conservativehome--2020-02-19--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct A

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority – and more

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

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


conservativehome--2020-02-19--The Johnson adviser with the most power

The Johnson adviser with the most power

Nadhim Zahawi champions Dominic Cummings on this site today .
We won ’ t follow him by writing either a defence of or attack on Boris Johnson ’ s best-known adviser : one ConservativeHome article on Cummings will do for the day .
Though we will pause to point out again that the adviser is serving as a lightning-conductor for the politician , and that Cummings doesn ’ t always get his way .
Think Huawei , HS2 , or Sajid Javid , who he wanted to see moved from the Treasury , rather than given an option to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Number Ten adviser who has even more power than Cummings .
For when was the last time that the Government ’ s policy on the most compelling political issue of the day was advanced in a speech by an adviser ?
We refer to David Frost , who earlier this week presented the core of the Government ’ s case in part two of the Brexit talks – strictly speaking , trade talks .
“ We bring to the negotiations not some clever tactical positioning but the fundamentals of what it means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he told his audience .
“ We aren ’ t frightened by suggestions there is going to be friction , there is going to be greater barriers .
We know that and have factored this in and we look further forward – to the gains of the future.
” ConservativeHome has reproduced the entire text .
Now you may or may not take Frost ’ s words at face value .
On the one hand , Boris Johnson doesn ’ t always stick to his commitments .
Remember leaving on October 31 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The British people made a big decision when this didn ’ t take place : namely , that he wanted it to happen , was willing it to happen…but was frustrated by others . )
More to the point , the adapted deal which he reached with the EU – Brexit Part One if you like – marked a retreat from the UK position on Northern Ireland , since it accepted a border in the Irish Sea , rather than a land border on the island of Ireland .
The future scale and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the other hand , the Prime Minister was previously operating with no majority at all , and a nest of prominent critics on the backbenches : Philip Hammond , David Gauke , Amber Rudd , Rory Stewart Oliver Letwin , Dominic Grieve .
Now they are all gone and he has a majority of 80 .
Either way , Cummings may write the occasional freelance blog , but Frost was speaking for the Government on Monday .
He is a trusted member of the Johnson circle , having served as his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Frost is also unusual for having been that rare animal , a convinced Eurosceptic in the Foreign Office , which has been institutionally committed to the European cause since the age of Michael Palliser .
He is a former Ambassador to Denmark , Foreign Office EU Director , and Trade Director at the Business Department .
Perhaps a politician should have made the speech instead .
But who ?
There is no Brexit Department and no Brexit Secretary .
It is not yet clear from the reshuffle which department will support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will be the Cabinet Office and therefore , by extension , be headed up by Michael Gove .
At any rate , the Prime Minister clearly wanted to send a signal .
Frost speaks for me .
What he says is what I believe .
What he pronounces is what I will do .
He is His Master ’ s Voice .
Frost is not the man to get himself in the media , be doorstepped , wear a bobble hat , or quote from PJ Masks .
Come to think of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last person , if one looks around the serried ranks of people who count in Downing Street , to be classified as a “ weirdo or a misfit with odd skills ” .
What he offers is very mainstream .

Nadhim Zahawi champions Dominic Cummings on this site today. We won’t follow him by writing either a defence of or attack on Boris Johnson’s best-known adviser: one ConservativeHome article on Cummings will do for the day.
Though we will pause to point out again that the adviser is serving as a lightning-conductor for the politician, and that Cummings doesn’t always get his way. Think Huawei, HS2, or Sajid Javid, who he wanted to see moved from the Treasury, rather than given an option to stay.
Instead, we draw attention to a Number Ten adviser who has even more power than Cummings. For when was the last time that the Government’s policy on the most compelling political issue of the day was advanced in a speech by an adviser?
We refer to David Frost, who earlier this week presented the core of the Government’s case in part two of the Brexit talks – strictly speaking, trade talks. “We bring to the negotiations not some clever tactical positioning but the fundamentals of what it means to be an independent country,” he told his audience.
“We aren’t frightened by suggestions there is going to be friction, there is going to be greater barriers. We know that and have factored this in and we look further forward – to the gains of the future.” ConservativeHome has reproduced the entire text.
Now you may or may not take Frost’s words at face value. On the one hand, Boris Johnson doesn’t always stick to his commitments. Remember leaving on October 31, “do or die”? (The British people made a big decision when this didn’t take place: namely, that he wanted it to happen, was willing it to happen…but was frustrated by others.)
More to the point, the adapted deal which he reached with the EU – Brexit Part One if you like – marked a retreat from the UK position on Northern Ireland, since it accepted a border in the Irish Sea, rather than a land border on the island of Ireland. The future scale and extent of that border is vigorously debated.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister was previously operating with no majority at all, and a nest of prominent critics on the backbenches: Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart Oliver Letwin, Dominic Grieve. Now they are all gone and he has a majority of 80.
Either way, Cummings may write the occasional freelance blog, but Frost was speaking for the Government on Monday. He is a trusted member of the Johnson circle, having served as his Special Adviser when he was Foreign Secretary.
Frost is also unusual for having been that rare animal, a convinced Eurosceptic in the Foreign Office, which has been institutionally committed to the European cause since the age of Michael Palliser. He is a former Ambassador to Denmark, Foreign Office EU Director, and Trade Director at the Business Department.
Perhaps a politician should have made the speech instead. But who? There is no Brexit Department and no Brexit Secretary. It is not yet clear from the reshuffle which department will support the negotiation, though it is presumed that this will be the Cabinet Office and therefore, by extension, be headed up by Michael Gove.
At any rate, the Prime Minister clearly wanted to send a signal. Frost speaks for me. What he says is what I believe. What he pronounces is what I will do. He is His Master’s Voice. Frost is not the man to get himself in the media, be doorstepped, wear a bobble hat, or quote from PJ Masks.
Come to think of it, he is just about the last person, if one looks around the serried ranks of people who count in Downing Street, to be classified as a “weirdo or a misfit with odd skills”. What he offers is very mainstream.


conservativehome--2020-02-19--Interview. Bailey commits to reopening all 38 police stations that have closed under Khan.

Sadiq Khan is a worried man and can be beaten in the London Mayoral election in May 2020 .
So says Shaun Bailey , selected as the Conservative candidate as long ago as September 2018 , but still generally regarded as the underdog .
In this interview , Bailey cheerfully admits he is indeed the underdog : “ There ’ s no doubt about that.
” But he contends that Khan ’ s record , particularly on crime but also on transport and housing , is “ so terrible it ’ s allowed us an opportunity.
” Bailey announces he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London which have closed their doors to the public since Khan was elected Mayor in 2016 .
He insists Khan squandered his long honeymoon as Mayor , and has at last been forced to admit that crime is the number one issue for Londoners .
The entry of Rory Stewart , once a Conservative MP and minister , into the race as an Independent does not appear to perturb Bailey , who counts on being able to mobilise large numbers of Conservative activists .
When ConHome pointed out that in parts of London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he replied : “ Yes .
But the entirety of London is where Rory ’ s thin on the ground.
” Bailey opposes the third runway at Heathrow , wants to set up Housing for London to build many more houses , but declined to promise to rebuild the Euston Arch , of which he had not heard .
He said that if elected Mayor , he will regard it as his “ moral duty ” to stand up for London against Boris Johnson , just as Johnson used to stand up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was conducted in the Union Theatre Cafe , beneath a railway arch in Southwark , and ends with Bailey ’ s account of how Gandhi helped to make him a Christian .
Bailey : “ I suppose I ’ m in a perky mood because on Saturday we had what for us was a big moment of getting all the senior activists to come in and see what we have planned next .
“ And you know it ’ s like throwing a party , you never know if anyone ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their droves , they were super-constructive and really helpful , really behind the plan we ’ ve got going forward .
“ And for all the glitz and glamour of politics , you know , can you get on ConHome , are you in The Standard… ” ConHome : “ I don ’ t think ConHome is part of the glitz and glamour of politics .
It has many solid qualities , but I think glitz… ” Bailey : “ But ultimately it comes down to the activist base , and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a massive demonstration that they are .
“ The way I was selected was definitely the activists – to see they ’ re still on my side more than a year afterwards is nice , it ’ s gratifying , there ’ s a warm , cuddly feeling there.
” Bailey : “ I ’ ve had a bigger marathon than most , because they decided to select so early .
But the marathon content of this has been Brexit , then Conservative leadership , then general election.
” ConHome : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focussing on the mayoral election .
Also Sadiq Khan , he hasn ’ t somehow been commanding headlines himself.
” Bailey : “ He had a very long honeymoon period , and I don ’ t think he used that to the best .
So what he did , he pumped his profile , we all know who he is , but he didn ’ t deliver on anything .
“ And I think people now are really beginning to hold that against him .
He can ’ t reannounce things , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Labour with 49 parliamentary seats in London and the Tories with 21 .
Losing Putney to Labour at the general election in December – obviously I ’ m not blaming that on you [ laughter ] , but the conventional wisdom is that London is a Labour city and you don ’ t really have much of a chance.
” Bailey : “ Two things I ’ d say about it .
Let ’ s be clear , I ’ m the underdog… ” At this point a waitress asked us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cup of tea and an almond croissant .
Bailey : “ So there ’ s no doubt , we are the underdog .
But the point is , his record is so terrible it ’ s allowed us an opportunity .
And people say London ’ s a Labour city , but Boris did it twice .
“ If you look at Brexit , more people in London voted Leave than voted for Sadiq Khan .
“ And I have a few advantages .
I ’ ve never told anybody off for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is your opinion .
He ’ s a great one for telling people off for that .
“ And ultimately there ’ s a fight on now , and he senses that .
He ’ s worried about it , and it ’ s made for a change in his behaviour .
My team and myself accurately identified what most Londoners are speaking about , and that ’ s crime , and housing and transport .
“ And more importantly we identified what they want to talk about in any of those given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to assault him quite clearly .
“ He had an attitude of ‘ Well , of course I ’ ll win ’ , and we ’ ve make him worry about that.
” ConHome : “ How can you tell he ’ s worried ?
” Bailey : “ For instance , he ’ s very hard been trumpeting it ’ s only a two-horse race .
Whereas beforehand , he wouldn ’ t even acknowledge our existence.
” Bailey : “ Exactly .
He ’ s worried , and I sit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m an Assembly Member , and he ’ s constantly now talking about crime , because we put it on the agenda .
“ And if you remember , when he went and saw the Home Secretary , it wasn ’ t even on the agenda there , he didn ’ t even pick it up with the Home Secretary .
“ He put out a survey for Londoners about what they were concerned about , and crime wasn ’ t even on there.
” Bailey : “ Crime is London ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Kilburn , Hendon to Harrow , everybody ’ s talking about crime , so that ’ s why I started to speak about it .
“ We had to drag the Mayor onto this playing field that most Londoners are disappointed about.
” ConHome : “ You ’ ve got an announcement about police stations ?
” Bailey : “ We ’ re going to reopen all of the police stations Sadiq Khan has closed .
There ’ s no need for him to close them .
There ’ s the money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re in the farcical position that most of the 38 stations he ’ s closed to the public are still operational , but if you ’ ve been mugged you can ’ t walk in to one of them and report it.
” ConHome : “ Has he saved a lot of money by shutting these front desks ?
” Bailey : “ No .
He ’ s messed up City Hall ’ s finances so every penny for him now counts .
He ’ s effectively saved in the region of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been that there was a 22 per cent reduction in reporting to police .
But of course there was , because crime was going down .
“ Since he ’ s come in , crime has gone up 40 per cent , and nobody has anywhere to report .
That ’ s why we ’ re doing it.
” ConHome : “ The rise in knife crime is a shameful thing .
You wonder what the hell has gone wrong .
What ’ s your answer to that ?
” Bailey : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tough and tender approach .
So the tough end is a record number of police with money we already have in City Hall .
Buying the infra-red technology so we can do stop and search on a much larger scale than we already do it .
“ Backing the police politically , so they know that if they ’ re doing the right thing , it ’ s sometimes tough , I ’ ll back them as Mayor .
I want to go back to higher police visibility .
“ On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things like a second chance fund .
If you look at about a third of the people who ’ ve been involved in knife crime in London , it ’ s their second , third or fourth offence , they ’ ve been in and out , it ’ s a revolving door .
“ I want to use that moment as a teachable moment , to get them into employment , into training etcetera .
There ’ s lots of organisations that ’ ll do that across London .
We need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take some of the adult education budget and make a second chance fund , as long as they haven ’ t been involved in very serious offences .
“ Often people talk to you about youth work , but I ’ m not up for table tennis and biscuits .
I want the kind of youth work that develops young people , that gives them skills they can use in the work place .
“ I ’ ve dealt with some of the toughest cases possible .
Anything from young men who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who deal drugs , down to children who just misbehave a little bit in class.
” ConHome : “ You went through a period as a Cameroon moderniser , but not in this campaign ?
” Bailey : “ This level of government is much more practical .
This is about what you can do .
As Mayor of London you have £18.5 billion you can do things with.
” ConHome : “ Did Sadiq Khan make a terrible mistake with Transport for London , creating a hole in its budget by cutting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred per cent .
You look at Crossrail , for instance .
Crossrail is over two billion pounds over budget .
And his response has been to blame the Government when he knows that TfL wholly own the project .
“ He made that hole in the budget , what that meant was lay-offs , and a large part of the TfL staff that got laid off were the very people who were looking at Crossrail and whether it was going to work out .
“ Ask anybody who lives on the Metropolitan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bakerloo Line , the supposed extensions to the DLR , the Central Line – no new trains , all because he made a massive hole in the budget.
” ConHome : “ And that was by his original fare cuts , was it ?
” Bailey : “ By his fare cuts , by his poor running of the whole situation.
” ConHome : “ What effect does Rory Stewart ’ s candidacy have ?
Is it a two-horse race or is it a three-horse race ?
” Bailey : “ I remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Are you worried about Rory ?
’ Not particularly , because there ’ s two major things I have .
The party structure , and most importantly , volunteers .
I can go to a rainy night in Harrow and be accompanied by 30 volunteers.
” ConHome : “ There are some bits of London though where the Tories are very thin on the ground.
” Bailey : “ Yes .
But the entirety of London is where Rory ’ s thin on the ground .
Where the voluntary party have really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bits of the ground where we ’ re thin , they ’ ve sent people over from where we ’ re strong.
” ConHome : “ What about Heathrow ?
Are you pro or anti ?
” Bailey : “ I ’ m anti .
In 2007 I believe I met with the then chief executive of Heathrow along with Greg Hands , and I was very new , and afterwards I turned to Greg and I said , ‘ I know I ’ m new at this , but it sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion to grow his business.
’ “ And Greg said , ‘ I think you may be right.
’ I ’ ve always thought it was a poor idea .
I think we need a different solution.
” Bailey : “ I haven ’ t given that the great amount of thought it would need .
But let ’ s just say Boris Island is on the correct side of the city.
” ConHome : “ One of the things Boris Johnson did from time to time as Mayor was to defy the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the side of Londoners .
Now Johnson is the person you ’ ll have to defy in order to stick up for London.
” Bailey : “ Would I stick up for London ?
Anybody who knows me knows I ’ m independent , if I ’ ve got something to say I ’ ll say it , and being the Mayor of London gives you the right , the platform , the need and the moral duty to do that.
” ConHome : “ I remember Johnson as Mayor appearing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and saying , ‘ You will be supporting Crossrail , won ’ t you ?
’ “ Will you be playing the same trick on him ?
Crossrail 2 , now.
” Bailey : “ He might have to .
Crossrail 2 is vital.
” ConHome : “ What about housing ?
It ’ s so expensive that many people with children are having to move out of London.
” Bailey : “ Housing in London ’ s been broken for probably 40 years .
We ’ ve added two million people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We need a new system .
So what I ’ m going to do is start Housing for London , in much the way that TfL does transport .
It will be a City-Hall-backed , centralised developer whose sole goal is to develop the appropriate housing in appropriate numbers across London.
” ConHome : “ Are we going to get some proper houses with gardens ?
” Bailey : “ Yes .
The last time we built serious housing in this country publicly was under Harold Macmillan .
This is roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A lot of what Macmillan built was of rather poor quality.
” Bailey : “ He didn ’ t have modern building regs , did he .
I have modern building regs that I have to comply with.
” ConHome : “ The late Gavin Stamp , distinguished architectural historian , could not forgive Macmillan for knocking down the Euston Arch , an act of grotesque vandalism .
“ Can we have the Euston Arch back ?
Personally I will definitely vote for you if you promise me the Euston Arch back.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what the Euston Arch is , I ’ ll have to find out.
” ConHome : “ It looked like a temple , and was knocked down at Euston in December 1961 , despite tremendous protests by conservationists .
You ’ ve got to go for beauty as well as… ” Bailey : “ One of the things when you grow up on estates as I have , you quickly realise the built environment is important , and the beauty of the environment means the people around it will own it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well.
” ConHome : “ How important is your Christian faith to you ?
” Bailey : “ I ’ m a card carrier .
For me it ’ s my community as well as church .
One of the things conceptually that I enjoy most about this country is the right to free worship .
“ You can worship who you like .
I live next door to a guy from Afghanistan .
My neighbour across the road is from south India .
We all come together , we all celebrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My daughter and son particularly like Diwali because he likes fireworks in the street .
“ For me it ’ s just part of who I am .
I became a Christian about 16 years ago , as an adult , it was something I investigated.
” Bailey : “ No .
I ’ ve always tried to spend my time helping people , and one of the people I admire most in history is Gandhi , and it ’ s interesting to hear a Hindu man speak about Jesus , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because my family are Jamaican , they ’ re definitely Christians .
“ If a Hindu man could speak about our God in that generous way , maybe it was time I had a look .
”

Sadiq Khan is a worried man and can be beaten in the London Mayoral election in May 2020. So says Shaun Bailey, selected as the Conservative candidate as long ago as September 2018, but still generally regarded as the underdog.
In this interview, Bailey cheerfully admits he is indeed the underdog: “There’s no doubt about that.”
But he contends that Khan’s record, particularly on crime but also on transport and housing, is “so terrible it’s allowed us an opportunity.”
Bailey announces he will reopen all 38 police stations in London which have closed their doors to the public since Khan was elected Mayor in 2016.
He insists Khan squandered his long honeymoon as Mayor, and has at last been forced to admit that crime is the number one issue for Londoners.
The entry of Rory Stewart, once a Conservative MP and minister, into the race as an Independent does not appear to perturb Bailey, who counts on being able to mobilise large numbers of Conservative activists.
When ConHome pointed out that in parts of London Tories are thin on the ground, he replied: “Yes. But the entirety of London is where Rory’s thin on the ground.”
Bailey opposes the third runway at Heathrow, wants to set up Housing for London to build many more houses, but declined to promise to rebuild the Euston Arch, of which he had not heard.
He said that if elected Mayor, he will regard it as his “moral duty” to stand up for London against Boris Johnson, just as Johnson used to stand up for London against David Cameron.
The interview was conducted in the Union Theatre Cafe, beneath a railway arch in Southwark, and ends with Bailey’s account of how Gandhi helped to make him a Christian.
ConHome: “You’re looking perky.”
Bailey: “I suppose I’m in a perky mood because on Saturday we had what for us was a big moment of getting all the senior activists to come in and see what we have planned next.
“And you know it’s like throwing a party, you never know if anyone’s going to turn up. Well they came in their droves, they were super-constructive and really helpful, really behind the plan we’ve got going forward.
“And for all the glitz and glamour of politics, you know, can you get on ConHome, are you in The Standard…”
ConHome: “I don’t think ConHome is part of the glitz and glamour of politics. It has many solid qualities, but I think glitz…”
Bailey: “But ultimately it comes down to the activist base, and are they on your side. And Saturday was a massive demonstration that they are.
“The way I was selected was definitely the activists – to see they’re still on my side more than a year afterwards is nice, it’s gratifying, there’s a warm, cuddly feeling there.”
ConHome: “It’s a real marathon, isn’t it.”
Bailey: “I’ve had a bigger marathon than most, because they decided to select so early. But the marathon content of this has been Brexit, then Conservative leadership, then general election.”
ConHome: “So people haven’t really been focussing on the mayoral election. Also Sadiq Khan, he hasn’t somehow been commanding headlines himself.”
Bailey: “He had a very long honeymoon period, and I don’t think he used that to the best. So what he did, he pumped his profile, we all know who he is, but he didn’t deliver on anything.
“And I think people now are really beginning to hold that against him. He can’t reannounce things, because people are starting to scrutinise.”
ConHome: “But you’re still the underdog, aren’t you.”
Bailey: “There’s no doubt about that.”
ConHome: “Labour with 49 parliamentary seats in London and the Tories with 21. Losing Putney to Labour at the general election in December – obviously I’m not blaming that on you [laughter], but the conventional wisdom is that London is a Labour city and you don’t really have much of a chance.”
Bailey: “Two things I’d say about it. Let’s be clear, I’m the underdog…”
At this point a waitress asked us what we would like. Bailey ordered a cup of tea and an almond croissant.
Bailey: “So there’s no doubt, we are the underdog. But the point is, his record is so terrible it’s allowed us an opportunity. And people say London’s a Labour city, but Boris did it twice.
“If you look at Brexit, more people in London voted Leave than voted for Sadiq Khan.
“And I have a few advantages. I’ve never told anybody off for their opinion on Brexit. Your opinion is your opinion. He’s a great one for telling people off for that.
“And ultimately there’s a fight on now, and he senses that. He’s worried about it, and it’s made for a change in his behaviour. My team and myself accurately identified what most Londoners are speaking about, and that’s crime, and housing and transport.
“And more importantly we identified what they want to talk about in any of those given arenas. So we’ve been able to assault him quite clearly.
“He had an attitude of ‘Well, of course I’ll win’, and we’ve make him worry about that.”
ConHome: “How can you tell he’s worried?”
Bailey: “For instance, he’s very hard been trumpeting it’s only a two-horse race. Whereas beforehand, he wouldn’t even acknowledge our existence.”
ConHome: “It was a one-horse race.”
Bailey: “Exactly. He’s worried, and I sit in front of him regularly because I’m an Assembly Member, and he’s constantly now talking about crime, because we put it on the agenda.
“And if you remember, when he went and saw the Home Secretary, it wasn’t even on the agenda there, he didn’t even pick it up with the Home Secretary.
“He put out a survey for Londoners about what they were concerned about, and crime wasn’t even on there.”
ConHome: “Is crime your number one message?”
Bailey: “Crime is London’s number one message. From Kingston to Kilburn, Hendon to Harrow, everybody’s talking about crime, so that’s why I started to speak about it.
“We had to drag the Mayor onto this playing field that most Londoners are disappointed about.”
ConHome: “You’ve got an announcement about police stations?”
Bailey: “We’re going to reopen all of the police stations Sadiq Khan has closed. There’s no need for him to close them. There’s the money to keep them open.
“We’re in the farcical position that most of the 38 stations he’s closed to the public are still operational, but if you’ve been mugged you can’t walk in to one of them and report it.”
ConHome: “Has he saved a lot of money by shutting these front desks?”
Bailey: “No. He’s messed up City Hall’s finances so every penny for him now counts. He’s effectively saved in the region of eight million pounds.
“HIs defence has been that there was a 22 per cent reduction in reporting to police. But of course there was, because crime was going down.
“Since he’s come in, crime has gone up 40 per cent, and nobody has anywhere to report. That’s why we’re doing it.”
ConHome: “The rise in knife crime is a shameful thing. You wonder what the hell has gone wrong. What’s your answer to that?”
Bailey: “We’re going to take the tough and tender approach. So the tough end is a record number of police with money we already have in City Hall. Buying the infra-red technology so we can do stop and search on a much larger scale than we already do it.
“Backing the police politically, so they know that if they’re doing the right thing, it’s sometimes tough, I’ll back them as Mayor. I want to go back to higher police visibility.
“On the tender end, we’ll do things like a second chance fund. If you look at about a third of the people who’ve been involved in knife crime in London, it’s their second, third or fourth offence, they’ve been in and out, it’s a revolving door.
“I want to use that moment as a teachable moment, to get them into employment, into training etcetera. There’s lots of organisations that’ll do that across London. We need to fund them. so I’ll take some of the adult education budget and make a second chance fund, as long as they haven’t been involved in very serious offences.
“Often people talk to you about youth work, but I’m not up for table tennis and biscuits. I want the kind of youth work that develops young people, that gives them skills they can use in the work place.
“I’ve dealt with some of the toughest cases possible. Anything from young men who are homeless, who are in gangs, who deal drugs, down to children who just misbehave a little bit in class.”
ConHome: “You went through a period as a Cameroon moderniser, but not in this campaign?”
Bailey: “This level of government is much more practical. This is about what you can do. As Mayor of London you have £18.5 billion you can do things with.”
ConHome: “Did Sadiq Khan make a terrible mistake with Transport for London, creating a hole in its budget by cutting fares?”
Bailey: “One hundred per cent. You look at Crossrail, for instance. Crossrail is over two billion pounds over budget. And his response has been to blame the Government when he knows that TfL wholly own the project.
“He made that hole in the budget, what that meant was lay-offs, and a large part of the TfL staff that got laid off were the very people who were looking at Crossrail and whether it was going to work out.
“Ask anybody who lives on the Metropolitan Line, anybody who lives on the Bakerloo Line, the supposed extensions to the DLR, the Central Line – no new trains, all because he made a massive hole in the budget.”
ConHome: “And that was by his original fare cuts, was it?”
Bailey: “By his fare cuts, by his poor running of the whole situation.”
ConHome: “What effect does Rory Stewart’s candidacy have? Is it a two-horse race or is it a three-horse race?”
Bailey: “I remember very early on, people said, ‘Are you worried about Rory?’ Not particularly, because there’s two major things I have. The party structure, and most importantly, volunteers. I can go to a rainy night in Harrow and be accompanied by 30 volunteers.”
ConHome: “There are some bits of London though where the Tories are very thin on the ground.”
Bailey: “Yes. But the entirety of London is where Rory’s thin on the ground. Where the voluntary party have really shown they’ve got stamina is the bits of the ground where we’re thin, they’ve sent people over from where we’re strong.”
ConHome: “What about Heathrow? Are you pro or anti?”
Bailey: “I’m anti. In 2007 I believe I met with the then chief executive of Heathrow along with Greg Hands, and I was very new, and afterwards I turned to Greg and I said, ‘I know I’m new at this, but it sounds to me as if he wants £10 billion to grow his business.’
“And Greg said, ‘I think you may be right.’ I’ve always thought it was a poor idea. I think we need a different solution.”
ConHome: “Could Boris Island rise from the dead?”
Bailey: “I haven’t given that the great amount of thought it would need. But let’s just say Boris Island is on the correct side of the city.”
ConHome: “One of the things Boris Johnson did from time to time as Mayor was to defy the central Conservative Government and show he was on the side of Londoners. Now Johnson is the person you’ll have to defy in order to stick up for London.”
Bailey: “Would I stick up for London? Anybody who knows me knows I’m independent, if I’ve got something to say I’ll say it, and being the Mayor of London gives you the right, the platform, the need and the moral duty to do that.”
ConHome: “I remember Johnson as Mayor appearing on television with David Cameron and turning to him and saying, ‘You will be supporting Crossrail, won’t you?’
“Will you be playing the same trick on him? Crossrail 2, now.”
Bailey: “Yes.”
ConHome: “He might avoid public appearances with you.”
Bailey: “He might have to. Crossrail 2 is vital.”
ConHome: “What about housing? It’s so expensive that many people with children are having to move out of London.”
Bailey: “Housing in London’s been broken for probably 40 years. We’ve added two million people to our number and only 200,000 homes.
“We need a new system. So what I’m going to do is start Housing for London, in much the way that TfL does transport. It will be a City-Hall-backed, centralised developer whose sole goal is to develop the appropriate housing in appropriate numbers across London.”
ConHome: “Are we going to get some proper houses with gardens?”
Bailey: “Yes. The last time we built serious housing in this country publicly was under Harold Macmillan. This is roughly the same thing.”
ConHome: “A lot of what Macmillan built was of rather poor quality.”
Bailey: “He didn’t have modern building regs, did he. I have modern building regs that I have to comply with.”
ConHome: “The late Gavin Stamp, distinguished architectural historian, could not forgive Macmillan for knocking down the Euston Arch, an act of grotesque vandalism.
“Can we have the Euston Arch back? Personally I will definitely vote for you if you promise me the Euston Arch back.”
Bailey: “I don’t know what the Euston Arch is, I’ll have to find out.”
ConHome: “It looked like a temple, and was knocked down at Euston in December 1961, despite tremendous protests by conservationists. You’ve got to go for beauty as well as…”
Bailey: “One of the things when you grow up on estates as I have, you quickly realise the built environment is important, and the beauty of the environment means the people around it will own it. It cuts crime, it cuts vandalism as well.”
ConHome: “How important is your Christian faith to you?”
Bailey: “I’m a card carrier. For me it’s my community as well as church. One of the things conceptually that I enjoy most about this country is the right to free worship.
“You can worship who you like. I live next door to a guy from Afghanistan. My neighbour across the road is from south India. We all come together, we all celebrate each other’s festivals.
“My daughter and son particularly like Diwali because he likes fireworks in the street.
“For me it’s just part of who I am. I became a Christian about 16 years ago, as an adult, it was something I investigated.”
ConHome: “Did you have a conversion experience?”
Bailey: “No. I’ve always tried to spend my time helping people, and one of the people I admire most in history is Gandhi, and it’s interesting to hear a Hindu man speak about Jesus, and it made me think maybe I should reinvestigate, because my family are Jamaican, they’re definitely Christians.
“If a Hindu man could speak about our God in that generous way, maybe it was time I had a look.”


conservativehome--2020-02-19--Ryan Bourne: The real Budget question on borrowing is not “could we?” but “should we?”

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Rishi Sunak is reportedly being pressured to “ loosen ” the Conservatives ’ already loosened fiscal rules in his scheduled March 11th budget .
Not long ago , an overall budget surplus by the mid-2020s was the aim , with George Osborne and Phillip Hammond insistent that falling debt-to-GDP was the prudent path given high debt levels , future recession risks , and demographic realities .
Yet fiscal rules come and fiscal rules go .
At any given moment treated as sacrosanct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targets only last as long as the politics dictates .
So , when deficit reduction ceased to be the overwhelming pre-election priority , the rules changed and suddenly borrowing for investment up to three per cent of GDP was allowed , meaning debt-to-GDP would barely fall this Parliament .
Now , Number Ten seemingly wants further relaxation , even contemplating debt-to-GDP rising .
Reaction from economists and ex-Treasury officials has centred on whether Britain could shoulder much higher permanent debt levels without fiscal crisis .
Important as this debate is ( and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ignores more immediate questions : for what purpose is the extra borrowing being proposed ?
And is more borrowing actually appropriate for this aim ?
None of us know why , exactly , further borrowing is being contemplated .
Most analysts think that manifesto promises on public service spending and investment can , just about , be delivered within the current framework .
This suggests Number Ten wants to “ spend more ” somewhere .
But given the Conservatives have no clear stated narrative about what they consider wrong with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , ” return to historic 2.8 per cent GDP growth rates , or “ unleash the country ’ s potential ” in response ) , it ’ s anyone ’ s guess what ’ s driving this new thinking .
This lack of a clear economic policy is worrying .
Having a clear economic aim , be it growth , or reducing debt , or even reducing inequality , is what anchors decision-making .
A pursuit of a goal imposes discipline to think clearly about trade-offs .
The major concern in regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it shows Boris Johnson ’ s priorities are wrong , but that it exhibits an unwillingness to actually prioritise at all .
The fear is that the Prime Minister ’ s team is falling for any old spending or tax cut demand , without a limiting principle .
“ You can ’ t say everything is your priority , ” Sajid Javid reportedly said before resigning .
In fairness , one reason that no clear economic narrative has emanated from this Government is precisely because they haven ’ t delivered a budget yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budgets are the primary platform governments have to tell an economic story and outline a policy response .
With Brexit done and a secure majority , the Prime Minister and Sunak now have the chance to try to synthesise the disparate stated ambitions for prosperity , regional rebalancing and more money for public services .
Our Editor asked me to offer thoughts on “ what they should do.
” My honest answer is that , having won a majority and with limited time of healthy political capital , my priority would not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised in the manifesto , nor additional infrastructure splurges , nor even broad tax cuts to “ put money back in people ’ s pockets ” .
No , my major concern would be the sustained weak productivity growth performance post-crash .
This makes every other government challenge more difficult , producing lower wages , less money for public services , and lower returns on saving .
The past decade shows this is now a deep-set structural problem , requiring coordinated policy change .
In tackling it , I ’ d try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of meaningful tax and supply-side reform ( land-use planning , immigration , welfare , public sector productivity , infrastructure , and education ) , recognising the uncertainty of success but mindful of the potentially massive rewards .
Prioritising long-term growth above all else means potentially tolerating more borrowing .
But only if it helps to deliver the primary goal .
So , no additional cash for the welfare state without productivity-enhancing public service reform as a chaser .
No deficit-worsening tax cuts except to grease the wheels for actual pro-growth tax reform ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is bearable ) .
And no additional infrastructure spending unless the spending is targeted at the most pro-growth projects with social returns exceeding private alternatives .
And I ’ d apply these principles broadly : no new subsidies for housing , for example , without further meaningful planning reform .
If that sounds an austere , transactional type of politics , then that ’ s the point .
Reform without relaxing resource constraints is difficult .
But showering money without reform is a wasted opportunity .
Ask Tony Blair .
What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dominic Cummings share these views that growth is the most important challenge and that most public spending alone does little to improve it .
My hunch is they are more positive about the prospects of state-led growth .
My hope is they haven ’ t swallowed dangerously seductive economic arguments about how more spending will drive it .
Many conservatives argue , for example , that now is a “ good time to invest ” because borrowing is cheap .
But extra public service spending is mostly consumption and transfers .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more funds for the NHS , social care , or the police , then he should raise taxes or find offsetting spending cuts to fund them .
There ’ s no “ get out of jail free ” card here .
The options are higher taxes or less spending for future generations or adding to a tax burden that ’ s already the highest in two generations today , weakening growth further .
More public service spending might be a political imperative for the Prime Minister , but it comes with a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure spending necessarily good for growth , even with low interest rates .
Yes , projects that solve market failures or have high social returns can improve growth prospects and be self-financing .
Paying for them upfront via borrowing avoids damaging spikes in tax rates .
But in an economy with a tight labour market , government projects take funds , workers , and machines out of the private sector , where they often do more good .
In fact , if private projects generate higher returns than government projects then more government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these instances , business tax cuts financed through borrowing to encourage private investment would be far better for economic health than just throwing more money at government transport projects .
Advice of “ if you are to borrow , at least do it wisely , ” might sound inane .
But in the absence of a clearly stated economic goal , the real question is not “ could we could borrow more in today ’ s environment ?
” but “ should we ?
” My answer would be “ maybe , provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our growth potential.
” But then growth would be my overriding priority .
What is Number Ten ’ s ?

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Rishi Sunak is reportedly being pressured to “loosen” the Conservatives’ already loosened fiscal rules in his scheduled March 11th budget. Not long ago, an overall budget surplus by the mid-2020s was the aim, with George Osborne and Phillip Hammond insistent that falling debt-to-GDP was the prudent path given high debt levels, future recession risks, and demographic realities.
Yet fiscal rules come and fiscal rules go. At any given moment treated as sacrosanct, the past 15 years shows fiscal targets only last as long as the politics dictates. So, when deficit reduction ceased to be the overwhelming pre-election priority, the rules changed and suddenly borrowing for investment up to three per cent of GDP was allowed, meaning debt-to-GDP would barely fall this Parliament. Now, Number Ten seemingly wants further relaxation, even contemplating debt-to-GDP rising.
Reaction from economists and ex-Treasury officials has centred on whether Britain could shoulder much higher permanent debt levels without fiscal crisis. Important as this debate is (and the long-term answer is uncertain and unknowable), it ignores more immediate questions: for what purpose is the extra borrowing being proposed? And is more borrowing actually appropriate for this aim?
None of us know why, exactly, further borrowing is being contemplated. Most analysts think that manifesto promises on public service spending and investment can, just about, be delivered within the current framework. This suggests Number Ten wants to “spend more” somewhere.
But given the Conservatives have no clear stated narrative about what they consider wrong with the economy (beyond pledges to “level up,” return to historic 2.8 per cent GDP growth rates, or “unleash the country’s potential” in response), it’s anyone’s guess what’s driving this new thinking.
This lack of a clear economic policy is worrying. Having a clear economic aim, be it growth, or reducing debt, or even reducing inequality, is what anchors decision-making. A pursuit of a goal imposes discipline to think clearly about trade-offs. The major concern in regard this proposed relaxation is not necessarily that it shows Boris Johnson’s priorities are wrong, but that it exhibits an unwillingness to actually prioritise at all. The fear is that the Prime Minister’s team is falling for any old spending or tax cut demand, without a limiting principle. “You can’t say everything is your priority,” Sajid Javid reportedly said before resigning.
In fairness, one reason that no clear economic narrative has emanated from this Government is precisely because they haven’t delivered a budget yet. For good or ill, modern budgets are the primary platform governments have to tell an economic story and outline a policy response. With Brexit done and a secure majority, the Prime Minister and Sunak now have the chance to try to synthesise the disparate stated ambitions for prosperity, regional rebalancing and more money for public services.
Our Editor asked me to offer thoughts on “what they should do.” My honest answer is that, having won a majority and with limited time of healthy political capital, my priority would not be delivering more cash for public services than promised in the manifesto, nor additional infrastructure splurges, nor even broad tax cuts to “put money back in people’s pockets”.
No, my major concern would be the sustained weak productivity growth performance post-crash. This makes every other government challenge more difficult, producing lower wages, less money for public services, and lower returns on saving.
The past decade shows this is now a deep-set structural problem, requiring coordinated policy change. In tackling it, I’d try to work through the difficult and thorny politics of meaningful tax and supply-side reform (land-use planning, immigration, welfare, public sector productivity, infrastructure, and education), recognising the uncertainty of success but mindful of the potentially massive rewards.
Prioritising long-term growth above all else means potentially tolerating more borrowing. But only if it helps to deliver the primary goal. So, no additional cash for the welfare state without productivity-enhancing public service reform as a chaser. No deficit-worsening tax cuts except to grease the wheels for actual pro-growth tax reform (by ensuring the inevitable pain of losers is bearable). And no additional infrastructure spending unless the spending is targeted at the most pro-growth projects with social returns exceeding private alternatives. And I’d apply these principles broadly: no new subsidies for housing, for example, without further meaningful planning reform.
If that sounds an austere, transactional type of politics, then that’s the point. Reform without relaxing resource constraints is difficult. But showering money without reform is a wasted opportunity. Ask Tony Blair. What’s uncertain as yet is whether Johnson and Dominic Cummings share these views that growth is the most important challenge and that most public spending alone does little to improve it. My hunch is they are more positive about the prospects of state-led growth. My hope is they haven’t swallowed dangerously seductive economic arguments about how more spending will drive it.
Many conservatives argue, for example, that now is a “good time to invest” because borrowing is cheap. But extra public service spending is mostly consumption and transfers. It is not “investment.” If Boris wants more funds for the NHS, social care, or the police, then he should raise taxes or find offsetting spending cuts to fund them.
There’s no “get out of jail free” card here. The options are higher taxes or less spending for future generations or adding to a tax burden that’s already the highest in two generations today, weakening growth further. More public service spending might be a political imperative for the Prime Minister, but it comes with a clear growth trade-off.
Nor is more government infrastructure spending necessarily good for growth, even with low interest rates. Yes, projects that solve market failures or have high social returns can improve growth prospects and be self-financing. Paying for them upfront via borrowing avoids damaging spikes in tax rates.
But in an economy with a tight labour market, government projects take funds, workers, and machines out of the private sector, where they often do more good. In fact, if private projects generate higher returns than government projects then more government infrastructure spending may harm growth. In these instances, business tax cuts financed through borrowing to encourage private investment would be far better for economic health than just throwing more money at government transport projects.
Advice of “if you are to borrow, at least do it wisely,” might sound inane. But in the absence of a clearly stated economic goal, the real question is not “could we could borrow more in today’s environment?” but “should we?” My answer would be “maybe, provided the spending or tax cuts significantly improved our growth potential.” But then growth would be my overriding priority. What is Number Ten’s?


conservativehome--2020-02-19--Daniel Hannan: Alarmism, doom-mongering, panic – and the coronavirus. We are nowhere near a 1919-sty

Daniel Hannan: Alarmism, doom-mongering, panic – and the coronavirus. We are nowhere near a 1919-style catastrophe.

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
“ Hospitals prepare for epidemic to sweep Britain ” was the Sunday Times headline .
The article beneath informed us that “ up to 50 per cent of Britons could be affected ” by the coronavirus .
The Sunday Telegraph ’ s lead was “ Millions told to stay at home if coronavirus spreads ” .
Well , maybe .
But I ’ m going to stick my neck out here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed by the coronavirus .
Yes , the disease is unpleasant ; and , yes , in some circumstances , it can cause complications that lead to fatalities .
But it is unlikely to be as lethal as the more common forms of influenza that we take for granted , let alone as lethal as , say , stroke or heart disease .
We are nowhere near a 1919-style global catastrophe .
Let me put on the record right up front that I am not an epidemiologist , an immunologist or a pathologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualifications whatever .
I know nothing about virology beyond the brilliant insight offered by the Nobel Prizewinning biologist , Sir Peter Medawar , that a virus is “ a piece of nucleic acid surrounded by bad news ” .
But I do know a bit about how incentives work in government and in the media .
Politicians , like most people , are bad at calculating risk , and almost every Minister would rather be accused of over-reacting to a threat than of having done too little .
There is a similar bias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the various medical advisory bodies : epidemics are what they exist for , and they wouldn ’ t be human if they didn ’ t have a subliminal desire to talk them up .
When it comes to the media , the déformation professionelle is more obvious .
I have worked under nine editors , and I can ’ t remember any of them ever saying : “ Let ’ s run a front-page lead suggesting that , all in all , things aren ’ t so bad ” .
Finally – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – companies that manufacture ’ flu vaccines have every reason to exaggerate the danger .
We have been here before .
Fifteen years ago , the headlines were every bit as panicky as today .
There was , we were told a “ deadly new strain ” of bird ’ flu .
Hundreds of millions were at risk .
New cases were reported in gruesome detail .
Maps showed the relentless spread of the virus .
One article likened migratory birds to inter-continental ballistic missiles .
As today , those newspaper reports were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2005 , Dr Lee Jong-wook , Director-General of the World Health Organisation , declared : “ It is only a matter of time before an avian ’ flu virus—most likely H5N1—acquires the ability to be transmitted from human to human , sparking the outbreak of human pandemic influenza.
” The technical definition of a pandemic is a disease that has broken out across many parts of the world : it doesn ’ t have to be an especially serious disease .
But , in the case of bird ’ flu , the experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a World Health Organization official , claimed that the H5N1 virus was “ like a combination of global warming and HIV/Aids ” , and predicted that as many as 150 million people might die .
The US announced an avian flu response plan that foresaw the deaths of up to two million Americans .
The actual number of confirmed H5N1 fatalities ?
Less than 500 worldwide .
You might think that that experience would have chastened the headline writers .
But when the swine ’ flu outbreak came three years later , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tone .
“ Killer swine flu , UK on alert ” was the Sunday Times lead on 26 April 2009 .
Three days later , the Daily Mail ’ s front page announced : “ Hundreds will be ill in weeks and a swine flu pandemic could strike 40 per cent of us ” .
Again , these headlines were based on real warnings .
The then Chief Medical Officer for England suggested that , in a worst-case scenario , 30 per cent of the UK population could be infected by the A/H1N1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his best-case scenario ( which the newspapers naturally ignored ) five per cent of would contract the virus , resulting in 3,100 deaths .
How many confirmed deaths were there in England in the event ?
One hundred and thirty eight .
Each of those deaths , of course , was a tragedy .
We just need to be clear about scale : fewer people have died from swine ’ flu than succumb annually to seasonal ’ flu .
Of course , no one likes to point these things out .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came out in 2009 , I wrote a Daily Telegraph blog which referred back to the earlier bird ’ flu panic , and argued that the menace was exaggerated .
I don ’ t think I have ever had so much abuse from readers – not even in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum .
I was , they told me , irresponsible , complacent and ignorant .
I would have millions of deaths on my hands .
Those responses ( which I think fairly reflected public opinion during those fraught early days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the side of extreme caution .
How does the coronavirus compare with the two previous scares ?
Its symptoms , generally , are those of a heavy cold .
As a rule , viruses that are transmitted by casual contact can ’ t be too virulent , for solid evolutionary reasons .
If they incapacitate their hosts , they make it hard for those hosts to infect others .
The successful strategy for a rhinovirus , an adenovirus or a coronavirus is to therefore let their human carriers stay active , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
Indeed , those viruses are widespread in the human population : we generally call them “ colds ” .
The really nasty diseases are , by and large , spread in ways that don ’ t limit their virulence – malaria , for example , is transmitted by insects .
Does that mean that we have nothing to fear ?
No .
Any new disease is a potential danger .
Occasionally , a pathogen jumps the species barrier with lethal effect : smallpox and measles resulted from this process ( “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadly .
Because the Chinese authorities have been opaque in their handling of the coronavirus outbreak , we have less to go on than we would like .
Nothing I have written should be taken as a suggestion that we drop our guard or stop taking precautions .
But , assuming we do that , there is no reason to panic .
Cheer up .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
“Hospitals prepare for epidemic to sweep Britain” was the Sunday Times headline. The article beneath informed us that “up to 50 per cent of Britons could be affected” by the coronavirus. The Sunday Telegraph’s lead was “Millions told to stay at home if coronavirus spreads”.
Well, maybe. But I’m going to stick my neck out here. You’re unlikely to be killed by the coronavirus. Yes, the disease is unpleasant; and, yes, in some circumstances, it can cause complications that lead to fatalities. But it is unlikely to be as lethal as the more common forms of influenza that we take for granted, let alone as lethal as, say, stroke or heart disease. We are nowhere near a 1919-style global catastrophe.
Let me put on the record right up front that I am not an epidemiologist, an immunologist or a pathologist. Indeed, I have no medical qualifications whatever. I know nothing about virology beyond the brilliant insight offered by the Nobel Prizewinning biologist, Sir Peter Medawar, that a virus is “a piece of nucleic acid surrounded by bad news”.
But I do know a bit about how incentives work in government and in the media. Politicians, like most people, are bad at calculating risk, and almost every Minister would rather be accused of over-reacting to a threat than of having done too little. There is a similar bias, albeit a less pronounced one, among the various medical advisory bodies: epidemics are what they exist for, and they wouldn’t be human if they didn’t have a subliminal desire to talk them up.
When it comes to the media, the déformation professionelle is more obvious. I have worked under nine editors, and I can’t remember any of them ever saying: “Let’s run a front-page lead suggesting that, all in all, things aren’t so bad”. Finally – and I am sorry to be blunt – companies that manufacture ’flu vaccines have every reason to exaggerate the danger.
We have been here before. Fifteen years ago, the headlines were every bit as panicky as today. There was, we were told a “deadly new strain” of bird ’flu. Hundreds of millions were at risk. New cases were reported in gruesome detail. Maps showed the relentless spread of the virus. One article likened migratory birds to inter-continental ballistic missiles.
As today, those newspaper reports were based on genuine briefings. In November 2005, Dr Lee Jong-wook, Director-General of the World Health Organisation, declared: “It is only a matter of time before an avian ’flu virus—most likely H5N1—acquires the ability to be transmitted from human to human, sparking the outbreak of human pandemic influenza.”
The technical definition of a pandemic is a disease that has broken out across many parts of the world: it doesn’t have to be an especially serious disease. But, in the case of bird ’flu, the experts were genuinely worried.
David Nabbaro, a World Health Organization official, claimed that the H5N1 virus was “like a combination of global warming and HIV/Aids”, and predicted that as many as 150 million people might die. The US announced an avian flu response plan that foresaw the deaths of up to two million Americans. The actual number of confirmed H5N1 fatalities? Less than 500 worldwide.
You might think that that experience would have chastened the headline writers. But when the swine ’flu outbreak came three years later, it was reported in exactly the same apocalyptic tone.
“Killer swine flu, UK on alert” was the Sunday Times lead on 26 April 2009. Three days later, the Daily Mail’s front page announced: “Hundreds will be ill in weeks and a swine flu pandemic could strike 40 per cent of us”.
Again, these headlines were based on real warnings. The then Chief Medical Officer for England suggested that, in a worst-case scenario, 30 per cent of the UK population could be infected by the A/H1N1 virus, resulting 65,000 fatalities. Even in his best-case scenario (which the newspapers naturally ignored) five per cent of would contract the virus, resulting in 3,100 deaths.
How many confirmed deaths were there in England in the event? One hundred and thirty eight. Each of those deaths, of course, was a tragedy. We just need to be clear about scale: fewer people have died from swine ’flu than succumb annually to seasonal ’flu.
Of course, no one likes to point these things out. When the first reports of swine ’flu came out in 2009, I wrote a Daily Telegraph blog which referred back to the earlier bird ’flu panic, and argued that the menace was exaggerated. I don’t think I have ever had so much abuse from readers – not even in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. I was, they told me, irresponsible, complacent and ignorant. I would have millions of deaths on my hands. Those responses (which I think fairly reflected public opinion during those fraught early days) are why politicians and journalists err on the side of extreme caution.
How does the coronavirus compare with the two previous scares? Its symptoms, generally, are those of a heavy cold. As a rule, viruses that are transmitted by casual contact can’t be too virulent, for solid evolutionary reasons. If they incapacitate their hosts, they make it hard for those hosts to infect others. The successful strategy for a rhinovirus, an adenovirus or a coronavirus is to therefore let their human carriers stay active, so that they continue to interact with other people. Indeed, those viruses are widespread in the human population: we generally call them “colds”. The really nasty diseases are, by and large, spread in ways that don’t limit their virulence – malaria, for example, is transmitted by insects.
Does that mean that we have nothing to fear? No. Any new disease is a potential danger. Occasionally, a pathogen jumps the species barrier with lethal effect: smallpox and measles resulted from this process (“zoonosis”), and both were deadly. Because the Chinese authorities have been opaque in their handling of the coronavirus outbreak, we have less to go on than we would like. Nothing I have written should be taken as a suggestion that we drop our guard or stop taking precautions. But, assuming we do that, there is no reason to panic. Cheer up.


conservativehome--2020-02-19--Ed McGuinness: To be One Nation Conservatives means winning over Londoners too

Ed McGuinness is Chairman of Islington Conservative Federation and stood for Hornsey & Wood Green at the general election .
Disraeli , the father of modern Conservatism , famously wrote in his novel Sybil , the nineteenth century equivalent of a docudrama , of “ two nations… who are as ignorant of each other ’ s habits , thoughts and feelings as if they were inhabitants of different planets.
” Disraeli was speaking of the rich and the poor , the conditions of whom were vastly more stark than today , at the height of the Industrial Revolution .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a before and after map of the 2019 General Election to see the emergence of two , separate “ nations ” , particularly in England and Wales ; those in the cities and towns – and those who are not .
Traditional theories point to economic disparity .
The perception of cities is that they tend to be the preserve of the wealthy , globalised , educated elite .
But those in more rural areas can feel left behind by globalisation concentrating wealth in Capital and regional cities .
The idea follows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the Left , who are seen as accepting of multiculturalism and progressive ideas , prevail in cities .
Whereas the Right , with its perception of sticking with the same , finds success in more rural areas .
Perceptions are not , however , all as they seem .
A YouGov study last year showed that conventional viewpoints of what may be considered Left or Right are changing .
Commonly perceived right wing views on stricter discipline in education , for example , are shared by a majority of people who “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same can be said for attitudes to criminal justice and , most intriguingly , a plurality ( 47 per cent ) , of left wing people were in favour of tighter restrictions on immigration .
This shows that the Left-Right spectrum is not a sharp line , but a smudge that is far more nuanced than previously thought .
The result is that there is an opening to persuade and win over voters who may have , in the past , been overlooked as unreachable .
With the Conservative Party having won a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one could be forgiven by saying we have recognised this change and reacted successfully .
Key pillars of the Conservative manifesto were somewhat non-customary , relying on public spending increases .
Although anyone who considers the Conservative Party a party of pragmatism will understand that affordable public spending in order to benefit society is absolutely central to our method of governance .
In addition , having been in place two months , there have been a number of policy decisions which have crossed the “ established ” Left-Right divide .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the election was dominated by Brexit , and the Government needs to act to deliver , real , tangible benefits to the voters , particularly in the rural North who leant the Conservatives their vote .
In tilting towards the North , the Government must not forget the South and London .
The London Assembly and Mayoral elections will be a litmus test for the Conservatives electoral strategy towards , not just the Capital , but our towns and cities in general .
This is important for three reasons : Firstly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly elected officials , often elected with huge numbers ( the London Mayor is often over one million depending on methodology ) making them singularly powerful and influential in their region .
Secondly , winning and holding our towns and cities shows there is no preserve of a single party and therefore a healthy democracy can ensue .
Thirdly , and most importantly , cities and towns have a huge influence on economies of the suburban and rural communities that surround them .
To focus on one and not the other may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to strategic failure .
For too long the Labour Party has dominated government in London , and they do this by spinning a narrative of Tories being evil , rich and uncaring .
This is the traditional Left-Right divide that Labour councillors and candidates want to send around their echo chambers .
Not only that , but they actively pursue policies which keep those on lower incomes at the bottom , often ploughing public funds into their own propaganda , from where it is easier for Labour to blame a lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , complete mismanagement of our public finances on a local level .
Most worrying of all , however , is the impact of the focus on self-promotion and vote retention , rather than the issues that matter most to Londoners – public safety .
Both the Mayor and his complicit Labour councillors have spent their time preening themselves in the mirrors of their traditional voters , blind to the fact that that same electorate feels unsafe in their own streets .
Shaun Bailey and the London Assembly candidates are effectively countering this narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shaun has an actionable plan for crime , starting with more police on the streets , community groups to give young people a sense of belonging , and zero tolerance on gang activity , all to make London safe .
Not only this , but his housing policy gives a sense of aspiration for young Londoners who feel a lack of participation in our property owning democracy – arguably the central pillar of Conservative values .
Along with improved transport , attracting business and environmental commitments , it is clear that only the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not what a complacent Labour administration says they need .
Westminster is increasingly focusing on developing the North – rightly as it is the only way to truly level-up the country , an unbalanced economy is both inefficient and unfair .
We can and we must win the narrative in our towns and cities , or else we risk forever gifting them to the Left , making us a party , not of the whole country but of one half .
Multi-generational development can only occur when it is adopted in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels of government adopt the same guiding principles of public service , safety , and aspiration .
Put another way , we can not be One Nation Conservatives , in the truest of senses , without speaking to and delivering for every part of the country .

Ed McGuinness is Chairman of Islington Conservative Federation and stood for Hornsey & Wood Green at the general election.
Disraeli, the father of modern Conservatism, famously wrote in his novel Sybil, the nineteenth century equivalent of a docudrama, of “two nations… who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were inhabitants of different planets.” Disraeli was speaking of the rich and the poor, the conditions of whom were vastly more stark than today, at the height of the Industrial Revolution. However, one need only to look at a before and after map of the 2019 General Election to see the emergence of two, separate “nations”, particularly in England and Wales; those in the cities and towns – and those who are not.
Traditional theories point to economic disparity. The perception of cities is that they tend to be the preserve of the wealthy, globalised, educated elite. But those in more rural areas can feel left behind by globalisation concentrating wealth in Capital and regional cities. The idea follows that these two poles become echo chambers, where the Left, who are seen as accepting of multiculturalism and progressive ideas, prevail in cities. Whereas the Right, with its perception of sticking with the same, finds success in more rural areas.
Perceptions are not, however, all as they seem. A YouGov study last year showed that conventional viewpoints of what may be considered Left or Right are changing. Commonly perceived right wing views on stricter discipline in education, for example, are shared by a majority of people who “self-identify” as left wing. The same can be said for attitudes to criminal justice and, most intriguingly, a plurality (47 per cent), of left wing people were in favour of tighter restrictions on immigration. This shows that the Left-Right spectrum is not a sharp line, but a smudge that is far more nuanced than previously thought. The result is that there is an opening to persuade and win over voters who may have, in the past, been overlooked as unreachable.
With the Conservative Party having won a thumping majority in the 2019 General Election, one could be forgiven by saying we have recognised this change and reacted successfully. Key pillars of the Conservative manifesto were somewhat non-customary, relying on public spending increases. Although anyone who considers the Conservative Party a party of pragmatism will understand that affordable public spending in order to benefit society is absolutely central to our method of governance. In addition, having been in place two months, there have been a number of policy decisions which have crossed the “established” Left-Right divide. However, let us not consider this Mission Accomplished, the election was dominated by Brexit, and the Government needs to act to deliver, real, tangible benefits to the voters, particularly in the rural North who leant the Conservatives their vote. In tilting towards the North, the Government must not forget the South and London.
The London Assembly and Mayoral elections will be a litmus test for the Conservatives electoral strategy towards, not just the Capital, but our towns and cities in general.
This is important for three reasons:
Firstly, a matter of perception. Mayors are directly elected officials, often elected with huge numbers (the London Mayor is often over one million depending on methodology) making them singularly powerful and influential in their region.
Secondly, winning and holding our towns and cities shows there is no preserve of a single party and therefore a healthy democracy can ensue.
Thirdly, and most importantly, cities and towns have a huge influence on economies of the suburban and rural communities that surround them. To focus on one and not the other may be a tactical success, but will ultimately lead to strategic failure.
For too long the Labour Party has dominated government in London, and they do this by spinning a narrative of Tories being evil, rich and uncaring. This is the traditional Left-Right divide that Labour councillors and candidates want to send around their echo chambers. Not only that, but they actively pursue policies which keep those on lower incomes at the bottom, often ploughing public funds into their own propaganda, from where it is easier for Labour to blame a lack of central government funding for their problems namely, complete mismanagement of our public finances on a local level. Most worrying of all, however, is the impact of the focus on self-promotion and vote retention, rather than the issues that matter most to Londoners – public safety.
Both the Mayor and his complicit Labour councillors have spent their time preening themselves in the mirrors of their traditional voters, blind to the fact that that same electorate feels unsafe in their own streets.
Shaun Bailey and the London Assembly candidates are effectively countering this narrative and holding the Mayor to account. Shaun has an actionable plan for crime, starting with more police on the streets, community groups to give young people a sense of belonging, and zero tolerance on gang activity, all to make London safe. Not only this, but his housing policy gives a sense of aspiration for young Londoners who feel a lack of participation in our property owning democracy – arguably the central pillar of Conservative values. Along with improved transport, attracting business and environmental commitments, it is clear that only the Conservatives can actually deliver what Londoners want, not what a complacent Labour administration says they need.
Westminster is increasingly focusing on developing the North – rightly as it is the only way to truly level-up the country, an unbalanced economy is both inefficient and unfair. We can and we must win the narrative in our towns and cities, or else we risk forever gifting them to the Left, making us a party, not of the whole country but of one half. Multi-generational development can only occur when it is adopted in an integrated fashion, made possible when all levels of government adopt the same guiding principles of public service, safety, and aspiration.
Put another way, we cannot be One Nation Conservatives, in the truest of senses, without speaking to and delivering for every part of the country.