conservativehome--2020-03-04--Nola Leach: The Chancellor must end the tax system’s discrimination against families

CARE was privileged to inaugurate our ‘ Taxation of Families ’ annual report in 2008 .
Each year , these have looked at the way in which different OECD countries share out the tax burden between those with and without family responsibilities .
The message over the years has been remarkably consistent , and demonstrates that the UK gives one-earner families , especially married one-earner families , a particularly rough ride compared with other OECD countries .
We have always been clear about the reason : the radical individualism of the British tax system .
Now , with just one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first Budget , our Twelfth Report drives home the same message yet again .
The advent of independent taxation in 1990 was an important step in the modernisation of our fiscal arrangements .
We have no desire to return to the pre-1990 world of the ‘ married man ’ s allowance ’ .
But we have consistently pointed out that while the decision to embrace independent taxation was not unusual or wrong , the UK adopted an unusually individualistic form of it which is almost entirely blind to family responsibility .
This has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first instance , households where the earner has family responsibilities have been taxed exactly the same as single people with no family responsibilities .
Imagine this : at Number 1 lives a single person with no dependants , Mr Smith , who earns £30,000 per annum .
At Number 2 , meanwhile , lives Mr Jones , who also earns £30,000 but who has to support his wife , who is a full-time mother to their two pre-school children .
In a radical divergence from what happens in most countries , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that must be fed , in the UK both Smith and Jones pay exactly the same amount of income tax .
“ So what ?
” , you might say .
Jones will end up about where he started once benefits are accounted for .
This arrangement , however , saps energy in two regards .
First , it wastes money paying for the Treasury bureaucracy to take the money and then for the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) bureaucracy to pay it back again .
Second , it creates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the modern world : Britain ’ s uniquely exorbitant effective marginal tax rates .
For the uninitiated , the effective marginal tax rate ( EMTR ) is the amount of tax you have to pay on any additional pound of income that you would earn on top of your current salary , through tax , national insurance , and withdrawn benefits , if you were to accept a pay rise as a result of a promotion or working longer hours .
The EMTR is therefore a key measure of social mobility .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospect of taking on more responsibility and a promotion , they ask themselves : to what extent will I benefit ?
If most of the money arising from the increased effort goes towards supporting their family , it is worth their while .
If , however , most of it goes to the Treasury in tax and lost benefits , they will probably prefer their current arrangements .
A country that is committed to social mobility – that is , to empowering low-income families to be creative and earn their way to greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as minimal as possible .
Successive British governments have done the exact opposite !
Hitting low-income families with a comparatively big tax take and then compensating them through generous benefits creates a huge problem when they seek to withdraw those benefits as income rises .
They relieve the family of what is , by international comparisons , a lot of income tax and then simultaneously claw back a significant portion of their benefits .
It is the impact of this double whammy of the high tax rate and high benefit withdrawal that makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the OECD as a whole , the average EMTR on a one-earner married couple with two children earning 75 per cent average wage is around 34 per cent .
If the average OECD family of this type has an opportunity to earn more money , they will take home the equivalent of 66 pence in the pound , which isn ’ t too bad .
You get to keep most of it !
By contrast the equivalent family in the UK ( with an annual income of just under £30,000 ) faces an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they only get to take home 27 pence in the pound .
Not good .
They lose most of every additional pound earned .
But if the family is on housing support as well the situation gets even worse , rising to 90.6 per cent , so they only earn 9.4 pence in every extra pound brought home .
While the tax credit system is still operational in most parts of the UK , some now receive Universal Credit .
You may recall that part of the rationale for Universal Credit was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has it brought effective marginal tax rates back towards the OECD average ?
It ’ s a mixed picture : rather than causing the 73 per cent effective marginal tax rate to go down , the introduction of Universal Credit actually causes it to go up to 76 per cent , but the 90.6 per cent figure does come down to 80 per cent .
Even under the new regime , then , Britain ’ s EMTR is not only bad – it is the worst anywhere in the developed world !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the designers of Universal Credit messed up ?
Absolutely not .
The designers of Universal Credit were only given the opportunity to move the deck chairs around the Titanic in relation to work incentives because the only way to bring down our monstrous effective marginal tax rates is to address the root of the problem – namely , the extraordinary form of independent taxation we have in this country .
It is only when we bring fundamental reform to our tax system , by recognising family responsibility , that we can make progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at a number of solutions that make adjustments to the current system , we are calling for something more profound – a fundamental review of the system itself .
If we want to be free to find some of the most efficient ways of dealing with the presenting problem , like income splitting , we should not limit ourselves to tinkering with the current system .
The Government needs to step back and consider designing a new form of independent taxation that , taking account of family responsibility , does not call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective marginal tax rate , but which rather lays the foundation for liberating Britain ’ s low-income , in-work families to earn their way out of poverty to greater things .

Nola Leach is Chief Executive of CARE.
CARE was privileged to inaugurate our ‘Taxation of Families’ annual report in 2008. Each year, these have looked at the way in which different OECD countries share out the tax burden between those with and without family responsibilities.
The message over the years has been remarkably consistent, and demonstrates that the UK gives one-earner families, especially married one-earner families, a particularly rough ride compared with other OECD countries.
We have always been clear about the reason: the radical individualism of the British tax system. Now, with just one week before the new Chancellor’s first Budget, our Twelfth Report drives home the same message yet again.
The advent of independent taxation in 1990 was an important step in the modernisation of our fiscal arrangements. We have no desire to return to the pre-1990 world of the ‘married man’s allowance’.
But we have consistently pointed out that while the decision to embrace independent taxation was not unusual or wrong, the UK adopted an unusually individualistic form of it which is almost entirely blind to family responsibility. This has created no end of problems.
In the first instance, households where the earner has family responsibilities have been taxed exactly the same as single people with no family responsibilities. Imagine this: at Number 1 lives a single person with no dependants, Mr Smith, who earns £30,000 per annum. At Number 2, meanwhile, lives Mr Jones, who also earns £30,000 but who has to support his wife, who is a full-time mother to their two pre-school children.
In a radical divergence from what happens in most countries, where taxation accounts for the numbers of mouths that must be fed, in the UK both Smith and Jones pay exactly the same amount of income tax.
“So what?”, you might say. Jones will end up about where he started once benefits are accounted for. This arrangement, however, saps energy in two regards.
First, it wastes money paying for the Treasury bureaucracy to take the money and then for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) bureaucracy to pay it back again. Second, it creates one of the great fiscal travesties of the modern world: Britain’s uniquely exorbitant effective marginal tax rates.
For the uninitiated, the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) is the amount of tax you have to pay on any additional pound of income that you would earn on top of your current salary, through tax, national insurance, and withdrawn benefits, if you were to accept a pay rise as a result of a promotion or working longer hours.
The EMTR is therefore a key measure of social mobility. As someone earning the median wage considers the prospect of taking on more responsibility and a promotion, they ask themselves: to what extent will I benefit? If most of the money arising from the increased effort goes towards supporting their family, it is worth their while. If, however, most of it goes to the Treasury in tax and lost benefits, they will probably prefer their current arrangements.
A country that is committed to social mobility – that is, to empowering low-income families to be creative and earn their way to greater things – will prioritise keeping their EMTR as minimal as possible.
Successive British governments have done the exact opposite! Hitting low-income families with a comparatively big tax take and then compensating them through generous benefits creates a huge problem when they seek to withdraw those benefits as income rises. They relieve the family of what is, by international comparisons, a lot of income tax and then simultaneously claw back a significant portion of their benefits. It is the impact of this double whammy of the high tax rate and high benefit withdrawal that makes the British EMTR so problematic.
Across the OECD as a whole, the average EMTR on a one-earner married couple with two children earning 75 per cent average wage is around 34 per cent. If the average OECD family of this type has an opportunity to earn more money, they will take home the equivalent of 66 pence in the pound, which isn’t too bad. You get to keep most of it!
By contrast the equivalent family in the UK (with an annual income of just under £30,000) faces an EMTR of 73 per cent, meaning that they only get to take home 27 pence in the pound. Not good. They lose most of every additional pound earned. But if the family is on housing support as well the situation gets even worse, rising to 90.6 per cent, so they only earn 9.4 pence in every extra pound brought home.
While the tax credit system is still operational in most parts of the UK, some now receive Universal Credit. You may recall that part of the rationale for Universal Credit was to help make work pay. So, has it brought effective marginal tax rates back towards the OECD average?
It’s a mixed picture: rather than causing the 73 per cent effective marginal tax rate to go down, the introduction of Universal Credit actually causes it to go up to 76 per cent, but the 90.6 per cent figure does come down to 80 per cent. Even under the new regime, then, Britain’s EMTR is not only bad – it is the worst anywhere in the developed world!
What then should we conclude? Have the designers of Universal Credit messed up?
Absolutely not. The designers of Universal Credit were only given the opportunity to move the deck chairs around the Titanic in relation to work incentives because the only way to bring down our monstrous effective marginal tax rates is to address the root of the problem – namely, the extraordinary form of independent taxation we have in this country. It is only when we bring fundamental reform to our tax system, by recognising family responsibility, that we can make progress.
This year, in addition to looking at a number of solutions that make adjustments to the current system, we are calling for something more profound – a fundamental review of the system itself. If we want to be free to find some of the most efficient ways of dealing with the presenting problem, like income splitting, we should not limit ourselves to tinkering with the current system.
The Government needs to step back and consider designing a new form of independent taxation that, taking account of family responsibility, does not call into being inflated benefits and a crippling effective marginal tax rate, but which rather lays the foundation for liberating Britain’s low-income, in-work families to earn their way out of poverty to greater things.


conservativehome--2020-03-05--Henry Hill: Could the Welsh Conservatives go into coalition with Plaid next year?

Are the Welsh Conservatives really heading for 20 seats in the Assembly ?
Wales Online reports that according to the latest polling figures , the Tories could be on track for what is effectively a three-way tie at the next Assembly elections in 2021 .
According to analysis by Professor Roger Awan-Scully , the projections would produce the following seat totals : Labour 21 ; Conservative 20 ; Plaid Cymru 18 ; and the Liberal Democrats on one .
He notes : “ Any such outcome would , of course , be by some way Labour ’ s worst-ever Assembly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for both the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru .
It would also generate a very interesting environment in which to try and form a post-election Welsh government.
” For what it ’ s worth , it seems increasingly likely that such an outcome would yield at least an attempt at a working relationship between the Tories and Plaid .
A deal with the Nats is the whole object of the Tories ’ Assembly strategy , such as it is , and my sources suggest back-channels are being opened up even if Adam Price , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed .
Needless to say , taking a third of the seats in the Assembly would be a turn-up for the Conservatives .
But amongst Welsh Tory MPs there is some scepticism about the plausibility of this outcome – and even if it does come about , it could potentially pose the Party a serious dilemma .
This is because , as I have written on previous occasions , there is a deep split in the Tories ’ electoral coalition in Wales between those who vote for it consistently and another group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns out for Westminster contests .
The net result is that the Party is consistently Wales ’ second-strongest in national elections , but bumps along at the same level as Plaid in devolved ones .
Securing 20 seats suggests that Paul Davies ’ campaign will manage to unite what we might call the ‘ British/Right ’ vote ( that turns out for Assembly contests ) to an unprecedented extent , depriving challengers such as Abolish the Assembly of the space they need to establish a foothold and start trying to activate devosceptic Tories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voters react if the result is a deal with an explicitly left-wing and Welsh nationalist party ?
In other news David Melding , one of the most Welsh-nationalist of all the current Assembly group and a supporter of a ‘ federal ’ UK , is stepping down at the next election .
Meanwhile defenders of the Assembly have once again highlighted how absurd it is to accept their counsel that making concessions is the way to see off nationalism .
When it comes to a movement they actually want to defeat – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight out of the ‘ Brit Nat ’ playbook : offer your opponents no constitutional quarter and ramp up efforts to promote cultural identity .
The Prime Minister should play close attention to Professor McAllister ’ s recommendations .
The leader of the Scottish Conservatives has met the Prime Minister to discuss how the Government could make its proposed new immigration system more responsive to Scottish interests , according to the Daily Telegraph .
We noted last week that the Tories north of the border seemed to have adopted somewhat contradictory positions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whilst other figures , such as Adam Tomkins , took a more conciliatory line which emphasised the Government ’ s assurances that Scottish concerns would be taken into account .
Although the current proposals likely give ministers as much flexibility as they could need to cater to specific regions or sectors , a visible adaptation of the plan in response to Carlaw ’ s lobbying would be an obvious way to demonstrate his influence over the UK party ( and the utility of a strong Scottish Conservative party ) .
Meanwhile the SNP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of movement could be retained for Scotland even after Brexit .
..as SNP make trouble over the Protocol Meanwhile there are stirrings of fresh trouble over the Irish Protocol after the Scottish Government sought clarity over whether or not it would be responsible for implementing it .
The BBC reports a Northern Irish minister claiming to have been told by a Scottish counterpart that “ they would not accept new checks at Scottish ports.
” This comes as the EU is growing increasingly concerned about the Government ’ s refusal to commit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversial customs border inside British territory .
Stephen Farry , the newly-elected Alliance MP for North Down , told a debate in London that “ even the most far reaching deal you can imagine ” wouldn ’ t completely obviate the need for checks – meaning the only way the Government could avoid them would be to resile from the Protocol .
In other news , the Government also told Brussels that it would be prepared to deploy the Royal Navy to prevent European vessels illegally fishing British waters after Brexit .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a candidate who was previously suspended from the party for making antisemitic tweets , Wales Online reports .
It says that “ senior members of the Jewish community ” want Plaid to block Sahar Al-Faifi – who enjoys the support of Leanne Wood , the ex-leader of the Nationalists – from standing for the Assembly next year .
Although she has taken antisemitism training , and Plaid are currently standing by her , her critics are concerned that she has offered , and apparently not retracted , public support for Hamas .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections is the visibility of splits between more committed unionists , such as Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips , and the peddlers of devocrat orthodoxy such as Keir Starmer .
Inevitably , this has now reached the Scottish Deputy contest .
Jackie Baillie , the acting leader , has launched a scathing attack on her opponents for proposing that Labour should support an SNP bid for a re-run of the 2014 independence referendum should the separatists win another Holyrood majority next year .
Labour faces a dilemma in Scotland , where it needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have defected to the Nationalists ( or the Greens ) without ceding its remaining vote , which as a natural consequence is much more unionist , to the Conservatives .

Are the Welsh Conservatives really heading for 20 seats in the Assembly?
Wales Online reports that according to the latest polling figures, the Tories could be on track for what is effectively a three-way tie at the next Assembly elections in 2021.
According to analysis by Professor Roger Awan-Scully, the projections would produce the following seat totals: Labour 21; Conservative 20; Plaid Cymru 18; and the Liberal Democrats on one. He notes:
“Any such outcome would, of course, be by some way Labour’s worst-ever Assembly election result, and the best-ever one for both the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru. It would also generate a very interesting environment in which to try and form a post-election Welsh government.”
For what it’s worth, it seems increasingly likely that such an outcome would yield at least an attempt at a working relationship between the Tories and Plaid. A deal with the Nats is the whole object of the Tories’ Assembly strategy, such as it is, and my sources suggest back-channels are being opened up even if Adam Price, the current Plaid leader, is deeply opposed.
Needless to say, taking a third of the seats in the Assembly would be a turn-up for the Conservatives. But amongst Welsh Tory MPs there is some scepticism about the plausibility of this outcome – and even if it does come about, it could potentially pose the Party a serious dilemma.
This is because, as I have written on previous occasions, there is a deep split in the Tories’ electoral coalition in Wales between those who vote for it consistently and another group, hundreds of thousands strong, which only turns out for Westminster contests. The net result is that the Party is consistently Wales’ second-strongest in national elections, but bumps along at the same level as Plaid in devolved ones.
Securing 20 seats suggests that Paul Davies’ campaign will manage to unite what we might call the ‘British/Right’ vote (that turns out for Assembly contests) to an unprecedented extent, depriving challengers such as Abolish the Assembly of the space they need to establish a foothold and start trying to activate devosceptic Tories. But how will such a collection of voters react if the result is a deal with an explicitly left-wing and Welsh nationalist party?
In other news David Melding, one of the most Welsh-nationalist of all the current Assembly group and a supporter of a ‘federal’ UK, is stepping down at the next election.
Meanwhile defenders of the Assembly have once again highlighted how absurd it is to accept their counsel that making concessions is the way to see off nationalism. When it comes to a movement they actually want to defeat – Abolish the Assembly – their prescriptions are straight out of the ‘Brit Nat’ playbook: offer your opponents no constitutional quarter and ramp up efforts to promote cultural identity. The Prime Minister should play close attention to Professor McAllister’s recommendations.
Carlaw talks immigration with Johnson…
The leader of the Scottish Conservatives has met the Prime Minister to discuss how the Government could make its proposed new immigration system more responsive to Scottish interests, according to the Daily Telegraph.
We noted last week that the Tories north of the border seemed to have adopted somewhat contradictory positions, with the leadership striking a belligerent tone whilst other figures, such as Adam Tomkins, took a more conciliatory line which emphasised the Government’s assurances that Scottish concerns would be taken into account.
Although the current proposals likely give ministers as much flexibility as they could need to cater to specific regions or sectors, a visible adaptation of the plan in response to Carlaw’s lobbying would be an obvious way to demonstrate his influence over the UK party (and the utility of a strong Scottish Conservative party). Meanwhile the SNP have produced a report suggesting that freedom of movement could be retained for Scotland even after Brexit.
..as SNP make trouble over the Protocol
Meanwhile there are stirrings of fresh trouble over the Irish Protocol after the Scottish Government sought clarity over whether or not it would be responsible for implementing it. The BBC reports a Northern Irish minister claiming to have been told by a Scottish counterpart that “they would not accept new checks at Scottish ports.”
This comes as the EU is growing increasingly concerned about the Government’s refusal to commit, even in private, to enforcing the controversial customs border inside British territory. Stephen Farry, the newly-elected Alliance MP for North Down, told a debate in London that “even the most far reaching deal you can imagine” wouldn’t completely obviate the need for checks – meaning the only way the Government could avoid them would be to resile from the Protocol.
In other news, the Government also told Brussels that it would be prepared to deploy the Royal Navy to prevent European vessels illegally fishing British waters after Brexit.
Jewish community urge Plaid to drop candidate
The Welsh Nationalists have been urged to drop a candidate who was previously suspended from the party for making antisemitic tweets, Wales Online reports.
It says that “senior members of the Jewish community” want Plaid to block Sahar Al-Faifi – who enjoys the support of Leanne Wood, the ex-leader of the Nationalists – from standing for the Assembly next year.
Although she has taken antisemitism training, and Plaid are currently standing by her, her critics are concerned that she has offered, and apparently not retracted, public support for Hamas.
Baillie strikes unionist line in Scottish Labour election
One fascinating by-product of Labour’s various elections is the visibility of splits between more committed unionists, such as Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips, and the peddlers of devocrat orthodoxy such as Keir Starmer.
Inevitably, this has now reached the Scottish Deputy contest. Jackie Baillie, the acting leader, has launched a scathing attack on her opponents for proposing that Labour should support an SNP bid for a re-run of the 2014 independence referendum should the separatists win another Holyrood majority next year.
Labour faces a dilemma in Scotland, where it needs to try and win back voters who have defected to the Nationalists (or the Greens) without ceding its remaining vote, which as a natural consequence is much more unionist, to the Conservatives.


conservativehome--2020-03-05--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct A

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

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Office of the Children ’ s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work .
It is a small organisation , but it has a loud voice and is highly respected .
The Children ’ s Commissioner ’ s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children ’ s Commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals , with a wide breadth of experience , to join this Board , which meets quarterly in London .
Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children , particularly the most vulnerable , and be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work.
” “ We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors ( NEDs ) with substantial experience of leading complex , delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda .
Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office .
They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department ’ s work through a fresh , independent , and external perspective .
You will work closely with ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.
” “ Robert Chote will be stepping down as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after 10 years in post .
We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR ’ s staff .
This is a high profile and influential role , requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity .
Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity .
Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term .
There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.
” “ The Office for Nuclear Regulation ( ONR ) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK .
Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect , trust and confidence .
ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) who have principal responsibility for governance , finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety .
The Department for Business , Energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director ( NED ) to the ONR Board.
” “ This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services , leading a sizeable and complex organisation .
There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role .
Under Andrew Bailey , the FCA has formulated a transformation programme , to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers ; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified ; [ and ] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal , and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.
” “ The Coast to Capital Strategic Board comprises private sector and local authority Members , setting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic prosperity for all in the Coast to Capital area , including through Government funding of projects through the Local Growth Fund .
They are accountable to the LEP Board and for the proper governance of the LEP .
Coast to Capital is seeking an influential and persuasive senior business figure from the C2C area to help lead the region and meet the ambitious vision set out in its strategic plan .
Currently chaired by Tim Wates , who will be stepping down in July 2020 , the Board brings together a diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians and leaders from Universities and Further Education .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Children’s Commissioner’s Office – Advisory Board Member
“The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is a dynamic and creative place to work. It is a small organisation, but it has a loud voice and is highly respected. The Children’s Commissioner’s Advisory Board exists to provide advice and challenge to the Children’s Commissioner in the exercise of her statutory functions. The Commissioner is now inviting applications from exceptional individuals, with a wide breadth of experience, to join this Board, which meets quarterly in London. Candidates need not have previous experience of working with children but should demonstrate an interest in policy issues affecting children, particularly the most vulnerable, and be interested in the role of the Commissioner and able to offer a different perspective on her work.”
Time: 3-4 meetings per year.
Remuneration: Reasonable expenses.
Closes: 03 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Non-Executive Directors
“We are seeking high-calibre Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) with substantial experience of leading complex, delivery focused organisations, to support the Home Secretary in the realisation of her ambitious agenda. Non-Executive Directors provide a key role in diversifying and strengthening the strategic and operational leadership of the Home Office. They complement the skills and experience of Government Ministers and officials by bringing constructive challenge and advice to the Department’s work through a fresh, independent, and external perspective. You will work closely with ministers and officials to support the delivery of a portfolio of priorities linked to key departmental commitments.”
Time: “3 years”.
Remuneration: £15,000.
Closes: 08 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Budget Responsibility – Chair
“Robert Chote will be stepping down as Chair of the BRC later this year, after 10 years in post. We are seeking a successor with deep expertise in economic and fiscal analysis who can lead the BRC and provide intellectual leadership to the OBR’s staff. This is a high profile and influential role, requiring outstanding communication skills and integrity. Candidates must command broad respect for their objectivity in dealing with issues of political sensitivity. Appointments to the BRC are for a five-year term. There is the possibility of reappointment at the end of the term and members can serve a maximum of two terms. This post can be undertaken on either a part or full-time basis.”
Time: Full- or part-time.
Remuneration: £158,762 per annum (FTE).
Closes: 19 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Office for Nuclear Regulation – Security Non-Executive Director
“The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is a Public Corporation responsible for the regulation of nuclear safety and security across the UK. Its vision is to be an exemplary regulator that inspires respect, trust and confidence. ONR is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) who have principal responsibility for governance, finance and its performance in relation to conventional Health and Safety. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is accountable for the UK civil nuclear regulatory framework and policies and for appointing a Security Non-Executive Director (NED) to the ONR Board.”
Time: Approx. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000 plus expenses.
Closes: 22 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Conduct Authority – Chief Executive
“This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services, leading a sizeable and complex organisation. There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role. Under Andrew Bailey, the FCA has formulated a transformation programme, to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development: a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified; [and] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal, and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Competitive.
Closes: 27 March
– – – – – – – – – –
Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (C2C LEP) – Chair
“The Coast to Capital Strategic Board comprises private sector and local authority Members, setting a vision for and overseeing delivery of economic prosperity for all in the Coast to Capital area, including through Government funding of projects through the Local Growth Fund. They are accountable to the LEP Board and for the proper governance of the LEP. Coast to Capital is seeking an influential and persuasive senior business figure from the C2C area to help lead the region and meet the ambitious vision set out in its strategic plan. Currently chaired by Tim Wates, who will be stepping down in July 2020, the Board brings together a diverse mix of regional business leaders alongside senior politicians and leaders from Universities and Further Education.”
Time: Four days per month, three-year term.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 30 March


conservativehome--2020-03-05--Writing brief lives of America’s Presidents taught me that Trump is far from being the first outland

Writing brief lives of America’s Presidents taught me that Trump is far from being the first outlandish one

The more one hears about the American presidential race , the less comprehensible it can seem .
For one is presented with an excessively detailed account of what has happened in the last few hours , and nothing at all about what happened in the last few centuries .
It is easy in these circumstances to suppose that Donald Trump is an unprecedented figure .
The correspondents covering the race are for the most part too busy to read much history , let alone to make use of it if they do , condemned as they are to show , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And when they do turn to history , they tend to fall in love with the works of Robert Caro , who in the fourth volume of his magisterial life of Lyndon B. Johnson , President from 1963-69 , has reached 1964 .
It was partly in an attempt to gain some faint sense of the whole sweep of the history of the United States that I wrote Gimson ’ s Presidents : Brief Lives from Washington to Trump , published this week .
It emerged from this exercise that most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far , though Trump is described as the 45th , because Grover Cleveland , President from 1885-89 and 1893-97 , is counted twice , as both the 22nd and the 24th President ) are unknown even to most people versed in American history .
Washington , Jefferson , Lincoln , the current President and perhaps half a dozen others , most of them within living memory , take almost all the light going , leaving at least 30 holders of the office , if not in darkness , at least in deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures , who repay any amount of study .
But who can name the eight presidents before Lincoln , or – except for Grant , famous as a soldier rather than a politician – the eight presidents after him ?
As Professor Richard White of Stanford University , author of the volume in The Oxford History of the United States covering the period 1865-1896 , remarks in his introduction , this for a long time was “ historical flyover country ” , with writers , scholars and readers taking off at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assassination of Lincoln , and only touching down again at the start of the 20th century , when thanks to the assassination of President Andrew McKinley , the inspiring figure of Theodore Roosevelt enters the White House .
One result of this amnesia is that Trump came as a greater surprise to educated Americans than he should have done .
Although he is the first reality TV star to have entered the White House , he has many of the characteristics of Andrew Jackson , President from 1829-37 .
Jackson was touchy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born killer , though also a born leader of men , and much braver than Trump .
He beat the British at New Orleans in 1815 , and as a commander of Tennessee ’ s militia , in which capacity he massacred hundreds of Creek Indians whose lands were taken by white settlers , was nicknamed Old Hickory in tribute to his toughness .
Trump said he could not go to Vietnam because he had bone spurs in his heels .
It would have taken a lot more than bone spurs to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1806 , Charles Dickinson , a brilliant shot , referred while drunk to the Jackson “ adultery ” – a reference to the fact that when Jackson got married , his wife ’ s first husband had failed to complete the formalities needed to get divorced from her : an oversight unknown to her or to Jackson .
Jackson proceeded to pick a quarrel with Dickinson about the payment of a forfeit in a horse race .
In the resulting duel , fought at eight paces , Jackson decided to let Dickinson fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemy of accuracy , but was hit in the chest .
The bullet , though partially checked by his coat , broke two of his ribs and was so close to his heart that it could never be removed , and in years to come caused him much pain .
Jackson then took aim at Dickinson , but the hammer of his pistol stuck at half-cock .
The seconds conferred and decided Jackson could have another go if he insisted .
He did insist , and hit Dickinson , who bled to death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jackson topped the poll with 41 per cent of the vote – not a winning margin , but clearly ahead of John Quincy Adams , on 31 per cent .
Henry Clay , who came third with 13 per cent , described Jackson as “ ignorant , passionate , hypocritical , corrupt and easily swayed by the basest men who surround him ” .
This view was shared by many members of the political class , and when the election went to the House of Representatives for its decision , Clay ensured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Adams proceeded to give the office of Secretary of State to Clay , of whom Jackson wrote : The return match , in 1828 , was described in a piece of doggerel as “ Between J. Q. Adams , who can write/ And Andy Jackson , who can fight.
” It was the dirtiest in American history , though there is , admittedly , quite a bit of competition for that title .
Jackson ’ s opponents circulated a pamphlet accusing him of getting into 14 fights in which he “ killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens ” .
Jackson ’ s supporters spread calumnies about Adams , including the absurd claim that while serving as American Minister in St Petersburg , he had procured a beautiful American girl for the Tsar and kept a harem of concubines for himself .
On the day of Jackson ’ s inauguration in 1829 , the mob which came to Washington to celebrate his victory invaded the White House , smashed the furnishings and could only be induced to leave by the provision of free punch on the lawn .
Jackson had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of frontiersmen who felt themselves looked down upon by the folks in Washington .
He understood that resentment because he felt it himself .
Like Trump , he was dismissed by educated Americans as a barbarian .
As President , Jackson instituted the spoils system , sacking more office holders , most of them perfectly competent , than had been sacked in the whole 40 years since Washington , and replacing them with his own supporters .
From then onwards , politics was made to pay by rewarding the hacks who ran the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of each side was to find some mediocrity ( not a term that could be applied to Jackson himself ) who looked and sounded sufficiently presidential to win the election , and could then be relied on to distribute to his followers the spoils of office , however little idea he might have of how to govern the country .
Hence the high incidence of mediocrities in the White House .
On the whole , unknown candidates did better than distinguished men who had made enemies by taking a stand on the great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most mediocre of the mediocrities was Warren G. Harding , President from 1921-23 , who had been chosen by the Republicans in a “ smoke-filled room ” , an expression dating from their convention in 1920 .
Here is a specimen of his oratory , when he was chosen in 1912 to propose President William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination : Harding found alliteration worked like a charm on his audiences , and also on himself .
He said “ I like to go out into the country and bloviate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ art of speaking as long as the occasion demands and saying nothing ” .
Politics today is full of bloviators , but I can think of no one who does it quite so preposterously well as Harding .
Shortly before he was adopted as the presidential candidate , he set out his approach in a speech in Boston : The New York Times was appalled when Harding was adopted : Denunciation by The New York Times is not always fatal .
Harding won a landslide victory .
The voters felt comfortable with him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to various key posts in Washington .
The Teapot Dome scandal , in which the navy ’ s oil reserves in Wyoming were transferred to the Interior Department and then sold off at knock-down prices , was only the most notorious example of the grotesque corruption which flourished under Harding , who died in office of a heart attack in 1923 , though malicious people claimed his wife , Florence , had poisoned him .
After Harding ’ s death , his mistress , Nan Britton , a gormless young woman , 31 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town of Marion , Ohio , applied to his family for support for her daughter by him .
When no funds were forthcoming , she wrote the first kiss-and-tell book about a President , entitled The President ’ s Daughter , which described her happiness “ when I received my first forty-page love letter from Mr Harding ” , and how in due course they found a closet in the White House , where “ in the darkness of a space not more than five feet square the President of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When I was in New York with my family , and we were taking photographs of Trump Tower , an elegant old lady implored us to desist .
Trump is a most dreadful embarrassment to elegant New Yorkers , and to many other Americans too .
But he is by no means the first President of whom that could be said .
Gimson ’ s Presidents : Brief lives from Washington to Trump is published by Penguin Books .

The more one hears about the American presidential race, the less comprehensible it can seem. For one is presented with an excessively detailed account of what has happened in the last few hours, and nothing at all about what happened in the last few centuries.
It is easy in these circumstances to suppose that Donald Trump is an unprecedented figure.
The correspondents covering the race are for the most part too busy to read much history, let alone to make use of it if they do, condemned as they are to show, say, their mastery of Super Tuesday.
And when they do turn to history, they tend to fall in love with the works of Robert Caro, who in the fourth volume of his magisterial life of Lyndon B. Johnson, President from 1963-69, has reached 1964.
It was partly in an attempt to gain some faint sense of the whole sweep of the history of the United States that I wrote Gimson’s Presidents: Brief Lives from Washington to Trump, published this week.
It emerged from this exercise that most of the Presidents (there have been 44 so far, though Trump is described as the 45th, because Grover Cleveland, President from 1885-89 and 1893-97, is counted twice, as both the 22nd and the 24th President) are unknown even to most people versed in American history.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the current President and perhaps half a dozen others, most of them within living memory, take almost all the light going, leaving at least 30 holders of the office, if not in darkness, at least in deep shadow.
The greatest Presidents are world-historical figures, who repay any amount of study.
But who can name the eight presidents before Lincoln, or – except for Grant, famous as a soldier rather than a politician – the eight presidents after him?
As Professor Richard White of Stanford University, author of the volume in The Oxford History of the United States covering the period 1865-1896, remarks in his introduction, this for a long time was “historical flyover country”, with writers, scholars and readers taking off at the end of the Civil War, after the assassination of Lincoln, and only touching down again at the start of the 20th century, when thanks to the assassination of President Andrew McKinley, the inspiring figure of Theodore Roosevelt enters the White House.
One result of this amnesia is that Trump came as a greater surprise to educated Americans than he should have done. Although he is the first reality TV star to have entered the White House, he has many of the characteristics of Andrew Jackson, President from 1829-37.
Jackson was touchy, quarrelsome, ignorant, vindictive and a born killer, though also a born leader of men, and much braver than Trump. He beat the British at New Orleans in 1815, and as a commander of Tennessee’s militia, in which capacity he massacred hundreds of Creek Indians whose lands were taken by white settlers, was nicknamed Old Hickory in tribute to his toughness.
Trump said he could not go to Vietnam because he had bone spurs in his heels. It would have taken a lot more than bone spurs to keep Jackson out of a fight.
In 1806, Charles Dickinson, a brilliant shot, referred while drunk to the Jackson “adultery” – a reference to the fact that when Jackson got married, his wife’s first husband had failed to complete the formalities needed to get divorced from her: an oversight unknown to her or to Jackson.
Jackson proceeded to pick a quarrel with Dickinson about the payment of a forfeit in a horse race. In the resulting duel, fought at eight paces, Jackson decided to let Dickinson fire first, hoping speed would be the enemy of accuracy, but was hit in the chest.
The bullet, though partially checked by his coat, broke two of his ribs and was so close to his heart that it could never be removed, and in years to come caused him much pain.
Jackson then took aim at Dickinson, but the hammer of his pistol stuck at half-cock. The seconds conferred and decided Jackson could have another go if he insisted. He did insist, and hit Dickinson, who bled to death.
In the presidential election of 1824, Jackson topped the poll with 41 per cent of the vote – not a winning margin, but clearly ahead of John Quincy Adams, on 31 per cent.
Henry Clay, who came third with 13 per cent, described Jackson as “ignorant, passionate, hypocritical, corrupt and easily swayed by the basest men who surround him”. This view was shared by many members of the political class, and when the election went to the House of Representatives for its decision, Clay ensured that Adams won on the first ballot.
Adams proceeded to give the office of Secretary of State to Clay, of whom Jackson wrote:
“So you see the Judas of the West has closed the contract and will receive the 30 pieces of silver. His end will be the same. Was there ever witnessed such bare-faced corruption?”
The return match, in 1828, was described in a piece of doggerel as “Between J. Q. Adams, who can write/ And Andy Jackson, who can fight.” It was the dirtiest in American history, though there is, admittedly, quite a bit of competition for that title.
Jackson’s opponents circulated a pamphlet accusing him of getting into 14 fights in which he “killed, slashed, and clawed various American citizens”.
Jackson’s supporters spread calumnies about Adams, including the absurd claim that while serving as American Minister in St Petersburg, he had procured a beautiful American girl for the Tsar and kept a harem of concubines for himself.
On the day of Jackson’s inauguration in 1829, the mob which came to Washington to celebrate his victory invaded the White House, smashed the furnishings and could only be induced to leave by the provision of free punch on the lawn.
Jackson had a genius for appealing to the resentment of frontiersmen who felt themselves looked down upon by the folks in Washington. He understood that resentment because he felt it himself. Like Trump, he was dismissed by educated Americans as a barbarian.
As President, Jackson instituted the spoils system, sacking more office holders, most of them perfectly competent, than had been sacked in the whole 40 years since Washington, and replacing them with his own supporters.
From then onwards, politics was made to pay by rewarding the hacks who ran the party machine, and the main incentive of each side was to find some mediocrity (not a term that could be applied to Jackson himself) who looked and sounded sufficiently presidential to win the election, and could then be relied on to distribute to his followers the spoils of office, however little idea he might have of how to govern the country.
Hence the high incidence of mediocrities in the White House. On the whole, unknown candidates did better than distinguished men who had made enemies by taking a stand on the great questions of the day.
One of the most mediocre of the mediocrities was Warren G. Harding, President from 1921-23, who had been chosen by the Republicans in a “smoke-filled room”, an expression dating from their convention in 1920. Here is a specimen of his oratory, when he was chosen in 1912 to propose President William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination:
“Progression is not proclamation nor palaver. It is not pretence nor play on prejudice. It is not of personal pronouns, nor of perennial pronouncement. It is not the perturbation of a people passion-wrought, nor a promise proposed.”
Harding found alliteration worked like a charm on his audiences, and also on himself. He said “I like to go out into the country and bloviate”, which he defined as “the art of speaking as long as the occasion demands and saying nothing”.
Politics today is full of bloviators, but I can think of no one who does it quite so preposterously well as Harding. Shortly before he was adopted as the presidential candidate, he set out his approach in a speech in Boston:
“America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.”
The New York Times was appalled when Harding was adopted:
“The nomination of Harding, for whose counterpart we must go back to Franklin Pierce [in office 1853-57] if we would seek a President who measures down to his political stature, is the fine and perfect flower of the Senatorial cabal that charged itself with the management of the Republican convention.”
Denunciation by The New York Times is not always fatal. Harding won a landslide victory. The voters felt comfortable with him, as did the crooks he appointed to various key posts in Washington.
The Teapot Dome scandal, in which the navy’s oil reserves in Wyoming were transferred to the Interior Department and then sold off at knock-down prices, was only the most notorious example of the grotesque corruption which flourished under Harding, who died in office of a heart attack in 1923, though malicious people claimed his wife, Florence, had poisoned him.
After Harding’s death, his mistress, Nan Britton, a gormless young woman, 31 years his junior, from his home town of Marion, Ohio, applied to his family for support for her daughter by him.
When no funds were forthcoming, she wrote the first kiss-and-tell book about a President, entitled The President’s Daughter, which described her happiness “when I received my first forty-page love letter from Mr Harding”, and how in due course they found a closet in the White House, where “in the darkness of a space not more than five feet square the President of the United States and his adoring sweetheart made love”.
When I was in New York with my family, and we were taking photographs of Trump Tower, an elegant old lady implored us to desist.
Trump is a most dreadful embarrassment to elegant New Yorkers, and to many other Americans too.
But he is by no means the first President of whom that could be said.
Gimson’s Presidents: Brief lives from Washington to Trump is published by Penguin Books.


conservativehome--2020-03-05--Stephen Booth: We must not allow the EU to bind our hands in trade negotiations with other partners

Stephen Booth is Head of the Britain in the World Project at Policy Exchange .
It is probably not a coincidence that the Government published its negotiating objectives for a US trade agreement on the same day that David Frost arrived in Brussels to open talks with Michel Barnier on the future UK-EU relationship .
The “ great multidimensional game of chess ” , as the Prime Minister describes it , has begun .
Aside from the EU and the US , the UK has indicated it would like to open negotiations with other top priority markets – Japan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming months .
There is utility in demonstrating to the EU that the UK has many irons in the fire .
The talks with the EU are of the greatest immediate economic significance but will be the most politically fraught and could yet break down .
It remains our biggest partner and , where possible , the objective is to minimise new barriers and disruption to existing trade flows , without requiring the UK to remain subject to the EU ’ s current and future regulatory regime .
The UK ’ s negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits from an EU deal with Japan ) will be about opening fresh opportunities for UK exporters , consumers and boosting the competitiveness of the economy over the long-term .
Another important factor is that the EU negotiation is the only one with a firm deadline on 31st December .
The Trump administration is also keen to make progress with the UK this year but the conclusion of the talks may have to wait until after the 2020 elections , since US election season is very nearly upon us , which will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also wait and see how the UK ’ s talks with the EU progress over the next nine months before finalising terms .
Despite these complications , it is essential that the UK pursues a meaningful parallel process for non-EU trade talks .
A successful Brexit requires the UK to diversify and deepen its economic and political relationships with partners outside Europe .
There is surely much to learn from Canada ’ s experience .
Its contemporary foreign and trade policy is shaped by a close relationship with its continental neighbour , offset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markets .
Over the past decade , Canada has renegotiated its deal with the US , concluded the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ( CETA ) and joined the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership ( CPTPP ) .
Notably , the UK starts from a position that is much more globally diversified that Canada ’ s .
In 2019 , Canada exported 75 per cent of its goods to the US , while the UK exports 47 per cent of its goods to the EU .
Importantly , engaging with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sense of how to triangulate the demands of various trade partners and develop a well-rounded strategy .
The scoping exercise for a US deal has already helpfully revealed important reference points that can inform the UK ’ s approach to , and set parameters for , the EU talks .
It is no secret where the flashpoints in the UK-EU talks will be .
Historical fishing rights are part of the current negotiations .
The Northern Ireland Protocol is not .
It has ostensibly been determined within last year ’ s Withdrawal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be decided that it could yet poison this year ’ s trade talks .
However , so-called level playing field provisions regarding competition , state aid , environmental and labour standards are common to all modern trade deals to some degree .
The question is over the scope of these provisions and how they are enforced .
The UK accepts the principle of including level-playing field provisions , which maintain existing standards , in a UK-EU agreement but correctly argues that in previous EU trade deals of similar scope these obligations have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dispute settlement .
Brussels ’ position is that the UK ’ s size and proximity to the EU market requires greater safeguards .
It insists that the UK should continually align with EU law in the field of state aid and that EU standards should provide the “ reference point ” in any dispute over future divergence in the other level-playing field areas .
On the face of it the UK and EU positions are poles apart .
However , the UK ’ s approach to the same issue in the context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compromise .
The US regularly includes dispute resolution provisions for environmental and labour standards in its FTAs and is demanding the same of the UK .
The significant difference is that the US does not seek alignment to its rules , but instead international standards are the reference point .
Disputes are centred on whether either side is seeking to undermine standards as a means of distorting trade between the parties .
The suspicion is that the EU ’ s motives are not merely confined to bilateral trade distortions but curbing the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast to its mandate for the EU , in its US mandate , the UK accepts the need to “ apply appropriate mechanisms for the implementation , monitoring and dispute resolution of environmental and labour provisions ” .
The UK is therefore not opposed to dispute settlement in these areas in principle , given the request is reasonable .
This is a useful message to send to EU negotiators .
The challenges for the UK-US talks will be elsewhere .
The UK insists the NHS is “ not on the table ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the view that the UK and others should pay higher prices for US drugs in the future .
The US believes the NHS ’ s ability to use centralised procurement to negotiate with drug companies to secure price reductions amounts to “ free-riding ” on US innovation .
Of course , it will be up to the UK to decide how to engage with any US requests on drug pricing .
Agriculture and food products are other contentious issues .
However , here too , US demands could be instructive in developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would also be applicable to the likes of Australia and New Zealand .
It is the EU which is the global outlier with its insistence on the “ precautionary principle ” – a practice often used to ban products on the basis of theoretical risk , in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary .
Others will expect , and insist , on a more science-based and transparent UK approach to assessing whether products are safe to import or not .
It is important we debate the issue now before signing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our ability to diversify .
Managing various negotiating tracks at the same time will be a complex task and the UK will need to manage the expectations of partners carefully .
Nevertheless , it is vital that we cut our teeth with others and understand the rules of the game beyond the EU .

Stephen Booth is Head of the Britain in the World Project at Policy Exchange.
It is probably not a coincidence that the Government published its negotiating objectives for a US trade agreement on the same day that David Frost arrived in Brussels to open talks with Michel Barnier on the future UK-EU relationship. The “great multidimensional game of chess”, as the Prime Minister describes it, has begun. Aside from the EU and the US, the UK has indicated it would like to open negotiations with other top priority markets – Japan, Australia and New Zealand – in the coming months. There is utility in demonstrating to the EU that the UK has many irons in the fire.
The talks with the EU are of the greatest immediate economic significance but will be the most politically fraught and could yet break down. It remains our biggest partner and, where possible, the objective is to minimise new barriers and disruption to existing trade flows, without requiring the UK to remain subject to the EU’s current and future regulatory regime. The UK’s negotiations with non-EU targets (the UK currently benefits from an EU deal with Japan) will be about opening fresh opportunities for UK exporters, consumers and boosting the competitiveness of the economy over the long-term.
Another important factor is that the EU negotiation is the only one with a firm deadline on 31st December. The Trump administration is also keen to make progress with the UK this year but the conclusion of the talks may have to wait until after the 2020 elections, since US election season is very nearly upon us, which will likely complicate Congressional approval. Other partners may also wait and see how the UK’s talks with the EU progress over the next nine months before finalising terms.
Despite these complications, it is essential that the UK pursues a meaningful parallel process for non-EU trade talks. A successful Brexit requires the UK to diversify and deepen its economic and political relationships with partners outside Europe.
There is surely much to learn from Canada’s experience. Its contemporary foreign and trade policy is shaped by a close relationship with its continental neighbour, offset by increasing efforts to diversify to new markets. Over the past decade, Canada has renegotiated its deal with the US, concluded the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and joined the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Notably, the UK starts from a position that is much more globally diversified that Canada’s. In 2019, Canada exported 75 per cent of its goods to the US, while the UK exports 47 per cent of its goods to the EU.
Importantly, engaging with others now enables the UK to get a sense of how to triangulate the demands of various trade partners and develop a well-rounded strategy. The scoping exercise for a US deal has already helpfully revealed important reference points that can inform the UK’s approach to, and set parameters for, the EU talks.
It is no secret where the flashpoints in the UK-EU talks will be. Historical fishing rights are part of the current negotiations. The Northern Ireland Protocol is not. It has ostensibly been determined within last year’s Withdrawal Agreement but so much detail is yet to be decided that it could yet poison this year’s trade talks. However, so-called level playing field provisions regarding competition, state aid, environmental and labour standards are common to all modern trade deals to some degree. The question is over the scope of these provisions and how they are enforced.
The UK accepts the principle of including level-playing field provisions, which maintain existing standards, in a UK-EU agreement but correctly argues that in previous EU trade deals of similar scope these obligations have not involved ongoing alignment or been subject to dispute settlement. Brussels’ position is that the UK’s size and proximity to the EU market requires greater safeguards. It insists that the UK should continually align with EU law in the field of state aid and that EU standards should provide the “reference point” in any dispute over future divergence in the other level-playing field areas.
On the face of it the UK and EU positions are poles apart. However, the UK’s approach to the same issue in the context of a US deal illustrates room for compromise. The US regularly includes dispute resolution provisions for environmental and labour standards in its FTAs and is demanding the same of the UK. The significant difference is that the US does not seek alignment to its rules, but instead international standards are the reference point. Disputes are centred on whether either side is seeking to undermine standards as a means of distorting trade between the parties. The suspicion is that the EU’s motives are not merely confined to bilateral trade distortions but curbing the UK’s competitiveness in general.
In contrast to its mandate for the EU, in its US mandate, the UK accepts the need to “apply appropriate mechanisms for the implementation, monitoring and dispute resolution of environmental and labour provisions”. The UK is therefore not opposed to dispute settlement in these areas in principle, given the request is reasonable. This is a useful message to send to EU negotiators.
The challenges for the UK-US talks will be elsewhere. The UK insists the NHS is “not on the table” but we know the US administration is strongly of the view that the UK and others should pay higher prices for US drugs in the future. The US believes the NHS’s ability to use centralised procurement to negotiate with drug companies to secure price reductions amounts to “free-riding” on US innovation. Of course, it will be up to the UK to decide how to engage with any US requests on drug pricing.
Agriculture and food products are other contentious issues. However, here too, US demands could be instructive in developing a new UK approach to regulatory issues that would also be applicable to the likes of Australia and New Zealand. It is the EU which is the global outlier with its insistence on the “precautionary principle” – a practice often used to ban products on the basis of theoretical risk, in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Others will expect, and insist, on a more science-based and transparent UK approach to assessing whether products are safe to import or not. It is important we debate the issue now before signing up to an approach that will hinder our ability to diversify.
Managing various negotiating tracks at the same time will be a complex task and the UK will need to manage the expectations of partners carefully. Nevertheless, it is vital that we cut our teeth with others and understand the rules of the game beyond the EU.


conservativehome--2020-03-05--Jay Singh-Sohal: It’s not just London. Knife crime is a huge problem in the West Midlands

Capt .
Jay Singh-Sohal works in Strategic Communications for M & C Saatchi and serves as a captain in the Army Reserve .
He is the Conservative candidate for West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner .
It is almost six months to the day since I last wrote for Conservative Home , following my selection to be the Conservative candidate for the role of West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner ( PCC ) .
What a time it has been .
I ’ ve been combining preparing for the campaign with new daddy duties .
Learning and shaping my approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s law and order agenda , while re-learning how to deal with late night feeds and nappy changes , et al .
The daily work commute from Royal Sutton Coldfield to London Soho has ceased , and I ’ ve cleared the diary of the extra-curricular charity work I do to fully focus on the election campaign ahead .
As a first-time candidate , it ’ s all very new and exciting but I ’ m taking this campaign very seriously indeed .
The outcome matters hugely for the West Midlands .
Politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seismic since party conference , with a multitude of failed votes on leaving the EU , a General Election before Christmas which saw the West Midlands knock six bricks out of Labour ’ s Red Wall , and the delivery of ( the last time I ’ ll mention the word ) Brexit on the 31st January .
Now , we have a domestic agenda which makes us proud to be called the party of law and order , and a Prime Minister and Home Secretary delivering on this , with policies including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next three years .
Of those , 366 will be coming to the West Midlands in the first year alone .
And our police force has received the highest funding settlement outside of London , and the largest it has ever had ; with nearly two thirds of a billion pounds from central government .
Whilst the Government gets on with the business of delivering , we ’ ve been entertained by the shambolic pantomime that is the West Midlands Labour Party in action .
Finally finding out , after postponement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ridicule , that their candidate to take on our esteemed Mayor Andy Street is none other than …Liam Byrne .
The author of that famous “ I ’ m afraid there is no money ” note written after Labour ’ s 2010 election defeat now wants to run the West Midlands engine .
The Hodge Hill MP has done well to earn his nickname across the region , “ Mr Austerity ” .
Meanwhile , the sitting Labour PCC , former Labour Minister and Plymouth MP , David Jamieson , is heading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him well , it could not come soon enough .
He has done the job for the last six years while Labour has been in charge of our policing since the role was created in 2012 .
Their track record is frankly abysmal .
Closing over half the police stations across the West Midlands Force area while £34 million has been spent on the refurbishment of his office block in the centre of Birmingham is just the tip of the iceberg .
It is hardly surprising that , against that backdrop of retrenchment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces the harsh realities of : • Some of the worst burglary and theft figures in the entire country , with all the resultant misery and expense that it brings , • An explosion in knife crime that this last weekend saw three serious stabbings in three of our boroughs , including the tragic killing of a teenager , and • National notoriety as one of three main County Lines drug dealing centres in the UK .
Beneath that , I am finding , when knocking on doors and speaking to residents across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ wits end over unattended crime incidents , vandalism , yobbish and anti-social behaviour , and car crime .
While serious crime runs rampant , it is these so-called little things that grate the most .
That is Labour ’ s policing legacy for the West Midlands .
David Jamieson has made an art-form out of politicising everything that goes with the role , losing trust and belief in the Commissioner as a force for positive change .
He plays people off against each other , entertains bloated bureaucracy , interferes on issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fails to do what he was elected to do and tackle rising crime .
His replacement , the best Labour could muster to run for PCC and my opponent , is from the far fringes of the hard left .
A Champagne Socialist selected before Jeremy Corbyn realised his true potential as an electoral disaster .
Heralded as the Momentum-sponsored candidate across social media , Simon Foster ’ s hobbies include redistributing wealth and hanging out with Coventry MP Zarah Sultana .
Jamieson , Foster , and the West Midlands Labour cabal blame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the “ golden days ” of 2010 when they were in power and before tough choices had to be made to balance the books that they ran red .
Their argument is not getting far with voters – how can it when their own Mayoral candidate is the very man who gave us the need to make tough spending decisions in the first place .
In May , Mr Austerity will take on Mr Investment in Andy Street .
What a contrast .
A failed politician against the man who led John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the rejuvenation of the West Midlands economy .
The West Midlands has moved past failure , way past austerity , and has rejected the politics of blame and shirking responsibility which Labour continue to cling on to for identity .
Now the thriving region demands action .
I get this totally .
As a resident and lifelong Brummie , I care passionately about the region where I was born and brought up ; where I live today and choose to raise and school my children .
That ’ s why my mantra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
That ’ s why , if I ’ m elected on May 7th , my job as PCC won ’ t be to play politics or score points .
It won ’ t be to argue about budgets nor to oil up to the bureaucracy .
I won ’ t play with trains nor pursue photo opportunities .
No , the people of the West Midlands want one thing above all else from their Police and Crime Commissioner .
What they want forms my very simple mantra .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When I ’ m elected , that is what I will do .

Capt. Jay Singh-Sohal works in Strategic Communications for M&C Saatchi and serves as a captain in the Army Reserve. He is the Conservative candidate for West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner.
It is almost six months to the day since I last wrote for Conservative Home, following my selection to be the Conservative candidate for the role of West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). What a time it has been.
I’ve been combining preparing for the campaign with new daddy duties. Learning and shaping my approach to delivering locally on our party’s law and order agenda, while re-learning how to deal with late night feeds and nappy changes, et al.
The daily work commute from Royal Sutton Coldfield to London Soho has ceased, and I’ve cleared the diary of the extra-curricular charity work I do to fully focus on the election campaign ahead. As a first-time candidate, it’s all very new and exciting but I’m taking this campaign very seriously indeed. The outcome matters hugely for the West Midlands.
Politically, of course, it has been seismic since party conference, with a multitude of failed votes on leaving the EU, a General Election before Christmas which saw the West Midlands knock six bricks out of Labour’s Red Wall, and the delivery of (the last time I’ll mention the word) Brexit on the 31st January.
Now, we have a domestic agenda which makes us proud to be called the party of law and order, and a Prime Minister and Home Secretary delivering on this, with policies including hiring 20,000 new police officers nationally over the next three years.
Of those, 366 will be coming to the West Midlands in the first year alone. And our police force has received the highest funding settlement outside of London, and the largest it has ever had; with nearly two thirds of a billion pounds from central government.
Whilst the Government gets on with the business of delivering, we’ve been entertained by the shambolic pantomime that is the West Midlands Labour Party in action. Finally finding out, after postponement, delay, confusion, and (ultimately) ridicule, that their candidate to take on our esteemed Mayor Andy Street is none other than …Liam Byrne. The author of that famous “I’m afraid there is no money” note written after Labour’s 2010 election defeat now wants to run the West Midlands engine. The Hodge Hill MP has done well to earn his nickname across the region, “Mr Austerity”.
Meanwhile, the sitting Labour PCC, former Labour Minister and Plymouth MP, David Jamieson, is heading for another retirement. While I wish him well, it could not come soon enough. He has done the job for the last six years while Labour has been in charge of our policing since the role was created in 2012. Their track record is frankly abysmal. Closing over half the police stations across the West Midlands Force area while £34 million has been spent on the refurbishment of his office block in the centre of Birmingham is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is hardly surprising that, against that backdrop of retrenchment from community-based policing, the region now faces the harsh realities of:
Some of the worst burglary and theft figures in the entire country, with all the resultant misery and expense that it brings,
An explosion in knife crime that this last weekend saw three serious stabbings in three of our boroughs, including the tragic killing of a teenager, and
National notoriety as one of three main County Lines drug dealing centres in the UK.
Beneath that, I am finding, when knocking on doors and speaking to residents across the region, a community at its’ wits end over unattended crime incidents, vandalism, yobbish and anti-social behaviour, and car crime. While serious crime runs rampant, it is these so-called little things that grate the most. That is Labour’s policing legacy for the West Midlands.
David Jamieson has made an art-form out of politicising everything that goes with the role, losing trust and belief in the Commissioner as a force for positive change. He plays people off against each other, entertains bloated bureaucracy, interferes on issues outside his remit, and above all fails to do what he was elected to do and tackle rising crime.
His replacement, the best Labour could muster to run for PCC and my opponent, is from the far fringes of the hard left. A Champagne Socialist selected before Jeremy Corbyn realised his true potential as an electoral disaster. Heralded as the Momentum-sponsored candidate across social media, Simon Foster’s hobbies include redistributing wealth and hanging out with Coventry MP Zarah Sultana.
Jamieson, Foster, and the West Midlands Labour cabal blame “austerity” for everything, yearning for the “golden days” of 2010 when they were in power and before tough choices had to be made to balance the books that they ran red. Their argument is not getting far with voters – how can it when their own Mayoral candidate is the very man who gave us the need to make tough spending decisions in the first place.
In May, Mr Austerity will take on Mr Investment in Andy Street. What a contrast. A failed politician against the man who led John Lewis at its zenith and is applauded for the rejuvenation of the West Midlands economy.
The West Midlands has moved past failure, way past austerity, and has rejected the politics of blame and shirking responsibility which Labour continue to cling on to for identity. Now the thriving region demands action. I get this totally. As a resident and lifelong Brummie, I care passionately about the region where I was born and brought up; where I live today and choose to raise and school my children.
That’s why my mantra for this campaign is a very simple one.
That’s why, if I’m elected on May 7th, my job as PCC won’t be to play politics or score points. It won’t be to argue about budgets nor to oil up to the bureaucracy. I won’t play with trains nor pursue photo opportunities. No, the people of the West Midlands want one thing above all else from their Police and Crime Commissioner. What they want forms my very simple mantra. It’s to “Get Crime Down”. When I’m elected, that is what I will do.


conservativehome--2020-03-05--Full membership list of select committees

The chairmen of the Select Committees for this Parliament were announced over a month ago .
They include a number of formidable figures – notably Jeremy Hunt chairing the Health and Social Care Select Committtee .
Also Greg Clark , a former Business Secretary and before that Science Minister , becoming Chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee .
The chairmanships for select committee were chosen via an electoral system designed to prevent them from being partisan contests .
Some chairmanships were allocated to Labour .
So only Labour MPs could stand .
For others , only Conservative MPs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also allocated a couple .
But all MPs could vote , by secret ballot .
But when it came to the other members of the committees , the elections were internal .
Each Party had a quota of places to fill .
So , for example , there would be five spaces for Conservative MPs on the Digital , Culture , Media and Sport Committee , in addition to the Chairman .
The Conservative MPs would vote , by secret ballot , to choose them .
For some committees , I understand the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Exiting the European Union Committee ” has now changed its name to the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union and “ the Committee ’ s remit has also been updated to reflect the closure of the Department for Exiting the European Union and now covers matters relating to the negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and EU.
” It has a larger membership than the others and we can see that Conservative MPs elected staunch Brexiteers as their representatives .
The Chair and Members of the Committee are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee have yet to be announced .
But the other committee memberships are listed below : There are various other committees that cover procedural matters – Backbench Business , Standing Orders , Statutory Instruments and so on – which are listed here .

The chairmen of the Select Committees for this Parliament were announced over a month ago. They include a number of formidable figures – notably Jeremy Hunt chairing the Health and Social Care Select Committtee. Also Greg Clark, a former Business Secretary and before that Science Minister, becoming Chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee. The chairmanships for select committee were chosen via an electoral system designed to prevent them from being partisan contests. Some chairmanships were allocated to Labour. So only Labour MPs could stand. For others, only Conservative MPs can stand. The Scottish Nationalists were also allocated a couple. But all MPs could vote, by secret ballot.
But when it came to the other members of the committees, the elections were internal. Each Party had a quota of places to fill. So, for example, there would be five spaces for Conservative MPs on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in addition to the Chairman. The Conservative MPs would vote, by secret ballot, to choose them. For some committees, I understand the MPs were elected unopposed.
The “Exiting the European Union Committee” has now changed its name to the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union and “the Committee’s remit has also been updated to reflect the closure of the Department for Exiting the European Union and now covers matters relating to the negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and EU.” It has a larger membership than the others and we can see that Conservative MPs elected staunch Brexiteers as their representatives.
The Chair and Members of the Committee are:
Hilary Benn MP (Chairman) (Labour)
Peter Bone MP (Conservative) [Pictured]
Joanna Cherry MP (Scottish National)
Sir Christopher Chope MP (Conservative)
Mark Eastwood MP (Conservative)
Florence Eshalomi MP (Labour (Co-op))
Mark Fletcher MP (Conservative)
Sally-Ann Hart MP (Conservative)
Antony Higginbotham MP (Conservative)
Stephen Kinnock MP (Labour)
Dr Rupa Huq MP (Labour)
Seema Malhotra MP (Labour (Co-op)
Nigel Mills MP (Conservative)
Matthew Pennycook MP (Labour)
Nicola Richards MP (Conservative)
Gary Sambrook MP (Conservative)
Wes Streeting MP (Labour)
Jane Stevenson MP (Conservative)
Matt Vickers MP (Conservative)
Dr Jamie Wallis MP (Conservative)
Dr Philippa Whitford MP (Scottish National)


conservativehome--2020-03-06--Why the Government really tripped up over Heathrow

“ The recent ruling of the Court of Appeal that the Airports NPS [ National Planning Statement ] was unlawful for failing to take account of the Paris Agreement exposes the cracks in the government ’ s approach to strategic decision-making… ” So reads the crowd-funding page for the Good Law Project ’ s latest venture , which aims , in their own words , to “ force ” the Government to “ reverse the structural bias in the planning system in favour of fossil fuels and against renewables ” .
This sort of thing won ’ t do anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling represents another example of the judiciary overreaching themselves and getting involved in politics – which in turn makes it more important to understand what happened in that judgment .
Picking through rulings like this is a challenge for non-lawyers ( one reason the judicialisation of politics , when it does occur , is so democratically problematic ) , and planning law can be fiendishly complex .
But this post , by David Hart QC on the ‘ UK Human Rights Blog ’ , is an excellent introduction to what happened in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paris Agreement has led some to believe that the ruling represents an attempt to give effect to a treaty without it being directly implemented in domestic law via statute .
This impression is likely bolstered by reading the original High Court judgment , which noted ( para 606 ) that : “ It is well-established that English law is a dualist legal system under which international law or an international treaty has legal force at the domestic level only after it has been implemented by a national statute … Therefore , none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed on the UK Government by the Paris Agreement has no effect in domestic law.
” The above is true , and directly imposing obligations on the Government from the Paris Agreement would be a severe breach of the proper role of the courts .
But that ’ s not what happened .
The real culprit , as far as a humble non-lawyer such as me can tell , is an entirely domestic bit of legislation : the Planning Act 2008 .
In its ruling , the Court of Appeal found the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of that Act , s.5 ( 8 ) and s.10 ( 3 ) , which can be found here and here .
Section 5 ( 8 ) reads : “ The reasons must ( in particular ) include an explanation of how the policy set out in the statement takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of , and adaptation to , climate change.
” “ For the purposes of subsection ( 2 ) the Secretary of State must ( in particular ) have regard to the desirability of— Basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Planning Act , to explain how it is accounting for its own climate change policy .
The difference between the two rulings arises over whether or not the Paris Agreement is government policy .
The High Court decided it was not , presumably due to it not being put on a specific statutory footing ( which would unquestionably bring it within the legal nexus that frames government policy ) , whilst the Court of Appeal decided it met the threshold , having been ratified as well as being endorsed in the Commons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an existing statute , the Planning Act .
Of course , it might suit the Prime Minister to allow a judicial bogeyman to cover a very handy excuse to abandon a Heathrow scheme to which he was personally opposed .
But even without misrepresenting it , this case illustrates that there is more than one way for high-minded politicians in previous parliaments to set snares for their successors .
What tripped the Government today was not the imposition of abstract yet legally-binding end goals ( although that may come ) , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s easy for legislators to insist that the drafters of future legislation “ must have regard for the desirability of ” this or that , but much harder to predict how judges or indeed government lawyers will interpret those sentences .
Nor , even more importantly , can those same politicians gauge the extent to which the gradual accretion of such requirements will bog down decision-making over the long term.. As I have argued elsewhere , if the Government truly wants to avoid things like this it will need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal obligations currently laid upon it by preceding parliaments and make a deliberate push for a shift away from this style.
” But are politicians really ready to clear-cut such a useful thicket of political cover ?

“The recent ruling of the Court of Appeal that the Airports NPS [National Planning Statement] was unlawful for failing to take account of the Paris Agreement exposes the cracks in the government’s approach to strategic decision-making…”
So reads the crowd-funding page for the Good Law Project’s latest venture, which aims, in their own words, to “force” the Government to “reverse the structural bias in the planning system in favour of fossil fuels and against renewables”.
This sort of thing won’t do anything to dissuade those who think the Heathrow ruling represents another example of the judiciary overreaching themselves and getting involved in politics – which in turn makes it more important to understand what happened in that judgment.
Picking through rulings like this is a challenge for non-lawyers (one reason the judicialisation of politics, when it does occur, is so democratically problematic), and planning law can be fiendishly complex. But this post, by David Hart QC on the ‘UK Human Rights Blog’, is an excellent introduction to what happened in this case.
The prominent role of the Paris Agreement has led some to believe that the ruling represents an attempt to give effect to a treaty without it being directly implemented in domestic law via statute. This impression is likely bolstered by reading the original High Court judgment, which noted (para 606) that:
“It is well-established that English law is a dualist legal system under which international law or an international treaty has legal force at the domestic level only after it has been implemented by a national statute … Therefore, none of them having been incorporated, any obligation imposed on the UK Government by the Paris Agreement has no effect in domestic law.”
The above is true, and directly imposing obligations on the Government from the Paris Agreement would be a severe breach of the proper role of the courts. But that’s not what happened. The real culprit, as far as a humble non-lawyer such as me can tell, is an entirely domestic bit of legislation: the Planning Act 2008.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal found the Government in breach of its obligations under two parts of that Act, s.5(8) and s.10(3), which can be found here and here. Section 5(8) reads:
“The reasons must (in particular) include an explanation of how the policy set out in the statement takes account of Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”
And Section 10(3) reads:
“For the purposes of subsection (2) the Secretary of State must (in particular) have regard to the desirability of—
(a) mitigating, and adapting to, climate change;
(b) achieving good design.”
Basically the Government has a duty, under the Planning Act, to explain how it is accounting for its own climate change policy.
The difference between the two rulings arises over whether or not the Paris Agreement is government policy. The High Court decided it was not, presumably due to it not being put on a specific statutory footing (which would unquestionably bring it within the legal nexus that frames government policy), whilst the Court of Appeal decided it met the threshold, having been ratified as well as being endorsed in the Commons, to qualify under the terms of an existing statute, the Planning Act.
(It’s important to note that it does not appear that even the Court of Appeal’s interpretation would actually oblige the Government to adopt or eschew any given policy when it comes to Heathrow, merely to ensure that they had dotted every i and crossed every t whilst reaching the decision.)
Of course, it might suit the Prime Minister to allow a judicial bogeyman to cover a very handy excuse to abandon a Heathrow scheme to which he was personally opposed. But even without misrepresenting it, this case illustrates that there is more than one way for high-minded politicians in previous parliaments to set snares for their successors.
What tripped the Government today was not the imposition of abstract yet legally-binding end goals (although that may come), but the enforcement of vague but legally-binding procedural rules. It’s easy for legislators to insist that the drafters of future legislation “must have regard for the desirability of” this or that, but much harder to predict how judges or indeed government lawyers will interpret those sentences.
Nor, even more importantly, can those same politicians gauge the extent to which the gradual accretion of such requirements will bog down decision-making over the long term..
As I have argued elsewhere, if the Government truly wants to avoid things like this it will need to “conduct a review into all the legal obligations currently laid upon it by preceding parliaments and make a deliberate push for a shift away from this style.” But are politicians really ready to clear-cut such a useful thicket of political cover?


conservativehome--2020-03-06--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct A


conservativehome--2020-03-06--Our survey. Over half of Party members give a thumbs-up to fracking – so dissenting from Johnson’s m

Our survey. Over half of Party members give a thumbs-up to fracking – so dissenting from Johnson’s manifesto.

It can ’ t be claimed that we ’ ve barred the Conservative Manifesto from speaking for itself , so @ @ @ @ @ its entire section on fracking and below it is the Survey Panel ’ s response @ @ @ @ @ believe that the moratorium on it is justified by the evidence .
We didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ – but then again the manifesto didn ’ t propose a bar on them in @ @ @ @ @ would presumably say that if Britain is to reduce its carbon emissions further , then @ @ @ @ @ the means at its disposal .
The manifesto ’ s form of words allows a @ @ @ @ @ presssure from backbench Tory MPs killed fracking during the last Parliament .
And nothing much @ @ @ @ @ this one .

It can’t be claimed that we’ve barred the Conservative Manifesto from speaking for itself, so to speak.
Above is its entire section on fracking and below it is the Survey Panel’s response. They don’t believe that the moratorium on it is justified by the evidence.
We didn’t ask about other technologies – but then again the manifesto didn’t propose a bar on them in this way. Some respondents would presumably say that if Britain is to reduce its carbon emissions further, then fracking should be one of the means at its disposal.
The manifesto’s form of words allows a potential get-out, but constituency presssure from backbench Tory MPs killed fracking during the last Parliament.
And nothing much looks set to change during this one.