conservativehome--2020-10-22--Frank Young: What drug dealers really think about legalising drugs

Frank Young is a Political Director at the Centre for Social Justice .
Drugs legalisation is a cockroach policy that is almost impossible to kill .
Even now , as the country tries to contain a pandemic , there are calls in the press from Left and Right to legalise cannabis : rather like the arguments over grammar schools , it is a debate that seemingly will never die .
Dealers themselves are dismissive of calls to legalise drugs – as we found out when we spoke to some about arguments put up by political types for and against legalisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what they told us : A raw deal : drug-dealing discussed with lived experience .
Our ex-pushers told us , very clearly , that like any entrepreneur they would simply undercut the ( heavily taxed ) market in any newly legal drugs .
One former dealer told us that if high street chemists started selling legal cannabis , they would “ either match that price or do better than that price ” .
The supply of “ recreational ” drugs is immune to lockdowns , as a recent study of drug supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as easy as ordering a pizza .
This isn ’ t just an issue that is happening somewhere else .
The chances are that there will be drugs whizzing around a street near you , impervious to class or any other sort of social stratification .
One ex-dealer told us about dealing Xanax , a common anti-anxiety drug , to university students : “ a lot of these people that I was selling drugs to in university , I was just their doctor ” .
We were told about , in their words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t think they were buying drugs because they were getting brand name PfizerXanax at a fraction of the price of a high street pharmacist .
These are the sons and daughters of our “ ethical ” consumers of ‘ Cali ’ cocaine .
What our conversations really taught us is how our debate in this area is increasingly out of date : the political class will forever discuss laws they can tinker with , but what we need to really talk about is how we provide support to help guide people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity .
Our ex-dealers were caught in a trap just as bad as any poverty trap .
When you speak to young men ‘ trapped ’ in a cycle of drug dealing and violent offending , the idea of parallel societies is a constant theme .
Our conversations with ex-drug dealers shed a spotlight on career routes in gang life and the drug trade .
They were drawn in by the easy cash , which then hooked them into a lifestyle of small-time dealing .
Tougher policing through newly announced Serious Violence Reduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chance to step in when they can see drugs all around them , making dealing in the spotlight a much less attractive proposition .
But good ol ’ Tory tough-on-crime is not enough by itself .
The solution to these problems is not endless debate over regulation , but to get serious about engaging early and scaling up tried and tested programmes focused on young people heading for the clink .
Take Josh Babarinde , who was awarded the OBE recently .
Josh set up Cracked It : he literally went door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join his social enterprise mending phone screens and supporting ex-offenders into work .
For those much further down the path , charities like Key4Life who work with offenders stuck in prison and through mentoring and education put them on a path tolegitimate employment .
A year after release,14 per cent of those who went through the Key4Life programme have re-offended , compared to a national proven re-offending rate of 64 per cent .
There are plenty of charities stepping in to do this work : what we could do with now is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , bottle it and do more .
If you want to kill supply , you have to kill demand , so get in early with young users – if you ’ re found with small quantities , you should be sent on a drug awareness course , like a speed awareness course , to learn about the damage you are doing .
This should be used as a funnel to scale up these charities – and pick out the young people heading to the clink , or worse .
Police Commissioners should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in and deliver these programmes , and an innovation fund for commissioners should be set up , making them proper laboratories for fighting crime .
The next time someone tries to peddle legalisation to you , just say no – and ask them what they would do instead about the young men caught up in ‘ the trap ’ , from tougher street policing to backing charities stepping in to change lives for good .

Frank Young is a Political Director at the Centre for Social Justice.
Drugs legalisation is a cockroach policy that is almost impossible to kill. Even now, as the country tries to contain a pandemic, there are calls in the press from Left and Right to legalise cannabis: rather like the arguments over grammar schools, it is a debate that seemingly will never die.
Dealers themselves are dismissive of calls to legalise drugs – as we found out when we spoke to some about arguments put up by political types for and against legalisation. Today, we publish an account of what they told us: A raw deal: drug-dealing discussed with lived experience.
Our ex-pushers told us, very clearly, that like any entrepreneur they would simply undercut the (heavily taxed) market in any newly legal drugs. One former dealer told us that if high street chemists started selling legal cannabis, they would “either match that price or do better than that price”.
The supply of “recreational” drugs is immune to lockdowns, as a recent study of drug supply found. Ordering recreational drugs is now as easy as ordering a pizza. This isn’t just an issue that is happening somewhere else. The chances are that there will be drugs whizzing around a street near you, impervious to class or any other sort of social stratification.
One ex-dealer told us about dealing Xanax, a common anti-anxiety drug, to university students: “a lot of these people that I was selling drugs to in university, I was just their doctor”.
We were told about, in their words, “middle-class” students, who didn’t think they were buying drugs because they were getting brand name PfizerXanax at a fraction of the price of a high street pharmacist. These are the sons and daughters of our “ethical” consumers of ‘Cali’ cocaine. People who are addicted to drugs, immediately need to seek attention from the best addiction treatment program near me, which will help people recover from drug addiction.
What our conversations really taught us is how our debate in this area is increasingly out of date: the political class will forever discuss laws they can tinker with, but what we need to really talk about is how we provide support to help guide people away from the dangerous temptations of criminal activity. Our ex-dealers were caught in a trap just as bad as any poverty trap.
When you speak to young men ‘trapped’ in a cycle of drug dealing and violent offending, the idea of parallel societies is a constant theme. Our conversations with ex-drug dealers shed a spotlight on career routes in gang life and the drug trade.
They were drawn in by the easy cash, which then hooked them into a lifestyle of small-time dealing. Tougher policing through newly announced Serious Violence Reduction Orders will help, giving the police the chance to step in when they can see drugs all around them, making dealing in the spotlight a much less attractive proposition. But good ol’ Tory tough-on-crime is not enough by itself.
The solution to these problems is not endless debate over regulation, but to get serious about engaging early and scaling up tried and tested programmes focused on young people heading for the clink.
Take Josh Babarinde, who was awarded the OBE recently. Josh set up Cracked It: he literally went door to door to encourage young people to join his social enterprise mending phone screens and supporting ex-offenders into work.
For those much further down the path, charities like Key4Life who work with offenders stuck in prison and through mentoring and education put them on a path tolegitimate employment. A year after release,14 per cent of those who went through the Key4Life programme have re-offended, compared to a national proven re-offending rate of 64 per cent. There are plenty of charities stepping in to do this work: what we could do with now is a national effort to scale up what they do, bottle it and do more.
If you want to kill supply, you have to kill demand, so get in early with young users – if you’re found with small quantities, you should be sent on a drug awareness course, like a speed awareness course, to learn about the damage you are doing.
This should be used as a funnel to scale up these charities – and pick out the young people heading to the clink, or worse. Police Commissioners should be given a proper role to step in and deliver these programmes, and an innovation fund for commissioners should be set up, making them proper laboratories for fighting crime.
The next time someone tries to peddle legalisation to you, just say no – and ask them what they would do instead about the young men caught up in ‘the trap’, from tougher street policing to backing charities stepping in to change lives for good.


conservativehome--2020-10-22--Matthew Elliott: Please apply to invest in Britain’s future and win £10,000

Coming from the world of think-tanks and campaign groups , I have a strong interest in the policy ecosystem that surrounds political parties .
Ahead of Tony Blair ’ s victory in 1997 , think-tanks such as Demos and the Institute for Public Policy Research were established .
And in the 2000s , a plethora of think-tanks ( Centre for Social Justice/Policy Exchange ) , campaign groups ( Business for Sterling/Countryside Alliance ) and websites ( ConservativeHome/Guido Fawkes ) were launched and play an influential role in political discourse .
As well as playing a role in two successful referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I helped set up the TaxPayers ’ Alliance ( 2004 ) , Big Brother Watch ( 2009 ) , Million Jobs ( 2012 ) , Business for Britain ( 2013 ) and BrexitCentral ( 2016 ) , so policy entrepreneurship is one of my passions .
And even though my focus is now more in the private sector , I still enjoy helping and mentoring new policy entrepreneurs who are setting up the next generation of campaign groups and think-tanks .
At the beginning of my career , I was helped by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who sadly passed away at the end of July .
I was 25 when we launched the TaxPayers ’ Alliance .
I didn ’ t know any potential financial supporters , so I wrote to the signatories of a Business for Sterling advertisement with my ‘ Strategy Plan ’ .
I thought , if they like BfS , there ’ s a good chance they ’ ll like the TPA .
Stuart was one of the people who very generously sent a contribution which , along with some other donations , gave us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three months , giving me the confidence to leave my position as a researcher to the Conservative MEP ( now Lord ) Timothy Kirkhope , and go full-time with the TPA .
Seventeen years later , I now find myself in a different position .
My most recent project – the news website BrexitCentral – sent out its 1,085th and final daily email bulletin to the tens of thousands of subscribers we had accrued on February 1 , the day after the UK formally left the European Union .
Alongside those essential morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isaby and his team , we had published more than 2000 articles by over 500 authors , including the current Prime Minister and many of his Cabinet , not to mention Erin O ’ Toole , the man who was elected leader of the Canadian Conservative Party over the summer .
We are now in the final stages of winding up the company – a task which has been somewhat delayed by babies and Covid-19 – so , along with Georgiana Bristol , who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to keep the show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the issue of what to do with the last remaining funds .
When we were discussing the matter , I thought about the support that Stuart Wheeler and other donors had given me as we launched the TPA , and we decided that it would be very fitting to use those remaining funds to support the young policy and campaigning entrepreneurs of today – people with the ideas that will tackle the policy challenges of the coming years .
We have two cheques for £10,000 , and we would like to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an exciting idea or contribution to policy debate .
It could be : • A campaign group or think-tank you have set up , or are hoping to set up ; • A book proposal that you want to take a sabbatical from your current job to research and draft ; • A think-tank report you want to take time off from your current position to write ; • A website or podcast you want to establish , or a short film you wish to make .
That is not an exhaustive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas , the more innovative and entrepreneurial the better .
And because Brexit was supported by people from across the political spectrum , we are open to proposals from all policy positions .
To stress , we are not looking for proposals relating to Brexit or Britain ’ s future relationship with the European Union – we are looking for submissions on any issue , policy or subject that you feel passionate about .
Entries should be emailed to policyentrepreneurs @ brexitcentral.com by midnight on Sunday 8th November 2020 and should cover ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A4 ) an outline of your plan an dhow you hope to execute it .
All submissions will then be sifted and judged by a panel comprising Jonathan and I , plus Kate Andrews , Peter Cruddas , Helena Morrissey , Jon Moynihan and Mark Wallace .
And the two winners will be announced by the end of November .
Since I became active in politics , the barriers to entry for policy entrepreneurship have been massively reduced thanks to the Internet .
When I interned at the European Foundation whilst at university @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mall , it had copies of its European Journal and European Digest professionally printed , which were then posted to subscribers and the opinion formers in Westminster , Whitehall and Fleet Street that it was trying to influence .
It sent press releases out by fax , business was conducted on the telephone or by post , and all these costs were before the general overheads and payroll costs that also needed to be covered .
Fast forward twenty years , and the cost of campaigning has fallen significantly .
From setting up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadcasting ideas and opinions to the world is so much cheaper .
But there are still financial barriers , so I hope that this small project will help two policy entrepreneurs of the future , just as Stuart Wheeler helped me with the creation of the TaxPayers ’ Alliance all those years ago .
I look forward to reading your entries and announcing the recipients later this year .
This article was originally published on ConservativeHome on Monday October 19 , and we are re-publishing it during each weekday this week in order @ @ @ @ @

Matthew Elliott was Editor-at-Large of BrexitCentral
Coming from the world of think-tanks and campaign groups, I have a strong interest in the policy ecosystem that surrounds political parties.
Ahead of Tony Blair’s victory in 1997, think-tanks such as Demos and the Institute for Public Policy Research were established. And in the 2000s,a plethora of think-tanks (Centre for Social Justice/Policy Exchange), campaign groups (Business for Sterling/Countryside Alliance) and websites (ConservativeHome/Guido Fawkes) were launched and play an influential role in political discourse.
As well as playing a role in two successful referendum campaigns (NOtoAV and Vote Leave), I helped set up the TaxPayers’ Alliance (2004), Big Brother Watch (2009), Million Jobs (2012), Business for Britain (2013) and BrexitCentral (2016), so policy entrepreneurship is one of my passions. And even though my focus is now more in the private sector, I still enjoy helping and mentoring new policy entrepreneurs who are setting up the next generation of campaign groups and think-tanks.
At the beginning of my career, I was helped by the entrepreneur and philanthropist Stuart Wheeler, who sadly passed away at the end of July. I was 25 when we launched the TaxPayers’Alliance. I didn’t know any potential financial supporters, so I wrote to the signatories of a Business for Sterling advertisement with my ‘Strategy Plan’.
I thought, if they like BfS, there’s a good chance they’ll like the TPA. Stuart was one of the people who very generously sent a contribution which, along with some other donations, gave us the resources to cover my salary for three months, giving me the confidence to leave my position as a researcher to the Conservative MEP (now Lord) Timothy Kirkhope, and go full-time with the TPA.
Seventeen years later, I now find myself in a different position. My most recent project – the news website BrexitCentral – sent out its 1,085th and final daily email bulletin to the tens of thousands of subscribers we had accrued on February 1, the day after the UK formally left the European Union.
Alongside those essential morning emails put together by the indefatigable Jonathan Isaby and his team, we had published more than 2000 articles by over 500 authors, including the current Prime Minister and many of his Cabinet, not to mention Erin O’Toole, the man who was elected leader of the Canadian Conservative Party over the summer.
We are now in the final stages of winding up the company – a task which has been somewhat delayed by babies and Covid-19 – so, along with Georgiana Bristol, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to keep the show on the road, we are left with the issue of what to do with the last remaining funds.
When we were discussing the matter, I thought about the support that Stuart Wheeler and other donors had given me as we launched the TPA, and we decided that it would be very fitting to use those remaining funds to support the young policy and campaigning entrepreneurs of today – people with the ideas that will tackle the policy challenges of the coming years.
We have two cheques for £10,000, and we would like to hear from people under the age of 35 with an exciting idea or contribution to policy debate. It could be:
A campaign group or think-tank you have set up, or are hoping to set up;
A book proposal that you want to take a sabbatical from your current job to research and draft;
A think-tank report you want to take time off from your current position to write;
A website or podcast you want to establish, or a short film you wish to make.
That is not an exhaustive list – we are interested in all ideas, the more innovative and entrepreneurial the better. And because Brexit was supported by people from across the political spectrum, we are open to proposals from all policy positions.
To stress, we are not looking for proposals relating to Brexit or Britain’s future relationship with the European Union – we are looking for submissions on any issue, policy or subject that you feel passionate about.
Entries should be emailed to policyentrepreneurs@brexitcentral.com by midnight on Sunday 8th November 2020 and should cover (on no more than two sides of A4) an outline of your plan an dhow you hope to execute it. All submissions will then be sifted and judged by a panel comprising Jonathan and I, plus Kate Andrews, Peter Cruddas, Helena Morrissey, Jon Moynihan and Mark Wallace. And the two winners will be announced by the end of November.
Since I became active in politics, the barriers to entry for policy entrepreneurship have been massively reduced thanks to the Internet. When I interned at the European Foundation whilst at university, it had an office in Pall Mall, it had copies of its European Journal and European Digest professionally printed, which were then posted to subscribers and the opinion formers in Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street that it was trying to influence. It sent press releases out by fax, business was conducted on the telephone or by post, and all these costs were before the general overheads and payroll costs that also needed to be covered.
Fast forward twenty years, and the cost of campaigning has fallen significantly. From setting up a website to using social media, broadcasting ideas and opinions to the world is so much cheaper. But there are still financial barriers, so I hope that this small project will help two policy entrepreneurs of the future, just as Stuart Wheeler helped me with the creation of the TaxPayers’ Alliance all those years ago.
I look forward to reading your entries and announcing the recipients later this year.
This article was originally published on ConservativeHome on Monday October 19, and we are re-publishing it during each weekday this week in order to advertise this project.


conservativehome--2020-10-22--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the BBC – 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 role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes ; leading the Prompt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following : strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ Help us make a better future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas .
The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction .
This includes enabling a high standard of discussion ; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government ; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles ; Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan ; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.
” “ Formed in 2009 , and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body ( NDPB ) since 2012 , the RPC ’ s role is to provide Government with external , independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures .
It assesses the quality of evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their regulatory proposals , and by doing so , helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses , civil society , charities and other non-government organisations .
The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department ’ s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members , who provide robust and objective advice to government , parliament , and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.
” “ This is an exciting time to join the Department for Transport .
We are responsible for the transport network that helps the UK ’ s businesses and gets people and goods travelling around the country .
We plan and invest in transport infrastructure to keep the UK on the move .
We work across all modes of transport – roads , rail , aviation , maritime – to improve journeys , boost economic growth , work towards a low carbon future and build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Non-Executive Director to join the Department ’ s Board .
The successful candidate , through their membership of the Board , will provide challenge and support to a wide variety of management and operational issues and contribute to the effective strategic and operational leadership of the Department.
” “ You will be independent of the Ministry of Defence operational activities and have the ability to apply intellectual rigour in support of the Ministry of Defence ’ s ( MOD ) Chief Scientific Advisor ( CSA ) .
Membership of Defence Science Expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exciting opportunity to contribute to UK-led Defence Science and Technology .
DSEC is the MOD key source of independent advice on non-nuclear science , technology , engineering , analysis and mathematics issues .
It is an Expert Committee reporting to the MOD CSA and supporting the derivation and delivery of the Department ’ s Science and Technology Strategy .
DSEC comprises an Independent Chair supported by up to 10 Independent Members drawn from senior academic and industrial communities .
All are specialists in a branch of science , engineering , technology , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and security and have proven ability in working on Boards or Committees .
Senior MOD officials , including CSA , keep the Committee abreast of developments in MOD and facilitate contacts within MOD.
” “ The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board ( including its various sub-committees ) , the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass ’ affairs , and that Cafcass ’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State ; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets , and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks ; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department , and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds… ” Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement “ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit .
The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority ( the UK Health Ministers ) and its executive arm , the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ( MHRA ) , on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe , efficacious and of good quality .
The Chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required .
They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues , many of which would be out of any one practitioner ’ s area of expertise , and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.
” Remuneration : Up to £500 per meeting “ We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting , to represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain the Corporation ’ s independence .
As per the BBC Royal Charter , the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition .
The Governance Code , including the public appointment principles , must be followed in making the appointment .
The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code .
Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3-4 days per week ( Chair ) / Up to 2 days per week .
“ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board .
Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ The Prime Minister ’ s Council for Science and Technology ( CST @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments .
It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions , and in building a robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the UK , post Covid .
The Government is seeking to appoint a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser ( GCSA ) .
” “ The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy , responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress , tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors .
It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain .
We are seeking to appoint a new Chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation , delivers key Government commitments , and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair , the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors .
The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service , with particular emphasis on its strategic direction , management controls , and corporate governance .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Policy Committee – Chair
“Formed in 2009, and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) since 2012, the RPC’s role is to provide Government with external, independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures. It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals, and by doing so, helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department’s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members, who provide robust and objective advice to government, parliament, and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Transport – Non-Executive Director
“This is an exciting time to join the Department for Transport. We are responsible for the transport network that helps the UK’s businesses and gets people and goods travelling around the country. We plan and invest in transport infrastructure to keep the UK on the move. We work across all modes of transport – roads, rail, aviation, maritime – to improve journeys, boost economic growth, work towards a low carbon future and build a One Nation Britain. We are seeking a Non-Executive Director to join the Department’s Board. The successful candidate, through their membership of the Board, will provide challenge and support to a wide variety of management and operational issues and contribute to the effective strategic and operational leadership of the Department.”
Time: 15 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 01 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Defence Science Expert Committee – Chair
“You will be independent of the Ministry of Defence operational activities and have the ability to apply intellectual rigour in support of the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA). Membership of Defence Science Expert Committee (DSEC) is an important and exciting opportunity to contribute to UK-led Defence Science and Technology. DSEC is the MOD key source of independent advice on non-nuclear science, technology, engineering, analysis and mathematics issues. It is an Expert Committee reporting to the MOD CSA and supporting the derivation and delivery of the Department’s Science and Technology Strategy. DSEC comprises an Independent Chair supported by up to 10 Independent Members drawn from senior academic and industrial communities. All are specialists in a branch of science, engineering, technology, humanities or medicine of relevance to defence and security and have proven ability in working on Boards or Committees. Senior MOD officials, including CSA, keep the Committee abreast of developments in MOD and facilitate contacts within MOD.”
Time: 20-25 days per annum.
Remuneration: £465 per diem, plus allowances.
Closes: 02 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – Chair
“The role of the Chair is to lead and direct the work of the Cafcass Board (including its various sub-committees), the purpose of which is to ensure probity in the conduct of Cafcass’ affairs, and that Cafcass’ policies and its strategic vision are compatible with those of the Secretary of State. The Board is specifically responsible for: establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of Cafcass consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State; ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes or risks that are likely to impact on the strategic direction of Cafcass or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes or risks; ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the Department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds…”
Time: 80 days per annum.
Remuneration: £400 per diem.
Closes: 03 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Director of Labour Market Enforcement
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: 1-2 days per week.
Remuneration: £100,000 – £130,000 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 08 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Commission on Human Medicines – Chair
“The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit. The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority (the UK Health Ministers) and its executive arm, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe, efficacious and of good quality. The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required. They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues, many of which would be out of any one practitioner’s area of expertise, and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.”
Time: Approx. 33 days per annum.
Remuneration: Up to £500 per meeting
Closes: 10 November
– – – – – – – – – –
British Broadcasting Corporation – Chair/Member for England
“We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting, to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation’s independence. As per the BBC Royal Charter, the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition. The Governance Code, including the public appointment principles, must be followed in making the appointment. The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code. Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.”
Time: 3-4 days per week (Chair) / Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £160,000 (Chair) / £33,000 per annum, +£5,000 for committee chairs, reasonable expenses (Member)
Closes: 11 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Consumer Council for Water – Independent Board Members
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: Three days per month.
Remuneration: £11,718 per annum.
Closes: 16 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Insolvency Service – Chair
“The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors. It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain. We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation, delivers key Government commitments, and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair, the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors. The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service, with particular emphasis on its strategic direction, management controls, and corporate governance.”
Time: 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000.
Closes: 22 November


conservativehome--2020-10-22--Why Ministers shouldn’t pin their hopes on a Coronavirus vaccine

In recent months , there has been huge enthusiasm over the possibility of a Covid-19 vaccine .
I know because I have experienced it myself , dreaming of the day I roll my sleeve up in the GP surgery ; small pain , big gain , I might whisper to myself .
Everyone wants a way out of this nightmare , and with every Government announcement of investment for vaccine studies , it was easy to get carried away – that this was the way out .
Over the weekend , the prospect of a vaccine became all the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photographs from inside US pharmaceutical company Pfizer ’ s Belgian factory , in which thousands of doses were whisked through the production line .
That same day , The Sunday Times reported that Jonathan Van-Tam , one of the Government ’ s chief scientific advisors , has said that one version , manufactured by AstraZeneca , could be ready as early as December .
But why all the excitement ?
For shortly afterwards Patrick Vallance , the Government ’ s Chief Scientific Adviser , delivered a crushing blow to the vaccine dream , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Security Strategy that the “ notion of eliminating Covid is not right ” .
He added that the disease would “ start to look like annual flu more than anything else and that may be the direction we end up going.
” Vallance ’ s words should remind us that while the Government initially placed a lot of political hope in a vaccine , ministers are actually moving in a different direction now – to a new testing programme entirely .
As Paul Goodman wrote for ConservativeHome on Monday , this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which render a tracing programme obsolete , as well as the Government using LAMP tests – concentrated on testing asymptomatic NHS staff .
This is a sensible direction – for all the excitement around vaccines , the truth is that they ’ re just as likely to have major hiccups as test and trace .
That much is obvious from both medical and political perspectives .
On the first front , what ’ s obvious is that it ’ s incredibly hard to completely vaccinate against a virus .
Indeed , smallpox is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely eradicated by a vaccine .
Kate Bingham , the chairman of the UK Vaccine Taskforce , has said that a Coronavirus vaccine would probably have the same success rate as the flu jab ( 50 per cent ) .
But even that could be optimistic .
SARS and MERS come from the same Coronavirus family , and do not have vaccines ( though there are candidates being developed for MERS ) .
Optimists will point out that the World Health Organisation is currently tracking 196 studies into Covid-19 , which is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expert in medical innovation tells me it ’ s quite hard to make predictions about which will be a success – because of the ways vaccines are created .
They tell me that “ the vast majority of majority of new drugs and vaccines that are developed fail .
It ’ s not like a construction project , where you know it ’ s possible to build the building , but you can run into unforeseen issues.
” “ It ’ s more like you don ’ t know if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building in the first place , and it may never get built .
There are multiple approaches to vaccine development and it ’ s not clear yet which may or may not succeed.
” If we do get a vaccine , the next big hurdle is making sure it passes rigorous safety assessments that could add a lot more time onto the process .
It can be expected that some governments will try to bypass important regulatory processes ( the Chinese government has allowed citizens to get a vaccine that hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for it ) .
And then there ’ s the next question of who gets the vaccine .
This is already causing a political headache , especially when ( aforementioned ) Bingham said that only 30 million of the 67 million people who live in Britain woud get a vaccine .
Already MPs are getting ready for warfare ; in the House of Commons yesterday , James Grundy , the Conservative MP for Leigh , asked the Government to prioritise areas which have lived with restrictions longest when and if the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a question , incidentally ; there is no vaccine , and when it arrives there ’ ll be a global response to who gets it ( i.e .
the UK will have to share it out with other countries ) .
Yet Grundy ’ s words demonstrate some heated arguments to come – that the Government will no doubt want to avoid with its new testing strategy .
So it is no wonder that the Government is moving away from its initial idea .
Ben Spencer , the Conservative MP for Runnymede and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently written about the need for Plan B in the UK ’ s management of Covid-19 .
He tells me : “ I really hope we are successful in inventing a vaccine that helps and saves lives , but we have to make plans on the basis that there won ’ t be one , or at least one which isn ’ t a game changer.
” “ Although it ’ s difficult picking apart the figures for flu alone , it ’ s worth remembering that in 2019 , 26,000 people died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effective vaccination programme in place for the flu in the UK.
” It seems that the need for another plan is what the Government has sensed , and that ’ s why it has gone for a new strategy , having had to navigate such difficult areas .
It ’ s clear that the vaccine isn ’ t the silver bullet many of us imagined .
The quickest way the Government can avoid the horrible political scramble that is about to emerge is spurring on its new programme .
The pressure is @

In recent months, there has been huge enthusiasm over the possibility of a Covid-19 vaccine. I know because I have experienced it myself, dreaming of the day I roll my sleeve up in the GP surgery; small pain, big gain, I might whisper to myself. Everyone wants a way out of this nightmare, and with every Government announcement of investment for vaccine studies, it was easy to get carried away – that this was the way out.
Over the weekend, the prospect of a vaccine became all the more palpable when The Mail on Sunday released photographs from inside US pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s Belgian factory, in which thousands of doses were whisked through the production line. That same day, The Sunday Times reported that Jonathan Van-Tam, one of the Government’s chief scientific advisors, has said that one version, manufactured by AstraZeneca, could be ready as early as December.
But why all the excitement? For shortly afterwards Patrick Vallance, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, delivered a crushing blow to the vaccine dream, telling those on the joint committee on National Security Strategy that the “notion of eliminating Covid is not right”. He added that the disease would “start to look like annual flu more than anything else and that may be the direction we end up going.”
Vallance’s words should remind us that while the Government initially placed a lot of political hope in a vaccine, ministers are actually moving in a different direction now – to a new testing programme entirely. As Paul Goodman wrote for ConservativeHome on Monday, this would involve rapid “lateral-flow” tests, which render a tracing programme obsolete, as well as the Government using LAMP tests – concentrated on testing asymptomatic NHS staff.
This is a sensible direction – for all the excitement around vaccines, the truth is that they’re just as likely to have major hiccups as test and trace. That much is obvious from both medical and political perspectives.
On the first front, what’s obvious is that it’s incredibly hard to completely vaccinate against a virus. Indeed, smallpox is the only disease that has ever been completely eradicated by a vaccine. Kate Bingham, the chairman of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, has said that a Coronavirus vaccine would probably have the same success rate as the flu jab (50 per cent). But even that could be optimistic. SARS and MERS come from the same Coronavirus family, and do not have vaccines (though there are candidates being developed for MERS).
Optimists will point out that the World Health Organisation is currently tracking 196 studies into Covid-19, which is a fantastic number. Even so, an expert in medical innovation tells me it’s quite hard to make predictions about which will be a success – because of the ways vaccines are created. They tell me that “the vast majority of majority of new drugs and vaccines that are developed fail. It’s not like a construction project, where you know it’s possible to build the building, but you can run into unforeseen issues.”
“It’s more like you don’t know if you’re taking the right approach to constructing the building in the first place, and it may never get built. There are multiple approaches to vaccine development and it’s not clear yet which may or may not succeed.”
If we do get a vaccine, the next big hurdle is making sure it passes rigorous safety assessments that could add a lot more time onto the process. It can be expected that some governments will try to bypass important regulatory processes (the Chinese government has allowed citizens to get a vaccine that hasn’t completed clinical trials, with people queueing up for it).
And then there’s the next question of who gets the vaccine. This is already causing a political headache, especially when (aforementioned) Bingham said that only 30 million of the 67 million people who live in Britain woud get a vaccine. Already MPs are getting ready for warfare; in the House of Commons yesterday, James Grundy, the Conservative MP for Leigh, asked the Government to prioritise areas which have lived with restrictions longest when and if the vaccine comes.
This is far too premature a question, incidentally; there is no vaccine, and when it arrives there’ll be a global response to who gets it (i.e. the UK will have to share it out with other countries). Yet Grundy’s words demonstrate some heated arguments to come – that the Government will no doubt want to avoid with its new testing strategy.
So it is no wonder that the Government is moving away from its initial idea. Ben Spencer, the Conservative MP for Runnymede and Weybridge and previously a psychiatrist, has recently written about the need for Plan B in the UK’s management of Covid-19. He tells me: “I really hope we are successful in inventing a vaccine that helps and saves lives, but we have to make plans on the basis that there won’t be one, or at least one which isn’t a game changer.”
“Although it’s difficult picking apart the figures for flu alone, it’s worth remembering that in 2019, 26,000 people died from influenza and pneumonia, despite having an effective vaccination programme in place for the flu in the UK.”
It seems that the need for another plan is what the Government has sensed, and that’s why it has gone for a new strategy, having had to navigate such difficult areas. It’s clear that the vaccine isn’t the silver bullet many of us imagined. The quickest way the Government can avoid the horrible political scramble that is about to emerge is spurring on its new programme. The pressure is on…


conservativehome--2020-10-22--Garvan Walshe: Macron is running out of time in which to prevail against the far left, far right – a

Garvan Walshe: Macron is running out of time in which to prevail against the far left, far right – and Islamist extremism

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party .
Last week , Samuel Paty was beheaded in another Islamist terror attack in Europe .
He was killed after showing his class pictures of the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that had motivated other Islamist terrorists to attack the offices of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine , and in the middle of a campaign by Emmanuel Macron to reinforce France ’ s concept of republican secularism .
What we call religious fundamentalists are in French known as integristes , a term that derives from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or perhaps maintain ) Catholic doctrine into civil government .
The French term gets to the core of the issue .
The problem integrisme poses is not , in itself , that these people hold very tightly to the tenets of their religion , but that they try to integrate it into the country ’ s politics in a way that weakens or threatens the rights of other citizens .
It is also different from understanding it as extremism ; that is , as a view held with excessive intensity .
Islamist ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as fascist and communist ideas did .
They are all based on dividing people into the elect and the damned based on something other than their own actions .
A racially-hierarchical government , or one that prevented private enterprise , would still be objectionable even if it came to office by gradual constitutional means .
Macron understands that the French state , and not just the government of the day , needs to argue for republican principles .
( Where this needs skill is knowing which battles to pick .
Even France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principle : the minister who professed to be “ shocked ” by ethnic food aisles needs a stronger stomach ) .
Because there is one area in which what we probably should not refer to in this context as the Government ’ s new bête noire , critical race theory , has a point .
The main culture in France or Britain exercises power over minorities , and sets norms they are forced to comply with by social convention as well as legislation .
This dominance means it needs to seduce them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become overbearing and create resentment for the integristes to exploit .
For all our faults , this ought to be something that Britain and France should be able to do .
They are far better places to live than — indeed better places for Muslims , the working class , and even blonde blue-eyed Germans to live in — than any Islamist Communist or fascist society has ever been .
Robust counter-terrorism measures are essential , and of course they need to be extended to force social media platforms to take pro-terrorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infringement .
It is not a violation of freedom of speech to require them to limit even inflammatory content that is not in itself illegal .
This is not censorship any more than a bookshop choosing not to stock inflammatory radical texts is .
Inflammatory , but legal , content would still be available , but only to the smaller number of people willing to put in extra effort .
These steps however need to be accompanied by a campaign of persuasion and education about liberal democratic values richly expressed in national contexts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made so far .
The first has been to make the argument that people should believe in certain values because they have come to a certain country .
This is first of all unpersuasive to a native British or French Islamist .
It also doesn ’ t provide a reason in itself to accept the principles of liberal democratic society ( and in any case in France is not consistent with the universalist ideals of the French Revolution ) .
Rather , the arguments for liberal democracy need to be made on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target this effort at , to use the language of the government ’ s PREVENT strategy , groups deemed “ vulnerable.
” Though this appears efficient , it is actually shortsighted .
Most obviously , because the people singled out feel targeted not helped , but also because long dormant radical ideologies , like right- and left-wing extremism can make a new appearance .
The task ought to be to strengthen people ’ s general resistance to them .
A strict analogy to infectious disease , where an “ antibody ” against Islamism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
The positive argument for liberal democracy works against them all .
Nowhere is this more necessary in France , where the popularity of Islamist ideas is outmatched by that of both the extreme left and the extreme right , and Macron has fewer than two years to prevail against all three .

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party.
Last week, Samuel Paty was beheaded in another Islamist terror attack in Europe. He was killed after showing his class pictures of the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that had motivated other Islamist terrorists to attack the offices of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine, and in the middle of a campaign by Emmanuel Macron to reinforce France’s concept of republican secularism.
What we call religious fundamentalists are in French known as integristes, a term that derives from nineteenth century Catholic attempts to insert (or perhaps maintain) Catholic doctrine into civil government. The French term gets to the core of the issue. The problem integrisme poses is not, in itself, that these people hold very tightly to the tenets of their religion, but that they try to integrate it into the country’s politics in a way that weakens or threatens the rights of other citizens.
It is also different from understanding it as extremism; that is, as a view held with excessive intensity. Islamist ideas create difficult challenges for liberal democracies, just as fascist and communist ideas did. They are all based on dividing people into the elect and the damned based on something other than their own actions. A racially-hierarchical government, or one that prevented private enterprise, would still be objectionable even if it came to office by gradual constitutional means.
Macron understands that the French state, and not just the government of the day, needs to argue for republican principles. (Where this needs skill is knowing which battles to pick. Even France should not elevate food to a constitutional principle: the minister who professed to be “shocked” by ethnic food aisles needs a stronger stomach).
Because there is one area in which what we probably should not refer to in this context as the Government’s new bête noire, critical race theory, has a point. The main culture in France or Britain exercises power over minorities, and sets norms they are forced to comply with by social convention as well as legislation. This dominance means it needs to seduce them into the mainstream if it’s not to become overbearing and create resentment for the integristes to exploit.
For all our faults, this ought to be something that Britain and France should be able to do. They are far better places to live than — indeed better places for Muslims, the working class, and even blonde blue-eyed Germans to live in — than any Islamist Communist or fascist society has ever been.
Robust counter-terrorism measures are essential, and of course they need to be extended to force social media platforms to take pro-terrorist content as seriously as they take copyright infringement. It is not a violation of freedom of speech to require them to limit even inflammatory content that is not in itself illegal. This is not censorship any more than a bookshop choosing not to stock inflammatory radical texts is. Inflammatory, but legal, content would still be available, but only to the smaller number of people willing to put in extra effort.
These steps however need to be accompanied by a campaign of persuasion and education about liberal democratic values richly expressed in national contexts, that learns from two major mistakes made so far.
The first has been to make the argument that people should believe in certain values because they have come to a certain country. This is first of all unpersuasive to a native British or French Islamist. It also doesn’t provide a reason in itself to accept the principles of liberal democratic society (and in any case in France is not consistent with the universalist ideals of the French Revolution). Rather, the arguments for liberal democracy need to be made on their merits.
The second has been to target this effort at, to use the language of the government’s PREVENT strategy, groups deemed “vulnerable.” Though this appears efficient, it is actually shortsighted. Most obviously, because the people singled out feel targeted not helped, but also because long dormant radical ideologies, like right- and left-wing extremism can make a new appearance. The task ought to be to strengthen people’s general resistance to them. A strict analogy to infectious disease, where an “antibody” against Islamism would not work against communism, is wrong. The positive argument for liberal democracy works against them all.
Nowhere is this more necessary in France, where the popularity of Islamist ideas is outmatched by that of both the extreme left and the extreme right, and Macron has fewer than two years to prevail against all three.


conservativehome--2020-10-22--Shaun Bailey: The Mayor of London should build up opportunity – rather than knock down statues

Shaun Bailey is a member of the London Assembly and the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London .
For better or for worse , the place you grow up in shapes the kind of person you become .
When I look back on my childhood years , spent in a council house in Ladbroke Grove , I can see that the very best and the very worst of London were right there on my doorstep .
And I can see how that shaped me and my friends .
At the time , Ladbroke Grove was a working-class community with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poles , Irish and Nigerians , we looked like a Dulux colour palette of races ; but there was very little racial tension .
We were a real community , friendly with neighbours , helpful to those in need .
There ’ s no doubt that these were some of the best aspects of London : multiracial , inclusive and welcoming .
But things changed as I got older .
I don ’ t really know why .
Maybe I just started to notice the other side of things .
But whatever it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems .
Gangs formed and started feuding .
Houses were broken into .
Cars were stolen .
Friends got caught up in dealing .
This was the worst of London .
Kids who couldn ’ t see a way up or a way out .
Parents struggling to make ends meet .
An area that was being left behind , forced to deal with problems by itself .
Physically , we were only two and a half miles from South Kensington ; but our realities were separated by much more than distance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ today in London .
It ’ s a reminder that one of London ’ s strengths is our diversity , the people of all backgrounds and nationalities who call this city home .
But one of London ’ s biggest problems is rising crime on our streets .
And we all know what crime does .
It leaves innocent victims frightened , it drives communities apart , and it wastes the potential of every kid who gets caught in the vicious cycle .
I ’ ve seen it with my own eyes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ group ended up in prison .
And I ’ m pretty sure those kids would never have turned to crime if they ’ d grown up in better circumstances .
So I was lucky to have my mum around .
She kept me busy and on the right path .
And she helped me to see that those kids often had the same potential I had : they just didn ’ t have anyone to help them make the most of it .
That ’ s why I decided to become a youth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the potential of young people from areas like mine .
When I ask myself how Ladbroke Grove shaped me , I can honestly say that the place where I grew up inspired me to do good .
But more often than not , growing up in an area full of crime leads to a life full of crime .
So we need to do better .
We need to build a city that ’ s safer , fairer , and more affordable .
A city that our children deserve to inherit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will deliver it .
And it ’ s clear that Sadiq Khan won ’ t .
Knife crime has reached historic highs .
Good homes are unaffordable .
Transport is overcrowded .
The cost of living keeps rising .
And Sadiq Khan blames everyone but himself .
In fact , the only policies he ’ s announced in the last few months are an increased congestion charge , a plan to defund the police by £110 million , and a commission to decide which statues to tear down .
I can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will help to build a better city .
The congestion charge increase makes life more expensive for everyone : from businesses who need to get around to families who are now taxed for going to church .
The plan to defund London ’ s police will make officers ’ jobs that much harder — if they even manage to survive the cuts .
And it ’ s more obvious than ever that Sadiq Khan ’ s statue commission is a big mistake .
During Black History Month , we should remember to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past .
And the future looks difficult for too many black Londoners .
Young black men in London are half as likely to be employed as young white men .
There are more FTSE 100 CEOs called Steve than CEOs who are black .
How will tearing down statues fix these problems ?
Our responsibility is to build a better future , not destroy our past .
And that will be my priority as Mayor .
Hiring 8,000 more police to make our streets safer .
Working with the Met to improve relations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reversing Sadiq Khan ’ s congestion charge hike on day one .
And introducing a mentoring programme for Londoners from deprived communities , so they get expert advice on how to achieve their goals .
The only thing standing in the way is Sadiq Khan .
So next May , I ’ m counting on ConHome readers get out and vote for the city they know Londoners deserve .
Together , we can build a safer , fairer and more affordable city .
Together , we can shorten the journey from Ladbroke @ @ @ @ @

Shaun Bailey is a member of the London Assembly and the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London.
For better or for worse, the place you grow up in shapes the kind of person you become. When I look back on my childhood years, spent in a council house in Ladbroke Grove, I can see that the very best and the very worst of London were right there on my doorstep. And I can see how that shaped me and my friends.
At the time, Ladbroke Grove was a working-class community with a big racial mix. Between Moroccans and Poles, Irish and Nigerians, we looked like a Dulux colour palette of races; but there was very little racial tension. We were a real community, friendly with neighbours, helpful to those in need. There’s no doubt that these were some of the best aspects of London: multiracial, inclusive and welcoming.
But things changed as I got older. I don’t really know why. Maybe I just started to notice the other side of things. But whatever it was, crime and drugs became real problems. Gangs formed and started feuding. Houses were broken into. Cars were stolen. Friends got caught up in dealing.
This was the worst of London. Kids who couldn’t see a way up or a way out. Parents struggling to make ends meet. An area that was being left behind, forced to deal with problems by itself. Physically, we were only two and a half miles from South Kensington; but our realities were separated by much more than distance. And this is something we still see today in London.
It’s a reminder that one of London’s strengths is our diversity, the people of all backgrounds and nationalities who call this city home. But one of London’s biggest problems is rising crime on our streets. And we all know what crime does. It leaves innocent victims frightened, it drives communities apart, and it wastes the potential of every kid who gets caught in the vicious cycle.
I’ve seen it with my own eyes. At least twelve of my immediate peer group ended up in prison. And I’m pretty sure those kids would never have turned to crime if they’d grown up in better circumstances. So I was lucky to have my mum around. She kept me busy and on the right path. And she helped me to see that those kids often had the same potential I had: they just didn’t have anyone to help them make the most of it.
That’s why I decided to become a youth worker. I wanted to help bring out the potential of young people from areas like mine. When I ask myself how Ladbroke Grove shaped me, I can honestly say that the place where I grew up inspired me to do good. But more often than not, growing up in an area full of crime leads to a life full of crime.
So we need to do better. We need to build a city that’s safer, fairer, and more affordable. A city that our children deserve to inherit. But that means we need a Mayor who will deliver it. And it’s clear that Sadiq Khan won’t. Knife crime has reached historic highs. Good homes are unaffordable. Transport is overcrowded. The cost of living keeps rising. And Sadiq Khan blames everyone but himself. In fact, the only policies he’s announced in the last few months are an increased congestion charge, a plan to defund the police by £110 million, and a commission to decide which statues to tear down.
I can’t see how any of these proposals will help to build a better city. The congestion charge increase makes life more expensive for everyone: from businesses who need to get around to families who are now taxed for going to church. The plan to defund London’s police will make officers’ jobs that much harder — if they even manage to survive the cuts.
And it’s more obvious than ever that Sadiq Khan’s statue commission is a big mistake. During Black History Month, we should remember to think about the future as well as the past. And the future looks difficult for too many black Londoners. Young black men in London are half as likely to be employed as young white men. There are more FTSE 100 CEOs called Steve than CEOs who are black. How will tearing down statues fix these problems?
Our responsibility is to build a better future, not destroy our past. And that will be my priority as Mayor. Hiring 8,000 more police to make our streets safer. Working with the Met to improve relations between officers and the communities they serve. Reversing Sadiq Khan’s congestion charge hike on day one. And introducing a mentoring programme for Londoners from deprived communities, so they get expert advice on how to achieve their goals.
The only thing standing in the way is Sadiq Khan. So next May, I’m counting on ConHome readers get out and vote for the city they know Londoners deserve. Together, we can build a safer, fairer and more affordable city. Together, we can shorten the journey from Ladbroke Grove to South Kensington.


conservativehome--2020-10-22--Conservative MPs made a strong case against Labour’s free school meal plans in the Commons yesterday

To the surprise of those expecting a u-turn , the Government appears to have toughed out Marcus Rashford ’ s latest campaign to extend free school meals through the holidays .
Yesterday Labour held an Opposition Day debate on the subject , which was defeated by 322 votes to 261 .
Only five Conservatives ( Caroline Ansell , Rob Halfon , Jason McCartney , Anne Marie Morris , and Holly Mumby-Croft ) voted with the Opposition .
The result has outraged Twitter , with the usual , dastardly portrayals of Tory motivations getting bandied about .
But to get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s vote , we ’ ve been through Hansard and had a look at the arguments advanced on the day .
These seem to fall into a few broad categories .
First comes the not unreasonable ( if somewhat partisan ) point that the policy being advanced by Labour is not one they chose to pursue during the 13 years they were in power .
Brendan Clarke-Smith ( Bassetlaw ) asked : “ why did colleagues on the Opposition Benches never implement any of them under the Labour Government ?
” Tom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the proposal in the motion was rejected by the Labour Government when it was made in 2007.
” Several other MPs had reservations about the model being proposed .
Miriam Cates ( Penistone and Stocksbridge ) set out the problem thus : “ The motion calls on the Government to extend free school meal provision throughout the school holidays until Easter next year .
Although on the Order Paper this is a debate about free school meals , even if the motion passes , the result will not be more free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious , during the holidays schools are closed , and they do not provide physical meals—free or otherwise—to any child .
Let us be clear : what is really being called for here is an extension to the voucher scheme that would start in half-term next week by giving supermarket vouchers to parents of children who are eligible .
That is not the same as providing a daily nutritious meal to a child in a school environment to help them get the most out of their education .
It is important to recognise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they are for , and supermarket vouchers.
” Jonathan Gullis ( Stoke-on-Trent North ) , himself a former teacher , spelled out some of the consequences of this distinction : ” This is not a one-off extension—this is about free school meals being permanently provided outside of school time .
First , who is going to fund that—the school or the state ?
Do schools provide the meals on-site , or do they have to deliver food parcels ?
If so , do they have to renegotiate their contracts ?
Have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the voucher system , and are they being used in an appropriate and responsible manner ?
I have had supermarkets , parents and schools contact me directly to say that they have grave concerns about the way in which those vouchers have been used.
” And Danny Kruger explained that Labour were trying to force schools to shoulder a responsibility which was outside their remit : “ As we have heard from the shadow Secretary of State , there is a possibility of the proposal becoming permanent .
That is not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools are open again , it is not appropriate to make them welfare providers .
That is a role for the welfare system.
” Beyond these technical questions , several MPs also challenged the underlying premise that the State should be further encroaching on the proper responsibilities of parents .
Clarke-Smith said : “ When did it suddenly become controversial to suggest that the primary responsibility for a child ’ s welfare should lie with their parents , or to suggest that people do not always spend vouchers in the way they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Thirsk and Malton ) added : “ I listened very carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State said , and at one point she said—I hope I do not get this wrong—that it is the Government ’ s job to make sure children do not go hungry .
I differ there , and I think lots of my constituents differ there too , because they would be appalled by the prospect of the Government interfering in their daily lives to make sure their children did not go hungry.
” Paul Maynard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former minister , put it slightly differently but touched on a similar theme : “ I am not sure that it returns that sense of agency and autonomy that I seek .
Politics is not something that we do to people ; it is something that we do with people.
” Naturally many on the left – and indeed , some in the Party – will disagree with some or all of these arguments .
But the cartoon-villain image of well-off , southern Tories dismissing concerns of which they have no personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual debate .
The Conservative caricature has fallen some way behind the state of the current Conservative Party .

To the surprise of those expecting a u-turn, the Government appears to have toughed out Marcus Rashford’s latest campaign to extend free school meals through the holidays.
Yesterday Labour held an Opposition Day debate on the subject, which was defeated by 322 votes to 261. Only five Conservatives (Caroline Ansell, Rob Halfon, Jason McCartney, Anne Marie Morris, and Holly Mumby-Croft) voted with the Opposition.
The result has outraged Twitter, with the usual, dastardly portrayals of Tory motivations getting bandied about. But to get a better idea of what motivated last night’s vote, we’ve been through Hansard and had a look at the arguments advanced on the day. These seem to fall into a few broad categories.
First comes the not unreasonable (if somewhat partisan) point that the policy being advanced by Labour is not one they chose to pursue during the 13 years they were in power. Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) asked: “why did colleagues on the Opposition Benches never implement any of them under the Labour Government?” Tom Randall (Gedling), further noted that “the proposal in the motion was rejected by the Labour Government when it was made in 2007.”
(Randall also called the Opposition out for improperly invoking the blessed name of Marcus Rashford: “But according to his tweet of 18 October, Mr Rashford is calling for school meal provision in all holidays. Is it that the Opposition motion does not agree with Mr Rashford but is attempting to catch his coat tails or do the Opposition secretly agree with him but are too coy to say it at the moment?”)
Several other MPs had reservations about the model being proposed. Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) set out the problem thus:
“The motion calls on the Government to extend free school meal provision throughout the school holidays until Easter next year. Although on the Order Paper this is a debate about free school meals, even if the motion passes, the result will not be more free school meals. To risk stating the obvious, during the holidays schools are closed, and they do not provide physical meals—free or otherwise—to any child. Let us be clear: what is really being called for here is an extension to the voucher scheme that would start in half-term next week by giving supermarket vouchers to parents of children who are eligible. That is not the same as providing a daily nutritious meal to a child in a school environment to help them get the most out of their education. It is important to recognise the difference between free school meals and what they are for, and supermarket vouchers.”
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North), himself a former teacher, spelled out some of the consequences of this distinction:
” This is not a one-off extension—this is about free school meals being permanently provided outside of school time. First, who is going to fund that—the school or the state? Do schools provide the meals on-site, or do they have to deliver food parcels? If so, do they have to renegotiate their contracts? Have the unions supported that? Is there understanding of the voucher system, and are they being used in an appropriate and responsible manner? I have had supermarkets, parents and schools contact me directly to say that they have grave concerns about the way in which those vouchers have been used.”
And Danny Kruger explained that Labour were trying to force schools to shoulder a responsibility which was outside their remit:
“As we have heard from the shadow Secretary of State, there is a possibility of the proposal becoming permanent. That is not an appropriate use of schools. Now that schools are open again, it is not appropriate to make them welfare providers. That is a role for the welfare system.”
Beyond these technical questions, several MPs also challenged the underlying premise that the State should be further encroaching on the proper responsibilities of parents.
Clarke-Smith said: “When did it suddenly become controversial to suggest that the primary responsibility for a child’s welfare should lie with their parents, or to suggest that people do not always spend vouchers in the way they are intended?”, whilst Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) added:
“I listened very carefully to what the shadow Secretary of State said, and at one point she said—I hope I do not get this wrong—that it is the Government’s job to make sure children do not go hungry. I differ there, and I think lots of my constituents differ there too, because they would be appalled by the prospect of the Government interfering in their daily lives to make sure their children did not go hungry.”
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Clevelys), a former minister, put it slightly differently but touched on a similar theme: “I am not sure that it returns that sense of agency and autonomy that I seek. Politics is not something that we do to people; it is something that we do with people.”
Naturally many on the left – and indeed, some in the Party – will disagree with some or all of these arguments. But the cartoon-villain image of well-off, southern Tories dismissing concerns of which they have no personal experience does not survive contact with the actual debate. The Conservative caricature has fallen some way behind the state of the current Conservative Party.


conservativehome--2020-10-22--WATCH: “They, and other open-but-struggling businesses, require further support.” The Chancellor’s l

WATCH: “They, and other open-but-struggling businesses, require further support.” The Chancellor’s latest package.

It is clear that “ open but struggling businesses require further support , ” says Chancellor Rishi Sunak He says @ @ @ @ @ to hospitality businesses in tier 2 areas of up to £2,100 per month , backdated @ @ @ @ @

It is clear that “open but struggling businesses require further support,” says Chancellor Rishi Sunak
He says the government will give grants to hospitality businesses in tier 2 areas of up to £2,100 per month, backdated to Augusthttps://t.co/U5h1p15Vew pic.twitter.com/bDCoOKclTk
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) October 22, 2020


conservativehome--2020-10-22--Henry Hill: Conservatives explore plans to buy off SNP with… yet more powers

Ever since New Labour first set up the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales , there has only been one game in town when it comes to how to defeat the nationalists and hold the United Kingdom together : “ more powers ” .
It ’ s fair to say that it hasn ’ t worked so far .
In the just over two decades since the advent of the Scottish Parliament , for example , the SNP have gone from a marginal force to a political hegemon and independence from a minority pursuit to , at best , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wales , meanwhile , the Senedd is brute-forcing nationalist sentiment out of the most incoherent foundations .
Yet the sheer weight of intellectual inertia that has built up behind devolution is such that it remains , despite everything , the reflex response to political difficulty , and this week Bloomberg revealed that this Government might be no exception .
They have reportedly seen a memo drawn up by Hanbury , a consultancy working with the Government on the separatist problem , which suggests adopting a policy of ‘ accomodation ’ to forestall a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should instead focus on a “ Four Nations , One Country ” policy by transferring further financial powers , differentiation on policies connected to the EU vote , such as immigration .
The document says that the new settlement will be the subject of another paper.
” It goes without saying that there is no mention anywhere in the piece of policies to give effect to the ‘ One Country ’ part by re-asserting Westminster ’ s rightful prerogatives as the seat of this country ’ s sovereign , national government , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill .
All of this comes as Michael Gove pledged this week to ‘ reset ’ relations with the devolved administrations , which have deteriorated in the course of the coronavirus pandemic .
According to the FT , this will take the form of ‘ institutional ’ reforms to improve inter-governmental communication rather than new powers ( although it may well just preparing the ground for the concessions envisioned by Hanbury ) .
This will please Scottish business organisations , which have reportedly urged Westminster and Holyrood to end the ‘ stand-off ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closing straight .
Stephen Daisley has a great piece for the Spectator outlining why Westminster ’ s retreat-to-victory approach to the Union is so , so wrong , and I explored similar issues in a recent piece for These Islands on the folly of federalism .
If a Government with a majority of 80 really feels it needs more than “ once in a generation ” to refuse a second referendum , better arguments are available .
Reckless joins ‘ Abolish the Assembly ’ as ex-UKIPs MSs set up new group It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a section of the Welsh devocracy how often the MSs ( formerly AMs ) who were elected under UKIP ’ s banner in 2016 have re-organised themselves in the years since .
UKIP broke through in Wales with seven AMs , but the group was almost immediately riven by internal power struggles .
Following the decline of UKIP it has splintered yet further , with some joining the Brexit Party before that too ran out of steam .
Now the ‘ unionist right ’ of Welsh politics is dividing over another question : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altogether .
This week , Mark Reckless became the second MS to defect to Abolish the Assembly , the leading devosceptic party ( which despite initial refusal is apparently now going to rebrand to reflect the institution ’ s new name ) .
It will be interesting to see whether this means they will adopt his preferred solution : Reckless doesn ’ t favour full re-integration , but rather an arrangement wherein Wales ’ devolved competencies are exercised by MPs .
Abolish face competition for the abolitionist vote with Neil Hamilton , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banner , who has set up his own ‘ Scrap the Welsh Assembly ’ campaign – a reminder of the personality clashes which have dogged the UKIP caucus .
Meanwhile three other ex-Brexit Party MSs have set up the Independent Alliance for Reform , who has the aim suggests are opposed to getting rid of devolution ( and with it , of course , their own roles ) .
Reckless ’ defection will give Abolish a high-profile front-man for the upcoming devolved elections and could make them more dangerous to the Conservatives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-devolution sentiment amongst the grassroots for months .
All of this comes amidst fresh tensions over the Welsh Government ’ s anti-Covid-19 strategy .
As Guido reports , Mark Drakeford has tried to bounce Westminster into stumping up the cash for his ‘ firebreak ’ lockdown by announcing it before securing sufficient funding .
This is a repeat of tensions we saw between the Scottish Government and the Treasury earlier in the pandemic , and is starting to spark calls for the devolved governments to ‘ pay for their own lockdowns ‘ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ rules – Stephen Daisley , The Spectator • Where is the media scrutiny of Labour in Wales ?
– Matt Smith , ConservativeHome • The little-known £5 billion subsidy which helps unravel the RHI riddle – Sam McBride , News Letter • The Prime Minister must not resign himself to the union ’ s demise – Jeremy Warner , Daily Telegraph • Can Unionists better game Scotland ’ s two vote electoral system than the Nats ?
– Graham Stewart , The Critic • Wales has never been a nation – Polly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devolved nations so ungrateful ?
– Toby Young , The Spectator

Tories draw up plans to ‘buy off’ SNP referendum demands
Ever since New Labour first set up the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales, there has only been one game in town when it comes to how to defeat the nationalists and hold the United Kingdom together: “more powers”.
It’s fair to say that it hasn’t worked so far. In the just over two decades since the advent of the Scottish Parliament, for example, the SNP have gone from a marginal force to a political hegemon and independence from a minority pursuit to, at best, a parity position in public opinion. In Wales, meanwhile, the Senedd is brute-forcing nationalist sentiment out of the most incoherent foundations.
Yet the sheer weight of intellectual inertia that has built up behind devolution is such that it remains, despite everything, the reflex response to political difficulty, and this week Bloomberg revealed that this Government might be no exception. They have reportedly seen a memo drawn up by Hanbury, a consultancy working with the Government on the separatist problem, which suggests adopting a policy of ‘accomodation’ to forestall a second independence referendum:
“The government should instead focus on a “Four Nations, One Country” policy by transferring further financial powers, differentiation on policies connected to the EU vote, such as immigration. The document says that the new settlement will be the subject of another paper.”
It goes without saying that there is no mention anywhere in the piece of policies to give effect to the ‘One Country’ part by re-asserting Westminster’s rightful prerogatives as the seat of this country’s sovereign, national government, in the manner of the UK Internal Market Bill.
All of this comes as Michael Gove pledged this week to ‘reset’ relations with the devolved administrations, which have deteriorated in the course of the coronavirus pandemic. According to the FT, this will take the form of ‘institutional’ reforms to improve inter-governmental communication rather than new powers (although it may well just preparing the ground for the concessions envisioned by Hanbury).
This will please Scottish business organisations, which have reportedly urged Westminster and Holyrood to end the ‘stand-off’ over Brexit as the negotiations enter the closing straight.
Stephen Daisley has a great piece for the Spectator outlining why Westminster’s retreat-to-victory approach to the Union is so, so wrong, and I explored similar issues in a recent piece for These Islands on the folly of federalism. If a Government with a majority of 80 really feels it needs more than “once in a generation” to refuse a second referendum, better arguments are available.
Reckless joins ‘Abolish the Assembly’ as ex-UKIPs MSs set up new group
It has become a source of visible irritation to a section of the Welsh devocracy how often the MSs (formerly AMs) who were elected under UKIP’s banner in 2016 have re-organised themselves in the years since.
UKIP broke through in Wales with seven AMs, but the group was almost immediately riven by internal power struggles. Following the decline of UKIP it has splintered yet further, with some joining the Brexit Party before that too ran out of steam. Now the ‘unionist right’ of Welsh politics is dividing over another question: whether or not to abolish the Senedd altogether.
This week, Mark Reckless became the second MS to defect to Abolish the Assembly, the leading devosceptic party (which despite initial refusal is apparently now going to rebrand to reflect the institution’s new name). It will be interesting to see whether this means they will adopt his preferred solution: Reckless doesn’t favour full re-integration, but rather an arrangement wherein Wales’ devolved competencies are exercised by MPs.
Abolish face competition for the abolitionist vote with Neil Hamilton, the sole MS still sitting under the UKIP banner, who has set up his own ‘Scrap the Welsh Assembly’ campaign – a reminder of the personality clashes which have dogged the UKIP caucus. Meanwhile three other ex-Brexit Party MSs have set up the Independent Alliance for Reform, who has the aim suggests are opposed to getting rid of devolution (and with it, of course, their own roles).
Reckless’ defection will give Abolish a high-profile front-man for the upcoming devolved elections and could make them more dangerous to the Conservatives, whose leadership have been firefighting outbreaks of anti-devolution sentiment amongst the grassroots for months.
All of this comes amidst fresh tensions over the Welsh Government’s anti-Covid-19 strategy. As Guido reports, Mark Drakeford has tried to bounce Westminster into stumping up the cash for his ‘firebreak’ lockdown by announcing it before securing sufficient funding. This is a repeat of tensions we saw between the Scottish Government and the Treasury earlier in the pandemic, and is starting to spark calls for the devolved governments to ‘pay for their own lockdowns‘.
Commentary


conservativehome--2020-10-23--Matthew Elliott: Please apply to invest in Britain’s future and win £10,000


conservativehome--2020-10-23--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the BBC – and more