conservativehome--2020-11-10--Biden is a conservative – succeeding not because he is old, but because he is old-fashioned

Joe Biden is a conservative .
Amid anxious speculation about what kind of a President he will turn out to be , this crucial point has often been overlooked .
For some , the lower-case “ c ” in conservative will be unsatisfying .
But for many American voters it was and is profoundly reassuring .
It would be idle to pretend we can know with precision how far those Republicans who voted for Biden were repelled by the uncouth behaviour of Donald Trump , and how far they were attracted , or reassured , by Biden ’ s conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutually exclusive : for most of these voters , both were in operation .
Trump is a reality TV star who has again and again yielded to his own worst instincts , and for this reason his performances possess a certain horrific authenticity .
No one , surely , could behave that badly without being in some way genuine .
Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign against him in 2016 failed in part because she sounded so hypocritical .
For while she claimed to be on the side of ordinary Americans , anyone could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billionaire friends in the Hamptons .
Her grand liberal condescension was for many voters at least as off-putting as Trump ’ s unabashed sleaziness .
Biden ’ s campaign has succeeded , not exactly because he is old , but because he is old-fashioned – a manner which comes more easily and naturally when one has lived for a long time , so his advanced age is not necessarily the drawback which the media assume it to be .
He takes trouble with ordinary Americans : his courtesy and warmth of feeling are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people he got to know on his 8,200 train journeys between Washington and Delaware , during which he travelled a total of over two million miles .
That is a conservative thing to do .
He found a routine , a rhythm , which suited him , and he stuck to it .
Each night he went home , and he speaks of home with unfeigned emotion .
Loyalty to existing institutions is a conservative characteristic .
Biden is loyal to his family and his church , and to a certain idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech : George Washington , President from 1789-97 , would have agreed with this .
Washington was a gentleman of the 18th century who refused to turn himself into a party politician , and in his Farewell Address delivered this solemn warning to his compatriots : “ I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State , with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations .
Let me now take a more comprehensive view , and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally… “ The alternate domination of one faction over another , sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension , which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities , is itself a frightful despotism .
But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism .
The disorders and miseries , which result , gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual : and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation , on the ruins of Public Liberty… “ It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption , which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions… ” Many Americans have feared in recent years that “ the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension ” would end by tearing the country apart , with each side justifying its excesses by pointing to the excesses of the other .
Biden offers himself as the President who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American , and not just as the leader of a faction .
This idea of rising above faction is old-fashioned , but America is an old-fashioned country , with attitudes on such matters as the right to bear arms which are no longer found in Europe .
It is the oldest republic in the world , an eighteenth-century nation with deep roots in the English common law and a proper reverence for Magna Carta , a document more honoured now in Washington than it is in Westminster .
James Madison and the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only look to England .
They pored over the history of the Roman Republic as they sought to devise a form of government which would endure .
“ If men were angels , no government would be necessary , ” Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers , but since men are not angels , “ ambition must be made to counteract ambition ” by means of a system of checks and balances .
And this is what has happened .
The system does not work perfectly – no system can – but neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attained the despotic power against which Washington delivered his solemn warning .
In March this year ( though so much has happened since that it seems longer ago ) I brought out a volume called Gimson ’ s Presidents : Brief Lives from Washington to Trump .
While writing it , one could not help but notice that many of the presidents were tawdry , third-rate figures , a point from which the undoubted greatness of a handful of them can distract one .
And yet the republic has endured , and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible cost , to correct its own most grievous faults .
Biden is already coming under fire from various factionalists on the Left of his own party , who want him to adopt their partisan opinions .
He knew this would happen , so took the precaution of declaring in his victory speech : In that speech , he quoted from the Bible , in its best and most traditional version : yet more evidence of his own conservatism , and his determination to appeal to the conservatism of millions of Americans who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and want a President who will put the national interest first .
During his 36 years in the Senate ( 1973-2009 ) Biden generally sought to work with Republicans , rather than pick fights with them .
He will now draw on that experience .
He is not a man of brilliant intellectual gifts – few presidents are – and he is also a dull speaker , who if anything will sound duller as he becomes better known .
But unlike Trump , who in 2016 reaped the electoral reward of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington , knows who everyone is , is supported by a tried and tested team of advisers who have been with him a long time , and has already appointed a panel of public health experts to advise him how to tackle the pandemic with an altogether unTrumpian seriousness .
Biden intends to draw on the rich American tradition of pragmatic , unglamorous , bipartisan work .
And since to work within a tradition , rather than attempt to make things up from first principles , is yet another conservative characteristic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Biden .

Joe Biden is a conservative. Amid anxious speculation about what kind of a President he will turn out to be, this crucial point has often been overlooked.
For some, the lower-case “c” in conservative will be unsatisfying. But for many American voters it was and is profoundly reassuring.
It would be idle to pretend we can know with precision how far those Republicans who voted for Biden were repelled by the uncouth behaviour of Donald Trump, and how far they were attracted, or reassured, by Biden’s conservative demeanour.
The two motives are not mutually exclusive: for most of these voters, both were in operation.
Trump is a reality TV star who has again and again yielded to his own worst instincts, and for this reason his performances possess a certain horrific authenticity. No one, surely, could behave that badly without being in some way genuine.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign against him in 2016 failed in part because she sounded so hypocritical. For while she claimed to be on the side of ordinary Americans, anyone could see she preferred the company of her billionaire friends in the Hamptons. Her grand liberal condescension was for many voters at least as off-putting as Trump’s unabashed sleaziness.
Biden’s campaign has succeeded, not exactly because he is old, but because he is old-fashioned – a manner which comes more easily and naturally when one has lived for a long time, so his advanced age is not necessarily the drawback which the media assume it to be.
He takes trouble with ordinary Americans: his courtesy and warmth of feeling are authentic, attested by among others the people he got to know on his 8,200 train journeys between Washington and Delaware, during which he travelled a total of over two million miles.
That is a conservative thing to do. He found a routine, a rhythm, which suited him, and he stuck to it. Each night he went home, and he speaks of home with unfeigned emotion.
Loyalty to existing institutions is a conservative characteristic. Biden is loyal to his family and his church, and to a certain idea of his country, expressed in his victory speech:
“I pledge to be a President who seeks not to divide, but to unify, who doesn’t see red states and blue states, but the United States.”
George Washington, President from 1789-97, would have agreed with this. Washington was a gentleman of the 18th century who refused to turn himself into a party politician, and in his Farewell Address delivered this solemn warning to his compatriots:
“I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally… “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty… “It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions…”
Many Americans have feared in recent years that “the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension” would end by tearing the country apart, with each side justifying its excesses by pointing to the excesses of the other.
Biden offers himself as the President who can avert this disaster by governing as an American, and not just as the leader of a faction.
This idea of rising above faction is old-fashioned, but America is an old-fashioned country, with attitudes on such matters as the right to bear arms which are no longer found in Europe.
It is the oldest republic in the world, an eighteenth-century nation with deep roots in the English common law and a proper reverence for Magna Carta, a document more honoured now in Washington than it is in Westminster.
James Madison and the other drafters of the American Constitution did not only look to England. They pored over the history of the Roman Republic as they sought to devise a form of government which would endure.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, but since men are not angels, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” by means of a system of checks and balances.
And this is what has happened. The system does not work perfectly – no system can – but neither Trump nor any of his predecessors has attained the despotic power against which Washington delivered his solemn warning.
In March this year (though so much has happened since that it seems longer ago) I brought out a volume called Gimson’s Presidents: Brief Lives from Washington to Trump.
While writing it, one could not help but notice that many of the presidents were tawdry, third-rate figures, a point from which the undoubted greatness of a handful of them can distract one.
And yet the republic has endured, and has shown a capacity, albeit at sometimes terrible cost, to correct its own most grievous faults.
Biden is already coming under fire from various factionalists on the Left of his own party, who want him to adopt their partisan opinions.
He knew this would happen, so took the precaution of declaring in his victory speech:
“Folks, I’m a proud Democrat, but I will govern as an American President.”
In that speech, he quoted from the Bible, in its best and most traditional version: yet more evidence of his own conservatism, and his determination to appeal to the conservatism of millions of Americans who are fed up with the party-political dogfight, and want a President who will put the national interest first.
During his 36 years in the Senate (1973-2009) Biden generally sought to work with Republicans, rather than pick fights with them.
He will now draw on that experience. He is not a man of brilliant intellectual gifts – few presidents are – and he is also a dull speaker, who if anything will sound duller as he becomes better known.
But unlike Trump, who in 2016 reaped the electoral reward of being an angry outsider, Biden is trusted in Washington, knows who everyone is, is supported by a tried and tested team of advisers who have been with him a long time, and has already appointed a panel of public health experts to advise him how to tackle the pandemic with an altogether unTrumpian seriousness.
Biden intends to draw on the rich American tradition of pragmatic, unglamorous, bipartisan work. And since to work within a tradition, rather than attempt to make things up from first principles, is yet another conservative characteristic, conservatives could well end up approving of President Biden.


conservativehome--2020-11-10--Please join Lord Ashcroft this week for the launch of his biography of Rishi Sunak

The ToryDiary below was published on this site earlier this week .
This is a morning in which to celebrate unifying , popular , national leadership – and politicians who bring people together rather than divide them .
It is in that spirit that we draw our readers ’ attention to Rishi Sunak , the most popular politician in the country , and the man who now consistently tops our regular ConservativeHome Cabinet League Table .
How has he managed it , what happens next – and who is he ?
Later this week , I will be trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ConservativeHome ’ s proprietor , for the launch of his new book – a biography of the Chancellor : Going for Broke .
You are also invited to this live Zoom event , during which “ Lord Ashcroft will give an exclusive insight into his study of the Chancellor ’ s life , and answer questions submitted by you , the viewers ” .
So please do register via the link below for your free ticket as we explore the story of “ a super-bright and hard-grafting son of immigrant parents who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fortune of his own… …a polished urban southerner who wins over the voters of rural North Yorkshire… …and a cautious , fiscally conservative financier who has become the biggest-spending Chancellor in history ” .
Here is the link to the registration page for the event , which will take place this Thursday , November 12 , at 19.00 .
The second extract from the Mail on Sunday ‘ s serialisation of Going for Broke is published today .

The ToryDiary below was published on this site earlier this week.
– – –
This is a morning in which to celebrate unifying, popular, national leadership – and politicians who bring people together rather than divide them.
It is in that spirit that we draw our readers’ attention to Rishi Sunak, the most popular politician in the country, and the man who now consistently tops our regular ConservativeHome Cabinet League Table.
How has he managed it, what happens next – and who is he? Later this week, I will be trying to find out as I join Lord Ashcroft, ConservativeHome’s proprietor, for the launch of his new book – a biography of the Chancellor: Going for Broke.
You are also invited to this live Zoom event, during which “Lord Ashcroft will give an exclusive insight into his study of the Chancellor’s life, and answer questions submitted by you, the viewers”.
So please do register via the link below for your free ticket as we explore the story of “a super-bright and hard-grafting son of immigrant parents who marries an Indian heiress and makes a fortune of his own…
…a polished urban southerner who wins over the voters of rural North Yorkshire…
…and a cautious, fiscally conservative financier who has become the biggest-spending Chancellor in history”.
Here is the link to the registration page for the event, which will take place this Thursday, November 12, at 19.00.
The second extract from the Mail on Sunday‘s serialisation of Going for Broke is published today.


conservativehome--2020-11-10--Radical: It’s time the Women and Equalities Committee was replaced

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER , and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome .
She is co-founder of Radical .
She and Victoria Hewson , her co-founder , alternate authorship of this column on trans , sex and gender issues .
We need to talk about the Women and Equalities Committee .
Just take its name , for a start !
The ‘ women ’ part incites ire both from those who find it patronising ( “ we ’ re 50 per cent of the population !
” ) , and those who find it exclusionary ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ what about trans men ?
” , “ why isn ’ t there a BAME committee , then ?
” ) .
Whereas the ‘ equalities ’ part is symptomatic of the confused nature of state discussion of such matters : why the plural ?
If ‘ equality ’ is good enough for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , and the Equality Act… Parliament.uk lists 133 current parliamentary committees , the members of which are MPs and Lords ( some only have MPs , some only Lords , and some both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ( focused on scrutinising legislation ) , some are ‘ select committees ’ ( focused on the work of particular government departments , etc ) , and three are ‘ grand committees ’ ( focused on devolved matters ) .
Unsurprisingly , these committees cover a vast range of topics — from Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs , to Fire Safety , to Pensions .
The Women and Equalities Committee ( WESC ) is a select committee , set up in 2015 to scrutinise the work of the Government Equalities Office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parliamentary Group on Women in Parliament .
It ’ s worth noting the involvement of this APPG .
After all , the GEO focuses on many other ‘ equalities issues ’ aside from women ; sex is only one of the Equality Act ’ s ‘ protected characteristics ’ .
Anyway , on this approach , aren ’ t women included in ‘ equalities ’ , already ?
Isn ’ t the WESC a bit like a Mars Bars and Chocolate Bars Committee ?
There ’ s more to be said about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , here .
But , beyond specific frustration at perceived condescension or exclusion , there ’ s a longstanding general debate about the state ’ s involvement in such matters .
This ranges from the claim that the state does nowhere near enough to further the life chances of people from oppressed groups , to the claim that the state shouldn ’ t be involved in these matters at all .
Many argue , for instance , that such involvement can be divisive and counterproductive , and represents serious overreach .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Radical , with regards to matters such as state-enforced positive discrimination .
However , it also seems clear that there are certain such matters that do require state involvement .
Indeed , in writing this regular column , we hope to remind Conservatives of this , in relation to the way in which , so often , the interests of women have been forsaken amidst the gender-identity lobby ’ s capture of our institutions .
Beyond this , however , it ’ s hopefully uncontroversial to emphasise , for instance , that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is illegal , as it has been under UK law since 1985 .
And also that the state should do a much better job of enforcing this , to protect girls from these mutilations .
Then , there ’ s the decades-long failure of UK institutions , including police forces , to stop large-scale sexual abuse in towns including Rotherham and Rochdale .
The state is involved in these matters , and its actions — for good or bad — must be scrutinised .
Again , maybe you believe the state has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are typically seen as hot ’ equalities ’ topics — such as mandating pay gap reporting , or quotas on boards .
And those particular policy approaches run very much against our beliefs .
But hopefully you ’ d agree that equality itself is a crucial societal value , relating to our basic rights as human beings and as consenting members of a shared political society .
And that situations in which members of certain sets of people are treated as if they are lacking the fundamental equal status that we all share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
And that this can move beyond instances of direct harm .
For instance , policy issues like prisoner voting , and asylum seekers ’ right to work , relate to equality in this sense .
But does the WESC spend its time addressing these kinds of matters ?
Is it a champion of girls ’ safety ?
Are its members engaged in considering fundamental questions of equality ?
Do they work hard to defend their existence by engaging with underlying debates about the role of the state , and which kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , if the WESC has made any impact at all , it ’ s been solely on the question of gender self-ID .
Perhaps it was inevitable that a committee with its remit would be susceptible to capture by gender-identity interest groups like Stonewall .
It stands to reason that sceptics of the equalities agenda would avoid engaging with such a committee , while lobbyists for each protected characteristic under the Equality Act would see it as a political platform for their cause .
And , as the most vocal identity-related cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transgender people , the most high-profile inquiry of the WESC was on transgender equality .
Therefore , it ’ s hardly surprising that , only weeks after Liz Truss published the government ’ s response to its long-running consultation on self-ID , the WESC felt the need to re-litigate the matter , opening its own , second inquiry into reform of the Gender Recognition Act .
This is neither to say that the interests of transgender people are unimportant , nor that the WESC has not produced interesting publications .
Its 2016 report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made for sobering reading .
Indeed , you might have thought WESC members would ’ ve reflected again on their earlier findings on the ease with which people should be able to change their legal sex .
Their 2016 conclusions included not only the importance of accurate data — currently under serious threat following the capture of the census ‘ sex question ’ .
But also the urgent need to ‘ engage with men and boys ’ on matters of sexual violence : ‘ the focus in [ Sex and Relationships Education ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their behaviour , rather than addressing the culture that leads some boys and young men to sexually harass and abuse girls and young women ’ .
We hope the WESC pays more attention to such matters in their new inquiry , and recognises that effectively denying the existence of biological sex is not an option for a state institution .
Or maybe we should hope for something else .
The WESC has shown itself to have been captured by a single-issue political campaign , and as such is clearly incapable of properly holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters within its remit .
The WESC has even shown itself incapable of advocating for the one group specifically named in its title — women — and has focused instead on privileging the interests , at all costs , of people identifying as transgender .
Perhaps , therefore , parliament should bring the WESC to an end ?
Perhaps it should be replaced with a committee charged with scrutinising the way in which the state upholds the equally-held freedoms and rights of all , rather than viewing these matters through the contested post-modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call on MPs to halt the WESC ’ s waste of taxpayer-funded state resources , and propose it should be replaced by a Civil Rights and Freedoms Committee , at the earliest opportunity .
Focused on questions of equality before the law , instead of the grouping of people by particular identities , this committee could tackle everything from the privileges of citizenship , to the question of economic ‘ levelling up ’ , to the risks of government by decree in the age of Covid-19 .
These are matters related to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which can be approached by conservatives and progressives in common cause , without conceding to identity politics at the outset .

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. She is co-founder of Radical. She and Victoria Hewson, her co-founder, alternate authorship of this column on trans, sex and gender issues.
We need to talk about the Women and Equalities Committee. Just take its name, for a start! The ‘women’ part incites ire both from those who find it patronising (“we’re 50 per cent of the population!”), and those who find it exclusionary (“what about men?”, “what about trans men?”, “why isn’t there a BAME committee, then?”). Whereas the ‘equalities’ part is symptomatic of the confused nature of state discussion of such matters: why the plural? If ‘equality’ is good enough for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Equality Act…
Parliament.uk lists 133 current parliamentary committees, the members of which are MPs and Lords (some only have MPs, some only Lords, and some both). Some are ‘general committees’ (focused on scrutinising legislation), some are ‘select committees’ (focused on the work of particular government departments, etc), and three are ‘grand committees’ (focused on devolved matters). Unsurprisingly, these committees cover a vast range of topics — from Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, to Fire Safety, to Pensions.
The Women and Equalities Committee (WESC) is a select committee, set up in 2015 to scrutinise the work of the Government Equalities Office, on the recommendation of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in Parliament. It’s worth noting the involvement of this APPG. After all, the GEO focuses on many other ‘equalities issues’ aside from women; sex is only one of the Equality Act’s ‘protected characteristics’. Anyway, on this approach, aren’t women included in ‘equalities’, already? Isn’t the WESC a bit like a Mars Bars and Chocolate Bars Committee?
There’s more to be said about the foregrounding of the term ‘women’, here. But, beyond specific frustration at perceived condescension or exclusion, there’s a longstanding general debate about the state’s involvement in such matters. This ranges from the claim that the state does nowhere near enough to further the life chances of people from oppressed groups, to the claim that the state shouldn’t be involved in these matters at all. Many argue, for instance, that such involvement can be divisive and counterproductive, and represents serious overreach. And that seems a convincing argument to us at Radical, with regards to matters such as state-enforced positive discrimination.
However, it also seems clear that there are certain such matters that do require state involvement. Indeed, in writing this regular column, we hope to remind Conservatives of this, in relation to the way in which, so often, the interests of women have been forsaken amidst the gender-identity lobby’s capture of our institutions.
Beyond this, however, it’s hopefully uncontroversial to emphasise, for instance, that it’s good and right that FGM is illegal, as it has been under UK law since 1985. And also that the state should do a much better job of enforcing this, to protect girls from these mutilations. Then, there’s the decades-long failure of UK institutions, including police forces, to stop large-scale sexual abuse in towns including Rotherham and Rochdale. The state is involved in these matters, and its actions — for good or bad — must be scrutinised.
Again, maybe you believe the state has no role to play in proactively addressing what are typically seen as hot ’equalities’ topics — such as mandating pay gap reporting, or quotas on boards. And those particular policy approaches run very much against our beliefs.
But hopefully you’d agree that equality itself is a crucial societal value, relating to our basic rights as human beings and as consenting members of a shared political society. And that situations in which members of certain sets of people are treated as if they are lacking the fundamental equal status that we all share, can be a matter for the state. And that this can move beyond instances of direct harm. For instance, policy issues like prisoner voting, and asylum seekers’ right to work, relate to equality in this sense.
But does the WESC spend its time addressing these kinds of matters? Is it a champion of girls’ safety? Are its members engaged in considering fundamental questions of equality? Do they work hard to defend their existence by engaging with underlying debates about the role of the state, and which kinds of state intervention can be justified?
Well, if the WESC has made any impact at all, it’s been solely on the question of gender self-ID. Perhaps it was inevitable that a committee with its remit would be susceptible to capture by gender-identity interest groups like Stonewall. It stands to reason that sceptics of the equalities agenda would avoid engaging with such a committee, while lobbyists for each protected characteristic under the Equality Act would see it as a political platform for their cause. And, as the most vocal identity-related cause of recent years has been that of transgender people, the most high-profile inquiry of the WESC was on transgender equality. Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that, only weeks after Liz Truss published the government’s response to its long-running consultation on self-ID, the WESC felt the need to re-litigate the matter, opening its own, second inquiry into reform of the Gender Recognition Act.
This is neither to say that the interests of transgender people are unimportant, nor that the WESC has not produced interesting publications. Its 2016 report on sexual harassment and violence in schools made for sobering reading. Indeed, you might have thought WESC members would’ve reflected again on their earlier findings on the ease with which people should be able to change their legal sex. Their 2016 conclusions included not only the importance of accurate data — currently under serious threat following the capture of the census ‘sex question’.
But also the urgent need to ‘engage with men and boys’ on matters of sexual violence: ‘the focus in [Sex and Relationships Education] has been often based on girls changing their behaviour, rather than addressing the culture that leads some boys and young men to sexually harass and abuse girls and young women’. We hope the WESC pays more attention to such matters in their new inquiry, and recognises that effectively denying the existence of biological sex is not an option for a state institution.
Or maybe we should hope for something else. The WESC has shown itself to have been captured by a single-issue political campaign, and as such is clearly incapable of properly holding the state to account on the important matters within its remit.
The WESC has even shown itself incapable of advocating for the one group specifically named in its title — women — and has focused instead on privileging the interests, at all costs, of people identifying as transgender. Perhaps, therefore, parliament should bring the WESC to an end? Perhaps it should be replaced with a committee charged with scrutinising the way in which the state upholds the equally-held freedoms and rights of all, rather than viewing these matters through the contested post-modern lens of identity politics?
We therefore call on MPs to halt the WESC’s waste of taxpayer-funded state resources, and propose it should be replaced by a Civil Rights and Freedoms Committee, at the earliest opportunity. Focused on questions of equality before the law, instead of the grouping of people by particular identities, this committee could tackle everything from the privileges of citizenship, to the question of economic ‘levelling up’, to the risks of government by decree in the age of Covid-19. These are matters related to the fundamental values of equality and liberty, which can be approached by conservatives and progressives in common cause, without conceding to identity politics at the outset.


conservativehome--2020-11-10--Gary Powell: Why is the Government giving councils £11 million to encourage unprotected sex?

In his piece for ConservativeHome , Elliot Colburn , MP for Carshalton and Wallington , celebrated the grant of £11.1 million to local authorities to fund a roll-out of “ PrEP ” ( “ Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis ” ) .
The primary purpose of this drug is to reduce HIV transmission among people engaging in multiple-partner penetrative casual sex without wearing a condom .
The manufacturers don their own reputational protection by asserting PrEP should only be used in conjunction with a condom ; however , the demand for PrEP in the gay male community is fuelled by men who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and who do not like using condoms .
The whole point in them taking PrEP is to facilitate unprotected sex : these days called “ barebacking ” .
Colburn referred to this Government largesse with taxpayers ’ money as a “ huge breakthrough ” , as “ something every Conservative can be proud of ” , as “ PrEP on the NHS ” , as a “ thing we can celebrate ” and as “ another thing to be proud a Conservative government has achieved.
” Well , I am one gay Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically-driven insanity .
In 1983 , nine years before Colburn was born , I was already campaigning for gay rights , at a time when we really did lack them .
As President of Oxford University Gay and Lesbian Society I had a particular responsibility to keep our members informed as the terrifying AIDS crisis was breaking .
I lost dear friends to AIDS – all of whom became infected before the virus was identified and before there was any advice about using condoms for penetrative sex .
As a lentivirus , HIV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many years before causing illness , which meant that , for several years , many people had become infected , and were infecting others , unwittingly .
At that time , HIV infection was a death sentence .
Today , antiretroviral medications for life can provide a normal lifespan .
Knowledge about safer sex with condoms in the 1970s and early 1980s would have saved many lives .
Condoms are very cheap and are available free at GUM clinics .
They are a great and safe alternative to PrEP , dispensing with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay for , that requires regular clinical monitoring , and that carries long-term risks , including kidney damage and a loss of bone mineral density .
Colburn ’ s assertion that , “ When taken correctly ( PrEP ) is nearly 100 per cent effective , ” is dangerously misleading .
The US Center for Disease Control ( CDC ) informs us that “ PrEP reduces the risk of getting HIV from sex by about 99 per cent when taken consistently ” .
Unlike Colburn , I would not describe 99 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent effective ” when there is a one per cent risk of contracting a potentially deadly virus that will put one on medication for life .
If a million men who have sex with men ( MSM ) ended up on PrEP and took it consistently , exposing themselves to risk , a one per cent failure rate equates to 10,000 HIV infections .
You wouldn ’ t tell someone , if there was a one per cent chance of being attacked by a shark in some waters , that swimming there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just as worrying is Colburn ’ s failure to acknowledge that , for people who inject drugs , PrEP affords a protection rate that may be as low as 74 per cent .
Although condoms can break or slip off , the largest study to date indicates a failure rate of less than one per cent for anal sex and less than two per cent for vaginal sex , so long as appropriate lubrication is used .
( A caveat , however : previous studies have suggested higher failure rates . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the HIV status of the other person is positive or unknown , people can attend a GUM clinic or hospital A & E department for a 30-day course of Post-Exposure Prophylactic ( PEP ) ( best within 24 hours , certainly within 72 hours ) .
Neither condoms nor PEP are 100 per cent reliable , but in combination , they provide very good odds .
Indeed , when a commitment to avoid anonymous sex with multiple strangers is added to the above , or even – perish the thought !
– a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you love , then the odds of HIV infection will fall lower still .
The sexually transmitted infection ( STI ) statistics in the UK are skyrocketing , and not only among men who have sex with men .
The MSM statistics , however , are particularly worrying , and the specific concern , in relation to PrEP , is gonorrhoea .
The CDC informs us that “ Gonorrhoea has progressively developed resistance to the antibiotic drugs prescribed to treat it.
” A 2016 study in the USA estimated that between 1.5 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adult male population had sex with other men .
I ’ m going to take the higher figure and assume six per cent of the adult male UK population are MSM ( i.e .
gay or bisexual , and sexually active with other men ) .
A 2019 report on STIs by Public Health England revealed that , between 2018 and 2019 , gonorrhoea cases among heterosexual men had increased by 17 per cent ( from 13,036 to 15,253 ) and among MSM by 26 per cent ( from 26,864 to 33,853 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at high risk of HIV infection therefore also has a colossally higher number of gonorrhoea infections .
Condoms are very effective at preventing gonorrhoea , and the figures clearly point to a worrying lack of condom use by a section of MSM .
The MSM raw infection numbers are alarming .
MSM ( remember : only around six per cent of the male adult population ) had 33,853 gonorrhoea infections , while the whole male heterosexual population had 15,253 infections .
If heterosexual males had been infected with gonorrhoea at the same rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population would have had 564,216 infections .
Just let that sink in .
Instead of championing PrEP as a milestone in LGBT+ activism , the Government would be wise to encourage people to limit their casual sexual partners and to commit to safer sex using condoms , with PEP for condom failure .
If antibiotic prescriptions to treat gonorrhoea infections continue to climb , so will the risk of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhoea becoming a future global pandemic .

Cllr Gary Powell is a councillor in Buckinghamshire
In his piece for ConservativeHome, Elliot Colburn, MP for Carshalton and Wallington, celebrated the grant of £11.1 million to local authorities to fund a roll-out of “PrEP” (“Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis”). The primary purpose of this drug is to reduce HIV transmission among people engaging in multiple-partner penetrative casual sex without wearing a condom. The manufacturers don their own reputational protection by asserting PrEP should only be used in conjunction with a condom; however, the demand for PrEP in the gay male community is fuelled by men who have unsafe sex with multiple casual sexual partners and who do not like using condoms. The whole point in them taking PrEP is to facilitate unprotected sex: these days called “barebacking”.
Colburn referred to this Government largesse with taxpayers’ money as a “huge breakthrough”, as “something every Conservative can be proud of”, as “PrEP on the NHS”, as a “thing we can celebrate” and as “another thing to be proud a Conservative government has achieved.” Well, I am one gay Conservative who is anything but proud of this politically-driven insanity.
In 1983, nine years before Colburn was born, I was already campaigning for gay rights, at a time when we really did lack them. As President of Oxford University Gay and Lesbian Society I had a particular responsibility to keep our members informed as the terrifying AIDS crisis was breaking. I lost dear friends to AIDS – all of whom became infected before the virus was identified and before there was any advice about using condoms for penetrative sex. As a lentivirus, HIV can sit around in the body for many years before causing illness, which meant that, for several years, many people had become infected, and were infecting others, unwittingly. At that time, HIV infection was a death sentence. Today, antiretroviral medications for life can provide a normal lifespan.
Knowledge about safer sex with condoms in the 1970s and early 1980s would have saved many lives. Condoms are very cheap and are available free at GUM clinics. They are a great and safe alternative to PrEP, dispensing with a long-term daily medication regime that somebody has to pay for, that requires regular clinical monitoring, and that carries long-term risks, including kidney damage and a loss of bone mineral density.
Colburn’s assertion that, “When taken correctly (PrEP) is nearly 100 per cent effective,” is dangerously misleading. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) informs us that “PrEP reduces the risk of getting HIV from sex by about 99 per cent when taken consistently”. Unlike Colburn, I would not describe 99 per cent efficacy as “nearly 100 per cent effective” when there is a one per cent risk of contracting a potentially deadly virus that will put one on medication for life. If a million men who have sex with men (MSM) ended up on PrEP and took it consistently, exposing themselves to risk, a one per cent failure rate equates to 10,000 HIV infections. You wouldn’t tell someone, if there was a one per cent chance of being attacked by a shark in some waters, that swimming there was “almost 100 per cent” safe. Just as worrying is Colburn’s failure to acknowledge that, for people who inject drugs, PrEP affords a protection rate that may be as low as 74 per cent.
Although condoms can break or slip off, the largest study to date indicates a failure rate of less than one per cent for anal sex and less than two per cent for vaginal sex, so long as appropriate lubrication is used. (A caveat, however: previous studies have suggested higher failure rates.) If a condom does break, and the HIV status of the other person is positive or unknown, people can attend a GUM clinic or hospital A&E department for a 30-day course of Post-Exposure Prophylactic (PEP) (best within 24 hours, certainly within 72 hours). Neither condoms nor PEP are 100 per cent reliable, but in combination, they provide very good odds. Indeed, when a commitment to avoid anonymous sex with multiple strangers is added to the above, or even – perish the thought! – a commitment to a monogamous relationship with someone you love, then the odds of HIV infection will fall lower still.
The sexually transmitted infection (STI) statistics in the UK are skyrocketing, and not only among men who have sex with men. The MSM statistics, however, are particularly worrying, and the specific concern, in relation to PrEP, is gonorrhoea. The CDC informs us that “Gonorrhoea has progressively developed resistance to the antibiotic drugs prescribed to treat it.”
A 2016 study in the USA estimated that between 1.5 per cent and six per cent of its adult male population had sex with other men. I’m going to take the higher figure and assume six per cent of the adult male UK population are MSM (i.e. gay or bisexual, and sexually active with other men). A 2019 report on STIs by Public Health England revealed that, between 2018 and 2019, gonorrhoea cases among heterosexual men had increased by 17 per cent (from 13,036 to 15,253) and among MSM by 26 per cent (from 26,864 to 33,853). This same MSM group that is at high risk of HIV infection therefore also has a colossally higher number of gonorrhoea infections. Condoms are very effective at preventing gonorrhoea, and the figures clearly point to a worrying lack of condom use by a section of MSM.
The MSM raw infection numbers are alarming. MSM (remember: only around six per cent of the male adult population) had 33,853 gonorrhoea infections, while the whole male heterosexual population had 15,253 infections. If heterosexual males had been infected with gonorrhoea at the same rate as MSM, the UK adult male population would have had 564,216 infections. Just let that sink in.
Instead of championing PrEP as a milestone in LGBT+ activism, the Government would be wise to encourage people to limit their casual sexual partners and to commit to safer sex using condoms, with PEP for condom failure. If antibiotic prescriptions to treat gonorrhoea infections continue to climb, so will the risk of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhoea becoming a future global pandemic.


conservativehome--2020-11-10--The vaccine. The biggest breakthrough so far in the Covid-19 battle. But a logistical challenge unli

The vaccine. The biggest breakthrough so far in the Covid-19 battle. But a logistical challenge unlike anything else.

In recent weeks , it ’ s been hard to feel optimistic about the UK ’ s battle with Covid-19 .
From the introduction of another lockdown , to talk of trying to “ save Christmas ” , to test and trace still experiencing difficulties , even the most cheerful among us might have struggled to see a light at the end of the tunnel .
But all of that changed yesterday when it was announced that a vaccine for the virus had proved successful in clinical trials .
It has managed to protect over 90 per cent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becoming infected .
Although , as Boris Johnson has warned , it ’ s “ very , very early days ” and people can not “ rely on this news as a solution ” , it can not be stated enough what an astonishing achievement this is .
Indeed , when I last wrote about the vaccine in October for ConservativeHome , there were actually a lot of reasons to be doubtful that this would be a viable exit strategy .
These reasons are broadly : • None Other members of the Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have vaccines .
• None Smallpox is the only disease that has ever been fully eradicated by a vaccine .
• None Kate Bingham , the chairman of the UK Vaccine Taskforce , said that a Covid vaccine would probably have the same success rate as the flu jab ( 50 per cent ) .
• None Patrick Vallance said we would be looking at a vaccine model similar to flu , and that the “ notion of eliminating Covid is not right.
” Bingham and Vallance ’ s estimates were entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why the vaccine development is so special ; it is groundbreaking territory to create something with 90 per cent efficacy , never mind the fact it was developed in such a short period .
But as I wrote before , there will still be some major challenges ahead .
Without further ado , here are some of the main takeaways from the vaccine news – and what the big questions ahead are for the Government and scientists .
How does the vaccine work ?
It is a new type of vaccine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although RNA vaccines have been researched in the past , they have never been approved before .
It works by using a small part of the virus ’ s genetic code , which is then introduced to the body .
The immune system then identifies this as foreign and begins to attack the virus .
How is it administered ?
The vaccine is given in two doses , which are taken 21 to 28 days apart ( the Government has ordered 40 million doses of it , which will give the UK the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It will be delivered at care homes ( by NHS workers ) , at GP surgeries , pharmacies and “ go-to ” vaccination centres set up in places like sports halls .
The goal is to have the vaccine administered seven days a week , and Matt Hancock has announced £150 million extra funding to help GPs carry out this huge task .
Who will get it first ?
As age is the biggest risk factor for severe Covid-19 , the first people to receive the vaccine will be care home residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the list are likely to be health workers and hospital staff .
From then on , people will be ranked by age ; those under 50 will be bottom of the list .
Children will not be vaccinated ( although expect this to be contested , as some scientists are worried about the long-term effects of Covid ) .
When could it become available ?
There have been conflicting estimates of when the vaccine will arrive , but the overall expected is either by the end of this year or early in 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roll out by Christmas is “ absolutely a possibility ” , although he expects it to come in the first part of next year .
Emergency approval could mean the vaccine is with us as soon as November .
What are the challenges ahead ?
There are a number of challenges for the Government , which can broadly be categorised as 1 ) Regulatory/ medical 2 ) Logistical and 3 ) Societal .
To run through these in more detail : The vaccine will first need to be considered by agencies around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can it be rolled out to the masses .
This is why Johnson is trying to manage expectations about the vaccine – as this is quite a big hurdle to get through .
Then there are more considerations about the vaccine ’ s effectiveness , which will influence Governmental policy .
Here are some questions that will be asked : • None Does the vaccine stop people from catching and spreading the virus ?
( As well as stopping someone from getting ill ) .
• None How protective is the vaccine across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missing data on this at the moment ) .
• None Do people need repeated doses of the vaccine ?
How long does its protective effect last for ?
• None What is the potential for the virus to mutate ?
• None What are the rare side effects of the vaccine ?
( We can only see this when much larger numbers of people take it ) .
• None How many people need to be immunised in order to return life back to normal ?
• None How do we protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vaccine does not work ?
Rolling the vaccine out is an operation of epic proportions ; Jamie Njoku-Goodwin , formerly Hancock ’ s Special Advisor , said on Twitter that it would “ require the biggest logistical effort since WW2 ” .
Getting two doses out to tens of millions of people is no walk in the park ( to put it mildly ) .
There are other logistical challenges , too ; for instance , the vaccine needs to be moved from one station to another , without removing it from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The last big headache is trying to manage who gets the vaccine .
This is perhaps the most complicated aspect of this exit strategy , as the Government will have to deal with two divides in society ; people who want the vaccine , but aren ’ t on the priority list ( some teachers , for instance , are reported as wanting to be prioritised ) , and those who do not want a vaccine at all .
And that ’ s before we get to the global demand for vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people need to be vaccinated in the UK to get us out of more lockdowns , as it ’ s ultimately contingent on some of the medical considerations mentioned above .
But Bingham has previously said that 30 million out of the 67 million people who live in Britain would get it .
The other difficult aspect is managing what happens before we get the vaccine ( if it ’ s approved ) .
The Government is conscious that people can let their guard down with good news , and it remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine effects compliance over the next couple of months .
The Government knows it must keep expectations low , in case there isn ’ t regulatory approval for the vaccine – and it needs to focus more on other strategies .
But whatever happens , it ’ s still an incredibly exciting week , particularly as this is not the only vaccine on the go .
There are 11 vaccines currently in the final stages of testing , and Pfizer and BioNtech have the manufacturing capacity for 1.3 billion doses of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , “ hoping for the best but planning for the worst ” is the mantra Johnson cited early on in the crisis , and – through the vaccine news – these words will carry through .

In recent weeks, it’s been hard to feel optimistic about the UK’s battle with Covid-19. From the introduction of another lockdown, to talk of trying to “save Christmas”, to test and trace still experiencing difficulties, even the most cheerful among us might have struggled to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
But all of that changed yesterday when it was announced that a vaccine for the virus had proved successful in clinical trials. It has managed to protect over 90 per cent of the participants (43,500 in total) from becoming infected.
Although, as Boris Johnson has warned, it’s “very, very early days” and people cannot “rely on this news as a solution”, it cannot be stated enough what an astonishing achievement this is.
Indeed, when I last wrote about the vaccine in October for ConservativeHome, there were actually a lot of reasons to be doubtful that this would be a viable exit strategy. These reasons are broadly:
Other members of the Coronavirus family – SARS and MERS – do not have vaccines.
Smallpox is the only disease that has ever been fully eradicated by a vaccine.
Kate Bingham, the chairman of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, said that a Covid vaccine would probably have the same success rate as the flu jab (50 per cent).
Patrick Vallance said we would be looking at a vaccine model similar to flu, and that the “notion of eliminating Covid is not right.”
Bingham and Vallance’s estimates were entirely realistic at the time. That’s why the vaccine development is so special; it is groundbreaking territory to create something with 90 per cent efficacy, never mind the fact it was developed in such a short period.
But as I wrote before, there will still be some major challenges ahead. Without further ado, here are some of the main takeaways from the vaccine news – and what the big questions ahead are for the Government and scientists.
How does the vaccine work?
It is a new type of vaccine, called an “RNA” vaccine. Although RNA vaccines have been researched in the past, they have never been approved before. It works by using a small part of the virus’s genetic code, which is then introduced to the body. The immune system then identifies this as foreign and begins to attack the virus.
How is it administered?
The vaccine is given in two doses, which are taken 21 to 28 days apart (the Government has ordered 40 million doses of it, which will give the UK the capacity to vaccinate 20 million people).
It will be delivered at care homes (by NHS workers), at GP surgeries, pharmacies and “go-to” vaccination centres set up in places like sports halls. The goal is to have the vaccine administered seven days a week, and Matt Hancock has announced £150 million extra funding to help GPs carry out this huge task.
Who will get it first?
As age is the biggest risk factor for severe Covid-19, the first people to receive the vaccine will be care home residents and care home staff. Next down the list are likely to be health workers and hospital staff. From then on, people will be ranked by age; those under 50 will be bottom of the list. Children will not be vaccinated (although expect this to be contested, as some scientists are worried about the long-term effects of Covid).
When could it become available?
There have been conflicting estimates of when the vaccine will arrive, but the overall expected is either by the end of this year or early in 2021. Hancock has said that a mass roll out by Christmas is “absolutely a possibility”, although he expects it to come in the first part of next year. Emergency approval could mean the vaccine is with us as soon as November.
What are the challenges ahead?
There are a number of challenges for the Government, which can broadly be categorised as 1) Regulatory/ medical 2) Logistical and 3) Societal.
To run through these in more detail:
Regulatory
The vaccine will first need to be considered by agencies around the world, and only with their approval can it be rolled out to the masses. This is why Johnson is trying to manage expectations about the vaccine – as this is quite a big hurdle to get through.
Medical
Then there are more considerations about the vaccine’s effectiveness, which will influence Governmental policy. Here are some questions that will be asked:
Does the vaccine stop people from catching and spreading the virus? (As well as stopping someone from getting ill).
How protective is the vaccine across different age groups? (There is missing data on this at the moment).
Do people need repeated doses of the vaccine? How long does its protective effect last for?
What is the potential for the virus to mutate?
What are the rare side effects of the vaccine? (We can only see this when much larger numbers of people take it).
How many people need to be immunised in order to return life back to normal?
How do we protect the 10 per cent, for whom the vaccine does not work?
Logistical
Rolling the vaccine out is an operation of epic proportions; Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, formerly Hancock’s Special Advisor, said on Twitter that it would “require the biggest logistical effort since WW2”.
Getting two doses out to tens of millions of people is no walk in the park (to put it mildly). There are other logistical challenges, too; for instance, the vaccine needs to be moved from one station to another, without removing it from a temperature of -70C over four times.
Societal
The last big headache is trying to manage who gets the vaccine. This is perhaps the most complicated aspect of this exit strategy, as the Government will have to deal with two divides in society; people who want the vaccine, but aren’t on the priority list (some teachers, for instance, are reported as wanting to be prioritised), and those who do not want a vaccine at all. And that’s before we get to the global demand for vaccines.
It’s not clear how many people need to be vaccinated in the UK to get us out of more lockdowns, as it’s ultimately contingent on some of the medical considerations mentioned above. But Bingham has previously said that 30 million out of the 67 million people who live in Britain would get it.
The other difficult aspect is managing what happens before we get the vaccine (if it’s approved). The Government is conscious that people can let their guard down with good news, and it remains to be seen how the prospect of a vaccine effects compliance over the next couple of months. The Government knows it must keep expectations low, in case there isn’t regulatory approval for the vaccine – and it needs to focus more on other strategies.
But whatever happens, it’s still an incredibly exciting week, particularly as this is not the only vaccine on the go. There are 11 vaccines currently in the final stages of testing, and Pfizer and BioNtech have the manufacturing capacity for 1.3 billion doses of their vaccine by next year. All in all, “hoping for the best but planning for the worst” is the mantra Johnson cited early on in the crisis, and – through the vaccine news – these words will carry through.


conservativehome--2020-11-10--Yesterday’s Lords defeat sets up a game of chicken over the UK Internal Market Bill

Yesterday ’ s defeat in the Lords over the UK Internal Market Bill places the Government in a tricky position .
Unless the stand-off is resolved , it risks undermining Britain ’ s negotiating position just as talks with the European Union enter the final straight .
From the FT : “ Peers voted by 433 to 165 on Monday night to remove clauses in the internal market bill that would allow ministers to overrule parts of the EU withdrawal agreement .
It was one of the heaviest government defeats in the upper house in recent years.
” The battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , coming as it does when the full consequences of the ‘ more practical ’ decision to impose an Irish Sea border are becoming clear .
This week , the First Minister and Deputy First Minister wrote a joint letter to the EU urging it not to impose checks which threaten food supplies in the Province .
For his part , Boris Johnson insists that he will press ahead with the Bill .
He already compromised on the Bill to get it through the Commons .
But what ’ s his way forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government could fall back on the Parliament Act and simply force the Bill through in the next session .
But the provisions set out in the UKIM Bill need to be in place by the end of the transition period , which doesn ’ t leave enough time for this .
Without the power of compulsion , the Prime Minister can only send the Bill back to the Lords again ( in the process known as ‘ ping pong ’ ) and hope they back down .
Will they ?
Some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They feel that if the Lords is seen to be undermining the negotiations at this crucial stage – in concert with Joe Biden , no less – they will put themselves on the wrong side of public opinion and run the danger of encouraging the Government to bump some form of Lords reform up its constitutional agenda .
They point out that this was how an earlier stand-off with the Upper House over Article 50 ended up playing out .
Others suspect that what is more likely to happen is that Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most controversial parts of the BIll unnecessary , and then drop them .
A middle course might be simply to wait until we know one way or another if there ’ s going to be a deal .
If there isn ’ t , then in theory the Prime Minister could try to strongarm the Lords into accepting the Bill because it would be essential to have a new legal structure in place for the UK internal market before January .
Johnson could also claim – although his opponents would obviously not agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to move on this point justified the Government ’ s initial concerns .
One thread running through all of this is that so many of the Government ’ s problems are self-inflicted .
Even its more bullish supporters were furious that Brandon Lewis had ( in their view falsely ) conceded to its opponents the crucial idea that the UKIM proposals are in breach of international law .
Meanwhile that the Government is still facing such sustained opposition from people praying in aid of the Belfast Agreement highlights once again the steep price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for not developing its own understanding of what that text actually commits it to .

Yesterday’s defeat in the Lords over the UK Internal Market Bill places the Government in a tricky position. Unless the stand-off is resolved, it risks undermining Britain’s negotiating position just as talks with the European Union enter the final straight. From the FT:
“Peers voted by 433 to 165 on Monday night to remove clauses in the internal market bill that would allow ministers to overrule parts of the EU withdrawal agreement. It was one of the heaviest government defeats in the upper house in recent years.”
The battle over the Irish Protocol is especially significant, coming as it does when the full consequences of the ‘more practical’ decision to impose an Irish Sea border are becoming clear. This week, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister wrote a joint letter to the EU urging it not to impose checks which threaten food supplies in the Province.
(A concerted effort to pin the blame for this on those who insisted on a sea border over a land border, despite the much higher value and volume of commerce between Northern Ireland and the mainland versus either the Republic or the EU, is conspicuously absent.)
For his part, Boris Johnson insists that he will press ahead with the Bill. He already compromised on the Bill to get it through the Commons. But what’s his way forward?
If it were less urgent, the Government could fall back on the Parliament Act and simply force the Bill through in the next session. But the provisions set out in the UKIM Bill need to be in place by the end of the transition period, which doesn’t leave enough time for this. Without the power of compulsion, the Prime Minister can only send the Bill back to the Lords again (in the process known as ‘ping pong’) and hope they back down.
Will they? Some of Johnson’s supporters are quite bullish. They feel that if the Lords is seen to be undermining the negotiations at this crucial stage – in concert with Joe Biden, no less – they will put themselves on the wrong side of public opinion and run the danger of encouraging the Government to bump some form of Lords reform up its constitutional agenda. They point out that this was how an earlier stand-off with the Upper House over Article 50 ended up playing out.
Others suspect that what is more likely to happen is that Johnson will conclude a deal which renders the most controversial parts of the BIll unnecessary, and then drop them.
A middle course might be simply to wait until we know one way or another if there’s going to be a deal. If there isn’t, then in theory the Prime Minister could try to strongarm the Lords into accepting the Bill because it would be essential to have a new legal structure in place for the UK internal market before January. Johnson could also claim – although his opponents would obviously not agree – that the EU’s refusal to move on this point justified the Government’s initial concerns.
One thread running through all of this is that so many of the Government’s problems are self-inflicted. Even its more bullish supporters were furious that Brandon Lewis had (in their view falsely) conceded to its opponents the crucial idea that the UKIM proposals are in breach of international law. Meanwhile that the Government is still facing such sustained opposition from people praying in aid of the Belfast Agreement highlights once again the steep price London has paid throughout the Brexit process for not developing its own understanding of what that text actually commits it to.


conservativehome--2020-11-11--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – and

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit .
The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority ( the UK Health Ministers ) and its executive arm , the Medicines and Healthcare products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe , efficacious and of good quality .
The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required .
They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues , many of which would be out of any one practitioner ’ s area of expertise , and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.
” Remuneration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting , to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation ’ s independence .
As per the BBC Royal Charter , the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition .
The Governance Code , including the public appointment principles , must be followed in making the appointment .
The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.
” Time : 3-4 days per week ( Chair ) / Up to 2 days per week .
“ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ As the independent regulator of public appointments made by ministers in the UK and Welsh governments , the Commissioner ’ s statutory functions are set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019 .
The Order in Council also sets out those bodies and posts that are within the Commissioner ’ s regulatory remit .
The Commissioner ’ s primary role is to provide independent assurance that public appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The new Commissioner will need to work closely with a number of stakeholders including ( but not limited to ) UK and Welsh Government Ministers , Chairs of public bodies , senior officials/accounting officers in departments and officials in the Cabinet Office ’ s Public Appointments Policy team.
” “ The Prime Minister ’ s Council for Science and Technology ( CST ) is the Government ’ s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions , and in building a robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the UK , post Covid .
The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy , responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress , tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors .
It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain .
We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation , delivers key Government commitments , and continues its record of strong performance against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair , the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors .
The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service , with particular emphasis on its strategic direction , management controls , and corporate governance.
” “ We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee , who will play a central role in the committee ’ s task of recommending designs for United Kingdom coins , official medals , seals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for leading numismatic design in the United Kingdom , collaborating closely with Government departments , the Royal Household and the Royal Mint .
This role will involve leading all aspects of new and innovative ways of commemorating events , individuals and symbology of national significance in numismatic form .
The chair of the RMAC will lead and guide meetings of the committee , reaching consensus on various design proposals and ultimately advise HM Treasury , other government departments and the Crown on artistic excellence in design .
The RMAC chair is responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner , acting impartially , ensuring effective governance and excellence in delivery.. ” Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee “ The FPC is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system .
The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ The Steering Board ’ s role is to : advise on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of targets , within the framework of the UK Space Agency ’ s objectives , BEIS and wider Government objectives ; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer ; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance , including process of setting of targets and performance against them ; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency ’ s role or activities and on its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Commission on Human Medicines – Chair
“The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit. The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority (the UK Health Ministers) and its executive arm, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe, efficacious and of good quality. The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required. They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues, many of which would be out of any one practitioner’s area of expertise, and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.”
Time: Approx. 33 days per annum.
Remuneration: Up to £500 per meeting
Closes: 10 November
– – – – – – – – – –
British Broadcasting Corporation – Chair/Member for England
“We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting, to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation’s independence. As per the BBC Royal Charter, the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition. The Governance Code, including the public appointment principles, must be followed in making the appointment. The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code. Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.”
Time: 3-4 days per week (Chair) / Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £160,000 (Chair) / £33,000 per annum, +£5,000 for committee chairs, reasonable expenses (Member)
Closes: 11 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Consumer Council for Water – Independent Board Members
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: Three days per month.
Remuneration: £11,718 per annum.
Closes: 16 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Commissioner for Public Appointments
“As the independent regulator of public appointments made by ministers in the UK and Welsh governments, the Commissioner’s statutory functions are set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. The Order in Council also sets out those bodies and posts that are within the Commissioner’s regulatory remit. The Commissioner’s primary role is to provide independent assurance that public appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, including the Principles of Public Appointments. The new Commissioner will need to work closely with a number of stakeholders including (but not limited to) UK and Welsh Government Ministers, Chairs of public bodies, senior officials/accounting officers in departments and officials in the Cabinet Office’s Public Appointments Policy team.”
Time: 2 days per week on average.
Remuneration: £56,000 per annum.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Insolvency Service – Chair
“The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors. It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain. We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation, delivers key Government commitments, and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair, the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors. The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service, with particular emphasis on its strategic direction, management controls, and corporate governance.”
Time: 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Royal Mint Advisory Committee – Chair
“We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, who will play a central role in the committee’s task of recommending designs for United Kingdom coins, official medals, seals and decorations. The new chair will be responsible for leading numismatic design in the United Kingdom, collaborating closely with Government departments, the Royal Household and the Royal Mint. This role will involve leading all aspects of new and innovative ways of commemorating events, individuals and symbology of national significance in numismatic form. The chair of the RMAC will lead and guide meetings of the committee, reaching consensus on various design proposals and ultimately advise HM Treasury, other government departments and the Crown on artistic excellence in design. The RMAC chair is responsible for leading the committee in an ethical manner, acting impartially, ensuring effective governance and excellence in delivery..”
Time: Six meetings per annum.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 27 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Space Agency – Non-Executive Members/Audit Chair
“The Steering Board’s role is to: advise on external drivers, strategic direction and development of targets, within the framework of the UK Space Agency’s objectives, BEIS and wider Government objectives; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance, including process of setting of targets and performance against them; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency’s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 20/22 days per annum.
Remuneration: £8,000/10,000 per annum honorarium.
Closes: 29 November


Caino-ho-ho

It is doubtless coincidence that vaccine fever coincides this morning with Government restructuring – or so it is claimed .
There appears to be a lobby within Downing Street that wants Lee Cain , the Government ’ s Director of Communications , to become Boris Johnson ’ s Chief of Staff .
Neither Edward Udny-Lister ( as he is now ) nor Dominic Cummings fill that role , though Undy-Lister , whose title is Chief Strategic Adviser , comes closer .
He is also now a member of the House of Lords and , at the age of 71 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Number 10 indefinitely .
Cain has had a number of run-ins with the lobby , and a surface reading of any such change is that it would pave the way for a smoother , slicker replacement , perhaps with an eye to Rishi Sunak-style strategic communications .
Allegra Stratton is due to start as the Prime Minister ’ s new-fangled press spokesman in the New Year – fronting live press conferences .
But the deeper significance of Cain-to-Chief-of-Staff is that it would keep the Vote Leave fires burning in Downing Street .
Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oliver Lewis ( Brexit policy ) and Chloe Westley ( Social Media ) , “ Caino ” is a core member of the former Vote Team who have since transferred to Downing Street .
So such a move would represent a consolidation of Vote Leave power .
Which some within the Government and Party wouldn ’ t like – which , if we apply the cui bono ?
test , suggests that the idea has been leaked to try to stop it happening .
However , there is more to the story than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson faces , in no particular order , the following challenges : test and trace , moonshots , vaccine production , the Brexit trade negotiations , Graham Brady and the 1922 Executive , rising unemployment , an uninitiated intake of newish MPs , a revolt over housing , the rise of the WhatsApp groups , soaring borrowing , potential tax rises , Nicola Sturgeon , the Northern Research Group and , hot off the press , the Covid Recovery Group .
It is far from clear that even a majority of 80 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs – again , more or less off the top of our heads – a new Education Secretary who carries weight , a substantial Cabinet reshuffle , a single strong Party Chairman , an Andrew Mackay-style ambassador to the backbenches , a Chief of Staff , a policy response to leaving transition , flesh put on the bones of levelling-up , an economic policy , civil service and Cabinet Office reform , and a strategic defence and foreign affairs review .
As we say , vaccine enthusiasm brings with it the irresistable temptation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
When that comes , we will presumably find out whether or not the Government has missing capacity and bandwidth because of the trials and tribulations of Covid… …Or because these are there anyway .
In which case , it will take a lot more than a new Chief of Staff to give Johnson and his team a new start .

It is doubtless coincidence that vaccine fever coincides this morning with Government restructuring – or so it is claimed.
There appears to be a lobby within Downing Street that wants Lee Cain, the Government’s Director of Communications, to become Boris Johnson’s Chief of Staff.
Neither Edward Udny-Lister (as he is now) nor Dominic Cummings fill that role, though Undy-Lister, whose title is Chief Strategic Adviser, comes closer. He is also now a member of the House of Lords and, at the age of 71, presumably won’t carry on in Number 10 indefinitely.
Cain has had a number of run-ins with the lobby, and a surface reading of any such change is that it would pave the way for a smoother, slicker replacement, perhaps with an eye to Rishi Sunak-style strategic communications. Allegra Stratton is due to start as the Prime Minister’s new-fangled press spokesman in the New Year – fronting live press conferences.
But the deeper significance of Cain-to-Chief-of-Staff is that it would keep the Vote Leave fires burning in Downing Street. Like Dominic Cummings (Chief Adviser), Oliver Lewis (Brexit policy) and Chloe Westley (Social Media), “Caino” is a core member of the former Vote Team who have since transferred to Downing Street. So such a move would represent a consolidation of Vote Leave power.
Which some within the Government and Party wouldn’t like – which, if we apply the cui bono? test, suggests that the idea has been leaked to try to stop it happening. However, there is more to the story than fun and games at Downing Street.
Johnson faces, in no particular order, the following challenges: test and trace, moonshots, vaccine production, the Brexit trade negotiations, Graham Brady and the 1922 Executive, rising unemployment, an uninitiated intake of newish MPs, a revolt over housing, the rise of the WhatsApp groups, soaring borrowing, potential tax rises, Nicola Sturgeon, the Northern Research Group and, hot off the press, the Covid Recovery Group.
It is far from clear that even a majority of 80 is sufficient to meet them.
And Johnson needs – again, more or less off the top of our heads – a new Education Secretary who carries weight, a substantial Cabinet reshuffle, a single strong Party Chairman, an Andrew Mackay-style ambassador to the backbenches, a Chief of Staff, a policy response to leaving transition, flesh put on the bones of levelling-up, an economic policy, civil service and Cabinet Office reform, and a strategic defence and foreign affairs review.
As we say, vaccine enthusiasm brings with it the irresistable temptation to look ahead to “after Covid”. When that comes, we will presumably find out whether or not the Government has missing capacity and bandwidth because of the trials and tribulations of Covid…
…Or because these are there anyway. In which case, it will take a lot more than a new Chief of Staff to give Johnson and his team a new start.


conservativehome--2020-11-11--Please join Lord Ashcroft this week for the launch of his biography of Rishi Sunak