conservativehome--2020-07-22--Russians in the bed?

Russians in the bed?

The British people are so dull-witted , numptified and sheep-like that they stupidly voted Leave .
They were conned by a claim emblazoned on the side of the bus .
No , we apologise : let ’ s try again : the real villain of the piece was an American called Mercer .
Sorry , can we have another go ?
Forget the United States .
It was Russia – responsible for swinging the referendum by nefarious skullduggery on social media for which we have no evidence .
And there in a nutshell you have why Remain lost in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now lost altogether .
The suggestion that the proles didn ’ t really understand what they were doing – are too dense to know and ( by implication ) shouldn ’ t be allowed to decide , with real power being transferred to an expert-led “ Citizen ’ s Assembly ” – has done more than any other single factor to take Britain out of the European Union .
Keep digging , my friends .
The Intelligence and Security Committee ’ s report , overseen by the neutral figure of its former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger of becoming Remain ’ s Last Gasp , in the manner of the Moor ’ s Last Sigh .
It was once the Right that was taken with Reds under the bed .
Now it is the Londoncentric centre that sees Russians actually in it .
None of which means that Vladimir Putin wouldn ’ t clamber between the sheets if he had the chance , or that he isn ’ t trying to .
Russia is a malign actor : we know that from the Salisbury outrage , if we had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to notice the Russian planes that get buzzed off our airspace or submarines that troll our waters .
Nor was the Brexit-focused hysteria yesterday , amplified by the BBC , altogether fair to the committee ( though , on the subject of British interaction with Russian fronts , we have a few questions that we wouldn ’ t mind putting to Stewart Hosie , prominent in its press conference yesterday , about Alex Salmond and Russia Today ) .
After all , the committee didn ’ t accuse the Government of somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a referendum inquiry .
Rather , it said that Ministers and the security services must step up their efforts to fight Russia ’ s cyber and other efforts on the beaches , so to speak , which is right .
Yes , Russian dirty money has been allowed to accumulate in London over the years .
And , yes , the Conservative Party and others should be very wary about taking money from wealthy Russians who have settled here .
Just as the rest of us should be very careful not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin agent .
We make the point in the wake of Andrew Gimson ’ s recent profile on this site of Ben Elliott , the co-Party Chairman who is in effect the real Party Chairman , which probed the question of why Robert Jenrick was allowed to sit at the same table as Richard Desmond during a CCHQ-vetted dinner last year .
Elsewhere , Tom Newton-Dunn reports that the 1922 Committee Executive have given Elliott and Amanda Milling , the co-Chairman , a roasting on this very point .
The Desmond and Jenrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But a common point applies : when it dines with potential donors , CCHQ must deploy a long spoon .
Furthermore , it doesn ’ t follow that because the British people made a free choice when they voted for Brexit that our electoral system adequately safeguards that freedom .
How could it , when the discredited Electoral Commission , whose treatment of our columnist Darren Grimes was a national scandal , is still in place ?
The Commission should be swept away .
But such action would be only the start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral reform throughout our entire democratic system .
What was crafted for the age of imprints on leaflets is out of date for the age of pixels on screens .
Modernisation is overdue .
Let ’ s end by assuming that Russia wanted the UK to leave the EU , as it evidently wished the SNP to win the 2014 independence referendum , and ask ourselves what it would then want in consequence .
Here are some outcomes it certainly wouldn ’ t want .
It wouldn ’ t want the Magnitsky sanctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a backbencher , and is now putting into effect in government .
It wouldn ’ t want the other Dominic ’ s drive to put cyber at the heart of British defence policy .
It wouldn ’ t want a Britain committed to NATO – and one of the minority of members within it that meet the 2.5 per cent minimum spend .
If its aim was to separate British foreign policy from the EU ’ s foreign approach , it wouldn ’ t want the Government taking much the same position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If its objective instead is to separate the UK from the U.S , it wouldn ’ t want the focus in parts of the Conservative Party , bordering at times on the obsessive , about a British-American trade deal .
It wouldn ’ t want Number Ten drawing up schemes for a D10 of liberal democracies of which Russia would not be a member .
The most remarkable and under-reported aspect of Britain ’ s foreign policy since Brexit has been not change , but continuity .
Russia ’ s shadowy presence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be counter-productive for fear to render it bigger than it actually is .
Putin is capable of miscalculation no more or less than most of the rest of us .
If he hoped that the leaving the EU would detach the UK from its foreign policy and security alliances , it ’ s fair to say that there ’ s no evidence of that happening so far , and quite a lot to the contrary .

The British people are so dull-witted, numptified and sheep-like that they stupidly voted Leave. They were conned by a claim emblazoned on the side of the bus. No, we apologise: let’s try again. The real villain of the piece was an American called Mercer.
Sorry, can we have another go? Forget the United States. It was Russia – responsible for swinging the referendum by nefarious skullduggery on social media for which we have no evidence. And there in a nutshell you have why Remain lost in 2016, kept losing last December, and is now lost altogether.
The suggestion that the proles didn’t really understand what they were doing – are too dense to know and (by implication) shouldn’t be allowed to decide, with real power being transferred to an expert-led “Citizen’s Assembly” – has done more than any other single factor to take Britain out of the European Union. Keep digging, my friends.
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report, overseen by the neutral figure of its former Chairman, Dominic Grieve, is in danger of becoming Remain’s Last Gasp, in the manner of the Moor’s Last Sigh. It was once the Right that was taken with Reds under the bed. Now it is the Londoncentric centre that sees Russians actually in it.
None of which means that Vladimir Putin wouldn’t clamber between the sheets if he had the chance, or that he isn’t trying to. Russia is a malign actor: we know that from the Salisbury outrage, if we had somehow missed the point before, or failed to notice the Russian planes that get buzzed off our airspace or submarines that troll our waters.
Nor was the Brexit-focused hysteria yesterday, amplified by the BBC, altogether fair to the committee (though, on the subject of British interaction with Russian fronts, we have a few questions that we wouldn’t mind putting to Stewart Hosie, prominent in its press conference yesterday, about Alex Salmond and Russia Today).
After all, the committee didn’t accuse the Government of somehow seeking to direct the security services away from a referendum inquiry. Rather, it said that Ministers and the security services must step up their efforts to fight Russia’s cyber and other efforts on the beaches, so to speak, which is right.
Yes, Russian dirty money has been allowed to accumulate in London over the years. And, yes, the Conservative Party and others should be very wary about taking money from wealthy Russians who have settled here. Just as the rest of us should be very careful not to assume that any such person is a Putin agent.
We make the point in the wake of Andrew Gimson’s recent profile on this site of Ben Elliott, the co-Party Chairman who is in effect the real Party Chairman, which probed the question of why Robert Jenrick was allowed to sit at the same table as Richard Desmond during a CCHQ-vetted dinner last year.
Elsewhere, Tom Newton-Dunn reports that the 1922 Committee Executive have given Elliott and Amanda Milling, the co-Chairman, a roasting on this very point. The Desmond and Jenrick affair has nothing to do with Russia. But a common point applies: when it dines with potential donors, CCHQ must deploy a long spoon.
Furthermore, it doesn’t follow that because the British people made a free choice when they voted for Brexit that our electoral system adequately safeguards that freedom. How could it, when the discredited Electoral Commission, whose treatment of our columnist Darren Grimes was a national scandal, is still in place?
The Commission should be swept away. But such action would be only the start, not the end, of real electoral reform throughout our entire democratic system. What was crafted for the age of imprints on leaflets is out of date for the age of pixels on screens. Modernisation is overdue.
Let’s end by assuming that Russia wanted the UK to leave the EU, as it evidently wished the SNP to win the 2014 independence referendum, and ask ourselves what it would then want in consequence. Here are some outcomes it certainly wouldn’t want.
It wouldn’t want the Magnitsky sanctions which Dominic Raab has championed since he was a backbencher, and is now putting into effect in government. It wouldn’t want the other Dominic’s drive to put cyber at the heart of British defence policy.
It wouldn’t want a Britain committed to NATO – and one of the minority of members within it that meet the 2.5 per cent minimum spend. If its aim was to separate British foreign policy from the EU’s foreign approach, it wouldn’t want the Government taking much the same position on Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
If its objective instead is to separate the UK from the U.S, it wouldn’t want the focus in parts of the Conservative Party, bordering at times on the obsessive, about a British-American trade deal. It wouldn’t want Number Ten drawing up schemes for a D10 of liberal democracies of which Russia would not be a member.
The most remarkable and under-reported aspect of Britain’s foreign policy since Brexit has been not change, but continuity. Russia’s shadowy presence is a menace to our security. But it would be counter-productive for fear to render it bigger than it actually is.
Putin is capable of miscalculation no more or less than most of the rest of us. If he hoped that the leaving the EU would detach the UK from its foreign policy and security alliances, it’s fair to say that there’s no evidence of that happening so far, and quite a lot to the contrary.


conservativehome--2020-07-22--Profile: York – and its potential role as Parliament’s new home, a Johnson joke which could become s

Profile: York – and its potential role as Parliament’s new home, a Johnson joke which could become serious

There are few better ways to infuriate the House of Lords than to propose that it should move to York .
The Lord Speaker , Lord Fowler , on Sunday sent an email to his fellow peers , headed “ The Ivory Coast Option ” , which breathes a spirit of extreme exasperation while arguing against separating the Lords from the Commons : “ It is worth reflecting on this : there are 79 nations with bicameral legislatures ( parliaments with two chambers , typically a lower house and a senate ) .
In all but one of these the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , often adjoining .
The one exception is the Côte d ’ Ivoire whose lower house , the National Assembly , is located in Abidjan , while its recently established upper house , the Senate , is located in Yamoussoukro , some 235 km away .
No disrespect to the Ivory Coast , but it is not immediately clear why the UK should follow their lead.
” It was odd to find Lord Fowler fulminating against the suggestion that the Lords should be sundered from the Commons , for the Prime Minister has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should move to York during the renovation of the Palace of Westminster , which is expected to begin in 2025 .
The Commons Speaker , Sir Lindsay Hoyle , told Times Radio earlier this week that as a Lancashire man , any move to York would “ stick in my throat ” .
He considers his own constituency , Chorley , preferable , and says there could be “ no better place than Lancaster Castle ” , which is sitting empty and “ belongs to the Queen ” .
But in any case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going on here ?
When Jacob Rees-Mogg , the Leader of the House , was asked last Thursday about their lordships going to York , he replied : Peers do not generally find this funny .
Lord Singh of Wimbledon – better known to Radio 4 listeners as Indarjit Singh – has asserted that “ York is seen as something of an outer Mongolia by the general public ” .
Lord Young of Cookham , known as Sir George Young during his long service as MP and minister , has complained that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and wonders who authorised it , and how much public money has been spent .
But Michael Gove , Chancellor of the Duchy of the Lancaster and often in the forefront of reform , has indicated his strong support for the idea of taking Parliament , and large parts of the Civil Service , out of London : “ I think it is vitally important that decision-makers are close to people.
” Will Parliament move , at least temporarily , to York ?
Lord Lamont , Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1990-93 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Yorkshire , the idea of moving Parliament north is greeted as a long overdue corrective to southern ways of thinking .
In January , when the idea of taking the Lords there was first floated , York Council offered to help with the move .
As a woman long resident in Yorkshire put it yesterday to ConHome , “ Lots of parliamentarians are too hefted to the South ” – hefted being a term used of sheep who are taught to graze a piece of unfenced fell , and in succeeding generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on : “ A meeting of North and South can only be for the good .
Some of the southern values might be put to the test .
Northerners tell it as they see it .
“ People here were so pro-Boris at the election .
I hope he realises that .
They like his very direct style .
You could never get an answer out of Corbyn .
Northerners want to know what you think .
“ They ’ re not out for themselves the way people are down South .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ element of being second-class citizens.
” Many Labour voters who in the North of England voted Conservative for the first time last December felt that for generations they had been treated by Westminster and Whitehall as second-class citizens , for whom second-class services were good enough .
But the need for “ levelling up ” , as ministers now describe it , is by no means an exclusively modern phenomenon .
Here is Ranulf Higden , a monk in Chester , writing in the 14th century : “ All the language of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yorkshire , soundeth so that the men of the South may scarcely understand the language of them , which thing may be caused by the proximity of their language to that spoken by barbarians , and also by the great distance of the kings of England since those kings mostly frequent the South and only enter the North when accompanied by a large number of their retainers .
There is also another cause , which is that the South is more abundant in fertility than the North , has more people , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at York , and walks from the station to the Minster , this disparaging tone becomes impossible to sustain .
It is a wonderful city , containing within its medieval walls , the most complete in England , a stupendous concentration of wonderful buildings .
The city , founded as Eboracum by the Romans in 71 AD , was visited by three emperors and has served as capital of the Roman province of Britannia Inferior , of the kingdom of Northumbria , and latterly of the northern province of the Church of England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Tombs reminds us in The English and Their History ( 2014 ) , the natural capital of Britain .
Like most Roman cities , it benefits from admirable transport links , its roads and river supplemented in 1839 by the coming of the railways , for which it became a major centre .
William the Conqueror had crushed , with his customary brutality , the uprising of 1069 , in which the two castles erected by the Normans at York on either side of the River Ouse were taken and the garrison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutting off their heads one by one ” .
William ’ s revenge , the Harrying of the North , entailed laying waste a great tract of country northwards from York : pacification by starvation .
In later centuries , pacification by the recognition of York ’ s importance was from time to time attempted .
As a contributor to The History of Parliament points out , In 1472 the Council of the North was established in the capable and efficient hands of the future Richard III .
The Council ’ s headquarters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which looks rather small for the Lords but could do if the House is shrunk .
Henry VIII said there would be a Parliament in York in 1536 to appease Catholic rebels in the Pilgrimage of Grace , but then decided to kill the rebels instead .

There are few better ways to infuriate the House of Lords than to propose that it should move to York. The Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, on Sunday sent an email to his fellow peers, headed “The Ivory Coast Option”, which breathes a spirit of extreme exasperation while arguing against separating the Lords from the Commons: “It is worth reflecting on this: there are 79 nations with bicameral legislatures (parliaments with two chambers, typically a lower house and a senate). In all but one of these the chambers are located in the same city, often adjoining. The one exception is the Côte d’Ivoire whose lower house, the National Assembly, is located in Abidjan, while its recently established upper house, the Senate, is located in Yamoussoukro, some 235 km away. No disrespect to the Ivory Coast, but it is not immediately clear why the UK should follow their lead.” It was odd to find Lord Fowler fulminating against the suggestion that the Lords should be sundered from the Commons, for the Prime Minister has now ventured to propose that both Houses should move to York during the renovation of the Palace of Westminster, which is expected to begin in 2025.
The Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, told Times Radio earlier this week that as a Lancashire man, any move to York would “stick in my throat”. He considers his own constituency, Chorley, preferable, and says there could be “no better place than Lancaster Castle”, which is sitting empty and “belongs to the Queen”.
But in any case, Hoyle went on,
“I don’t believe the House of Commons is leaving London. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think, you know, Parliament is rooted within London, it’s our capital city. As much as I can dream about moving north, it isn’t going to happen … it wouldn’t be good for the Commons.”
What is going on here? When Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House, was asked last Thursday about their lordships going to York, he replied:
“It occurs to me that when Royal Ascot moved to York their lordships found it great fun to go up to York. So if they could do it for pleasure, I’m sure they might have a jolly time going there for business.”
Peers do not generally find this funny. Lord Singh of Wimbledon – better known to Radio 4 listeners as Indarjit Singh – has asserted that “York is seen as something of an outer Mongolia by the general public”.
Lord Young of Cookham, known as Sir George Young during his long service as MP and minister, has complained that the Government “keeps this hare running”, and wonders who authorised it, and how much public money has been spent.
But Michael Gove, Chancellor of the Duchy of the Lancaster and often in the forefront of reform, has indicated his strong support for the idea of taking Parliament, and large parts of the Civil Service, out of London: “I think it is vitally important that decision-makers are close to people.”
Will Parliament move, at least temporarily, to York? Lord Lamont, Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1990-93, suggested yesterday afternoon to ConHome:
“Well I think it may be a tease or a joke. But a tease or a joke can be a clever way of introducing a very awkward subject. Humour is Boris’s way of communicating and the more awkward the subject the more humorous. “There’s a serious intention there disguised as a joke. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to be spending a lot of time on this at a time of economic crisis.”
In Yorkshire, the idea of moving Parliament north is greeted as a long overdue corrective to southern ways of thinking. In January, when the idea of taking the Lords there was first floated, York Council offered to help with the move.
As a woman long resident in Yorkshire put it yesterday to ConHome, “Lots of parliamentarians are too hefted to the South” – hefted being a term used of sheep who are taught to graze a piece of unfenced fell, and in succeeding generations stay there without being told. She went on:
“A meeting of North and South can only be for the good. Some of the southern values might be put to the test. Northerners tell it as they see it. “People here were so pro-Boris at the election. I hope he realises that. They like his very direct style. You could never get an answer out of Corbyn. Northerners want to know what you think. “They’re not out for themselves the way people are down South. They do feel there’s an element of being second-class citizens.”
Many Labour voters who in the North of England voted Conservative for the first time last December felt that for generations they had been treated by Westminster and Whitehall as second-class citizens, for whom second-class services were good enough.
But the need for “levelling up”, as ministers now describe it, is by no means an exclusively modern phenomenon. Here is Ranulf Higden, a monk in Chester, writing in the 14th century:
“All the language of the men of Northumberland, and especially of Yorkshire, soundeth so that the men of the South may scarcely understand the language of them, which thing may be caused by the proximity of their language to that spoken by barbarians, and also by the great distance of the kings of England since those kings mostly frequent the South and only enter the North when accompanied by a large number of their retainers. There is also another cause, which is that the South is more abundant in fertility than the North, has more people, and more convenient harbours.”
When one arrives at York, and walks from the station to the Minster, this disparaging tone becomes impossible to sustain. It is a wonderful city, containing within its medieval walls, the most complete in England, a stupendous concentration of wonderful buildings.
The city, founded as Eboracum by the Romans in 71 AD, was visited by three emperors and has served as capital of the Roman province of Britannia Inferior, of the kingdom of Northumbria, and latterly of the northern province of the Church of England.
York has been called, as Robert Tombs reminds us in The English and Their History (2014), the natural capital of Britain.
Like most Roman cities, it benefits from admirable transport links, its roads and river supplemented in 1839 by the coming of the railways, for which it became a major centre.
William the Conqueror had crushed, with his customary brutality, the uprising of 1069, in which the two castles erected by the Normans at York on either side of the River Ouse were taken and the garrison massacred, Earl Waltheof of Northumbria “cutting off their heads one by one”.
William’s revenge, the Harrying of the North, entailed laying waste a great tract of country northwards from York: pacification by starvation.
In later centuries, pacification by the recognition of York’s importance was from time to time attempted. As a contributor to The History of Parliament points out,
“Between 1301 and 1335 the Lords and Commons met no fewer than eleven times at York, three times each at Lincoln and Northampton, and twice at Nottingham, while individual Parliaments were held at Carlisle, Oseney, Salisbury, Stamford, Winchester, and Windsor. Other venues were periodically considered, but abandoned: in the autumn of 1322 Parliament was summoned to meet at Ripon, but subsequently moved to York, while parliaments planned to be held at York in 1310, and Lincoln in 1312 were moved to Westminster before they could assemble.”
In 1472 the Council of the North was established in the capable and efficient hands of the future Richard III. The Council’s headquarters was King’s Manor, York, which looks rather small for the Lords but could do if the House is shrunk.
Henry VIII said there would be a Parliament in York in 1536 to appease Catholic rebels in the Pilgrimage of Grace, but then decided to kill the rebels instead.


conservativehome--2020-07-22--Ryan Bourne: The Right’s glory was its mastery of economic policy. Why has it given up even thinking

Ryan Bourne: The Right’s glory was its mastery of economic policy. Why has it given up even thinking about it?

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Two recent news events encapsulate the crisis of economics in UK conservatism .
First was the Government ’ s appointment of Richard Hughes , an associate of the left-leaning Resolution Foundation , to replace Robert Chote as Chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility .
Second was Boris Johnson ’ s Daily Telegraph interview to celebrate one year as Prime Minister .
In it , he talked up his Government ’ s “ transformative agenda.
” The paper ’ s write-up of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid rules for those who have had their UK citizenship revoked .
I have little reason to doubt Hughes ’ competence for the OBR role , or the wisdom of the legal aid changes .
But it ’ s telling both that no economist from conservative institutions was ( or arguably could be ) considered for the OBR position and that there was no economic message thought important enough to eclipse legal aid changes in this soft ball interview .
Johnson ’ s government is packed with the best rebel campaigning team for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms , beyond mantras about confidence and “ leveling up ” the country , they feel like rebels without a thought-through cause .
This , though , is a symptom of a deeper conservative malaise – an absence of an animating economic agenda arising from a failure to diagnose what , precisely , is economically wrong with Britain .
The centre-right suffers in power from a longer-term intellectual laziness only masked temporarily by the perceived necessity of deficit reduction .
With little apparent interest in economic reasoning , top-bill economists themselves spurn the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t remain focused on the battles needed for economic success , and , ultimately , this majority Conservative government risks wasting an opportunity for meaningful change .
At the top of politics this lack of diagnosis manifests itself in lazy clichés .
Johnson says , for example , it would be “ a mistake ” to “ go back to austerity.
” But what , precisely , does he think was wrong with the 2010-2018 deficit reduction agenda ?
Did spending cuts worsen services below acceptable standards ?
Does he think the package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restraining public sector salaries and welfare was responsible for the paltry annual 0.3 per cent productivity growth rate of the 2010s ?
Was the composition of cuts wrong ?
Who knows… The Tories don ’ t have a clear economic story .
We are likewise now told the pandemic shows the importance of “ leveling up ” the country .
But , well : why ?
Our economic fortunes are undoubtedly distributed unequally geographically .
Yet has anyone ever heard Johnson outline clearly why this is such a problem ?
Or why more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Government-led research agency will transform fortunes where New Labour ’ s regeneration efforts failed ?
Or why , if transformation is needed , the Government is so keen to incentivise a consumer-led revival of the March 2020 economy today ?
To be clear , I don ’ t expect Johnson himself to have all the answers .
He is dealing with a pandemic .
Being in office is the worst possible time to start developing an economic critique of the country .
My point is that the lack of an economic story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagnosis work on the right generally .
The current institutions in the conservative firmament are failing to provide any big-picture evidence-based narrative , while too few conservatives work with or in non-conservative institutions that are respected , as Sam Bowman and Stian Westlake lamented last year .
Back in the mid-1970s , Sir John Hoskyns and others undertook detailed analyses of the UK ’ s economic problems , drawing on the insights of Hayek , Friedman , and others , while trying to nail down their common causes .
Their work settled on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary problems – the battles that must be won .
Hoskyns ’ analysis only became the “ Stepping Stones ” report – a political communications manifesto to help achieve the economic change – after the hard yards were done .
Who today is doing a Hoskyns-style analysis for Johnson ?
There are some reasonable ideas floating around in the think tanks .
But far from providing clear diagnoses of problems that can undergird policy change and concentrate minds , that pipeline has broken down across the UK conservative coalition .
To the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often wonks flying kites for politicians ’ ill-thought-through ideas , rather than feeding them in .
A few weeks ago , I lamented this phenomenon on Twitter , dubbing it ( rather crudely ) the “ dumbification ” of the UK centre-right .
What I meant by that was the lack of willingness to engage on an intellectual level in diagnosing , formulating , and making the case for meaningful policy change .
The symptoms of that lethargy are all around us .
There are the obvious , lazy appeals to opinion polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the importance of the efficacy of ideas for things that seem popular , or appear to be in the short-term interests of the Conservative Party .
We see it in tedious internecine “ ideological ” battles too – with banal calls for the Conservatives to “ move on ” from their supposed “ free market fundamentalism ” mistaken for an economic vision itself .
To the extent agendas are presented , they are clichés of platforms , offering little real-world application beyond signalling their tribe membership .
Think “ Singapore-on-Thames ” right through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged to live and work near where they grew up.
” Most often , however , conservatives spurn economics entirely .
It has proven much less taxing for many thinkers to wade into debating face masks and gender than the tougher task of economic analysis .
Again , though my own sympathies are obvious , this problem isn ’ t unique to one tribe .
Karaoke Thatcherism is as inane a vision as the belief that calling yourself One Nation and doing a bit of an industrial policy in the North will generate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the social bonds of the 1950s .
We are substituting buzzwords and labels for thought leadership .
Now why conservatives have given up on rigorous economic thinking is unclear .
Some of it no doubt revolves around personal incentives .
Modern media technologies allow intellectuals to reach the masses directly , and rewards culture warriors and those willing to argue with “ their own side.
” Combine that with the centrality of polling and recent victories , and conservatives see their own role as mobilising the masses , giving them what they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s dictum that what matters is policies whose results are popular , not those which themselves are popular .
Some is due to the hollowing out of centre-right voices from “ neutral ” institutions , whether universities , the media , or notionally conservative think-tanks ( John O ’ Sullivan ’ s law is correct : all organisations not explicitly right-wing become left-wing over time ) .
But the result is this : the UK centre-right has no analysis-backed economic diagnosis for the country that helps provide needed focus for its politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the movement outside of Johnson ’ s government shows little sign of the institutional rebuild needed to undergird the “ transformative agenda ” he desires .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Two recent news events encapsulate the crisis of economics in UK conservatism.
First was the Government’s appointment of Richard Hughes, an associate of the left-leaning Resolution Foundation, to replace Robert Chote as Chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Second was Boris Johnson’s Daily Telegraph interview to celebrate one year as Prime Minister.
In it, he talked up his Government’s “transformative agenda.” The paper’s write-up of announcements led on policy changes to legal aid rules for those who have had their UK citizenship revoked.
I have little reason to doubt Hughes’ competence for the OBR role, or the wisdom of the legal aid changes. But it’s telling both that no economist from conservative institutions was (or arguably could be) considered for the OBR position and that there was no economic message thought important enough to eclipse legal aid changes in this soft ball interview.
Johnson’s government is packed with the best rebel campaigning team for a generation. But, in economic terms, beyond mantras about confidence and “leveling up” the country, they feel like rebels without a thought-through cause.
This, though, is a symptom of a deeper conservative malaise – an absence of an animating economic agenda arising from a failure to diagnose what, precisely, is economically wrong with Britain.
The centre-right suffers in power from a longer-term intellectual laziness only masked temporarily by the perceived necessity of deficit reduction. With little apparent interest in economic reasoning, top-bill economists themselves spurn the conservative movement, its politicians don’t remain focused on the battles needed for economic success, and, ultimately, this majority Conservative government risks wasting an opportunity for meaningful change.
At the top of politics this lack of diagnosis manifests itself in lazy clichés. Johnson says, for example, it would be “a mistake” to “go back to austerity.”
But what, precisely, does he think was wrong with the 2010-2018 deficit reduction agenda? Did spending cuts worsen services below acceptable standards?
Does he think the package was a macroeconomic mistake, and that restraining public sector salaries and welfare was responsible for the paltry annual 0.3 per cent productivity growth rate of the 2010s?
Was the composition of cuts wrong? Who knows… The Tories don’t have a clear economic story.
We are likewise now told the pandemic shows the importance of “leveling up” the country. But, well: why? Our economic fortunes are undoubtedly distributed unequally geographically. Yet has anyone ever heard Johnson outline clearly why this is such a problem?
Or why more infrastructure investment, NHS spending, and a Government-led research agency will transform fortunes where New Labour’s regeneration efforts failed? Or why, if transformation is needed, the Government is so keen to incentivise a consumer-led revival of the March 2020 economy today?
To be clear, I don’t expect Johnson himself to have all the answers. He is dealing with a pandemic. Being in office is the worst possible time to start developing an economic critique of the country.
My point is that the lack of an economic story is an upstream problem of too little diagnosis work on the right generally. The current institutions in the conservative firmament are failing to provide any big-picture evidence-based narrative, while too few conservatives work with or in non-conservative institutions that are respected, as Sam Bowman and Stian Westlake lamented last year.
Back in the mid-1970s, Sir John Hoskyns and others undertook detailed analyses of the UK’s economic problems, drawing on the insights of Hayek, Friedman, and others, while trying to nail down their common causes.
Their work settled on Keynesian mismanagement and the trade unions as the primary problems – the battles that must be won. Hoskyns’ analysis only became the “Stepping Stones” report – a political communications manifesto to help achieve the economic change – after the hard yards were done.
Who today is doing a Hoskyns-style analysis for Johnson? There are some reasonable ideas floating around in the think tanks.
But far from providing clear diagnoses of problems that can undergird policy change and concentrate minds, that pipeline has broken down across the UK conservative coalition. To the extent relationships exist, it’s often wonks flying kites for politicians’ ill-thought-through ideas, rather than feeding them in.
A few weeks ago, I lamented this phenomenon on Twitter, dubbing it (rather crudely) the “dumbification” of the UK centre-right. What I meant by that was the lack of willingness to engage on an intellectual level in diagnosing, formulating, and making the case for meaningful policy change.
The symptoms of that lethargy are all around us. There are the obvious, lazy appeals to opinion polling as the basis for policy, downplaying the importance of the efficacy of ideas for things that seem popular, or appear to be in the short-term interests of the Conservative Party.
We see it in tedious internecine “ideological” battles too – with banal calls for the Conservatives to “move on” from their supposed “free market fundamentalism” mistaken for an economic vision itself.
To the extent agendas are presented, they are clichés of platforms, offering little real-world application beyond signalling their tribe membership. Think “Singapore-on-Thames” right through to claiming “more people should be encouraged to live and work near where they grew up.”
Most often, however, conservatives spurn economics entirely. It has proven much less taxing for many thinkers to wade into debating face masks and gender than the tougher task of economic analysis.
Again, though my own sympathies are obvious, this problem isn’t unique to one tribe. Karaoke Thatcherism is as inane a vision as the belief that calling yourself One Nation and doing a bit of an industrial policy in the North will generate a patriotic, prosperous civil society with the social bonds of the 1950s. We are substituting buzzwords and labels for thought leadership.
Now why conservatives have given up on rigorous economic thinking is unclear. Some of it no doubt revolves around personal incentives. Modern media technologies allow intellectuals to reach the masses directly, and rewards culture warriors and those willing to argue with “their own side.”
Combine that with the centrality of polling and recent victories, and conservatives see their own role as mobilising the masses, giving them what they want. They have given up on Thatcher’s dictum that what matters is policies whose results are popular, not those which themselves are popular.
Some is due to the hollowing out of centre-right voices from “neutral” institutions, whether universities, the media, or notionally conservative think-tanks (John O’Sullivan’s law is correct: all organisations not explicitly right-wing become left-wing over time).
But the result is this: the UK centre-right has no analysis-backed economic diagnosis for the country that helps provide needed focus for its politicians or buy-in from economists.
Worse, the movement outside of Johnson’s government shows little sign of the institutional rebuild needed to undergird the “transformative agenda” he desires.


conservativehome--2020-07-22--Luke Evans: While we all hope for a vaccine, we know that we will never return to pre-pandemic norma

Luke Evans: While we all hope for a vaccine, we know that we will never return to pre-pandemic normal

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
Four months ago , around the start of the Coronavirus lockdown , the Editor of ConservativeHome contacted me to ask whether , as both a GP and a newly-elected backbench Member of Parliament , I would like to write a weekly diary about how Covid-19 would come to affect my constituency .
Of course , as any newly-elected backbench MP would , I jumped at the chance .
It would hopefully be a way to give an insight into what goes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But far more importantly , I saw it as an obvious opportunity to assess Covid-19 ’ s impact on my constituency of Bosworth on a weekly basis .
I would have to step back and think for a couple of hours before picking up my laptop .
That ’ s vital time which helps you to reflect and strategise about what you do next .
So as Parliament breaks up for its summer recess , it ’ s a good time to reflect on the past four months – to ask what went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I could have done better as a new MP .
A chance to gather my office together .
After all they have shouldered the load with me , and without their dedication , tenacity and expertise the situation as a new MP would be nearly untenable .
Four weeks to simply focus on the constituency ; clear the decks , reset , and prepare for the next phase .
Until September an uneasy hiatus , as we ’ re nowhere near the end of the Coronavirus story I fear .
I recognised right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I was fortunate to come from a medical background .
I was able to understand the data , the system , the clinical constraints on staff and hopefully ask pertinent questions at the Health and Social Care Select Committee – and in the virtual Chamber of the House – while also raising ideas that were fitting to ministers and their departments , and where possible offering solutions .
That experience as a GP , I hope , meant that I was able to communicate those aspects effectively to my constituents .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rate of knots I was able to record videos about the differences between social distancing and shielding , and – even now the most effective weapon in our fight against the virus – good hygiene .
But it quickly became apparent that while this period in our history has been driven by a global virus , with far too many lives tragically lost , the medicine has only been one part of a much wider crisis .
Where I was comfortable in discussing the science the role of an MP is seldom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gain knowledge in supporting businesses on the verge of collapse , constituents losing their jobs and – certainly not least – a world-renowned zoo fighting for survival .
Anyone entering politics really does need to know that at base backbench level , to serve your constituents you quickly need to become a problem-solving generalist .
It should come a surprise to no one that in the past month I ’ ve asked as many questions about the economic impact of Covid-19 as I have about the medical one .
But as Parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what comes next .
Like everyone else I ’ m eagerly watching the promising medical breakthroughs that we have heard about in the past two days and hope that they come to fruition .
While we all hope for a vaccine , we know that we will never return to pre-pandemic normal – this can be construed as a positive or negative , and we all have an active role in the preponderance to which it is .
Although we all have to be working for the best , we also have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We must be mindful of the economic impact of the virus , how we begin to pay it back and the absolute need to protect younger people who may well bear the brunt through unemployment .
All balanced with the plan to deliver on what we promised as Conservatives that lead to a large majority in the House .
I ’ m proud of how this Government has responded to the greatest threat to us all in living memory .
Of course not all has gone to plan , and there will no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but to be here with one of the best health services in the world and a growing economy is a huge testament to the work of the Cabinet .
So I leave Parliament for recess with a thought stuck in my head : what do we want our virus legacy to be ?
I believe a question the public , businesses , politicians and Government all need to think long and hard about and actively make a choice .
As a crisis creates opportunity now is the time to harness it for good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rested , refreshed and ready to articulate a positive future for Bosworth and the country .

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
Four months ago, around the start of the Coronavirus lockdown, the Editor of ConservativeHome contacted me to ask whether, as both a GP and a newly-elected backbench Member of Parliament, I would like to write a weekly diary about how Covid-19 would come to affect my constituency.
Of course, as any newly-elected backbench MP would, I jumped at the chance. It would hopefully be a way to give an insight into what goes on at the grassroots of backbench business.
But far more importantly, I saw it as an obvious opportunity to assess Covid-19’s impact on my constituency of Bosworth on a weekly basis.
I would have to step back and think for a couple of hours before picking up my laptop. That’s vital time which helps you to reflect and strategise about what you do next.
A space to breathe in a fast flowing, ever-changing situation.
So as Parliament breaks up for its summer recess, it’s a good time to reflect on the past four months – to ask what went well and, of course, what I could have done better as a new MP.
A chance to gather my office together. After all they have shouldered the load with me, and without their dedication, tenacity and expertise the situation as a new MP would be nearly untenable. Four weeks to simply focus on the constituency; clear the decks, reset, and prepare for the next phase.
Until September an uneasy hiatus, as we’re nowhere near the end of the Coronavirus story I fear.
I recognised right at the very start of these columns that I was fortunate to come from a medical background. I was able to understand the data, the system, the clinical constraints on staff and hopefully ask pertinent questions at the Health and Social Care Select Committee – and in the virtual Chamber of the House – while also raising ideas that were fitting to ministers and their departments, and where possible offering solutions.
That experience as a GP, I hope, meant that I was able to communicate those aspects effectively to my constituents. As we were learning about the virus at a rate of knots I was able to record videos about the differences between social distancing and shielding, and – even now the most effective weapon in our fight against the virus – good hygiene.
But it quickly became apparent that while this period in our history has been driven by a global virus, with far too many lives tragically lost, the medicine has only been one part of a much wider crisis.
Where I was comfortable in discussing the science the role of an MP is seldom that of a specialist. I had to gain knowledge in supporting businesses on the verge of collapse, constituents losing their jobs and – certainly not least – a world-renowned zoo fighting for survival.
Anyone entering politics really does need to know that at base backbench level, to serve your constituents you quickly need to become a problem-solving generalist. It should come a surprise to no one that in the past month I’ve asked as many questions about the economic impact of Covid-19 as I have about the medical one.
But as Parliament breaks for the summer our minds turn to what comes next.
Like everyone else I’m eagerly watching the promising medical breakthroughs that we have heard about in the past two days and hope that they come to fruition. While we all hope for a vaccine, we know that we will never return to pre-pandemic normal – this can be construed as a positive or negative, and we all have an active role in the preponderance to which it is.
Although we all have to be working for the best, we also have to be preparing for the worst. We must be mindful of the economic impact of the virus, how we begin to pay it back and the absolute need to protect younger people who may well bear the brunt through unemployment. All balanced with the plan to deliver on what we promised as Conservatives that lead to a large majority in the House.
I’m proud of how this Government has responded to the greatest threat to us all in living memory. Of course not all has gone to plan, and there will no doubt be lessons to be learned, but to be here with one of the best health services in the world and a growing economy is a huge testament to the work of the Cabinet.
So I leave Parliament for recess with a thought stuck in my head: what do we want our virus legacy to be?
I believe a question the public, businesses, politicians and Government all need to think long and hard about and actively make a choice. As a crisis creates opportunity now is the time to harness it for good.
I hope to return in September, rested, refreshed and ready to articulate a positive future for Bosworth and the country.


conservativehome--2020-07-22--Olivia Harris: The pandemic has shown the importance of housing for key workers

Olivia Harris is the Chief Executive of the Dolphin Living housing charity and the Chair of the Westminster Property Association .
As we start to look forward to the recovery , it is right that the government focuses on sustaining and creating jobs , especially within the key sectors of hospitality and tourism .
The whole property industry has a critical role to play in supporting this agenda .
This is especially through the increased provision of housing in inner London that is both accessible and affordable , for not only those key workers who have been providing essential services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working in the very sectors the government is actively seeking to support .
Although we are still very much in the response phase of the current COVID-19 crisis , significant attention is already being paid to the recovery phase , and the detailed plans to facilitate the gradual re-start of the UK ’ s economy .
As well as recovery , there is also the longer-term lessons learned from the pandemic to ensure that the country is better equipped in the future to deal with any future public health crisis .
Whilst it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and recommendations , both from an economic as well as a societal perspective , one obvious consideration is starting to emerge strongly .
Namely , we need to ensure that , as a country , we have a much greater resilience across key public sector roles , such as health and social care , and that we fundamentally review the definition of a ‘ key worker ’ to recognise those workers , often in relatively low-paid jobs , who keep the UK functioning .
Nowhere is this recognition more needed than in how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and local housing policies that embed resilience right at the heart of the communities where these workers are needed the most .
Underlying this resilience is the need to house key workers in locations close to their work , regardless of broader housing market pricing .
For many years Dolphin Living have championed , in a London context , the need for those workers who “ keep the city alive ” , as well as the need to increase the supply of key worker affordable housing in locations these workers want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective of providing homes in central London at below market rents that allow working Londoners on modest incomes to live close to their place of work .
Our residents comprise not only those traditional key workers who have played such a crucial role during this crisis , such as health workers , the emergency services and teachers , but also those who play a key role in delivering and supporting London ’ s infrastructure over the longer-term .
Dolphin Living fundamentally believes that the need for housing for key workers in central locations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the shift to new ways of working .
This crisis has forced us to challenge many of the assumptions we have made about how our cities function .
In particular , we need to reconsider the notion that we can accommodate key workers on the fringes of London and beyond , yet still depend upon them in times of emergency to be available 24/7 , often with little or no transport infrastructure to support them .
This approach will surely result in a loss of key workers to central London as long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic .
As a response , we need to fundamentally review how we provide sustainable critical services alongside additional investment to support housing for keyworkers where they are most needed .
The current issues relating to transport capacity , given social distancing requirements , disproportionately impact upon many of those we would define as key workers , who often can not afford any alternative other than public transport and can not work from home .
However , that is not to suggest that we should be seeking to deliver these new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and housing key workers actually want to live in .
For it would be a mistake to look to re-create the police accommodation blocks of old without any notion of genuine and real choice for the key workers upon whom we all rely .
This notion of locational choice is something we have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing following polling that we commissioned YouGov to undertake .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , we found that commuting time is a top priority for working London renters : 56 per cent ranked the distance or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three priorities , and over a quarter ( 27 per cent ) ranked this factor first .
Similarly , 55 per cent ranked having public transport available within ten minutes ’ walk in their top three priorities , and a fifth ( 20 per cent ) ranked the factor first .
When we analysed the findings further , we found that a clear majority ( 65 per cent ) of working London renters believe that an acceptable commute time is up to around 45 minutes , and nearly all ( 92 per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than one hour .
Housing delivery in recent years has focused on those in the direst need , both economically and socially , subsidised by market housing that in London is unaffordable to median earners .
An unintended consequence of this approach , in high-value areas particularly , means that little thought has been given to the needs and wants of the key workers upon whom we rely , as highlighted by this pandemic .
Therefore , we are asking that the government ’ s recovery strategy commits to a massive expansion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proportion of intermediate rental housing , within London , as part of the overall pledge to support the capital ’ s economy .

Olivia Harris is the Chief Executive of the Dolphin Living housing charity and the Chair of the Westminster Property Association.
As we start to look forward to the recovery, it is right that the government focuses on sustaining and creating jobs, especially within the key sectors of hospitality and tourism. The whole property industry has a critical role to play in supporting this agenda. This is especially through the increased provision of housing in inner London that is both accessible and affordable, for not only those key workers who have been providing essential services during the current crisis, but those working in the very sectors the government is actively seeking to support.
Although we are still very much in the response phase of the current COVID-19 crisis, significant attention is already being paid to the recovery phase, and the detailed plans to facilitate the gradual re-start of the UK’s economy. As well as recovery, there is also the longer-term lessons learned from the pandemic to ensure that the country is better equipped in the future to deal with any future public health crisis.
Whilst it is too early to draw firm conclusions and recommendations, both from an economic as well as a societal perspective, one obvious consideration is starting to emerge strongly. Namely, we need to ensure that, as a country, we have a much greater resilience across key public sector roles, such as health and social care, and that we fundamentally review the definition of a ‘key worker’ to recognise those workers, often in relatively low-paid jobs, who keep the UK functioning.
Nowhere is this recognition more needed than in how we look to develop national, regional, and local housing policies that embed resilience right at the heart of the communities where these workers are needed the most. Underlying this resilience is the need to house key workers in locations close to their work, regardless of broader housing market pricing.
For many years Dolphin Living have championed, in a London context, the need for those workers who “keep the city alive”, as well as the need to increase the supply of key worker affordable housing in locations these workers want to live.
This reflects our primary charitable objective of providing homes in central London at below market rents that allow working Londoners on modest incomes to live close to their place of work. Our residents comprise not only those traditional key workers who have played such a crucial role during this crisis, such as health workers, the emergency services and teachers, but also those who play a key role in delivering and supporting London’s infrastructure over the longer-term. Dolphin Living fundamentally believes that the need for housing for key workers in central locations has been evidenced by the coronavirus pandemic and the shift to new ways of working.
This crisis has forced us to challenge many of the assumptions we have made about how our cities function. In particular, we need to reconsider the notion that we can accommodate key workers on the fringes of London and beyond, yet still depend upon them in times of emergency to be available 24/7, often with little or no transport infrastructure to support them. This approach will surely result in a loss of key workers to central London as long commutes are even less desirable in light of the pandemic.
As a response, we need to fundamentally review how we provide sustainable critical services alongside additional investment to support housing for keyworkers where they are most needed. The current issues relating to transport capacity, given social distancing requirements, disproportionately impact upon many of those we would define as key workers, who often cannot afford any alternative other than public transport and cannot work from home. However, that is not to suggest that we should be seeking to deliver these new homes without some consideration around the locations and housing key workers actually want to live in. For it would be a mistake to look to re-create the police accommodation blocks of old without any notion of genuine and real choice for the key workers upon whom we all rely.
This notion of locational choice is something we have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing following polling that we commissioned YouGov to undertake. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that commuting time is a top priority for working London renters: 56 per cent ranked the distance or travel time to work in their top three priorities, and over a quarter (27 per cent) ranked this factor first. Similarly, 55 per cent ranked having public transport available within ten minutes’ walk in their top three priorities, and a fifth (20 per cent) ranked the factor first.
When we analysed the findings further, we found that a clear majority (65 per cent) of working London renters believe that an acceptable commute time is up to around 45 minutes, and nearly all (92 per cent) think it should be no more than one hour.
Housing delivery in recent years has focused on those in the direst need, both economically and socially, subsidised by market housing that in London is unaffordable to median earners. An unintended consequence of this approach, in high-value areas particularly, means that little thought has been given to the needs and wants of the key workers upon whom we rely, as highlighted by this pandemic.
Therefore, we are asking that the government’s recovery strategy commits to a massive expansion of affordable house building, including a significant proportion of intermediate rental housing, within London, as part of the overall pledge to support the capital’s economy.


conservativehome--2020-07-22--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Starmer and Johnson look like inhabitants of different planets

“ The Labour Party is under new management , ” Sir Keir Starmer declared .
He got his message across rather well at PMQs .
In this endeavour , he had a certain amount of help from Boris Johnson , who was intent on attacking the old Labour Party , which was led by Jeremy Corbyn and parroted the Kremlin line .
The party has changed , Starmer retorted , and in any case , he himself never took orders from Corbyn about giving in to Moscow .
Tony Blair used to persuade middle England that he must be sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anguish from the Left of the Labour Party .
Starmer is doing something similar : the more he renounces Corbyn , and is denounced by him , the sounder he expects to appear to normal , patriotic voters .
Johnson today tried to avert any impression that Starmer was sound by accusing the Leader of the Opposition of yielding to “ pressure from the Islington Remainers who have seized on ” the Russia report in an attempt to suggest that Vladimir Putin is “ somehow responsible for Brexit ” .
The Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he was not taken seriously until he led Leave to victory in the EU Referendum , whereupon his neighbours paid him the compliment of starting to hate him .
So Johnson knows about the Islington Remainers and sees advantage in getting Starmer regarded as a paid-up member of that group .
Yet the Prime Minister also wishes to persuade us that Starmer keeps changing his views from week to week , even from day to day : “ The Leader of the Opposition has more flip flops than Bournemouth beach.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minds about anything , so Johnson may in the end have to decide which of these two lines of attack he proposes to maintain .
Starmer , annoyed to be thought inconstant , struck back at Johnson as “ the former columnist who wrote two versions of every article ” , a reference to the two articles Johnson wrote , for and against EU membership , as he wondered which side to back in the EU Referendum .
As Parliament breaks up for the summer recess , neither contender has established a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good at what he does , which is so different to what the other man does that there are times when they look like inhabitants of different planets .

“The Labour Party is under new management,” Sir Keir Starmer declared. He got his message across rather well at PMQs.
In this endeavour, he had a certain amount of help from Boris Johnson, who was intent on attacking the old Labour Party, which was led by Jeremy Corbyn and parroted the Kremlin line.
The party has changed, Starmer retorted, and in any case, he himself never took orders from Corbyn about giving in to Moscow.
Tony Blair used to persuade middle England that he must be sound, by saying things which produced cries of anguish from the Left of the Labour Party.
Starmer is doing something similar: the more he renounces Corbyn, and is denounced by him, the sounder he expects to appear to normal, patriotic voters.
Johnson today tried to avert any impression that Starmer was sound by accusing the Leader of the Opposition of yielding to “pressure from the Islington Remainers who have seized on” the Russia report in an attempt to suggest that Vladimir Putin is “somehow responsible for Brexit”.
The Prime Minister used to live in Islington, where he was not taken seriously until he led Leave to victory in the EU Referendum, whereupon his neighbours paid him the compliment of starting to hate him.
So Johnson knows about the Islington Remainers and sees advantage in getting Starmer regarded as a paid-up member of that group.
Yet the Prime Minister also wishes to persuade us that Starmer keeps changing his views from week to week, even from day to day: “The Leader of the Opposition has more flip flops than Bournemouth beach.”
The Islington Remainers are reluctant to change their minds about anything, so Johnson may in the end have to decide which of these two lines of attack he proposes to maintain.
Starmer, annoyed to be thought inconstant, struck back at Johnson as “the former columnist who wrote two versions of every article”, a reference to the two articles Johnson wrote, for and against EU membership, as he wondered which side to back in the EU Referendum.
As Parliament breaks up for the summer recess, neither contender has established a clear ascendancy over the other. Each is good at what he does, which is so different to what the other man does that there are times when they look like inhabitants of different planets.


conservativehome--2020-07-23--Henry Hill: Davies touts ‘devolution revolution’ as the Welsh Tories try to shield their unionist fl

Henry Hill: Davies touts ‘devolution revolution’ as the Welsh Tories try to shield their unionist flank

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives has pledged a ‘ devolution revolution ’ and to give Cardiff Bay a ‘ dose of Dom ’ in his latest bid to avoid being outflanked by organised devoscepticism .
ITV Wales reports that Paul Davies made the remarks in a ‘ virtual speech ’ – available on YouTube – to Conservative activists ahead of next year ’ s elections to the Welsh Parliament .
Other sources report that the Welsh Tories ’ new election strategy aims at tackling the long-standing problem this column has covered previously : mobilising Conservative voters who only vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn out for the Senedd .
As I wrote two years ago : “ Secondly , both candidates would do well to address the severe disadvantage their Party suffers because hundreds of thousands of its voters do not vote in devolved elections .
In 2016 the Tories polled just 215,000 votes , compared to over 400,000 in 2015 and almost 530,000 in 2017.
” Tory strategists have now set themselves the target of mobilising 75 per cent of their general election vote ( 557,234 in 2019 ) for the devolved contest , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to just under 418,000 .
For comparison , Labour ’ s majority-winning Senedd vote in 2016 was just under 354,000 .
All this is the latest evidence that the advent of organised opposition to the Welsh Parliament is already shifting the balance of power inside the Conservative Party .
The leadership remains firmly in the hands of the ‘ devophiles ’ , but their new slogan – ‘ Abolish Labour , not devolution ’ – suggests they fear they ’ re on borrowed time .
Johnson funds research for the ‘ Boris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Scotland News that the Prime Minister intends to embark on a tour of Scotland has probably not brought unconfined joy to unionists north of the border , but it remains infinitely preferable that he fights the good fight than not .
Following a week in which the Government squared up to the devolved administrations over the future of post-Brexit market regulations ( with very good reason , and as we covered last week ) , this morning ’ s papers carry several stories on Boris Johnson ’ s pro-UK fightback , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Scottish economy through the pandemic front and centre .
He has also apparently approved funds for a feasibility study into his proposal for the ‘ Boris Bridge ’ between Scotland and Northern Ireland .
It still seems extremely unlikely it will be built , however , especially once the Government has to start making cuts to pay for all the Covid-19 spending .
More evidence that the Tories are marshalling their forces in the Times this week , which covered the emergence of the new Conservative Union Research Group .
This new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the MP for Aberconwy , and aims to bring together backbench MPs to help support the Government as it prepares to take on Nicola Sturgeon and the devocrats .
It reportedly already has the backing of around 40 backbenchers .
Although modelled on the European Research Group ’ s template , which has the virtue of being approved by IPSA , CURG sources emphasise that it is not intended to be a ‘ party within a party ’ or agitate against the Government .
Defending the Union was in the Conservative manifesto in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working with the grain of the leadership .
It isn ’ t yet clear whether or not the group will have any relationships with other parties – ERG membership is open to the Democratic Unionists – or how precisely it will operate .
Watch this space .
Trouble at Stormont as ruling parties try to push through changes There has been a new fight in Northern Ireland over proposed changes to the Assembly being pushed by Sinn Fein and the DUP , according to the News Letter .
On Tuesday the Assembly took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial stage of legislation which will increase the powers of ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive .
Arlene Foster , the First Minister and DUP leader , has been accused of making a “ massive error ” based on a mistaken understanding of the law in question by a senior adviser who has now left the party .
Experts also warn that the changes are likely to lead to more legal challenges against Stormont decisions , contrary to the assertions of both Foster and Michelle O ’ Neill , her Sinn Fein counterpart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have also revived joint ministerial talks , the FT reports , as the new Taoiseach tries to build bridges following the departure of Leo Varadkar .

Davies says Wales needs a ‘devolution revolution’
The leader of the Welsh Conservatives has pledged a ‘devolution revolution’ and to give Cardiff Bay a ‘dose of Dom’ in his latest bid to avoid being outflanked by organised devoscepticism.
ITV Wales reports that Paul Davies made the remarks in a ‘virtual speech’ – available on YouTube – to Conservative activists ahead of next year’s elections to the Welsh Parliament.
Other sources report that the Welsh Tories’ new election strategy aims at tackling the long-standing problem this column has covered previously: mobilising Conservative voters who only vote at Westminster and in local elections to turn out for the Senedd. As I wrote two years ago:
“Secondly, both candidates would do well to address the severe disadvantage their Party suffers because hundreds of thousands of its voters do not vote in devolved elections. In 2016 the Tories polled just 215,000 votes, compared to over 400,000 in 2015 and almost 530,000 in 2017.”
Tory strategists have now set themselves the target of mobilising 75 per cent of their general election vote (557,234 in 2019) for the devolved contest, which if successful would almost double their 2016 vote to just under 418,000. For comparison, Labour’s majority-winning Senedd vote in 2016 was just under 354,000.
All this is the latest evidence that the advent of organised opposition to the Welsh Parliament is already shifting the balance of power inside the Conservative Party. The leadership remains firmly in the hands of the ‘devophiles’, but their new slogan – ‘Abolish Labour, not devolution’ – suggests they fear they’re on borrowed time.
Johnson funds research for the ‘Boris Bridge’ as he steps up campaigning in Scotland
News that the Prime Minister intends to embark on a tour of Scotland has probably not brought unconfined joy to unionists north of the border, but it remains infinitely preferable that he fights the good fight than not.
Following a week in which the Government squared up to the devolved administrations over the future of post-Brexit market regulations (with very good reason, and as we covered last week), this morning’s papers carry several stories on Boris Johnson’s pro-UK fightback, with the role of the Treasury in supporting the Scottish economy through the pandemic front and centre.
He has also apparently approved funds for a feasibility study into his proposal for the ‘Boris Bridge’ between Scotland and Northern Ireland. It still seems extremely unlikely it will be built, however, especially once the Government has to start making cuts to pay for all the Covid-19 spending.
MPs set up new ‘Union Research Group’
More evidence that the Tories are marshalling their forces in the Times this week, which covered the emergence of the new Conservative Union Research Group.
This new body is chaired by Robin Millar, the MP for Aberconwy, and aims to bring together backbench MPs to help support the Government as it prepares to take on Nicola Sturgeon and the devocrats. It reportedly already has the backing of around 40 backbenchers.
Although modelled on the European Research Group’s template, which has the virtue of being approved by IPSA, CURG sources emphasise that it is not intended to be a ‘party within a party’ or agitate against the Government. Defending the Union was in the Conservative manifesto in 2019, so it expects to be working with the grain of the leadership.
It isn’t yet clear whether or not the group will have any relationships with other parties – ERG membership is open to the Democratic Unionists – or how precisely it will operate. Watch this space.
Trouble at Stormont as ruling parties try to push through changes
There has been a new fight in Northern Ireland over proposed changes to the Assembly being pushed by Sinn Fein and the DUP, according to the News Letter.
On Tuesday the Assembly took just ten minutes to vote through the crucial stage of legislation which will increase the powers of ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. Arlene Foster, the First Minister and DUP leader, has been accused of making a “massive error” based on a mistaken understanding of the law in question by a senior adviser who has now left the party.
Experts also warn that the changes are likely to lead to more legal challenges against Stormont decisions, contrary to the assertions of both Foster and Michelle O’Neill, her Sinn Fein counterpart.
Meanwhile, Ulster and the Republic have also revived joint ministerial talks, the FT reports, as the new Taoiseach tries to build bridges following the departure of Leo Varadkar.


conservativehome--2020-07-23--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commiss

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

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

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


conservativehome--2020-07-23--The Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission pledged in the Conservative Manifesto is being qui

The Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission pledged in the Conservative Manifesto is being quietly shelved

The page of the Conservative Manifesto which most alarmed supporters of the status quo was page 48 .
And the part of this page – which dealt broadly with constitutional matters – that alarmed them most was at its end .
We refer to the long paragraph that promised a “ Constitution , Democracy & Rights Commission ” “ in our first year ” .
It explained that this commission would examine the Royal Prerogative , the House of Lords , the courts , judicial review , and access to justice for ordinary people .
It would also “ update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
That first matter , the Royal Prerogative , was clearly a reference to “ Miller Two ” – the Supreme Court judgement that sunk Boris Johnson ’ s prorogation plan , conflating as it did so the legislature with Parliament as a whole , and thereby arguing , with supreme constitutional illiteracy , that the monarch is not part of Parliament .
Needless to say , our reading of that judgement is controversial – and so therefore was the section about the proposed commission on page 48 .
Which has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , from the start , what the Australians call “ a tall poppy ” .
It was exposed to critics who would want to scythe it down .
There were further complications from the Government side , once the dust had settled on last December ’ s election victory .
For putting together the commission turned out to present all manner of difficulties which for whatever reason were unforeseen at the time of its invention .
First of all , which items from this rich menu should its members select ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not exactly a fan of the way in which judicial review works .
Consider his convulsive reaction to the Court of Appeal ’ s decision in February to suspend the deportation of criminals to the Caribbean .
He was reported to have described this to officials as “ a perfect symbol of the British state ’ s dysfunction ” , adding that there must be “ urgent action on the farce that judicial review has become ” .
But what if the putative commission went haring off first after another quarry – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Parliamentary reform might not be knowledgeable to the same degree on justice access , say .
People who have studied the Royal Prerogative may not have mastered judicial review .
The commission members might not be able to agree what dishes to select ; too many diners spoil the broth .
ConservativeHome can not be sure which of Cummings , various SpAds , Munira Mirza , different advisers and Robert Buckland came up with the Commission idea .
But we hear that the manifesto commitment is dead and that there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any in other year .
Downing Street and Ministers will resist this take , of course .
They will explain that there will be lots of mini-commissions , ranging across the same constitututional , political and legal turf .
So the commission hasn ’ t really been scrapped , you see .
Just re-invented in other forms .
Hmmm .
At any rate , the principle is clear .
If you want a commission on judicial reform , “ available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays ” , then select members whose area of expertise is the law .
Which doesn ’ t mean only such people .
But there is no reason why intelligent lay members should also be experts on how the Lords or Commons works .
Meanwhile , the UK ’ s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights is the elephant in the constitutional room – one on which not just page 48 but the entire manifesto was silent .

The page of the Conservative Manifesto which most alarmed supporters of the status quo was page 48. And the part of this page – which dealt broadly with constitutional matters – that alarmed them most was at its end. We refer to the long paragraph that promised a “Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission” “in our first year”.
It explained that this commission would examine the Royal Prerogative, the House of Lords, the courts, judicial review, and access to justice for ordinary people. It would also “update the Human Rights Act and administrative law”.
That first matter, the Royal Prerogative, was clearly a reference to “Miller Two” – the Supreme Court judgement that sunk Boris Johnson’s prorogation plan, conflating as it did so the legislature with Parliament as a whole, and thereby arguing, with supreme constitutional illiteracy, that the monarch is not part of Parliament.
Needless to say, our reading of that judgement is controversial – and so therefore was the section about the proposed commission on page 48. Which has a consequence: namely, that the commission was, from the start, what the Australians call “a tall poppy”. It was exposed to critics who would want to scythe it down.
There were further complications from the Government side, once the dust had settled on last December’s election victory. For putting together the commission turned out to present all manner of difficulties which for whatever reason were unforeseen at the time of its invention.
First of all, which items from this rich menu should its members select? It’s no secret that Dominic Cummings is not exactly a fan of the way in which judicial review works. Consider his convulsive reaction to the Court of Appeal’s decision in February to suspend the deportation of criminals to the Caribbean.
He was reported to have described this to officials as “a perfect symbol of the British state’s dysfunction”, adding that there must be “urgent action on the farce that judicial review has become”. But what if the putative commission went haring off first after another quarry – Lords reform, say?
Those expert on Parliamentary reform might not be knowledgeable to the same degree on justice access, say. People who have studied the Royal Prerogative may not have mastered judicial review. The commission members might not be able to agree what dishes to select; too many diners spoil the broth.
ConservativeHome cannot be sure which of Cummings, various SpAds, Munira Mirza, different advisers and Robert Buckland came up with the Commission idea. But we hear that the manifesto commitment is dead and that there will be no such commission – this year or any in other year.
Downing Street and Ministers will resist this take, of course. They will explain that there will be lots of mini-commissions, ranging across the same constitututional, political and legal turf. So the commission hasn’t really been scrapped, you see. Just re-invented in other forms. Hmmm.
At any rate, the principle is clear. If you want a commission on judicial reform, “available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays”, then select members whose area of expertise is the law.
Which doesn’t mean only such people. But there is no reason why intelligent lay members should also be experts on how the Lords or Commons works. Meanwhile, the UK’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights is the elephant in the constitutional room – one on which not just page 48 but the entire manifesto was silent.