some are waiting years for assessments and endure a lifestyle struggling with their conditions while those around them have to cope with their increasingly chaotic and at times problematic behaviour , left on a waiting list that the Council manages , but can not tackle , without the goodwill of housing associations and landlords .
More regulation ?
Unlikely , and will surely just lead to more or bigger quangos , with yet more trendy logos and topflight salaries for the senior management team .
More Government grants ?
Probably .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money prior to the pandemic achieved and how it was used .
Ultimately , this is about a roof over their head , with the support services needed to help with poor mental health , addiction , or money management .
Why shouldn ’ t councils build the homes that are needed ?
More council homes mean a healthy competition with the housing associations as to who can house the most people , most quickly .
Here in Wirral , the Conservative Group wants the council to re-enter the housing market , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to build housing – in a way that cuts out the middleman .
This isn ’ t radical – more new council homes have been built since 2010 than during the previous Labour Government .
Why on earth would any Government , let alone a Conservative Government committed to “ levelling up ” , not embrace that ?

Cllr Ian Lewis is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Wirral Council.
Sadly, it has taken a global pandemic to achieve, in a matter of weeks, what has eluded us for years – namely, safe and secure accommodation for around 15,000 homeless and rough sleepers.
This article is an observation about how these 15,000 people, and others, have, until now, been failed by society – politicians, councils, agencies, and housing associations.
Here in Wirral, a metropolitan borough facing Liverpool across the Mersey, more than 120 homeless people and rough sleepers were, within days, found accommodation following the Government’s “Everyone In” directive.
The staff at Wirral Council, like many others, worked tirelessly with local organisations, such as Wirral YMCA, to find accommodation, often permanent for people who had been left behind.
Whatever the reason for people being homeless – whether it is addiction, mental health, relationship breakdown, or domestic violence – it is the responsibility of all of us, and yes, including Government, ANY Government, to support and help them.
Too often, we forget that it is also the responsibility of those organisations that receive substantial government (i.e. taxpayer) money – housing associations or, as they like to be called nowadays “registered social landlords”. As an observer, and with one or two notable exceptions locally, housing associations have become part of the problem instead of their original purpose, part of the solution.
Housing Associations exist in that shadowy grey area of being neither public nor private, thus avoiding scrutiny from the taxpayer or shareholder. Yes, there are regulators but ensuring compliance is not the same as ensuring value for money or a “positive outcome”.
Glossy annual reports with carefully selected smiling tenants and littered with awards and logos are of little protection if you are sleeping in a doorway in winter.
Not only are housing associations boosted by capital grants from the Government, but their revenue is supported, almost without question, by Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance.
In 2005 (under a Labour Government), Wirral’s 13,100 council homes were transferred to a newly established housing association that pledged to be “tenant-led”. We did this because the Council could not afford to bring these properties up to the Decent Homes Standard that was first set out in 2000.
20 years later, and some tenants are still waiting for the most basic improvements – to bathrooms, kitchens or, in the case of flats, communal areas. At the same time, valuable sites now owned by Associations in “up market areas” have been flogged off and tenants removed. Others have used the term “social cleansing”.
Trying to obtain factual, unspun information is almost impossible. In spite of relying on taxpayer support, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply. Nor does the requirement to publish all monthly spending over £500, as we require of councils.
Meanwhile, the most vulnerable are left to get on with it – either on the streets, sofa surfing, or in Houses in Multiple Occupation.
These are the very people which housing associations were established to serve but “too difficult to help or not financially viable”, they say.
Sometimes the big housing associations can be a bit too picky about who they will accommodate –the current Covid 19 situation has possibly forced their hand to be a little more flexible but they do seem to struggle accommodating the highly chaotic tenants we often find have to be temporarily housed, adding to their chaotic situation of disrupted schools, social services, medical support, or family links.
The other key element of the bigger homelessness picture is of course mental health and people being able to access quick interventions and treatments.
Some are waiting years for assessments and endure a lifestyle struggling with their conditions while those around them have to cope with their increasingly chaotic and at times problematic behaviour, left on a waiting list that the Council manages, but cannot tackle, without the goodwill of housing associations and landlords.
So, what’s the answer?
More regulation? Unlikely, and will surely just lead to more or bigger quangos, with yet more trendy logos and topflight salaries for the senior management team.
More Government grants? Probably. But questions should be asked about what the money prior to the pandemic achieved and how it was used.
Ultimately, this is about a roof over their head, with the support services needed to help with poor mental health, addiction, or money management.
Why shouldn’t councils build the homes that are needed? More council homes mean a healthy competition with the housing associations as to who can house the most people, most quickly.
Here in Wirral, the Conservative Group wants the council to re-enter the housing market, using low costs of capital to borrow to build housing – in a way that cuts out the middleman.
This isn’t radical – more new council homes have been built since 2010 than during the previous Labour Government. Why on earth would any Government, let alone a Conservative Government committed to “levelling up”, not embrace that?


conservativehome--2020-08-28--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of Innovate UK – and more


conservativehome--2020-08-28--If you back CANZUK, you should also support the D10 – an alliance of democracies

If by CANZUK you mean new trade deals , four of the five eyes , and stronger cultural links with some of what Churchill called “ the English-speaking peoples ” , we ’ re all for it .
If by CANZUK you mean free movement , a NATO-type defence union and a single Joe Chamberlain-style economic bloc , our advice is to lie down until the feeling goes away .
The subject is topical because Erin O ’ Toole , the new Conservative Party leader in Canada , sees CANZUK as “ a top priority ” .
His version is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first would sit comfortably with another idea whose time has come – the D10 , about which James Rogers of the Henry Jackson Society wrote recently on this site , and which Boris Johnson ’ s Downing Street is rather keen on .
Expect it to feature in the Defence and Security Review .
Where NATO is a hard power alliance , the orientation of which is still to confront Russia by military means if necessary , the D10 would be a soft power one , aimed at countering the influence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we couldn ’ t comment , ” a Government insider told ConHome , adding that “ the idea is being picked up by a broad listenership , which includes Canada and Australia.
” “ There ’ s some interest in Bidenland .
And for the medium-sized powers , there ’ s security in numbers .
The idea ’ s in the ether , but it could materialise.
” The UK chairs the G7 next year , so the stage is set for the idea to get a push then , after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So : who would be in the D10 ?
CANZUK enthusiasts should note that three of the four potential members would be in it : Canada , Australia and the UK .
New Zealand leans towards a different foreign policy orientation .
Then turn to the G7 , of which the UK and Canada are already members .
Add Australia and South Korea to the United States , Japan , and the three EU country members – France , Germany and Italy – and you have a total of nine .
Finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ten major democracies with different military orientations and economies – but shared democratic values .
One could seek to draw other countries in – such as Spain , for example .
But what is being looked for here is a group big enough to work , but not so big as to be unwieldy .
During the Cold War , America and western Europe tended to speak with one voice .
Post-war progress , wealth and stability was built on this alliance – expressed in its security dimension by NATO .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapse of communism – with two members , Greece and Turkey , at loggerheads , and others , such as Turkey and Hungary , moving closer to Russia .
Which imperils NATO ’ s integrity – but even were it functioning seamlessly , the organisation isn ’ t shaped to deal with China , not only because of where it sits but because of what it does .
A soft power D10 wouldn ’ t be a rival to a military alliance .
It would differ in purpose to the G20 , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plus the entire EU .
It would take in most of CANZUK , as noted .
At a time when China is expanding its interests through the Belt and Road Initiative , the D10 would offer a counterweight , in terms of investment , capacity-building , aid and the promotion of democratic values .
It could also begin to speak with a common voice at the United Nations , and there would be an obvious crossover with the Trans-Pacific Partnership , which the UK is keen to join , as our columnist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The EU countries are not on the same page as America on China – or , to strike a very topical note , on Iran , over which Britain is sticking with the EU position rather than moving towards the American one , having voted recently the former at the UN .
Doubtless part of the diplomatic thinking is the calcuation that Donald Trump may not be in place after November – which may be wrong .
Elsewhere , Narendra Modi is taking India in a different direction from its secular heritage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this alliance could conjure up a quick alternative provider to Huawei .
But if you believe that the great post-war alliance between America and western Europe was of value , you will smile on a new means of creating a modern version for a different purpose .

If by CANZUK you mean new trade deals, four of the five eyes, and stronger cultural links with some of what Churchill called “the English-speaking peoples”, we’re all for it.
If by CANZUK you mean free movement, a NATO-type defence union and a single Joe Chamberlain-style economic bloc, our advice is to lie down until the feeling goes away.
The subject is topical because Erin O’Toole, the new Conservative Party leader in Canada, sees CANZUK as “a top priority”. His version is somewhere between the two sketched above.
The first would sit comfortably with another idea whose time has come – the D10, about which James Rogers of the Henry Jackson Society wrote recently on this site, and which Boris Johnson’s Downing Street is rather keen on. Expect it to feature in the Defence and Security Review.
Where NATO is a hard power alliance, the orientation of which is still to confront Russia by military means if necessary, the D10 would be a soft power one, aimed at countering the influence of China.
“You might say that, we couldn’t comment,” a Government insider told ConHome, adding that “the idea is being picked up by a broad listenership, which includes Canada and Australia.”
“There’s some interest in Bidenland. And for the medium-sized powers, there’s security in numbers. The idea’s in the ether, but it could materialise.”
The UK chairs the G7 next year, so the stage is set for the idea to get a push then, after the Defence and Security Review sets the scene.
So: who would be in the D10? CANZUK enthusiasts should note that three of the four potential members would be in it: Canada, Australia and the UK. New Zealand leans towards a different foreign policy orientation.
Then turn to the G7, of which the UK and Canada are already members. Add Australia and South Korea to the United States, Japan, and the three EU country members – France, Germany and Italy – and you have a total of nine.
Finally, there’s India. That’s ten major democracies with different military orientations and economies – but shared democratic values.
One could seek to draw other countries in – such as Spain, for example. But what is being looked for here is a group big enough to work, but not so big as to be unwieldy.
During the Cold War, America and western Europe tended to speak with one voice. Post-war progress, wealth and stability was built on this alliance – expressed in its security dimension by NATO.
That organisation is still adjusting to the collapse of communism – with two members, Greece and Turkey, at loggerheads, and others, such as Turkey and Hungary, moving closer to Russia.
Which imperils NATO’s integrity – but even were it functioning seamlessly, the organisation isn’t shaped to deal with China, not only because of where it sits but because of what it does.
A soft power D10 wouldn’t be a rival to a military alliance. It would differ in purpose to the G20, which contains not just China but Russia too, plus the entire EU. It would take in most of CANZUK, as noted.
At a time when China is expanding its interests through the Belt and Road Initiative, the D10 would offer a counterweight, in terms of investment, capacity-building, aid and the promotion of democratic values.
It could also begin to speak with a common voice at the United Nations, and there would be an obvious crossover with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the UK is keen to join, as our columnist Stephen Booth has reported.
Downsides? The EU countries are not on the same page as America on China – or, to strike a very topical note, on Iran, over which Britain is sticking with the EU position rather than moving towards the American one, having voted recently the former at the UN.
Doubtless part of the diplomatic thinking is the calcuation that Donald Trump may not be in place after November – which may be wrong.
Elsewhere, Narendra Modi is taking India in a different direction from its secular heritage. And it is hard to see how this alliance could conjure up a quick alternative provider to Huawei.
But if you believe that the great post-war alliance between America and western Europe was of value, you will smile on a new means of creating a modern version for a different purpose.