conservativehome--2020-08-31--Our survey finds emphatic support for Israel among Conservative activists

Support for India and Pakistan in Britain is aligned with national background .
Backing for Israel and Palestine , if our survey is right , is dividing by party support .
Labour has vocal and articulate pro-Israel supporters , but its members as a whole are decidedly pro-Palestinian ( and , to an alarming degree , anti-semitic – but that ’ s another story ) .
We ’ ve never polled our members ’ panel on Israel before , but the returns from our last survey leave little doubt where they stand .
Almost two in three reserve the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather for the Government to do so – but see it as an ally and part of the western liberal family of democracies , with interests usually aligned with ours .
And one in four go further in their support – agreeing that Israel ’ s interests and our own are aligned , full stop .
That ’ s a substantial minority .
By contrast , only one in ten believe that the country ’ s commitment to democracy and justice is questionable , that our interests and its own are not usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to criticise Israel ’ s when necessary .
And only one in a hundred believe that our interests and Israel ’ s aren ’ t aligned at all .
These are small minorities of the whole – tiny , in the last case .
It may be that a survey question aimed at measuring our panel ’ s view on the Israel-Palestine dispute would throw up a result that would muddy these clear waters .
But for the moment we have what we have : a more pro-Israel take from Party members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tory MPs , though probably not by all that much .
You will make your own judgement about whether it ’ s a good thing , more broadly , for backing for these causes to be so starkly distributed between the two main parties .
We are doubtful .

Support for India and Pakistan in Britain is aligned with national background. Backing for Israel and Palestine, if our survey is right, is dividing by party support.
Labour has vocal and articulate pro-Israel supporters, but its members as a whole are decidedly pro-Palestinian (and, to an alarming degree, anti-semitic – but that’s another story).
We’ve never polled our members’ panel on Israel before, but the returns from our last survey leave little doubt where they stand.
Almost two in three reserve the right to criticise Israel when necessary – or rather for the Government to do so – but see it as an ally and part of the western liberal family of democracies, with interests usually aligned with ours.
And one in four go further in their support – agreeing that Israel’s interests and our own are aligned, full stop. That’s a substantial minority.
By contrast, only one in ten believe that the country’s commitment to democracy and justice is questionable, that our interests and its own are not usually aligned, and that we must be able to criticise Israel’s when necessary.
And only one in a hundred believe that our interests and Israel’s aren’t aligned at all. These are small minorities of the whole – tiny, in the last case.
It may be that a survey question aimed at measuring our panel’s view on the Israel-Palestine dispute would throw up a result that would muddy these clear waters.
But for the moment we have what we have: a more pro-Israel take from Party members than, in our experience, from Tory MPs, though probably not by all that much.
You will make your own judgement about whether it’s a good thing, more broadly, for backing for these causes to be so starkly distributed between the two main parties. We are doubtful.


conservativehome--2020-09-01--James Frayne: Big tax rises would make Tory campaigning impossible – in Red Wall seats as well as tr

James Frayne: Big tax rises would make Tory campaigning impossible – in Red Wall seats as well as traditionally blue ones

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
In my last column , I suggested that the best hope for the Conservatives in building an effective campaign infrastructure in newly-won Northern and Midlands seats was by developing a new business-led coalition in these places .
Many of these towns and small cities have no activist networks of any description , and new voters come from families that openly despised the Tories a generation ago .
Practically the only truly culturally Conservative people here – in the North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Yorkshire – are businesspeople .
Businesspeople are relatively large in number and are trusted by their local communities ; they would be a perfect launchpad for a new Conservative Party .
It ’ s early days , of course , and details are yet to emerge , but news of a major assault on British businesses via higher taxes would make such a campaign totally impossible to run .
It would be a massive set back to Conservative plans to become a regional party .
If reports are to be believed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considering significantly raising Corporation Tax , as well as Capital Gains Tax ( CGT ) and taxes on pension payments .
“ Corporation Tax ” is badly named ; it ’ s a tax on pretty much any significant business , not on “ corporations ” – but , while larger businesses have both the resources and the endless budget lines to be able to minimise profit and keep corporation tax bills down , SMEs just have to lump it .
And increases in CGT and pension payments will put fear into small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners to take a lower income now in the hope and expectation of being able to enjoy pay-offs in the future – with their currently lower income supporting their ability to employ others .
All of this would be a bad idea politically at the best of times .
But doing it now , just when businesses have been struggling very badly , would be unbelievably risky .
It ’ s not just high street retailers that have bit badly hit ; vast numbers of firms have been hit either directly by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing is required , or by a collapse in the confidence of their customers , or both .
New , higher taxes would make it harder for businesses to earn a living , and they would also make redundancies more likely and the scrapping of recruitment plans much more likely .
Many businesses will be looking to develop a decent financial cushion over the next year or two – with at least six months ’ operating costs in the bank – having been scarred by how close they came during lockdown to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to generate such a cushion with higher taxes on their profits .
( Some businesses are also complaining that this comes on top of Brexit – something else that they would sooner not manage ) .
Aren ’ t these businesspeople effectively locked-in to the Conservative Party ?
Where would businesses go to vote ?
It ’ s true to say there are many , many businesspeople across the Midlands and North that would be very unlikely to vote Labour – on the basis the Conservatives would pretty much always be better for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about simply securing their votes for future elections ; we ’ re talking about trying to energise businesses so that they became local recruiters , fundraisers and campaigners for the Party in places where there are no activists .
They simply won ’ t do this if the Conservatives turn them over .
Again , if the businesspeople of Rotherham , Doncaster , Barrow , Workington , Bishop Auckland and so on aren ’ t going to create a new Conservative campaign network , who on earth is going to do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would make the growth of new regional Conservative Party much more difficult , I strongly doubt it would retain any medium-term popularity with the public either .
Public opinion polls always lag behind business polls – and these are showing extreme concern about the state of the economy .
The public would catch up when reality bit and growth slowed and redundancies rose ; at that point , the public would see that raising taxes on employers doesn ’ t help anyone .
So where should the Treasury look ?
There are already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at spending cuts first ; only when they have exhausted what ’ s reasonable morally , economically and politically should they turn towards tax rises .

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
In my last column, I suggested that the best hope for the Conservatives in building an effective campaign infrastructure in newly-won Northern and Midlands seats was by developing a new business-led coalition in these places.
Many of these towns and small cities have no activist networks of any description, and new voters come from families that openly despised the Tories a generation ago. Practically the only truly culturally Conservative people here – in the North East, the far North West and South Yorkshire – are businesspeople. Businesspeople are relatively large in number and are trusted by their local communities; they would be a perfect launchpad for a new Conservative Party.
It’s early days, of course, and details are yet to emerge, but news of a major assault on British businesses via higher taxes would make such a campaign totally impossible to run. It would be a massive set back to Conservative plans to become a regional party.
If reports are to be believed, amongst other things, the Treasury is considering significantly raising Corporation Tax, as well as Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and taxes on pension payments.
“Corporation Tax” is badly named; it’s a tax on pretty much any significant business, not on “corporations” – but, while larger businesses have both the resources and the endless budget lines to be able to minimise profit and keep corporation tax bills down, SMEs just have to lump it.
And increases in CGT and pension payments will put fear into small businesses, because they ultimately allow business owners to take a lower income now in the hope and expectation of being able to enjoy pay-offs in the future – with their currently lower income supporting their ability to employ others.
All of this would be a bad idea politically at the best of times. But doing it now, just when businesses have been struggling very badly, would be unbelievably risky. It’s not just high street retailers that have bit badly hit; vast numbers of firms have been hit either directly by the logistical difficulties of running a business while social distancing is required, or by a collapse in the confidence of their customers, or both.
New, higher taxes would make it harder for businesses to earn a living, and they would also make redundancies more likely and the scrapping of recruitment plans much more likely. Many businesses will be looking to develop a decent financial cushion over the next year or two – with at least six months’ operating costs in the bank – having been scarred by how close they came during lockdown to oblivion.
They would not be able to generate such a cushion with higher taxes on their profits. (Some businesses are also complaining that this comes on top of Brexit – something else that they would sooner not manage).
Aren’t these businesspeople effectively locked-in to the Conservative Party? Where would businesses go to vote? It’s true to say there are many, many businesspeople across the Midlands and North that would be very unlikely to vote Labour – on the basis the Conservatives would pretty much always be better for them.
But we’re not talking about simply securing their votes for future elections; we’re talking about trying to energise businesses so that they became local recruiters, fundraisers and campaigners for the Party in places where there are no activists. They simply won’t do this if the Conservatives turn them over. Again, if the businesspeople of Rotherham, Doncaster, Barrow, Workington, Bishop Auckland and so on aren’t going to create a new Conservative campaign network, who on earth is going to do it?
While major tax rises on business would make the growth of new regional Conservative Party much more difficult, I strongly doubt it would retain any medium-term popularity with the public either. Public opinion polls always lag behind business polls – and these are showing extreme concern about the state of the economy.
The public would catch up when reality bit and growth slowed and redundancies rose; at that point, the public would see that raising taxes on employers doesn’t help anyone. So where should the Treasury look? There are already suggestions they are being strongly encouraged to look at spending cuts first; only when they have exhausted what’s reasonable morally, economically and politically should they turn towards tax rises.


conservativehome--2020-09-01--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Children’s Commissioner for England – and

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Children’s Commissioner for England – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ Joint Nature Conservation Committee ( JNCC ) Framework Document provides the legal , administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair .
As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership , direction and effectiveness of JNCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Defra and the Devolved Administrations .
You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee .
You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC , setting strategic and operational direction , ensuring good governance and , together with the Joint Committee , holding the executive to account.
” “ Environmental Standards Scotland will be established , initially , on a non-statutory basis from January 2021 .
It will transition to a statutory , independent body over the course of 2021 .
The Board will initially comprise of the Chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation , further board appointments are expected .
Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role , including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor ; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation ; resolving these through agreement with public authorities , where possible ; and , highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.
” Time : 8-10 days per month initially , ~4 per month thereafter .
“ This role is therefore an extraordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry , and who has a track record of board leadership , to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors .
The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors ’ recovery from Covid-19 , and long-term success thereafter .
To do so , the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry , business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or government.
” Time : Up to two days per month .
“ The Secretary of State for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport is seeking to appoint an outstanding individual to be Chair of the National Lottery Community Fund .
Applications are welcomed from underrepresented groups to ensure the National Lottery Community Fund reflects the diverse society it serves .
The Fund is currently supporting communities across the UK to adjust to and recover from the coronavirus crisis .
It is also a time when the Fund has gone through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it well placed to deliver our ambitious plans to achieve the Fund ’ s purpose : supporting people and communities thrive .
The Fund has many of the building blocks in place to add even greater value to civil society and public life .
Our contribution is as varied as it is vital.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Charity Commission has a clear purpose : to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society .
To help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity , and meet the challenges we face , in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital , Culture , Media and Sport , the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP , wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales .
A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020 .
This is a senior role requiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission .
” “ Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate : Her Majesty ’ s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ( HMCPSI ) .
The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation , efficiency , and effectiveness of the public prosecutors ( the Crown Prosecution Service ( CPS ) and the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO ) ) .
The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held to account and to improve , thereby strengthening the public ’ s trust in the prosecution process .
Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.
” “ The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards .
They are responsible for : identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards ; leading on the development of new standards ; and where necessary , providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards .
The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field , encompassing at least one of the following : leadership in a forensic , or related , scientific discipline ; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment ; the regulatory process involving scientific standards ; or the criminal justice system.
” “ The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole , sponsored by the Department for Education and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education .
The Commissioner ’ s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England .
The legislative basis for the office of Children ’ s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004 .
This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder .
The legislation relating to the Children ’ s Commissioner is permissive , allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and , in general , can not conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.
” “ We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience , international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair .
The central priority of Innovate UK , under a new Executive Chair , will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK ’ s innovation capacity and capability , taking full advantage of its considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation ’ s position within key markets , providing impactful thought leadership to the UK ’ s innovation system .
As the pivotal funding body for business R & D , especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country , the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R & D and technologies of the future.
” Remuneration : £180,000 per annum base , up to £37,500 performance-related .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964 , now section 63 of the Police Act 1996 .
Under the remit of the Board , sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee .
In addition to this , the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum ( PCF ) , a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW .
We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000 , the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service .
It plays a vital role in ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Joint Nature Conservation Committee – Chair
“Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Framework Document provides the legal, administrative and financial framework within which the Joint Committee operates and the specific functions of the Committee and the Chair. As Chair you will be responsible to the Defra Secretary of State for the leadership, direction and effectiveness of JNCC in line with strategies and plans agreed with Defra and the Devolved Administrations. You will be the primary contact with Ministers for the Committee. You will provide visible leadership and vision for JNCC, setting strategic and operational direction, ensuring good governance and, together with the Joint Committee, holding the executive to account.”
Time: 2.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,059 per annum.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Environmental Standards Scotland – Chair/Members
“Environmental Standards Scotland will be established, initially, on a non-statutory basis from January 2021. It will transition to a statutory, independent body over the course of 2021. The Board will initially comprise of the Chair and two other members. Once Environmental Standards Scotland becomes established as a statutory organisation, further board appointments are expected. Members of the Board of Environmental Standards Scotland will shape how the Board performs its role, including by exercising judgement on what information to monitor; selecting environmental concerns for initial review and for detailed investigation; resolving these through agreement with public authorities, where possible; and, highlighting any significant issues to Ministers.”
Time: 8-10 days per month initially, ~4 per month thereafter.
Remuneration: £300/£200 per diem.
Closes: 03 September
– – – – – – – – – –
British Film Institute (BFI) – Chair
“This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry, and who has a track record of board leadership, to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors. The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors’ recovery from Covid-19, and long-term success thereafter. To do so, the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry, business, a major charitable or cultural institution, or government.”
Time: Up to two days per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 05 September
– – – – – – – – – –
National Lottery Community Fund – Chair of the Board
“The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is seeking to appoint an outstanding individual to be Chair of the National Lottery Community Fund. Applications are welcomed from underrepresented groups to ensure the National Lottery Community Fund reflects the diverse society it serves. The Fund is currently supporting communities across the UK to adjust to and recover from the coronavirus crisis. It is also a time when the Fund has gone through a period of investment and development, making it well placed to deliver our ambitious plans to achieve the Fund’s purpose: supporting people and communities thrive. The Fund has many of the building blocks in place to add even greater value to civil society and public life. Our contribution is as varied as it is vital.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum plus expenses.
Closes: 07 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Charity Commission – Board Member
“The Charity Commission has a clear purpose: to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society. To help us meet that purpose, fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity, and meet the challenges we face, in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP, wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020. This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission. ”
Time: Approx. 24 days per year.
Remuneration: £350 per diem plus expenses.
Closes: 13 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Forensic Science Regulator
“The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards. They are responsible for: identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards; leading on the development of new standards; and where necessary, providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards. The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field, encompassing at least one of the following: leadership in a forensic, or related, scientific discipline; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment; the regulatory process involving scientific standards; or the criminal justice system.”
Time: 3-4 days per week.
Remuneration: £96,000 per annum FTE.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Police Advisory Board for England and Wales – Chair
“The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964, now section 63 of the Police Act 1996. Under the remit of the Board, sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee. In addition to this, the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum (PCF), a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW. We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing. The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000, the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.”
Time: Approx. 21 days per annum.
Remuneration: £437 per diem, plus expenses.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October


conservativehome--2020-09-01--Covid. As Conservative MPs return to the Commons today, they should push for a faster return to norm

Covid. As Conservative MPs return to the Commons today, they should push for a faster return to normal.

The new intake of Conservative MPs have been formed by their experience of grappling with Covid-19 – in both Parliamentary and constituency terms .
Induction to normal Commons life hasn ’ t happened ; the socialisation that comes with it hasn ’ t , either .
Some have been and will still be shielding .
So , in that last case , have some of their colleagues from previous parliaments , who will likewise have had to deal with a mass of consequences in their seats .
All return to the Commons today knowing that they have a big decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate that is now taking place about future levels of tax and spending .
It is as follows .
Should they press a foot on the accelerator , and push for the opening-up of the economy , with no more nationwide lockdowns ?
Or should they let it hover above the brake , keeping the economy relatively closed-down , as they prepare to back such future shutdowns , mirroring the angst of virus-fearful constituents ?
They could start looking for an answer by thinking back to the curtailment of normal Parliamentary proceedings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two months , the number of Coronavirus cases seems to have climaxed – even discounting for the dubiousness of the data and changes in recording practice .
There are three daily peaks documented during the period from early April to early May , running at roughly 5000 cases each a day .
By August 26 , there were about a thousand .
And with testing capacity now at about 300,000 people a day , a higher proportion of those with the virus are being tracked down , whether symptomatic or not .
New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winter sets in , as people mix less in the open air and more in confined spaces .
But what counts most is not the number of cases but the number of deaths – and , given the long-term damage to health that Covid-19 can do , hospitalisations .
There were 3,563 of the latter recorded UK-wide on April 1 , the highest total , which by August 19 had fallen to 109 .
The number of daily recorded deaths were at their highest on April 8 at 1,071 .
On August 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
Now it is overwhelmingly likely that , come winter , the number of hospitalisations and deaths will rise .
But the story of the virus so far is of improving treatments , or declining lethality , or rising immunity – or a mix of all of these , despite the absence of a vaccine .
Crucially , the NHS is nowhere near being overwhelmed .
As Raghib Ali , a healthcare academic who has also been on the Coronavirus front line , has written on this site , it is hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second wave would overwhelm it .
The original Government lockdown slogan was : stay at home , protect the NHS , save lives .
It had a logic to it .
The public would have risen up in horror after the broadcasting of Lombardy-type scenes in our hospitals – with people “ gasping for air , clutching at their chests and at tubes pumping oxygen into their oxygen-starved lungs ” .
That danger is remote at present .
Lockdown has been easing since May : true , that relaxation has sometimes been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step back – with the NHS app imbroglio , the summer failure to re-open schools , and muddle about masks – but there is no longer a trade-off between “ saving the NHS and saving the economy ” .
In one sense , the balance is indeed between weighing the risk to public health , by relaxing restrictions more swiftly , against the risk to the economy , by doing so more slowly – the classic lives v livelihoods debate .
In another , the give-and-take calculation is not between the economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heath outcomes .
In May , we posed ten questions to the Prime Minister about the shutdown , one of which was to ask for the Government ’ s estimate of the non-Coronavirus health costs to date – in cancelled operations , impaired mental health , domestic and child abuse , cancer deaths and so on .
Answers are still obscure .
But it isn ’ t obvious that the gains from attempting to extinguish the virus altogether are now worth the losses from those deaths , abuse , damage to mental health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the time for Tory MPs and others to say so – and help to lead public opinion rather than follow it .
That means , in terms of opening-up the economy , switching state money and resources from paying people not to work to paying them to work and train .
Gordon Brown overworked this approach with his tax credits but , within constraints , it makes sense .
After all , his idea was taken from a Conservative original – Family Income Supplement , later re-badged as Family Credit .
Special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have recently lost their jobs , and younger people seeking to enter a devastated jobs market .
Stephen Crabb is urging that Universal Credit take some of the strain .
In terms of closing down Covid-19 , leading public opinion means pressing for hand-washing , face-covering and social distancing to do the heavy lifting , and lobbying not only for the opening up of schools and universities , but for a more rapid loosening of crowd , conference , retail , entertainment and group restrictions .
At first glance , that looks a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s actually closer to Germany ’ s , because of the stress on mass testing .
Germany is now tightening up its lockdowns having previously loosened them , but it is the ambition of its testing programme that has marked the country out .
And while international Coronavirus league tables are deceptive , Germany ( 42nd in terms of deaths per million ) is a clearly better model than Sweden ( eighth in deaths per million ) – and more comparable to the UK .
True , its healthcare model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so is Sweden ’ s .
So how have we done in Britain ?
In the words of three senior politicians , “ building an infrastructure that has capacity to test more than 300,000 people per day should be rightly celebrated ” .
But they go on to say that the strategy must now be taken to its next level : “ having the confidence to return to work…is now a must , but it can only be achieved by learning to live alongside the virus .
Short of a safe vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to realise this ” .
This triple alliance consists of Tony Blair , William Hague and Jeremy Hunt – the last of whom , from the earliest days of the pandemic , has been alert to the success of mass testing and tracing in the Far East .
In the event of a winter surge , the choice is shaping to be : mass lockdowns , even a further national one…or more effective test-and-trace .
There ’ s no doubt which MPs should press for .
Short of a big uptick in deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strain – not only to save livelihoods as well as lives , but to save lives as well as lives : those of people at risk from , for example , cancer or heart disease ; and those whose lives are blighted by , say , ruined mental health or abuse .

The new intake of Conservative MPs have been formed by their experience of grappling with Covid-19 – in both Parliamentary and constituency terms. Induction to normal Commons life hasn’t happened; the socialisation that comes with it hasn’t, either. Some have been and will still be shielding.
So, in that last case, have some of their colleagues from previous parliaments, who will likewise have had to deal with a mass of consequences in their seats. All return to the Commons today knowing that they have a big decision to make – one that will shape the debate that is now taking place about future levels of tax and spending.
It is as follows. Should they press a foot on the accelerator, and push for the opening-up of the economy, with no more nationwide lockdowns? Or should they let it hover above the brake, keeping the economy relatively closed-down, as they prepare to back such future shutdowns, mirroring the angst of virus-fearful constituents?
They could start looking for an answer by thinking back to the curtailment of normal Parliamentary proceedings at the end of March. Within two months, the number of Coronavirus cases seems to have climaxed – even discounting for the dubiousness of the data and changes in recording practice.
There are three daily peaks documented during the period from early April to early May, running at roughly 5000 cases each a day. By August 26, there were about a thousand. And with testing capacity now at about 300,000 people a day, a higher proportion of those with the virus are being tracked down, whether symptomatic or not.
New cases are almost certain to rise as winter sets in, as people mix less in the open air and more in confined spaces. But what counts most is not the number of cases but the number of deaths – and, given the long-term damage to health that Covid-19 can do, hospitalisations.
There were 3,563 of the latter recorded UK-wide on April 1, the highest total, which by August 19 had fallen to 109. The number of daily recorded deaths were at their highest on April 8 at 1,071. On August 27, that total dropped to… none at all.
Now it is overwhelmingly likely that, come winter, the number of hospitalisations and deaths will rise. But the story of the virus so far is of improving treatments, or declining lethality, or rising immunity – or a mix of all of these, despite the absence of a vaccine.
Crucially, the NHS is nowhere near being overwhelmed. As Raghib Ali, a healthcare academic who has also been on the Coronavirus front line, has written on this site, it is hard to see on current trends how a second wave would overwhelm it.
The original Government lockdown slogan was: stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives. It had a logic to it. The public would have risen up in horror after the broadcasting of Lombardy-type scenes in our hospitals – with people “gasping for air, clutching at their chests and at tubes pumping oxygen into their oxygen-starved lungs”.
That danger is remote at present. Lockdown has been easing since May: true, that relaxation has sometimes been a story of two steps forward, one step back – with the NHS app imbroglio, the summer failure to re-open schools, and muddle about masks – but there is no longer a trade-off between “saving the NHS and saving the economy”.
In one sense, the balance is indeed between weighing the risk to public health, by relaxing restrictions more swiftly, against the risk to the economy, by doing so more slowly – the classic lives v livelihoods debate. In another, the give-and-take calculation is not between the economy and health, but between different kinds of heath outcomes.
In May, we posed ten questions to the Prime Minister about the shutdown, one of which was to ask for the Government’s estimate of the non-Coronavirus health costs to date – in cancelled operations, impaired mental health, domestic and child abuse, cancer deaths and so on. Answers are still obscure.
But it isn’t obvious that the gains from attempting to extinguish the virus altogether are now worth the losses from those deaths, abuse, damage to mental health, and so on. So this is the time for Tory MPs and others to say so – and help to lead public opinion rather than follow it.
That means, in terms of opening-up the economy, switching state money and resources from paying people not to work to paying them to work and train. Gordon Brown overworked this approach with his tax credits but, within constraints, it makes sense.
After all, his idea was taken from a Conservative original – Family Income Supplement, later re-badged as Family Credit. Special help will be needed for those who have recently lost their jobs, and younger people seeking to enter a devastated jobs market. Stephen Crabb is urging that Universal Credit take some of the strain.
In terms of closing down Covid-19, leading public opinion means pressing for hand-washing, face-covering and social distancing to do the heavy lifting, and lobbying not only for the opening up of schools and universities, but for a more rapid loosening of crowd, conference, retail, entertainment and group restrictions.
At first glance, that looks a lot like a Sweden-style approach. However, it’s actually closer to Germany’s, because of the stress on mass testing. Germany is now tightening up its lockdowns having previously loosened them, but it is the ambition of its testing programme that has marked the country out.
And while international Coronavirus league tables are deceptive, Germany (42nd in terms of deaths per million) is a clearly better model than Sweden (eighth in deaths per million) – and more comparable to the UK. True, its healthcare model is different from ours. But then, so is Sweden’s. So how have we done in Britain?
In the words of three senior politicians, “building an infrastructure that has capacity to test more than 300,000 people per day should be rightly celebrated”. But they go on to say that the strategy must now be taken to its next level: “having the confidence to return to work…is now a must, but it can only be achieved by learning to live alongside the virus. Short of a safe vaccine, mass testing is the only way to realise this”.
This triple alliance consists of Tony Blair, William Hague and Jeremy Hunt – the last of whom, from the earliest days of the pandemic, has been alert to the success of mass testing and tracing in the Far East. In the event of a winter surge, the choice is shaping to be: mass lockdowns, even a further national one…or more effective test-and-trace.
There’s no doubt which MPs should press for. Short of a big uptick in deaths, testing and tracing must take the strain – not only to save livelihoods as well as lives, but to save lives as well as lives: those of people at risk from, for example, cancer or heart disease; and those whose lives are blighted by, say, ruined mental health or abuse.


conservativehome--2020-09-01--Radical: Five questions for Richards and Kearns about trans. Do they accept the difference between s

Radical: Five questions for Richards and Kearns about trans. Do they accept the difference between sex and gender?

We ’ ve been writing this fortnightly column about sex and gender since March .
We ’ ve covered a range of topics relating to relevant matters of law , philosophy , and public policy , but we ’ ve been clear from the outset about where we ’ re coming from : Of course trans people should be treated just the same as anyone else , all things being equal .
But it ’ s also the case that biological women need societal recognition of their right to certain single-sex spaces .
And the denial of the concept of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hellhole .
We ’ ve also been clear that we ’ re writing these columns because people on the centre-right have , too often , been missing from this important contemporary debate .
We wanted to share what we ’ ve learnt and provoke discussion , and felt well placed to do this .
One of us , Victoria , is a party member and activist , and a classic conservative ; the other of us , Rebecca , is a former party member and PPC , and a libertarian .
Our shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mean that , between us , we have a lot in common with most of the ConHome readership , which itself is varied in many ways .
So , we want to use this fortnight ’ s column to pave the way to search out points of commonality with two Conservative MPs – Nicola Richards , Alicia Kearns , and several other Tory MP co-authors – who wrote a piece here last week .
Maybe you saw it then , or read about it in the papers .
Now , the conclusions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex and gender , were different from ours : not least in that they support a move to “ self-ID ” , and we don ’ t .
But it seems clear that their article comes from a place of goodwill , and we ’ re keen to engage with its writers .
We want to know more about their views , particularly regarding some key issues about which we feel they could ’ ve been clearer .
We ’ re also keen to know your answers to the questions we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are you clear about the content of the Gender Recognition Act ?
You note “ there are many misconceptions ” about proposed reforms to the GRA .
Unfortunately , you ’ ve adopted misconceptions , yourselves .
For instance , you refer to a person changing their “ gender ” on their birth certificate .
Yet , despite the confusing language regarding “ gender recognition ” in the legislation , a GRC doesn ’ t change the gender noted on a birth certificate ( because gender isn ’ t recorded there ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex , for legal purposes – to align it with the gender with which they identify .
Your confusion is understandable , in some ways : the wording of the relevant section of the GRA uses “ sex ” and “ gender ” interchangeably , and doesn ’ t define either .
But it ’ s important that lawmakers – and particularly those agitating for profound change – are clear and specific , rather than helping to spread misinformation .
Sadly , this is not the only example of misinformation we noted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the distinction between sex and gender is an important one ?
We believe it ’ s crucial : that “ sex ” relates to matters of biology ( whether someone is a member of the female sex set , or the male sex set ) , and that “ gender ” is a matter of social convention ( how someone sees themself in relation to stereotypical societal norms regarding the two sex sets ) .
Moreover , we believe this distinction reflects why it ’ s neither illiberal nor hateful to oppose self-ID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and present themselves in accordance with whichever ( unharmful ) norms they prefer , but there are good reasons to avoid pretending that sex-set membership is a matter of personal choice or feelings .
There ’ s no law here against exercising “ gender expression ” – which is a private matter for individuals – and it would be profoundly illiberal to instate one .
Indeed , there ’ s significant legal protection under the Equality Act and criminal law for anyone identifying as a member of the opposite sex .
Sex-set membership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to important matters of public concern , including those as basic and obvious as the data collection required to underpin medical-resource allocation .
We strongly believe , therefore , that whilst goverments should not be concerned with how people present themselves , healthcare concerns provide just one clear reason why the state must remain interested in , and objective about , matters of sex .
Accuracy and clarity is vital , here , and should be unobscured by personal impressions relating to sex-set stereotypes about matters such as as dress sense .
Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to single-sex services and spaces intended for the opposite sex , including refuges and prison wings ?
We were concerned by your claim that : “ Trans people can already use , and have always been able to use , services matching their gender , regardless of whether they have the certificate .
Services such as Domestic Violence Refuges have always been able to exclude a trans person in certain circumstances , if it is proportionate and regardless of whether they have a GRC .
This is covered by the Equalities Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the legislation is not clear , but the grounds on which trans people can be excluded from single-sex spaces under the Equality Act are actually general and wide-ranging .
Activist groups , such as Stonewall , like to pretend this isn ’ t the case , and public bodies , such as the EHRC , which should know better , have issued misleading guidance ( currently subject to legal challenge ) that tries to limit this to “ exceptional ” or “ limited ” circumstances .
But do you really believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the very wide protected characteristic of gender reassignment – “ proposing to undergo , is undergoing or has undergone a process ( or part of a process ) for the purpose of reassigning the person ’ s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex ” – generally entitled men in that position to use women ’ s changing rooms and refuges ?
Rather , what is clear from the act , is that it was intended for people with this protected characteristic to be protected from discrimination ( such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were to be entitled to be treated as a member of the opposite sex .
Moreover , you claim that “ we are the party that ensures people have the freedom to live their lives as they wish ” .
Now , this is a contestable and partial account of Conservative Party philosophy .
But , putting that aside , aren ’ t you concerned by the idea of the Government violating women ’ s rights to organise themselves , and to consent to whom it is they share private spaces with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charities to provide services that respect and protect women ’ s interests and preferences ?
Do you believe that doctors should be allowed to perform non-reversible medical interventions on under-16s , in order to help them physicalise their gender expression ?
We believe that adults should be free to seek medical intervention to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex .
We also believe , however , that there ’ s no justification for prescribing puberty blockers ( which the NHS no longer states to be reversible ) or hormome therapies to children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these interventions are , like FGM , a form of child abuse , and we are keen to share with you our full findings on this topic as a matter of urgency .
Do you believe in free debate about these matters ?
We hope you ’ ll agree that our questions are neither inherently hateful nor phobic .
We certainly agree with you that improving mental health services for trans people is important , and that fighting against hateful prejudice of all kinds is both good and necessary .
We also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that people should be able to discuss their views openly about these matters , and that the serious professional consequences and personal abuse that too many – from JK Rowling , downwards – have faced for doing so , are worrying and wrong .

Victoria Hewson is a solicitor and Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. Together they found Radical, a campaign for truth and freedom in the gender recognition debate.
We’ve been writing this fortnightly column about sex and gender since March. We’ve covered a range of topics relating to relevant matters of law, philosophy, and public policy, but we’ve been clear from the outset about where we’re coming from:
Of course trans people should be treated just the same as anyone else, all things being equal. But it’s also the case that biological women need societal recognition of their right to certain single-sex spaces. And the denial of the concept of biological truth leads only to an anti-vaxxing hellhole.
We’ve also been clear that we’re writing these columns because people on the centre-right have, too often, been missing from this important contemporary debate. We wanted to share what we’ve learnt and provoke discussion, and felt well placed to do this.
One of us, Victoria, is a party member and activist, and a classic conservative; the other of us, Rebecca, is a former party member and PPC, and a libertarian. Our shared values, and our differences of opinion, mean that, between us, we have a lot in common with most of the ConHome readership, which itself is varied in many ways.
So, we want to use this fortnight’s column to pave the way to search out points of commonality with two Conservative MPs – Nicola Richards, Alicia Kearns, and several other Tory MP co-authors – who wrote a piece here last week.
Maybe you saw it then, or read about it in the papers. Now, the conclusions of their piece, regarding matters of sex and gender, were different from ours: not least in that they support a move to “self-ID”, and we don’t. But it seems clear that their article comes from a place of goodwill, and we’re keen to engage with its writers.
We want to know more about their views, particularly regarding some key issues about which we feel they could’ve been clearer. We’re also keen to know your answers to the questions we’re going to pose to them now:
Are you clear about the content of the Gender Recognition Act?
You note “there are many misconceptions” about proposed reforms to the GRA. Unfortunately, you’ve adopted misconceptions, yourselves. For instance, you refer to a person changing their “gender” on their birth certificate. Yet, despite the confusing language regarding “gender recognition” in the legislation, a GRC doesn’t change the gender noted on a birth certificate (because gender isn’t recorded there). Rather, it changes someone’s sex, for legal purposes – to align it with the gender with which they identify.
Your confusion is understandable, in some ways: the wording of the relevant section of the GRA uses “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, and doesn’t define either. But it’s important that lawmakers – and particularly those agitating for profound change – are clear and specific, rather than helping to spread misinformation. Sadly, this is not the only example of misinformation we noted in your piece.
Do you accept that the distinction between sex and gender is an important one?
We believe it’s crucial: that “sex” relates to matters of biology (whether someone is a member of the female sex set, or the male sex set), and that “gender” is a matter of social convention (how someone sees themself in relation to stereotypical societal norms regarding the two sex sets).
Moreover, we believe this distinction reflects why it’s neither illiberal nor hateful to oppose self-ID. People should be free to behave and present themselves in accordance with whichever (unharmful) norms they prefer, but there are good reasons to avoid pretending that sex-set membership is a matter of personal choice or feelings.
There’s no law here against exercising “gender expression” – which is a private matter for individuals – and it would be profoundly illiberal to instate one. Indeed, there’s significant legal protection under the Equality Act and criminal law for anyone identifying as a member of the opposite sex.
Sex-set membership itself, however, is highly relevant to important matters of public concern, including those as basic and obvious as the data collection required to underpin medical-resource allocation.
We strongly believe, therefore, that whilst goverments should not be concerned with how people present themselves, healthcare concerns provide just one clear reason why the state must remain interested in, and objective about, matters of sex.
Accuracy and clarity is vital, here, and should be unobscured by personal impressions relating to sex-set stereotypes about matters such as as dress sense.
Do you believe that trans people should have access to single-sex services and spaces intended for the opposite sex, including refuges and prison wings?
We were concerned by your claim that: “Trans people can already use, and have always been able to use, services matching their gender, regardless of whether they have the certificate. Services such as Domestic Violence Refuges have always been able to exclude a trans person in certain circumstances, if it is proportionate and regardless of whether they have a GRC. This is covered by the Equalities Act”.
Again, this is complicated, and the legislation is not clear, but the grounds on which trans people can be excluded from single-sex spaces under the Equality Act are actually general and wide-ranging.
Activist groups, such as Stonewall, like to pretend this isn’t the case, and public bodies, such as the EHRC, which should know better, have issued misleading guidance (currently subject to legal challenge) that tries to limit this to “exceptional” or “limited” circumstances.
But do you really believe that, in 2010, Parliament intended that the very wide protected characteristic of gender reassignment – “proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex” – generally entitled men in that position to use women’s changing rooms and refuges?
Rather, what is clear from the act, is that it was intended for people with this protected characteristic to be protected from discrimination (such as in the workplace), not that they were to be entitled to be treated as a member of the opposite sex.
Moreover, you claim that “we are the party that ensures people have the freedom to live their lives as they wish”. Now, this is a contestable and partial account of Conservative Party philosophy.
But, putting that aside, aren’t you concerned by the idea of the Government violating women’s rights to organise themselves, and to consent to whom it is they share private spaces with? Or the ability of businesses and charities to provide services that respect and protect women’s interests and preferences?
Do you believe that doctors should be allowed to perform non-reversible medical interventions on under-16s, in order to help them physicalise their gender expression?
We believe that adults should be free to seek medical intervention to make their bodies resemble the opposite sex. We also believe, however, that there’s no justification for prescribing puberty blockers (which the NHS no longer states to be reversible) or hormome therapies to children.
Indeed, it’s clear that these interventions are, like FGM, a form of child abuse, and we are keen to share with you our full findings on this topic as a matter of urgency.
Do you believe in free debate about these matters?
We hope you’ll agree that our questions are neither inherently hateful nor phobic. We certainly agree with you that improving mental health services for trans people is important, and that fighting against hateful prejudice of all kinds is both good and necessary.
We also hope you agree with us, however, that people should be able to discuss their views openly about these matters, and that the serious professional consequences and personal abuse that too many – from JK Rowling, downwards – have faced for doing so, are worrying and wrong.


conservativehome--2020-09-01--Paul Mercer: Police crime statistics need to be more intelligible and transparent

Cllr Paul Mercer is a councillor on Charnwood Borough Council and is the Lead Member for Housing in the Cabinet .
He is writing in a personal capacity .
One of the more obvious ways of assessing police effectiveness is to look at crime statistics .
Although , as the police are quick to point out , they do not necessarily reflect the amount of crime ; only the willingness of the public to report crime .
There are some exceptions to this rule .
Very few murders go unreported , and because insurance companies require a crime number , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a councillor representing a ward in the centre of a town , crime is one of the key issues for many residents .
Over the years , we have found the easily-accessible data on the police.uk website a useful tool .
It could be used both to put pressure on the police to deal with certain types of crime and also report on the success that they have had .
Until 2017 , police.uk contained data going back to 2010 but the first five years were then deleted .
Nicky Morgan , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter with the Home Office and , after a long delay , the Home Secretary , Amber Rudd , explained that the Data Police Application Program Interface ( API ) had been modified so it only presented data from the previous 36 months .
“ The decision to retain data for no longer than three years after receiving it from police forces was made in consultation with the Information Commissioner ’ s Office ” , she explained , “ and forms part of the Data Processing Agreement between the Home Office and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ data should only be retained for as long as it is necessary and it was felt that three years was sufficient time to allow the complex and lengthy police investigations to result in final court proceedings so the outcome to the crime can be recorded accurately ” .
The crime reports accessible on police.uk only indicate an approximate location and contain neither personal data nor identifying information .
As such , there is no obvious reason why the ICO was involved given that its role is to protect personal data .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that electoral data should be limited after 36 months and nobody would know who had ever been elected .
What was also not explained was why it was necessary to go to great lengths to record the data accurately and compile it , only to erase it after such a short period .
The Home Secretary helpfully added that although it had been decided to “ retain data for no longer than three years ” it was still possible to obtain this data via the archive which contains historic data back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about not retaining data although , unhelpfully , there appears to be no reference to this archive on the ‘ explore crimes ’ section of the police.uk website .
In order to keep our residents aware of the crimes that were taking place in our ward in Loughborough , we would access police.uk , define its boundaries , and then take a note of the crimes which had occurred .
However , when we last attempted to do this , we were informed that the service had been suspended in order to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support the response to covid-19 ” .
It would apparently be restored at some indeterminate time in the future .
It is difficult to see how maintaining an API is taking manpower away from frontline policing .
The police.uk site does not state very clearly who owns and operates the site .
The actual domain name is registered to Vodafone and it is only when you dig into the terms and conditions that it states that the ‘ brand and the content ’ is ‘ owned ’ by MOPAC .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns out to be the Mayor ’ s Office for Policing and Crime – part of the Greater London Authority .
In analysing the crime statistics over the past decade it was also apparent that , midway , the police decided to change the criteria by which they recorded statistics meaning that many of the older statistics were no longer relevant and it was difficult to make a proper comparison over a period of time .
Although there were doubtless ‘ operational ’ reasons for this change it conveniently makes it difficult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or inefficient police forces are over a period of time .
In terms of statistical significance many years of crime data are required in order to differentiate long term trends from short term factors .
The police.uk website proudly announces on its homepage that it exists to enable the public to “ explore the latest crime statistics , find the force responsible in any area , read about how they are performing and what ’ s being done to tackle crime ” .
The website does contain a lot of useful information about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is failing to provide accurate crime data to enable the public and politicians to make objective long-term comparisons .
Rather than allowing access to this data to be controlled by the Mayor of London it would make far more sense for the Home Office to host a site which contained accurate data for the whole of the UK which could be easily accessed for the whole of the 10 years for which it is available .
That way , it would be possible to make a formal objective comparison about how police @ @ @ @

Cllr Paul Mercer is a councillor on Charnwood Borough Council and is the Lead Member for Housing in the Cabinet. He is writing in a personal capacity.
One of the more obvious ways of assessing police effectiveness is to look at crime statistics. Although, as the police are quick to point out, they do not necessarily reflect the amount of crime; only the willingness of the public to report crime.
There are some exceptions to this rule. Very few murders go unreported, and because insurance companies require a crime number, householders will also report burglaries. As a councillor representing a ward in the centre of a town, crime is one of the key issues for many residents. Over the years, we have found the easily-accessible data on the police.uk website a useful tool. It could be used both to put pressure on the police to deal with certain types of crime and also report on the success that they have had.
Until 2017, police.uk contained data going back to 2010 but the first five years were then deleted. Nicky Morgan, our MP at the time, raised the matter with the Home Office and, after a long delay, the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, explained that the Data Police Application Program Interface (API) had been modified so it only presented data from the previous 36 months. “The decision to retain data for no longer than three years after receiving it from police forces was made in consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office”, she explained, “and forms part of the Data Processing Agreement between the Home Office and their suppliers”. She further noted that “data should only be retained for as long as it is necessary and it was felt that three years was sufficient time to allow the complex and lengthy police investigations to result in final court proceedings so the outcome to the crime can be recorded accurately”.
The crime reports accessible on police.uk only indicate an approximate location and contain neither personal data nor identifying information. As such, there is no obvious reason why the ICO was involved given that its role is to protect personal data. On this basis, the ICO could credibly argue that electoral data should be limited after 36 months and nobody would know who had ever been elected. What was also not explained was why it was necessary to go to great lengths to record the data accurately and compile it, only to erase it after such a short period.
The Home Secretary helpfully added that although it had been decided to “retain data for no longer than three years” it was still possible to obtain this data via the archive which contains historic data back to 2010. This completely negated her point about not retaining data although, unhelpfully, there appears to be no reference to this archive on the ‘explore crimes’ section of the police.uk website.
In order to keep our residents aware of the crimes that were taking place in our ward in Loughborough, we would access police.uk, define its boundaries, and then take a note of the crimes which had occurred. However, when we last attempted to do this, we were informed that the service had been suspended in order to “prioritise providing access to key policing services to support the response to covid-19”. It would apparently be restored at some indeterminate time in the future. It is difficult to see how maintaining an API is taking manpower away from frontline policing.
The police.uk site does not state very clearly who owns and operates the site. The actual domain name is registered to Vodafone and it is only when you dig into the terms and conditions that it states that the ‘brand and the content’ is ‘owned’ by MOPAC. There is no link to this mysterious organisation which turns out to be the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime – part of the Greater London Authority.
In analysing the crime statistics over the past decade it was also apparent that, midway, the police decided to change the criteria by which they recorded statistics meaning that many of the older statistics were no longer relevant and it was difficult to make a proper comparison over a period of time. Although there were doubtless ‘operational’ reasons for this change it conveniently makes it difficult to make an objective comparison of how efficient or inefficient police forces are over a period of time. In terms of statistical significance many years of crime data are required in order to differentiate long term trends from short term factors.
The police.uk website proudly announces on its homepage that it exists to enable the public to “explore the latest crime statistics, find the force responsible in any area, read about how they are performing and what’s being done to tackle crime”. The website does contain a lot of useful information about the police and how they operate but it is failing to provide accurate crime data to enable the public and politicians to make objective long-term comparisons.
Rather than allowing access to this data to be controlled by the Mayor of London it would make far more sense for the Home Office to host a site which contained accurate data for the whole of the UK which could be easily accessed for the whole of the 10 years for which it is available. That way, it would be possible to make a formal objective comparison about how police forces are performing.


conservativehome--2020-09-01--The working from home revolution is coming whether we like it or not. Conservatives have little choi

The working from home revolution is coming whether we like it or not. Conservatives have little choice but to roll with it.

As someone who lives in a small studio in London , it comes as no bigger surprise than to myself to argue for the virtues of working from home ( WFH ) .
Since Covid-19 kicked off , most of the nation has had a taste of WFH , and the issue of whether to continue with this format seems to have become as divisive as face masks .
On one hand , there are those who ’ ve enjoyed the experience .
Getting to be around loved ones more , avoid the commute and even work in pyjamas has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saved money in the process .
Others are not so enamoured with WFH .
Perhaps they ’ re feeling cooped up in a small flat , constantly surrounded by X number of housemates , or simply miss seeing their colleagues .
For those living solo , it can be an especially lonely experience .
The bad news for the Government is that the first camp seems to be dominant .
Indeed , a report by academics at Cardiff and Southhampton universities found that nine in ten workers would like to continue working from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half wanting to work at home often or all of the time .
To counter this , Boris Johnson is to unleash a publicity campaign which will make the “ emotional case ” for mixing with colleagues and reassure people that “ the workplace is a safe place ” .
Furthermore , there will be a new online tool to help people avoid overcrowded buses and trains .
It ’ s not surprising that the Government is keen to get things back to normal .
In London the effects of WFH are obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everywhere that benefits from office workers is experiencing less custom .
It is troubling , given the extent to which the city powers the economy .
In regards to these trends , Conservatives can do two things .
They can try to re-engineer the situation , pushing to get employees back – which isn ’ t very conservative , incidentally – or they can embrace the way the market is going ( which is ) .
Whether WFH is the best option in the grand scheme of things is immaterial , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for human interaction , or if children should play video games , or if dating apps are the best way to meet a partner .
The fact is that these things are here , and they ’ re here to stay .
It could be said that lockdown has merely accelerated an inevitable situation , as WFH was already becoming commonplace before this strange year .
I confess that previously I had wanted the Government to get everyone back to their office as fast as possible .
I could see the impact on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was a recent trip to Deal – yes , really – that rather reset my thinking on the issue .
All the spending I did in that week opened my eyes to the less-talked about , positive effects of the pandemic .
For all its evils , it has breathed new life into previously quieter parts of the UK .
It ’ s not only the boost in domestic tourism that will help , but that more people will be wanting to move to new areas .
For too long this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Tories set about tackling with their “ levelling up ” agenda .
Inadvertently , however , Covid-19 will help them achieve this ; now that people can live and work anywhere , other parts of the UK will benefit and develop – needing more coffee shops , restaurants and so on to make way for a new influx of employees .
Some of these changes will be especially good for young people – though it may not seem so right now .
For one , WFH gives them the option of moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can actually – heaven forbid !
– even buy a house .
There ’ s also the advantage for young workers that choose to stay in London .
The more that others head for different parts of the UK , the lower rental and house prices become in the city ( thus meaning that they will eventually be able to WFH in bigger spaces – or even have extra income to go to a co-working space ) .
Of course , as WFH critics point out , it ’ s by no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get the collaborative effects of an office space ; you don ’ t get to switch off from work as much , and interns and junior staff trying to go up the career ladder may struggle if they can only make an impression on Zoom .
Yes , we need our cities to thrive .
And yet , what is there to do to change the situation ?
Some workplaces will go back , but many won ’ t – and the best thing is to try to roll with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Government , but businesses too , which could even create a situation in which staff get to choose if they want to return or not – investing in co-working spaces if they can , to offer that option .
All in all , though , there is no point trying to force an issue that workers are , by and large , voting for with their feet .
From the environmental advantages ( less commuting ) to the flexibility WFH can give to families , Tories should re-evaluate their take on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their “ levelling up ” agenda could be already underway .

As someone who lives in a small studio in London, it comes as no bigger surprise than to myself to argue for the virtues of working from home (WFH).
Since Covid-19 kicked off, most of the nation has had a taste of WFH, and the issue of whether to continue with this format seems to have become as divisive as face masks.
On one hand, there are those who’ve enjoyed the experience. Getting to be around loved ones more, avoid the commute and even work in pyjamas has been ideal for them. Many have saved money in the process.
Others are not so enamoured with WFH. Perhaps they’re feeling cooped up in a small flat, constantly surrounded by X number of housemates, or simply miss seeing their colleagues. For those living solo, it can be an especially lonely experience.
The bad news for the Government is that the first camp seems to be dominant.
Indeed, a report by academics at Cardiff and Southhampton universities found that nine in ten workers would like to continue working from home in some form, with almost half wanting to work at home often or all of the time.
To counter this, Boris Johnson is to unleash a publicity campaign which will make the “emotional case” for mixing with colleagues and reassure people that “the workplace is a safe place”. Furthermore, there will be a new online tool to help people avoid overcrowded buses and trains.
It’s not surprising that the Government is keen to get things back to normal. In London the effects of WFH are obvious; the streets are much quieter, and everywhere that benefits from office workers is experiencing less custom. It is troubling, given the extent to which the city powers the economy.
In regards to these trends, Conservatives can do two things. They can try to re-engineer the situation, pushing to get employees back – which isn’t very conservative, incidentally – or they can embrace the way the market is going (which is).
Whether WFH is the best option in the grand scheme of things is immaterial, just as wondering whether social media is good for human interaction, or if children should play video games, or if dating apps are the best way to meet a partner.
The fact is that these things are here, and they’re here to stay. It could be said that lockdown has merely accelerated an inevitable situation, as WFH was already becoming commonplace before this strange year.
I confess that previously I had wanted the Government to get everyone back to their office as fast as possible. I could see the impact on London businesses and was concerned, but it was a recent trip to Deal – yes, really – that rather reset my thinking on the issue.
All the spending I did in that week opened my eyes to the less-talked about, positive effects of the pandemic. For all its evils, it has breathed new life into previously quieter parts of the UK. It’s not only the boost in domestic tourism that will help, but that more people will be wanting to move to new areas.
For too long this country has been London- and city-centric, which the Tories set about tackling with their “levelling up” agenda. Inadvertently, however, Covid-19 will help them achieve this; now that people can live and work anywhere, other parts of the UK will benefit and develop – needing more coffee shops, restaurants and so on to make way for a new influx of employees.
Some of these changes will be especially good for young people – though it may not seem so right now. For one, WFH gives them the option of moving to a more affordable location, where they can actually – heaven forbid! – even buy a house.
There’s also the advantage for young workers that choose to stay in London. The more that others head for different parts of the UK, the lower rental and house prices become in the city (thus meaning that they will eventually be able to WFH in bigger spaces – or even have extra income to go to a co-working space).
Of course, as WFH critics point out, it’s by no means a perfect system. You don’t get the collaborative effects of an office space; you don’t get to switch off from work as much, and interns and junior staff trying to go up the career ladder may struggle if they can only make an impression on Zoom. Yes, we need our cities to thrive.
And yet, what is there to do to change the situation? Some workplaces will go back, but many won’t – and the best thing is to try to roll with it. That isn’t only advice for the Government, but businesses too, which could even create a situation in which staff get to choose if they want to return or not – investing in co-working spaces if they can, to offer that option.
All in all, though, there is no point trying to force an issue that workers are, by and large, voting for with their feet. From the environmental advantages (less commuting) to the flexibility WFH can give to families, Tories should re-evaluate their take on the issue. By all indications, their “levelling up” agenda could be already underway.


conservativehome--2020-09-01--Calling Tories: New public appointments announced. Children’s Commissioner for England – and more


conservativehome--2020-09-02--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Children’s Commissioner for England – and


conservativehome--2020-09-02--Javid is Chancellor. Tugendhat, Foreign Secretary. May, Home Secretary. Introducing the Alternative

Javid is Chancellor. Tugendhat, Foreign Secretary. May, Home Secretary. Introducing the Alternative Cabinet.

The Cabinet is widely and correctly dismissed as weak .
So we ’ ve had a go at assembling a stronger one .
Here is the result .
Our only rule is that no Commons member of the present Cabinet can be listed in this imaginary one .
Some of those named below are very familiar to this site ’ s editors .
Others we don ’ t really know , and one or two we ’ ve never met .
The aim of the exercise isn ’ t to suggest that the entire Cabinet should be swept away , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the alternatives to the present incumbents are better .
None the less , We think that , person for person , this is a better and certainly a more experienced mix of potential Ministers – all of whom are waiting in the wings either in government or on the backbenches , Javid never got a chance to deliver a Budget .
In our imaginary scheme , he would .
His economic instincts are dry , pro-current spending control , lower business taxes , and more infrastructure investment Undoubtedly a gamble , since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Chairman and former soldier is one of the country ’ s leading foreign affairs thinkers .
Whatever you think of her period as Prime Minister , May gripped a department that famously is “ not fit for purpose ” and , with some of her Tory colleagues campaigning against her , worked to keep net migration down .
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office He is more than capable , as his blog confirms , of thinking creatively about policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as one would expect from the most effective Tory head that the Downing Street Policy Unit has ever had , Steeped in defence through family background and her Portsmouth constituency , Mordaunt had less than three months to prove herself in this post .
There ’ s a case for her having more .
Cox is a Queen ’ s Council as well as a convinced Brexiteer , and would bring heavyweight credentials to dealing with the judiciary , prisons , human rights and judicial review .
Clark is the sole former Cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whip over Brexit , and under this plan would return to his old department .
If Boris Johnson thinks Fox is capable of running the World Trade Organisation , he must surely believe that he could make a success of running his former department again .
Our columnist is now Chair of the Education Select Committee , is a former Minister in the department , and has a populist , work-orientated passion for the subject .
The appointment would be risky , because Hunt is bound to be caught up in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been ahead of the game on social distancing plus test and trace .
Universal Credit has been a quiet success story of Covid-19 , and Duncan Smith has the seniority and experience to take it to the next level , given its indispensability as unemployment soars .
Former local councillor , London Assembly member , Deputy Mayor to Boris Johnson in London , Minister of State for Housing and Planning – and so well-qualified for the post .
Paterson knows almost everything about the brief , having held it under David Cameron , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenty of ideas for the future of farming post-Brexit .
Would be a promotion for a Minister who ’ s worked in the department before , and did a committed job there as Roads Minister .
Knows everything there is to know about sport , and would be a popular appointment , were she willing to take the post on .
Young , personable , and seen as close to Ruth Davidson , which would help with a row about a second Scottish independence referendum coming down the tracks .
A calculated gamble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoughtful , knows the brief from first hand , will be across the internal Party debate in Wales about the future of devolution .
Successful on conventional and social media as a Party Chairman , a strong communicator , and now gaining diplomatic experience at the Foreign Office – Northern Ireland would represent a natural transfer .
Right-wing , and not afraid of thinking for herself on culture issues – as she has shown as a Minister in sweeping up in the Commons on race , justice and Black Lives Matter .
Would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader is the exception to our rule , on the ground that the Government ’ s problem with top Ministers is focused in the Commons , not the Lords – where what ’ s needed is wider reform .
Leadsom was an excellent Leader of the House , standing up to bullying John Bercow , and well up to dealing with the knotty complex of bullying/harrassment issues .
No reason for her not to come back .
Adventurous choice – but , contrary to the fashionable noise about tax rises , what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review of public spending , a task to which Baker would commit himself zealously .
This QC consider herself unlucky to miss out last time round , and if there has to be a change in post she would slide in seamlessly .
The long-standing Chairman of the 1922 Committee Executive knows the Parliamentary Party as well as , if not better , than anyone , and would be perfect for the post were he willing to take it .

The Cabinet is widely and correctly dismissed as weak. So we’ve had a go at assembling a stronger one. Here is the result.
Our only rule is that no Commons member of the present Cabinet can be listed in this imaginary one. Some of those named below are very familiar to this site’s editors. Others we don’t really know, and one or two we’ve never met.
The aim of the exercise isn’t to suggest that the entire Cabinet should be swept away, and this one appointed. Nor that all the alternatives to the present incumbents are better.
None the less, We think that, person for person, this is a better and certainly a more experienced mix of potential Ministers – all of whom are waiting in the wings either in government or on the backbenches,
– – – – – – – – – –
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sajid Javid
Javid never got a chance to deliver a Budget. In our imaginary scheme, he would. His economic instincts are dry, pro-current spending control, lower business taxes, and more infrastructure investment
Foreign Secretary
Tom Tugendhat
Undoubtedly a gamble, since he’s never held Ministerial office, but the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Chairman and former soldier is one of the country’s leading foreign affairs thinkers.
Home Secretary
Theresa May
Whatever you think of her period as Prime Minister, May gripped a department that famously is “not fit for purpose” and, with some of her Tory colleagues campaigning against her, worked to keep net migration down.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office
John Redwood
He is more than capable, as his blog confirms, of thinking creatively about policy, the civil service and delivery – as one would expect from the most effective Tory head that the Downing Street Policy Unit has ever had,
Defence Secretary
Penny Mordaunt
Steeped in defence through family background and her Portsmouth constituency, Mordaunt had less than three months to prove herself in this post. There’s a case for her having more.
Justice Secretary
Geoffrey Cox
Cox is a Queen’s Council as well as a convinced Brexiteer, and would bring heavyweight credentials to dealing with the judiciary, prisons, human rights and judicial review.
Business Secretary
Greg Clark
Clark is the sole former Cabinet Minister left in the Commons who lost the whip over Brexit, and under this plan would return to his old department.
Trade Secretary
Liam Fox
If Boris Johnson thinks Fox is capable of running the World Trade Organisation, he must surely believe that he could make a success of running his former department again.
Education Secretary
Robert Halfon
Our columnist is now Chair of the Education Select Committee, is a former Minister in the department, and has a populist, work-orientated passion for the subject.
Health Secretary
Jeremy Hunt
The appointment would be risky, because Hunt is bound to be caught up in the Coronavirus inquiry, but he has consistently been ahead of the game on social distancing plus test and trace.
Work and Pensions Secretary
Iain Duncan Smith
Universal Credit has been a quiet success story of Covid-19, and Duncan Smith has the seniority and experience to take it to the next level, given its indispensability as unemployment soars.
Housing, Communites and Local Government Secretary
Kit Malthouse
Former local councillor, London Assembly member, Deputy Mayor to Boris Johnson in London, Minister of State for Housing and Planning – and so well-qualified for the post.
Environment Secretary
Owen Paterson
Paterson knows almost everything about the brief, having held it under David Cameron, and as a convinced Leaver would have plenty of ideas for the future of farming post-Brexit.
Transport Secretary
Jesse Norman
Would be a promotion for a Minister who’s worked in the department before, and did a committed job there as Roads Minister.
Culture Secretary
Tracey Crouch
Knows everything there is to know about sport, and would be a popular appointment, were she willing to take the post on.
Scottish Secretary
Andrew Bowie
Young, personable, and seen as close to Ruth Davidson, which would help with a row about a second Scottish independence referendum coming down the tracks. A calculated gamble from a limited field.
Welsh Secretary
Stephen Crabb
Senior, thoughtful, knows the brief from first hand, will be across the internal Party debate in Wales about the future of devolution.
Northern Ireland Secretary
James Cleverly
Successful on conventional and social media as a Party Chairman, a strong communicator, and now gaining diplomatic experience at the Foreign Office – Northern Ireland would represent a natural transfer.
Party Chairman
Kemi Badenoch
Right-wing, and not afraid of thinking for herself on culture issues – as she has shown as a Minister in sweeping up in the Commons on race, justice and Black Lives Matter. Would make a strong spokesman.
Leader of the Lords
Natalie Evans
The Lords leader is the exception to our rule, on the ground that the Government’s problem with top Ministers is focused in the Commons, not the Lords – where what’s needed is wider reform.
– – –
Entitled to attend
Leader of the House
Andrea Leadsom
Leadsom was an excellent Leader of the House, standing up to bullying John Bercow, and well up to dealing with the knotty complex of bullying/harrassment issues. No reason for her not to come back.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Steve Baker
Adventurous choice – but, contrary to the fashionable noise about tax rises, what’s really needed is a proper zero-based review of public spending, a task to which Baker would commit himself zealously.
Attorney-General
Lucy Frazer
This QC consider herself unlucky to miss out last time round, and if there has to be a change in post she would slide in seamlessly.
Chief Whip
Graham Brady
The long-standing Chairman of the 1922 Committee Executive knows the Parliamentary Party as well as, if not better, than anyone, and would be perfect for the post were he willing to take it.