conservativehome--2020-01-07--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the VisitEngland advisory board –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the VisitEngland advisory board – and more

Seven years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
Since then , the figures have varied , and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts .
Nonetheless , it remains the case that , since it took office in 2010 , our Party has punched beneath its 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Groceries Code Adjudicator ( GCA ) is a corporation sole which is operationally independent of Government .
The Secretary of State for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) is responsible for appointing the GCA .
The GCA will carry out the following functions : advise large retailers and suppliers on the Groceries Code ; publish guidance on when and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be used and the criteria it intends to adopt in deciding the amount of any financial penalty ; investigate possible breaches of the Groceries Code by large retailers ; where an investigation finds that a large retailer has breached the Groceries Code , decide whether to make recommendation to the retailer , require it to publish information about the investigation or impose a financial penalty on the retailer… ” “ David Jamieson , elected Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands is seeking to appoint Independent Panel Members to join the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Panel for police misconduct hearings .
These hearings preside over serious misconduct cases in what is an important aspect of the disciplinary rules that govern the police in England and Wales.Successful candidates will also join the list of people for Panels in West Mercia , Staffordshire and Warwickshire , and the work will therefore be varied across the entire region .
Police and Crime Commissioners have the challenging role of ensuring that the people of the West Midlands are served by an efficient and effective police force .
Transparent , fair and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an important way of inspiring public confidence in the high professional standards and ethical values of our police.
” “ The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board .
They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident , clear and consistent leadership .
They will also lead the Agency ’ s relationship with the Secretary of State for Housing , Communities and Local Government , who they will meet on a regular basis .
The Chair will act as an ambassador for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England ’ s core mission .
The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming… ” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ Our national tourist board , the British Tourist Authority ( BTA ) , plays an important role in delivering the Government ’ s tourism agenda , including the Sector Deal .
The BTA Board is advised on English tourism by the VisitEngland Advisory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VEAB Chair also sitting on the BTA Board .
The Chair of the VEAB ’ s term ends in March 2020 and the Secretary of State for Digital , Culture , Media and Sport wishes to appoint a new Chair .
The BTA Board Chair public appointment process is being run in parallel with this position .
The Chair will be supported by a non-executive Board in providing expert advice to the Chair and Board of the BTA , and in representing English tourism to the tourism sector and public.
” Time : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average .
Remuneration : £340 per day .
Up to £16,320 per annum plus reasonable expenses .
“ The chief responsibilities of the new BTA Chair will be to : ensure that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with , that all expenditure is in accordance with Treasury rules for the management of public money and that the BTA maintains high standards of corporate governance at all times .
The BTA Chair has an important role to play in supporting the organisation ’ s Accounting Officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probity ; provide effective leadership of the Board and support to the Chief Executive to deliver on the aims and objectives agreed with DCMS ; Act as an ambassador for British tourism , working across Government to further the promotion of Britain as part of the GREAT campaign and through commercial partnerships… ” “ The Greater Lincolnshire LEP works with the public , private and voluntary sectors to drive sustainable economic growth .
We help our businesses increase productivity and innovation , create new employment opportunities , and develop infrastructure solutions that support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the local business community , ensuring that the economic interests of the area are properly represented .
We believe that Greater Lincolnshire is alive with opportunities and a truly great place to live , work and do business and is emerging as the intelligent choice for investors.
” Time : Around four days per month .
“ CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry .
CITB raises around £200m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met .
CITB seeks to create the culture and conditions that will deliver new ways of working , embracing new technologies , creating a demand in construction for more skills , new skills and higher level skills .
CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this .
”

Seven years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
Since then, the figures have varied, and some Conservative members or supporters have been selected to fill important posts.
Nonetheless, it remains the case that, since it took office in 2010, our Party has punched beneath its 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, every week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives might be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Groceries Code Adjudicator
“The Groceries Code Adjudicator (GCA) is a corporation sole which is operationally independent of Government. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is responsible for appointing the GCA. The GCA will carry out the following functions: advise large retailers and suppliers on the Groceries Code; publish guidance on when and how investigations will proceed, how enforcement powers will be used and the criteria it intends to adopt in deciding the amount of any financial penalty; investigate possible breaches of the Groceries Code by large retailers; where an investigation finds that a large retailer has breached the Groceries Code, decide whether to make recommendation to the retailer, require it to publish information about the investigation or impose a financial penalty on the retailer…”
Time: 2-3 days per week.
Remuneration: £125,000 to £135,000, pro rata.
Closes: 05 January
– – – – – – – – – –
West Midlands Police & Crime Commissioner – Independent Panel Members
“David Jamieson, elected Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands is seeking to appoint Independent Panel Members to join the list of people able to sit on the Panel for police misconduct hearings. These hearings preside over serious misconduct cases in what is an important aspect of the disciplinary rules that govern the police in England and Wales.Successful candidates will also join the list of people for Panels in West Mercia, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, and the work will therefore be varied across the entire region. Police and Crime Commissioners have the challenging role of ensuring that the people of the West Midlands are served by an efficient and effective police force. Transparent, fair and robust arrangements for police officer discipline are an important way of inspiring public confidence in the high professional standards and ethical values of our police.”
Time: Contract will run until 2021.
Remuneration: £215 per diem, plus expenses.
Closes: 06 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Homes England – Chair
“The Chair will be responsible for the proper running of the Homes England Board. They will guide and influence the Agency at a strategic level providing confident, clear and consistent leadership. They will also lead the Agency’s relationship with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who they will meet on a regular basis. The Chair will act as an ambassador for the Board and for Homes England, helping to build and develop collaborative strategic partnerships that support and promote Homes England’s core mission. The successful candidate will influence and network with key decision makers and stakeholders and explain how the organisation is transforming…”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £95,000 per annum.
Closes: 08 January
– – – – – – – – – –
VisitEngland Advisory Board – Chair
“Our national tourist board, the British Tourist Authority (BTA), plays an important role in delivering the Government’s tourism agenda, including the Sector Deal. The BTA Board is advised on English tourism by the VisitEngland Advisory Board (VEAB), with the VEAB Chair also sitting on the BTA Board. The Chair of the VEAB’s term ends in March 2020 and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport wishes to appoint a new Chair. The BTA Board Chair public appointment process is being run in parallel with this position. The Chair will be supported by a non-executive Board in providing expert advice to the Chair and Board of the BTA, and in representing English tourism to the tourism sector and public.”
Time: Maximum of 4 days per month on average.
Remuneration: £340 per day. Up to £16,320 per annum plus reasonable expenses.
Closes: 08 January
– – – – – – – – – –
British Tourist Authority – Chair
“The chief responsibilities of the new BTA Chair will be to: ensure that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with, that all expenditure is in accordance with Treasury rules for the management of public money and that the BTA maintains high standards of corporate governance at all times. The BTA Chair has an important role to play in supporting the organisation’s Accounting Officer in delivering high standards of regularity and probity; provide effective leadership of the Board and support to the Chief Executive to deliver on the aims and objectives agreed with DCMS; Act as an ambassador for British tourism, working across Government to further the promotion of Britain as part of the GREAT campaign and through commercial partnerships…”
Time: Average of two days a week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum plus reasonable expenses.
Closes: 08 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership – Chair
“The Greater Lincolnshire LEP works with the public, private and voluntary sectors to drive sustainable economic growth. We help our businesses increase productivity and innovation, create new employment opportunities, and develop infrastructure solutions that support this. We are the voice of the local business community, ensuring that the economic interests of the area are properly represented. We believe that Greater Lincolnshire is alive with opportunities and a truly great place to live, work and do business and is emerging as the intelligent choice for investors.”
Time: Around four days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 20 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Construction Industry Training Board – Board Trustee
“CITB is the statutory skills body for the construction industry in Great Britain and its purpose is to make better provision for the training and maintenance of skills in the industry. CITB raises around £200m annually via a training levy, and works closely with employers and the Government to ensure national construction skills needs are met. CITB seeks to create the culture and conditions that will deliver new ways of working, embracing new technologies, creating a demand in construction for more skills, new skills and higher level skills. CITB aspires to be at the forefront of effective commissioning and grant practice and is undertaking a high-profile transformational reform programme in order to achieve this.”
Time: Around 16 hours per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 28 January


conservativehome--2020-01-07--Johnson aligns himself in the Soleimani crisis with those who deprecate barbarism

Boris Johnson faces , in the stand-off between Washington and Tehran , an early test of his ability to handle the often exceedingly difficult situations in foreign affairs which confront a British Prime Minister .
His critics expect him to fail this test .
They took a dismissive view of his performance as Foreign Secretary , and were unwilling to see that any holder of that post who is not invited to work in harness with the Prime Minister is doomed to irrelevance .
These adversaries enjoy ransacking Johnson ’ s back catalogue in order to discover evidence of past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfit for high office .
They delight in highlighting any expressions which burst the bounds of what can be said in polite society .
Such opponents do Johnson a favour .
For by promoting the idea that he is a crass and tasteless fool , they set low expectations which he exceeded in the Brexit negotiations , and in the general election , and which he has so far exceeded in the present crisis .
He has the further advantage of having spent two years as Foreign Secretary : not long enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they repay a lifetime ’ s study , but better than arriving in Number Ten with no previous experience of foreign policy as conducted by the government machine .
He adds to this several decades of work as a correspondent and commentator who , while not a member of the official machine , was a close and astute observer of it .
Johnson understands that on the great questions of the day , it is essential to remain willing , when circumstances change , to change one ’ s view .
If one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concentrating on his many moments of political incorrectness , one finds evidence of this realism .
When asked at the end of 2006 to explain why he had “ recanted ” his support for the Iraq War of 2003 , Johnson replied : In December 2006 , he put a question to the then Foreign Secretary , Margaret Beckett : Beckett was unable to offer a single concrete example of British advice being acted upon in Washington .
Nor in all likelihood could Johnson or Dominic Raab do so now .
The Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which could be construed as an attack on Donald Trump , with whom he hopes in the near future to conclude a free-trade deal .
But he has taken the opportunity to show a degree of solidarity with Britain ’ s European allies , issuing a statement on Sunday night with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron in which the three of them spoke of “ an urgent need for de-escalation ” .
And yesterday he spoke to Abdul Mehdi , the Prime Minister of Iraq .
According to Downing Street , Johnson “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Iraq ’ s stability and sovereignty and emphasised the importance of the continued fight against the shared threat from Daesh.
” For a supporter of Brexit to defend Iraq ’ s sovereignty is entirely natural .
The Prime Minister ’ s spokesman added that “ there are international conventions in place which prevent the destruction of cultural heritage ” – a point which President Trump , with his threat to attack Iranian cultural sites , appeared to have overlooked .
Johnson has aligned himself , in the early stages of this crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to see Daesh ’ s defeat confirmed .
This moderation will surprise his critics , but should not surprise any fair-minded person who has studied his record .

Boris Johnson faces, in the stand-off between Washington and Tehran, an early test of his ability to handle the often exceedingly difficult situations in foreign affairs which confront a British Prime Minister.
His critics expect him to fail this test. They took a dismissive view of his performance as Foreign Secretary, and were unwilling to see that any holder of that post who is not invited to work in harness with the Prime Minister is doomed to irrelevance.
These adversaries enjoy ransacking Johnson’s back catalogue in order to discover evidence of past opinions which in their view render him unfit for high office.
They delight in highlighting any expressions which burst the bounds of what can be said in polite society.
Such opponents do Johnson a favour. For by promoting the idea that he is a crass and tasteless fool, they set low expectations which he exceeded in the Brexit negotiations, and in the general election, and which he has so far exceeded in the present crisis.
He has the further advantage of having spent two years as Foreign Secretary: not long enough to acquire a mastery of problems so intricate they repay a lifetime’s study, but better than arriving in Number Ten with no previous experience of foreign policy as conducted by the government machine.
He adds to this several decades of work as a correspondent and commentator who, while not a member of the official machine, was a close and astute observer of it.
Johnson understands that on the great questions of the day, it is essential to remain willing, when circumstances change, to change one’s view.
If one looks through his back catalogue without simply concentrating on his many moments of political incorrectness, one finds evidence of this realism. When asked at the end of 2006 to explain why he had “recanted” his support for the Iraq War of 2003, Johnson replied:
“It is the sheer number of casualties, the chaos, that persuades me that we did the wrong thing. I voted for this bloody disaster not because I believed Blair, but because I thought it would be a good thing to get rid of Saddam. And it was a good thing. It is just that the price has been way too high.”
In December 2006, he put a question to the then Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett:
“What can the Foreign Secretary say to disprove the withering verdict of the US State Department official, Kendall Myers, that Washington has systematically ignored British advice over Iraq? Can she give a single concrete example of any piece of advice given by her or the Prime Minister that was accepted by Washington and without which the catastrophe in Iraq would have been even worse?”
Beckett was unable to offer a single concrete example of British advice being acted upon in Washington. Nor in all likelihood could Johnson or Dominic Raab do so now.
The Prime Minister will not wish to say anything which could be construed as an attack on Donald Trump, with whom he hopes in the near future to conclude a free-trade deal.
But he has taken the opportunity to show a degree of solidarity with Britain’s European allies, issuing a statement on Sunday night with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron in which the three of them spoke of “an urgent need for de-escalation”.
And yesterday he spoke to Abdul Mehdi, the Prime Minister of Iraq. According to Downing Street, Johnson “underlined the UK’s unwavering commitment to Iraq’s stability and sovereignty and emphasised the importance of the continued fight against the shared threat from Daesh.”
For a supporter of Brexit to defend Iraq’s sovereignty is entirely natural. The Prime Minister’s spokesman added that “there are international conventions in place which prevent the destruction of cultural heritage” – a point which President Trump, with his threat to attack Iranian cultural sites, appeared to have overlooked.
Johnson has aligned himself, in the early stages of this crisis, with those who deprecate barbarism and want to see Daesh’s defeat confirmed. This moderation will surprise his critics, but should not surprise any fair-minded person who has studied his record.


conservativehome--2020-01-07--Stephen Booth: Today, the clock starts ticking down to the next big Brexit deadline

The Prime Minister returns from his festive break faced with a lively start to 2020 .
Today , his government will start the process of steering the EU Withdrawal Agreement through parliament .
A comfortable majority means this will be largely a formality ahead of the UK ’ s departure at the end of January .
On Wednesday , Downing Street will host Ursula von der Leyen , the new European Commission President , for her first official visit to the UK , and Michel Barnier , who will continue his role as the EU ’ s chief Brexit negotiator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for both sides to put down markers for the formal negotiations on the future UK-EU relationship that will only begin formally once the transition period commences in February .
There are unlikely to be any major surprises at this stage .
The Political Declaration establishes a series of nominal deadlines , which are likely to see the substantive talks concertinaed towards the second half of 2020 .
As with the Article 50 negotiations , we can expect the first few weeks and months to be dominated by haggling over the process and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staked out and briefed against .
The UK has already ruled out extending the transition beyond the end of the year .
However , the EU might well wait until after the formal deadline to ask for such an extension passes on 1st July before it seriously engages with the 31st December 2020 deadline for trade talks .
Indeed , Phil Hogan , the EU Trade Commissioner , speculated just last week that Johnson might drop his pledge .
Meanwhile , in parallel to the trade negotiation , there is the matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 2020 ) , and the EU is committed to taking unilateral decisions to determine UK equivalence arrangements for financial services ( end of June 2020 ) and data ( end of December 2020 ) .
It may ultimately suit both sides for all these issues to be bundled up together at the end of the year .
Reaching a deal in 11 months will be challenging , but not impossible .
The tight timescale will narrow the options for both sides , and is likely to point towards a looser economic relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ratify and implement a deal , there may well be options available to the UK and EU to smooth over any potential cliff edges .
We know that the UK is likely to seek Canada-style zero-tariff access along with zero-quota trade in goods and , in return , the EU is likely to demand the UK signs up to “ level playing field ” obligations to ensure fair competition on issues such as environmental and social standards and state aid .
Technical negotiations over the rules of origin framework will be important in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can actually take advantage of tariff-free trade , and the exact details of level playing field commitments will matter for the UK ’ s ability to diverge from EU rules in future .
The extent to which UK exporters are able to align unilaterally with EU regulation as against being bound to do so by treaty is also likely to be a source of contention .
EU demands for access to UK fishing waters , a key priority for some member states , will be controversial .
Finally , there will need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implementation of the agreement .
Together , these six issues – market access , rules of origin , level playing field , regulatory alignment , fishing , and governance – are likely to form the building blocks of a UK-EU deal .
Implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol will be another important issue to address over the next 12 months .
However , other issues such as services could be subject to very limited provisions at this stage or be left for future negotiations .
Of course , one of the reasons for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is keen to talk about things other than Brexit , such as investment in public services and the regions , reforming the machinery of government , and implementing a new immigration regime .
Events in Iran have also seen to that .
The backdrop of a potentially major international crisis with Iran reminds us that , whether we like it or not , some of the choices we make about our relationships following Brexit , particularly with the major players such as the EU and/or the US , are likely to be as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about trade .
At the weekend , the Sunday Times reported on differences of opinion within Cabinet about whether the government should open trade negotiations with the US in parallel with the EU talks , in order to increase leverage with Brussels .
It is certainly important that the UK considers its trade interests in the round before finalising terms with the EU and there is good reason to think that the UK can make significant progress on trade deals with economies such as Australia and New Zealand in the coming year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to strike a delicate transatlantic balance and , given the current circumstances , any strategy that either the US or the EU perceived as being played against one another would be very high risk indeed .
The Franco-German approach to Iran has long been at odds with that of the Trump administration and , rightly or wrongly , many in the EU regard the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal as its first major foreign policy achievement .
The UK has consistently spoken up in favour of the Iran deal despite the US ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK this week joined France and Germany in a statement calling for a de-escalation of tensions in the region .
Transatlantic divergence is not only limited to foreign policy .
US tariffs to be levied in retaliation against France ’ s digital services tax on the likes of Google and Amazon threaten to spill-over into a low-level trade war .
Equally , there is a strong logic that suggests closer relations with the US should play a role in the UK ’ s economic rebalancing away from the EU .
This will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain will need to tread very carefully .

Stephen Booth is Acting Director of Open Europe.
The Prime Minister returns from his festive break faced with a lively start to 2020. Today, his government will start the process of steering the EU Withdrawal Agreement through parliament. A comfortable majority means this will be largely a formality ahead of the UK’s departure at the end of January.
On Wednesday, Downing Street will host Ursula von der Leyen, the new European Commission President, for her first official visit to the UK, and Michel Barnier, who will continue his role as the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator. This will be an important opportunity for both sides to put down markers for the formal negotiations on the future UK-EU relationship that will only begin formally once the transition period commences in February.
There are unlikely to be any major surprises at this stage. The Political Declaration establishes a series of nominal deadlines, which are likely to see the substantive talks concertinaed towards the second half of 2020. As with the Article 50 negotiations, we can expect the first few weeks and months to be dominated by haggling over the process and for the parties’ initial positions to be staked out and briefed against.
The UK has already ruled out extending the transition beyond the end of the year. However, the EU might well wait until after the formal deadline to ask for such an extension passes on 1st July before it seriously engages with the 31st December 2020 deadline for trade talks. Indeed, Phil Hogan, the EU Trade Commissioner, speculated just last week that Johnson might drop his pledge.
Meanwhile, in parallel to the trade negotiation, there is the matter of bilaterally agreeing fishing rights (by 1st July 2020), and the EU is committed to taking unilateral decisions to determine UK equivalence arrangements for financial services (end of June 2020) and data (end of December 2020). It may ultimately suit both sides for all these issues to be bundled up together at the end of the year.
Reaching a deal in 11 months will be challenging, but not impossible. The tight timescale will narrow the options for both sides, and is likely to point towards a looser economic relationship. If more time is required to ratify and implement a deal, there may well be options available to the UK and EU to smooth over any potential cliff edges.
We know that the UK is likely to seek Canada-style zero-tariff access along with zero-quota trade in goods and, in return, the EU is likely to demand the UK signs up to “level playing field” obligations to ensure fair competition on issues such as environmental and social standards and state aid.
Technical negotiations over the rules of origin framework will be important in determining how effectively UK and EU businesses can actually take advantage of tariff-free trade, and the exact details of level playing field commitments will matter for the UK’s ability to diverge from EU rules in future.
The extent to which UK exporters are able to align unilaterally with EU regulation as against being bound to do so by treaty is also likely to be a source of contention. EU demands for access to UK fishing waters, a key priority for some member states, will be controversial. Finally, there will need to be overarching provisions on the governance and implementation of the agreement.
Together, these six issues – market access, rules of origin, level playing field, regulatory alignment, fishing, and governance – are likely to form the building blocks of a UK-EU deal. Implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol will be another important issue to address over the next 12 months. However, other issues such as services could be subject to very limited provisions at this stage or be left for future negotiations.
Of course, one of the reasons for the short timetable is that Downing Street is keen to talk about things other than Brexit, such as investment in public services and the regions, reforming the machinery of government, and implementing a new immigration regime. Events in Iran have also seen to that.
The backdrop of a potentially major international crisis with Iran reminds us that, whether we like it or not, some of the choices we make about our relationships following Brexit, particularly with the major players such as the EU and/or the US, are likely to be as much about international relations as they are about trade.
At the weekend, the Sunday Times reported on differences of opinion within Cabinet about whether the government should open trade negotiations with the US in parallel with the EU talks, in order to increase leverage with Brussels. It is certainly important that the UK considers its trade interests in the round before finalising terms with the EU and there is good reason to think that the UK can make significant progress on trade deals with economies such as Australia and New Zealand in the coming year.
However, the UK has always sought to strike a delicate transatlantic balance and, given the current circumstances, any strategy that either the US or the EU perceived as being played against one another would be very high risk indeed.
The Franco-German approach to Iran has long been at odds with that of the Trump administration and, rightly or wrongly, many in the EU regard the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal as its first major foreign policy achievement. The UK has consistently spoken up in favour of the Iran deal despite the US’s withdrawal, and it is significant that the UK this week joined France and Germany in a statement calling for a de-escalation of tensions in the region.
Transatlantic divergence is not only limited to foreign policy. US tariffs to be levied in retaliation against France’s digital services tax on the likes of Google and Amazon threaten to spill-over into a low-level trade war.
Equally, there is a strong logic that suggests closer relations with the US should play a role in the UK’s economic rebalancing away from the EU. This will be a delicate tightrope to navigate and Britain will need to tread very carefully.


conservativehome--2020-01-07--Birmingham Council owns more than 4,000 empty garages

In June , I wrote about the large number of empty garages owned by councils in London .
Freedom of Information requests I put in identified 15,875 of them .
But several councils didn ’ t provide figures , so the true total is bound to be higher .
Since then , I have broadened my enquiries to the rest of the country and identified a further 61,325 .
They are listed below .
Birmingham City Council tops the list with 4,149 – the majority of its garages sit empty .
That brings the identified tally to 77,200 .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Swansea and Lanarkshire councils replied to say they didn ’ t know how many empty garages they owned .
Several councils did not reply .
Many others said they had handed over their housing stock to a housing association or an arms-length housing management organisation .
So the underestimate is sure to be significant .
Property Partner , a property investment company , has also investigated this subject .
Looking at square feet , they calculated that if they were redeveloped for housing , a typical row of 10 garages could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight homes .
That was a conservative estimate , as it assumed only bungalows would be possible .
This waste of resources is quite unacceptable given the housing shortage .
The Government should change the law so that local authorities have a presumption to offer for sale and redevelopment for housing , any row of garages that are empty .
The new cottages should be traditional beautiful buildings and thus enhance the appearance of the estates where they appear – a welcome replacement for the ugly garages .
But the new rules should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are let , they are done so at commercial rates to residents not living on the estate .
Sheffield City Council , for instance , has 1,532 empty garages .
It has a further 1,073 garages let to non estate residents .
Only 868 of its garages are let to its tenants or leaseholders .
I suppose there is some benefit in easing parking pressure in the city .
But most of the space is probably used for storage .
Should the state really be competing with the private sector in the storage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there must be a presumption that commercial lettings be cancelled where redevelopment of housing is considered viable .
There should also be some gradual efforts to make available more of the garages that are currently used by estate residents .
I concede this brings us into more controversial territory .
The presumption should be that garages being vacated should not be offered for reletting where housing redevelopment is considered viable .
Residents occupying garages where housing redevelopment is considered viable should be asked to vacate and offered the use of another garage on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees are below the market rate they should be gradually increased , over a five year period , until the fees are aligned .
What about the risk of parking congestion on council estates ?
Of course , that would need to be assessed .
But in most cases that should highlight potential for more sites for new housing rather than of any difficulty .
Often councils make no check of how many parking spaces on their estates are actually used .
My council , Hammersmith and Fulham , only has the figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate .
The total number of parking bays under TMOs is 2,894 , while the total number of active estate parking permits on TMO sites is 1,780 .
Other London councils which keep some records include : • Camden has 2,191 void council estate parking spaces out of 5,096 .
• Kensington and Chelsea 338 out of 803 .
What about the loss of revenue if the garages are knocked down ?
Obviously , this point doesn ’ t apply with the empty ones .
But even if a garage is let than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £10 or £30 ) would make sense if the land can be sold to provide a new home .
I would propose that proceeds of council receipts must first clear any backlog of capital works in the estate where sales have taken place – including any road repairs .
There could also be , say , £25,000 from the sale to be allocated to Big Society Funds for local projects chosen by residents .
There could be environmental improvements – such as tree planting , or providing electric car power charging points .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its proceeds by allowing all the housing to be private .
At other times it might negotiate a lower price but with a mix of tenures .
Any social housing should give priority to existing estate residents .
For instance , those suffering from overcrowding or those wishing to take up an opportunity for discounted home ownership or shared ownership .
It ’ s not only garages and surplus parking spaces that offer potential .
Last month I wrote about unused , or underused , “ tenants ’ halls.
” Then we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( sometimes known as “ pram sheds ” ) on council estates .
Tower Hamlets Council owns 3,776 of which 2,320 are empty or in disrepair .
Usually , councils don ’ t charge separately for them and so don ’ t have any records .
Supposing they wrote to their tenants , offering them £50 a year or £100 a year cut in rent , if they surrendered their ( probably unused ) pram shed ?
That would allow more space for attractive new homes .
There is a large ball court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my road which has been closed off for years .
These changes should be popular .
Councils would benefit financially from the capital receipts for the new private housing and from the new social housing easing the need for placements in expensive temporary accommodation .
Existing estate residents should benefit from their share of the proceeds and the aesthetic improvements .
Most of all , those whose ambition for home ownership is currently frustrated , would welcome a chance to get on the housing ladder .
So council leaders should get on with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win votes while easing pressure on Council finances .
The Government could make a start by including greater transparency over some of the wasted assets .
But that will not be enough .
Localism has its role but there must also be a legal mechanism to ensure these opportunities for new housing become a reality .
• Cheshire West and Chester 533 out of 1,427 • Nuneaton and Bedworth 450 out of 1,429 • New Forest 397 out of 1,797 • Vale of Glamorgan 354 out of 822 • Brighton and Hove 224 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of 1,149 • Adur and Worthing 105 out of 1,077 .

In June, I wrote about the large number of empty garages owned by councils in London. Freedom of Information requests I put in identified 15,875 of them. But several councils didn’t provide figures, so the true total is bound to be higher. Since then, I have broadened my enquiries to the rest of the country and identified a further 61,325. They are listed below. Birmingham City Council tops the list with 4,149 – the majority of its garages sit empty. That brings the identified tally to 77,200. I suspect the true figure is over 100,000. Swansea and Lanarkshire councils replied to say they didn’t know how many empty garages they owned. Several councils did not reply. Many others said they had handed over their housing stock to a housing association or an arms-length housing management organisation. So the underestimate is sure to be significant.
Property Partner, a property investment company, has also investigated this subject. Looking at square feet, they calculated that if they were redeveloped for housing, a typical row of 10 garages could be knocked down and replaced with seven or eight homes. That was a conservative estimate, as it assumed only bungalows would be possible.
This waste of resources is quite unacceptable given the housing shortage. The Government should change the law so that local authorities have a presumption to offer for sale and redevelopment for housing, any row of garages that are empty. The new cottages should be traditional beautiful buildings and thus enhance the appearance of the estates where they appear – a welcome replacement for the ugly garages.
But the new rules should also go further. Often when garages are let, they are done so at commercial rates to residents not living on the estate. Sheffield City Council, for instance, has 1,532 empty garages. It has a further 1,073 garages let to non estate residents. Only 868 of its garages are let to its tenants or leaseholders. I suppose there is some benefit in easing parking pressure in the city. But most of the space is probably used for storage. Should the state really be competing with the private sector in the storage business? Councils should be told that there must be a presumption that commercial lettings be cancelled where redevelopment of housing is considered viable.
There should also be some gradual efforts to make available more of the garages that are currently used by estate residents. I concede this brings us into more controversial territory. The presumption should be that garages being vacated should not be offered for reletting where housing redevelopment is considered viable. Residents occupying garages where housing redevelopment is considered viable should be asked to vacate and offered the use of another garage on the estate if available. Where garage fees are below the market rate they should be gradually increased, over a five year period, until the fees are aligned.
What about the risk of parking congestion on council estates? Of course, that would need to be assessed. But in most cases that should highlight potential for more sites for new housing rather than of any difficulty. Often councils make no check of how many parking spaces on their estates are actually used. My council, Hammersmith and Fulham, only has the figures for those estates where traffic management orders operate. The total number of parking bays under TMOs is 2,894, while the total number of active estate parking permits on TMO sites is 1,780.
Other London councils which keep some records include:
Camden has 2,191 void council estate parking spaces out of 5,096.
Kensington and Chelsea 338 out of 803.
Islington 907 out of 4,391.
What about the loss of revenue if the garages are knocked down? Obviously, this point doesn’t apply with the empty ones. But even if a garage is let than foregoing the £20 a week (or £10 or £30) would make sense if the land can be sold to provide a new home.
I would propose that proceeds of council receipts must first clear any backlog of capital works in the estate where sales have taken place – including any road repairs. There could also be, say, £25,000 from the sale to be allocated to Big Society Funds for local projects chosen by residents. There could be environmental improvements – such as tree planting, or providing electric car power charging points.
Sometimes a Council might decide to maximise its proceeds by allowing all the housing to be private. At other times it might negotiate a lower price but with a mix of tenures. Any social housing should give priority to existing estate residents. For instance, those suffering from overcrowding or those wishing to take up an opportunity for discounted home ownership or shared ownership.
It’s not only garages and surplus parking spaces that offer potential. Last month I wrote about unused, or underused, “tenants’ halls.” Then we have the rows of small lock-up store sheds (sometimes known as “pram sheds”) on council estates. Tower Hamlets Council owns 3,776 of which 2,320 are empty or in disrepair. Isliongton Council owns 3,779 again a majority – in Islington’s case 1,970 – sit empty. Usually, councils don’t charge separately for them and so don’t have any records. Supposing they wrote to their tenants, offering them £50 a year or £100 a year cut in rent, if they surrendered their (probably unused) pram shed? That would allow more space for attractive new homes. There is a large ball court on the estate at the end of my road which has been closed off for years.
These changes should be popular. Councils would benefit financially from the capital receipts for the new private housing and from the new social housing easing the need for placements in expensive temporary accommodation. Existing estate residents should benefit from their share of the proceeds and the aesthetic improvements. Most of all, those whose ambition for home ownership is currently frustrated, would welcome a chance to get on the housing ladder. So council leaders should get on with it. It would mean they could win votes while easing pressure on Council finances. The Government could make a start by including greater transparency over some of the wasted assets. But that will not be enough. Localism has its role but there must also be a legal mechanism to ensure these opportunities for new housing become a reality.
Over 4,000 empty Council-owned garages:
Birmingham 4,149 out of 7,656
3,000-4,000
South Lanarkshire 3,248 out of 8,102
2,000-3,000
Dacorum 2,364 out of 8,000
Nottingham 2,121 out of undisclosed total
Hull 2,066 out of 4,681.
Fife 2,053 out of 6,944
1,500 – 2,000
Basildon 1,988 out of 5191
Sheffield 1,532 out of 3,473
1,000 – 1,500
Corby 1,229 out of 3,375
Welwyn Hatfield 1,202 out of 5,275
Bristol 1,174 out of 1,595
Wolverhampton 1,140 out of 3,838
Leeds 1,132 out of 5,185
500 – 1,000
Slough 995 out of 1,663
Gateshead 953 out of 3,741
Stevenage 933 out of 6,573
Dudley 895 out of 2,859
St Albans 870 out of 2,311
Central Bedfordshire 858 out of 1,762
Norwich 813 out of 3,420
Aberdeen 805 out of 2,029
Milton Keynes 741 out of 1,874
Tamworth 736 out of 1454
Falkirk 729 out of 2,647
Doncaster 729 out of 1,689
Thurrock 700 out of 2,500
Wrexham 687 out of 2,078
Southend 649 out of 1,119
Flintshire 629 out of 1,593
Wigan 620 out of 1,547
Kirklees 617 out of 1,711
Sandwell 616 out of 2,690
Leicester 597 out ot 1,214
Highland 589 out of 1,784
Oxford 582 out of 1,928
Rotherham 577 out of 3,277
Powys 540 out of 1,840
Cheshire West and Chester 533 out of 1,427
East Ayshire 524 out of 1,337
100 – 500


conservativehome--2020-01-06--Labour leadership contenders are lurching to the Left to placate Corbynistas

Sir Keir Starmer was interviewed by Andrew Marr yesterday on the BBC .
Marr asked : “ Would you ever support military action if you were the Labour Leader in the House of Commons ?
” “ I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made , secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons .
I think that piece of legislation is much needed .
But they would be the tests and it ’ s obvious from those tests that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be met.
” It may be his sincere view that a Commons vote should be required before any military action .
Or it may be regarded as an expedient compromise in seeking to straddle public opinion and the prevailing view of the Labour Party membership .
In any event , the approach is dangerously misguided .
The issue goes back to the Iraq War during Tony Blair ’ s premiership .
Robin Cook resigned as Foreign Secretary , in March 2003 , and told the House of Commons : “ From the start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted , as Leader of the House , on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.
” The vote was held – which did , of course , authorise military action .
But the headstone on Cook ’ s grave in Edinburgh includes the following quote from his memoirs : “ I may not have succeeded in halting the war , but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war.
” That is the legacy Starmer seeks to entrench and which many will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of years before 2003 the Government had the power , under Royal Prerogative to take military action .
It was a decision for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet .
Parliament ’ s role was to hold them to account for their actions .
That could mean bringing down the Government .
But it could not bind the Prime Minister ’ s hands .
It doesn ’ t mean that MPs can not express their views .
On April 3rd 1982 there was a sitting on a Saturday as the taskforce was about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speeches were made .
But the motion before the House said simply : “ That this House do now adjourn.
” As James Gray , the Conservative MP for North Wiltshire , wrote on this site : “ The truth is that if the use of military force is allowed to be political ( which it must be if it needs a majority in a possibly marginal House of Commons ) , then it can not be strategic .
Should the Prime Minister be doing what is right for the peace and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he have primary concern for its popularity in Parliament ?
The former Chief of Defence Staff , David ( now Lord ) Richards was quoted in this weekend ’ s paper attacking Cameron over his actions in Libya and Syria – even going so far as to suggest that the current refugee tide may be linked to it .
There may be some truth in that .
The Government does seem to have got itself into a terrible tangle over the process by which we make use of our military .
“ Giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war ; it means that possibly sensitive intelligence has to be made public ; it removes any element of surprise , delays decision-making and , in a host of other ways , makes the effective conduct of military force extremely difficult , if not virtually impossible .
Now even if you think all this may be a good thing , I would hope that you would agree it also has a devastating impact on our ability to project power for the good of the world .
Diplomacy without arms is like music @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire , has made a further important point : “ If Parliament itself authorises such action in advance , what then ?
It gives up part of its power of scrutiny ; it binds Members in their own minds , rather than allowing them the opportunity to assess each Government decision on its own merits and circumstances ; and instead of being forced to explain and justify their actions , Ministers can always take final refuge in saying , “ Well , you authorised it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it weakens it and the Government : it weakens the dynamic tension between the two sides from which proper accountability and effective policy must derive.
” The executive needs to have the flexibility to act quickly .
The Government must be allowed the authority to govern and then to be held to account .
The notion of the House of Commons – made up of 650 people – managing a war is absurd .
Still more absurd than Sir Oliver Letwin attempts last year to empower them to conduct our Brexit negotiations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ constrain the Government ’ s future management is misguided .
For instance , over spending levels .
The Conservative Manifesto pledge to make NHS spending rises legally binding might have been good politics but is bad for management of the country .
The legal requirement to spend 0.7 per cent a year of GDP on foreign aid erodes the ability of the Government to adjust to circumstances .
It might be more sensible for it be 0.6 per cent one year and 0.8 per cent another year .
Equally , the net-zero emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrong mentality .
I suppose in practice these laws could be changed fairly quickly or if the targets are missed the Minister just comes and gives a statement explaining what happened .
But if these laws are mere gestures that is hardly a good argument for them .
Whatever you think about war , or Brexit , or the correct level of spending for different departments , the Government must decide and take the consequences .
Last week , I suggested that comparisons between Starmer and Neil Kinnock are unfair… to Kinnock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When Kinnock was standing to be the Labour leader in 1983 he did not immediately repudiate the Party ’ s left wing Manifesto in that year ’ s General Election .
At that stage Kinnock defended the economic programme and unilateral nuclear disarmament – though he criticised the Militant Tendency and suggested that the proposal to withdraw from the Common Market be abandoned .
His rival , Roy Hattersley , was more outspoken – and got trounced as through the summer we waited with baited breath as USDAW , the National Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegate conferences .
So the dilemma for Labour leadership contenders is not new .
Thus far though , they all seem to compare unfavourably to Kinnock .
All are desperate to ingratiate themselves with the Corbynistas .
Starmer ’ s campaign video stresses his credentials as an ally of striking miners and print workers in the 1980s .
Jess Phillips , used her offering to mention that her grandfather was the cartoonist for Tony Benn and the Socialist Campaign Group – and in her childhood she made signs for the nuclear disarmament protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership contenders are making is to ignore the dismay the electorate showed for Jeremy Corbyn last month .
Instead they are devoting themselves to the Labour Party membership – most of whom regard Corbyn as a hero .
Part of that will means some pretty dud policies are put forward .
It makes it much harder for whoever becomes the Leader of the Opposition to establish any credibility as a responsible and patriotic statesman .

Sir Keir Starmer was interviewed by Andrew Marr yesterday on the BBC. Marr asked:
“Would you ever support military action if you were the Labour Leader in the House of Commons?”
Starmer replied:
“I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons. I think that piece of legislation is much needed. But they would be the tests and it’s obvious from those tests that there might be circumstances in which they could be met.”
It may be his sincere view that a Commons vote should be required before any military action. Or it may be regarded as an expedient compromise in seeking to straddle public opinion and the prevailing view of the Labour Party membership. In any event, the approach is dangerously misguided.
The issue goes back to the Iraq War during Tony Blair’s premiership. Robin Cook resigned as Foreign Secretary, in March 2003, and told the House of Commons:
“From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.”
The vote was held – which did, of course, authorise military action. But the headstone on Cook’s grave in Edinburgh includes the following quote from his memoirs:
“I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war.”
That is the legacy Starmer seeks to entrench and which many will regard as reasonable. Yet for hundreds of years before 2003 the Government had the power, under Royal Prerogative to take military action. It was a decision for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Parliament’s role was to hold them to account for their actions. That could mean bringing down the Government. But it could not bind the Prime Minister’s hands.
It doesn’t mean that MPs can not express their views. On April 3rd 1982 there was a sitting on a Saturday as the taskforce was about to embark for the Falklands. Passionate speeches were made. But the motion before the House said simply:
“That this House do now adjourn.”
As James Gray, the Conservative MP for North Wiltshire, wrote on this site:
“The truth is that if the use of military force is allowed to be political (which it must be if it needs a majority in a possibly marginal House of Commons), then it cannot be strategic. Should the Prime Minister be doing what is right for the peace and the people of the world? Or should he have primary concern for its popularity in Parliament? The former Chief of Defence Staff, David (now Lord) Richards was quoted in this weekend’s paper attacking Cameron over his actions in Libya and Syria – even going so far as to suggest that the current refugee tide may be linked to it. There may be some truth in that. The Government does seem to have got itself into a terrible tangle over the process by which we make use of our military.
“Giving Parliament the final say over warfare politicises the war; it means that possibly sensitive intelligence has to be made public; it removes any element of surprise, delays decision-making and, in a host of other ways, makes the effective conduct of military force extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible. Now even if you think all this may be a good thing, I would hope that you would agree it also has a devastating impact on our ability to project power for the good of the world. Diplomacy without arms is like music without an orchestra.”
Jesse Norman, the Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire, has made a further important point:
“If Parliament itself authorises such action in advance, what then? It gives up part of its power of scrutiny; it binds Members in their own minds, rather than allowing them the opportunity to assess each Government decision on its own merits and circumstances; and instead of being forced to explain and justify their actions, Ministers can always take final refuge in saying, “Well, you authorised it.” Thus, far from strengthening Parliament, it weakens it and the Government: it weakens the dynamic tension between the two sides from which proper accountability and effective policy must derive.”
The executive needs to have the flexibility to act quickly. The Government must be allowed the authority to govern and then to be held to account. The notion of the House of Commons – made up of 650 people – managing a war is absurd. Still more absurd than Sir Oliver Letwin attempts last year to empower them to conduct our Brexit negotiations. It also follows that passing laws that constrain the Government’s future management is misguided. For instance, over spending levels. The Conservative Manifesto pledge to make NHS spending rises legally binding might have been good politics but is bad for management of the country. The legal requirement to spend 0.7 per cent a year of GDP on foreign aid erodes the ability of the Government to adjust to circumstances. It might be more sensible for it be 0.6 per cent one year and 0.8 per cent another year. Equally, the net-zero emissions target for 2050 being legally binding shows the wrong mentality. I suppose in practice these laws could be changed fairly quickly or if the targets are missed the Minister just comes and gives a statement explaining what happened. But if these laws are mere gestures that is hardly a good argument for them.
Whatever you think about war, or Brexit, or the correct level of spending for different departments, the Government must decide and take the consequences.
I believe another future is possible – but we have to fight for it. That’s why I’m standing to be leader of the Labour Party. Join me and together we can – and we will – win: https://t.co/7LQiNItoDU pic.twitter.com/hZQaDBmx3M — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) January 4, 2020
Last week, I suggested that comparisons between Starmer and Neil Kinnock are unfair… to Kinnock. But there is a certain parallel. When Kinnock was standing to be the Labour leader in 1983 he did not immediately repudiate the Party’s left wing Manifesto in that year’s General Election. At that stage Kinnock defended the economic programme and unilateral nuclear disarmament – though he criticised the Militant Tendency and suggested that the proposal to withdraw from the Common Market be abandoned. His rival, Roy Hattersley, was more outspoken – and got trounced as through the summer we waited with baited breath as USDAW, the National Union of Railwaymen and others held their seaside delegate conferences.
So the dilemma for Labour leadership contenders is not new. Thus far though, they all seem to compare unfavourably to Kinnock. All are desperate to ingratiate themselves with the Corbynistas. Starmer’s campaign video stresses his credentials as an ally of striking miners and print workers in the 1980s. Jess Phillips, used her offering to mention that her grandfather was the cartoonist for Tony Benn and the Socialist Campaign Group – and in her childhood she made signs for the nuclear disarmament protests at Greenham Common.
The choice the leadership contenders are making is to ignore the dismay the electorate showed for Jeremy Corbyn last month. Instead they are devoting themselves to the Labour Party membership – most of whom regard Corbyn as a hero. Part of that will means some pretty dud policies are put forward. It makes it much harder for whoever becomes the Leader of the Opposition to establish any credibility as a responsible and patriotic statesman.


conservativehome--2020-01-06--Howard Flight: What Johnson should do next. Including dealing with that socialist creation, the BBC.

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund , and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury .
“ Bliss Was It to Be Alive in That Dawn ” : I recollect this was Wordsworth ’ s initial comment on The French Revolution – which , alas , he had to resile from subsequently .
I do not believe we will have the same experience .
The UK ’ s political independence and its economy have been rescued by down to earth voters , particularly up North , who saw Jeremy Corbyn for what he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always believed in the good sense of the electorate as a whole ; it is a huge relief that this remains the case .
My second observation of the general election campaign is that Boris Johnson saw the need for a low profile and responsible Prime Minister ’ s campaign , also maximising the number of people he could meet or see in the flesh .
I suspect all of this was wisely organised by Dominic Cummings and his team ; and possibly also encouraging the scaremongering in the last week of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up voters from all quarters to turn out and vote against Corbyn .
Johnson has also been stressing the One Nation Conservative Party line – “ speaking literally from everyone from Woking to Workington and from Surrey Heath to Sedgefield ” .
The Conservative Party has changed significantly over the election campaign , resulting in 109 new , first time Tory MPs – 30 per cent of the Parliamentary Party and 29 per cent more female MPs .
There are interesting parallels to be drawn here between Johnson and Benjamin Disraeli .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both have presided over , if not led , Conservative political success in what have been previously , Opposition territories .
Both have asserted the Conservative One Nation principle .
The new Conservative Government now needs to decide and agree what are its priorities , both in the short to medium term and the longer term .
I suggest the necessary first priority is to sort out the Stamp Duty mess .
The large increase in Stamp Duty costs to buyers in London and the Home Counties has frozen the housing market without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Stamp Duty revenue .
At best I would like to see Stamp Duty on residential property abolished , or at least restored to a much more modest , affordable , flat rate .
Business Rates also need reviewing for the retail sector .
The combination of highly expensive Business Rates for small , retail businesses and the major growth of the online retail market have been killing local high streets .
If voters have historically turned a blind eye to the political bias of the BBC , in this election campaign it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BBC ’ s structure is an out of date , Second World War , socialist creation .
Prosecuting elderly voters who have failed to pay their licence fee is clearly inappropriate .
It should be a matter of choice for citizens as to whether or not they wish to subscribe to the BBC .
There should be the technology available to stop non-subscribers being able to tune into BBC channels .
I believe the three big long-term territories which the Johnson Government needs to address are Civil Service reform ; freeing up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to move between the public and private Sectors ; major simplification of our tax rules , and a phased reduction in the tax burden across all income ranges .
I accept the case that while interest rates are thus low it makes sense for the Government to borrow to finance infrastructure investment .
My reservation is how to determine proposed infrastructure investments are worthwhile .
Many will recollect , also driven by very low Yen interest rates , how the public sector in Japan invested in infrastructure projects of little or no economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely to be the more successful here is for the public sector to assist with the funding and range of potential infrastructure investments available .
But the private sector should determine what they think are the projects worth addressing and do the job .
By way of example , I anticipate there will be huge growth over offshore wind power generation in the next 20 years .
Projects should be selected and managed by the private sector but with financial support and planning assistance from the public sector .
There have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed mostly on the private sector .
This has been a major cause of our poor productivity growth figures .
I believe there is now the need for a critical review of required regulation with the objective of reducing and simplifying regulatory requirements – particularly within the financial sector .

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund, and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
“Bliss Was It to Be Alive in That Dawn”: I recollect this was Wordsworth’s initial comment on The French Revolution – which, alas, he had to resile from subsequently.
I do not believe we will have the same experience. The UK’s political independence and its economy have been rescued by down to earth voters, particularly up North, who saw Jeremy Corbyn for what he is – a disreputable communist.
I have always believed in the good sense of the electorate as a whole; it is a huge relief that this remains the case.
My second observation of the general election campaign is that Boris Johnson saw the need for a low profile and responsible Prime Minister’s campaign, also maximising the number of people he could meet or see in the flesh.
I suspect all of this was wisely organised by Dominic Cummings and his team; and possibly also encouraging the scaremongering in the last week of the campaign, with the intention of stirring up voters from all quarters to turn out and vote against Corbyn.
Johnson has also been stressing the One Nation Conservative Party line – “speaking literally from everyone from Woking to Workington and from Surrey Heath to Sedgefield”. The Conservative Party has changed significantly over the election campaign, resulting in 109 new, first time Tory MPs – 30 per cent of the Parliamentary Party and 29 per cent more female MPs.
There are interesting parallels to be drawn here between Johnson and Benjamin Disraeli. Both are pragmatic and non doctrinaire politicians; both have presided over, if not led, Conservative political success in what have been previously, Opposition territories. Both have asserted the Conservative One Nation principle.
The new Conservative Government now needs to decide and agree what are its priorities, both in the short to medium term and the longer term. I suggest the necessary first priority is to sort out the Stamp Duty mess. The large increase in Stamp Duty costs to buyers in London and the Home Counties has frozen the housing market without achieving its objective of a huge increase in Stamp Duty revenue.
At best I would like to see Stamp Duty on residential property abolished, or at least restored to a much more modest, affordable, flat rate. Business Rates also need reviewing for the retail sector. The combination of highly expensive Business Rates for small, retail businesses and the major growth of the online retail market have been killing local high streets.
If voters have historically turned a blind eye to the political bias of the BBC, in this election campaign it was too obvious to miss. The BBC’s structure is an out of date, Second World War, socialist creation. Prosecuting elderly voters who have failed to pay their licence fee is clearly inappropriate. It should be a matter of choice for citizens as to whether or not they wish to subscribe to the BBC. There should be the technology available to stop non-subscribers being able to tune into BBC channels.
I believe the three big long-term territories which the Johnson Government needs to address are Civil Service reform; freeing up, particularly, the ability of talented individuals to move between the public and private Sectors; major simplification of our tax rules, and a phased reduction in the tax burden across all income ranges.
I accept the case that while interest rates are thus low it makes sense for the Government to borrow to finance infrastructure investment. My reservation is how to determine proposed infrastructure investments are worthwhile. Many will recollect, also driven by very low Yen interest rates, how the public sector in Japan invested in infrastructure projects of little or no economic value. I believe the formula which is likely to be the more successful here is for the public sector to assist with the funding and range of potential infrastructure investments available.
But the private sector should determine what they think are the projects worth addressing and do the job. By way of example, I anticipate there will be huge growth over offshore wind power generation in the next 20 years. Projects should be selected and managed by the private sector but with financial support and planning assistance from the public sector.
There have been massive increases in regulatory costs and requirements imposed mostly on the private sector. This has been a major cause of our poor productivity growth figures. I believe there is now the need for a critical review of required regulation with the objective of reducing and simplifying regulatory requirements – particularly within the financial sector.


conservativehome--2020-01-06--We need strategic clarity. What poses the greater danger to Britain – Iranian aggression abroad or S

We need strategic clarity. What poses the greater danger to Britain – Iranian aggression abroad or Sunni extremism here?

Three days on from the news of Qasem Soleimani ’ s assassination , Boris Johnson , Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel have issued a joint statement .
It may be worth comparing to Dominic Raab ’ s words yesterday .
The Foreign Secretary sought to balance support for de-escalation with non-condemnation of America ’ s action .
He said that it has the right to defend itself .
The statement doesn ’ t mention the United States at all – let alone Donald Trump .
One wouldn ’ t know from it that either exist .
It condemns “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and is “ gravely concerned by the negative role Iraq has played in the region ” .
It name-checks Soleimani .
The three leaders then go on to “ reaffirm our commitment to continue the fight against Daesh , which remains a high priority .
The preservation of the Coalition is key in this regard.
” This is the heart of the statement .
Their concern is that Iraq insists that American troops leave that country , and that ISIS colonises the space that then opens up .
They are also seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alive .
The latter ’ s own words and deeds don ’ t quite tally in this regard .
On the one hand , it says the deal is dead .
On the other , it says it will continue its co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency .
The reasons for the delay in issuing the statement , and its silence on America ’ s right to defend itself , will be connected to the differences between the three countries .
Heiko Mass , Germany ’ s foreign Minister , has suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran .
This reflects the country ’ s traditional approach to the country .
Mutual trade has been hit hard by America ’ s intensified sanctions .
Macron has spoken by phone to Barham Salih , Iraq ’ s President .
“ The two presidents agreed to remain in close contact to avoid any further escalation in tensions and in order to act to ensure stability in Iraq and the broader region , ” the former ’ s office said .
A question that follows is that we asked yesterday : what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are Soleimani ’ s killing and the intensified sanctions part of a plan to collapse the regime ?
Or does the President instead believe that the Iranian regime must simply be put back in its box from time , when its aggression against America runs riot ( as it has recently ) , by superior U.S firepower ?
Especially in an election year .
Or is he somehow hoping that bombs and sanctions will bring Iran to the negotiating table ?
After all , he is on record as having “ good feelings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ?
What evidence we have suggests that the second explanation is closest to the truth .
One report today claims that the trashing of America ’ s Bagdhad Embassy sparked his reponse .
Where does the British national interest lie ?
On the one hand , Johnson won ’ t want to alienate Britain ’ s closest ally – with which he now hopes to negotiate a post-Brexit trade deal .
This is why he has gone further than Macron and Merkel and said , in line with Raab yesterday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani ’ s death .
On the other , we have a direct security interest in preventing any revival of ISIS .
Islamist terror in the UK to date has been executed by Sunni and not Shiite extremists .
The long line of incidents include : the London Bridge killings during the general election last month ; the attack in the same vicinity during the 2017 contest ; the Manchester arena bombing ; the murder of Lee Rigby ; 7/7 .
Johnson is also clinging to the nuclear deal .
In his memoirs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least bad choice .
Yes , he writes , “ it left Iran able to destroy its missiles and to make trouble in Iraq , Syria , Yemen and elsewhere .
But the most important thing is that we stopped a war , and did so safely .
Of course , the problem that is Iran was not “ solved ” , but it was made less dangerous.
” Tomorrow in the Commons , Raab will be be pressed by Labour leadership candidates , Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists playing to the anti-Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see off – particularly given the Government ’ s “ stonking ” majority .
Ministers ’ position will become more exposed if rational calculation fails and all-out war breaks out by accident – because America and Iran become caught up in a cycle of action and counter-action .
This site asks for strategic clarity .
Which is the bigger problem for Britain ?
Iranian aggression in the Middle East ?
Or Sunni extremism here in the UK ?
To date , it has clearly been the latter .
The efficacy of the nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now be dead in any event .
But America , Britain and the West more broadly have expended much blood and treasure in putting ISIS on the ropes in Iraq .
It mustn ’ t be let off them .

Three days on from the news of Qasem Soleimani’s assassination, Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel have issued a joint statement. It may be worth comparing to Dominic Raab’s words yesterday.
The Foreign Secretary sought to balance support for de-escalation with non-condemnation of America’s action. He said that it has the right to defend itself.
The statement doesn’t mention the United States at all – let alone Donald Trump. One wouldn’t know from it that either exist.
It condemns “the recent attacks on coalition forces in Iraq” and is “gravely concerned by the negative role Iraq has played in the region”. It name-checks Soleimani.
The three leaders then go on to “reaffirm our commitment to continue the fight against Daesh, which remains a high priority. The preservation of the Coalition is key in this regard.”
This is the heart of the statement. Their concern is that Iraq insists that American troops leave that country, and that ISIS colonises the space that then opens up.
They are also seeking to keep the nuclear deal with Iran alive. The latter’s own words and deeds don’t quite tally in this regard. On the one hand, it says the deal is dead. On the other, it says it will continue its co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The reasons for the delay in issuing the statement, and its silence on America’s right to defend itself, will be connected to the differences between the three countries.
Heiko Mass, Germany’s foreign Minister, has suggested that it may seek direct talks with Iran. This reflects the country’s traditional approach to the country. Mutual trade has been hit hard by America’s intensified sanctions.
Macron has spoken by phone to Barham Salih, Iraq’s President. “The two presidents agreed to remain in close contact to avoid any further escalation in tensions and in order to act to ensure stability in Iraq and the broader region,” the former’s office said.
A question that follows is that we asked yesterday: what’s Trump’s plan now? Are Soleimani’s killing and the intensified sanctions part of a plan to collapse the regime?
Or does the President instead believe that the Iranian regime must simply be put back in its box from time, when its aggression against America runs riot (as it has recently), by superior U.S firepower? Especially in an election year.
Or is he somehow hoping that bombs and sanctions will bring Iran to the negotiating table? After all, he is on record as having “good feelings” about a successor deal to Obama’s?
What evidence we have suggests that the second explanation is closest to the truth. One report today claims that the trashing of America’s Bagdhad Embassy sparked his reponse.
Where does the British national interest lie? On the one hand, Johnson won’t want to alienate Britain’s closest ally – with which he now hopes to negotiate a post-Brexit trade deal.
This is why he has gone further than Macron and Merkel and said, in line with Raab yesterday, that he “does not lament” Soleimani’s death.
On the other, we have a direct security interest in preventing any revival of ISIS. Islamist terror in the UK to date has been executed by Sunni and not Shiite extremists.
The long line of incidents include: the London Bridge killings during the general election last month; the attack in the same vicinity during the 2017 contest; the Manchester arena bombing; the murder of Lee Rigby; 7/7.
Johnson is also clinging to the nuclear deal. In his memoirs, David Cameron represents it as the least bad choice.
Yes, he writes, “it left Iran able to destroy its missiles and to make trouble in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere. But the most important thing is that we stopped a war, and did so safely. Of course, the problem that is Iran was not “solved”, but it was made less dangerous.”
Tomorrow in the Commons, Raab will be be pressed by Labour leadership candidates, Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists playing to the anti-Trump gallery.
They will be easy to see off – particularly given the Government’s “stonking” majority. Ministers’ position will become more exposed if rational calculation fails and all-out war breaks out by accident – because America and Iran become caught up in a cycle of action and counter-action.
This site asks for strategic clarity. Which is the bigger problem for Britain? Iranian aggression in the Middle East? Or Sunni extremism here in the UK?
To date, it has clearly been the latter. The efficacy of the nuclear deal is debatable – and it may now be dead in any event.
But America, Britain and the West more broadly have expended much blood and treasure in putting ISIS on the ropes in Iraq. It mustn’t be let off them.


conservativehome--2020-01-06--Richard Holden: The Red Wall. My part in its downfall. How I won North West Durham – Labour since it

Richard Holden: The Red Wall. My part in its downfall. How I won North West Durham – Labour since its creation.

Just a just a couple of days before nominations closed , I got a call and was told that the previous Conservative candidate for North West Durham had withdrawn .
After chatting with family and close friends , I decided to throw my hat in the ring .
I thought that the local Association might go for me – I grew up in a similar area ( albeit on the wetter side of the Pennines ) in a semi-rural former industrial village on the Lancashire/Yorkshire border ; I ’ d got experience having been a candidate before and had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a teenager .
But , to be totally honest , looking at the previous results , it was difficult to believe that this key brick in the ‘ Red Wall ’ could tumble .
North West Durham was created in 1950 , and had returned Labour MPs comfortably its entire existence .
Theresa May and Tim Farron ( both good local campaigners ) had both been trounced in 1992 , and Labour ’ s majority had varied between a “ low ” of 15 per cent of the vote ( with a 6,500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ high ” of 54 per cent ( with a 25,000 or so majority in 1997 .
Even with Jeremy Corbyn in place , Laura Pidcock held the seat very comfortably in 2017 with well over half the vote and an 18 per cent majority of almost 9,000 votes .
To win by just one vote would require a swing of almost ten per cent .
To the campaign and the seat : my agent , David , and the Association Treasurer , Marian , met me at the Punch Bowl in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November to fill in my nomination papers .
I ’ ve since learnt that they had both been very disheartened before the meeting , having lost a candidate , and were worried about having a replacement at such short notice who wasn ’ t super-local .
I didn ’ t know at the time but do now that when they both got home that night and called each other to say how happy they were , after meeting me properly , with how things had panned out .
So how and why did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative go blue for the first time ?
I may be wrong , but I think that the former Labour MP who wrote that it was all Tony Blair ’ s fault was wide of the mark .
As far as I saw , there were two factors the put us in the ballpark : Corbyn ( and by extension Corbyn ’ s Labour Party ) and his policy on Brexit .
It became patently obvious to me after chatting to people locally that they felt that they ’ d been taken for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that this had been crystalised by its “ we know better ” attitude over Brexit – especially after being told by the party in 2017 that it would deliver on the referendum .
This was re-enforced by the nature of Corbyn ’ s Labour .
The average person I met on the doorstep in North West Durham is moderate and sensible .
They know you need good jobs and thriving businesses for the tax revenues for good public services .
They ’ re not Marxists obsessed with looking back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who want to get on , work hard for their families but have also have a real sense of community , wand ho don ’ t want to see those working hard at the bottom trapped without opportunity to succeed .
Labour just didn ’ t understand .
Portraying themselves as almost a pastiche of ‘ Old Labour ’ in a bizarre attempt at cultural appropriation of a “ working class ” image fell flat .
Local people got the same impression they ’ d have got if someone hung a Lowry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then waxed lyrical about what a cultural icon Gracie Fields was to Northern millworkers .
Labour handed us an opportunity to capitalise on .
The national campaign was tight and focussed .
The concentration on delivering Brexit and on the domestic priorities of the British people was bang on .
But I don ’ t think we ’ d quite have made it in North West Durham if it had been just this national picture alone .
We started campaigning almost immediately .
With hardly any data to go on , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get a feel for the most prominent local issues ( one of the worst things you can do as a candidate is to fail to recognise that your local association know ‘ their bit ’ of the area well , but individually rarely understand the whole seat . )
After a couple of nights at a room in the local pub I rented a cottage in Weardale for the duration of the campaign , and purely by being around got myself involved in the local community – including attending a rather boozy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark ! )
… I threw myself into daily campaigning across the constituency with daily Facebook updates and tweets .
Our tiny team grew steadily with the support of some of the more active Association members and people who got involved when they saw what we were doing .
We went everywhere and spoke to as many people as we could .
And people liked it .
They liked seeing someone fighting .
And they told their friends .
Labour ’ s reaction locally was unbelievable .
I became convinced they had better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavish re-iteration of Labour ’ s national messaging was helpful .
It was like campaigning against a cult rather than a political party .
When Labour did campaign , they turned people off .
They had a mistaken belief in the strength of the personal brand of the sitting MP .
On the doorstep they ’ d pretend to be more pro-Brexit or pro-Remain depending on how the person answered the question on the doorstep .
Then people talked to their neighbours and found out they were again being treated as fools by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest , as they say , is history .
On the night we got a 10.5 per cent swing , turning an almost 9,000 Labour majority into a Conservative majority of 1,144 .
This is the first of many of these fortnightly columns , and the only one to focus on what has happened , rather than the future .
The future is clear , and along the lines of what the Prime Minister has already said .
A lot of people lent us their votes this time in the hope of something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build long-term trust to hold seats like North West Durham .
We can win again but we must deliver .
Better transport ( better bus services , improved roads and , hopefully rail too ) , protecting and enhancing local services ( Shotley Bridge Hospital , GP Services ) and ensuring local police and schools have the resources they need are all vital .
What is key underpinning this is for those of us who have had the honour of being elected by these communities to fight remorselessly and with positivity for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stupid as Labour would have you believe .
They know that if you try you won ’ t succeed every time , but they want you to try – and for your ambition as their MP to match their ambition and aspirations for themselves , their families and communities .
By showing people locally that we get this , we stand a good chance not just of holding seats but of gaining more .
If I were in the MP in Wansbeck , Hull East or Sunderland now , I would be rightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s clear , from the Prime Minister down , Conservatives see 2019 as a new baseline , not a high water mark .

Ric Holden is MP for North West Durham
Peggotty’s Café, Wolsingham, County Durham
Just a just a couple of days before nominations closed, I got a call and was told that the previous Conservative candidate for North West Durham had withdrawn. After chatting with family and close friends, I decided to throw my hat in the ring.
I thought that the local Association might go for me – I grew up in a similar area (albeit on the wetter side of the Pennines) in a semi-rural former industrial village on the Lancashire/Yorkshire border; I’d got experience having been a candidate before and had been heavily involved in campaigning since I was a teenager.
But, to be totally honest, looking at the previous results, it was difficult to believe that this key brick in the ‘Red Wall’ could tumble.
North West Durham was created in 1950, and had returned Labour MPs comfortably its entire existence. Theresa May and Tim Farron (both good local campaigners) had both been trounced in 1992, and Labour’s majority had varied between a “low” of 15 per cent of the vote (with a 6,500 or so majority in 1983) and a “high” of 54 per cent (with a 25,000 or so majority in 1997.
Even with Jeremy Corbyn in place, Laura Pidcock held the seat very comfortably in 2017 with well over half the vote and an 18 per cent majority of almost 9,000 votes. To win by just one vote would require a swing of almost ten per cent.
To the campaign and the seat: my agent, David, and the Association Treasurer, Marian, met me at the Punch Bowl in Edmundbyers at 6pm on Wednesday, 13th November to fill in my nomination papers.
I’ve since learnt that they had both been very disheartened before the meeting, having lost a candidate, and were worried about having a replacement at such short notice who wasn’t super-local.
I didn’t know at the time but do now that when they both got home that night and called each other to say how happy they were, after meeting me properly, with how things had panned out.
So how and why did a seat that’d never been Conservative go blue for the first time?
Big picture
I may be wrong, but I think that the former Labour MP who wrote that it was all Tony Blair’s fault was wide of the mark.
As far as I saw, there were two factors the put us in the ballpark: Corbyn (and by extension Corbyn’s Labour Party) and his policy on Brexit.
It became patently obvious to me after chatting to people locally that they felt that they’d been taken for granted by Labour for a long time, but that this had been crystalised by its “we know better” attitude over Brexit – especially after being told by the party in 2017 that it would deliver on the referendum. This was re-enforced by the nature of Corbyn’s Labour.
The average person I met on the doorstep in North West Durham is moderate and sensible. They know you need good jobs and thriving businesses for the tax revenues for good public services. They’re not Marxists obsessed with looking back to the Miners’ Strike. They’re people who want to get on, work hard for their families but have also have a real sense of community, wand ho don’t want to see those working hard at the bottom trapped without opportunity to succeed.
Labour just didn’t understand. Portraying themselves as almost a pastiche of ‘Old Labour’ in a bizarre attempt at cultural appropriation of a “working class” image fell flat. Local people got the same impression they’d have got if someone hung a Lowry on the wall of an Islington townhouse and then waxed lyrical about what a cultural icon Gracie Fields was to Northern millworkers. Labour handed us an opportunity to capitalise on.
The national campaign was tight and focussed. The concentration on delivering Brexit and on the domestic priorities of the British people was bang on. But I don’t think we’d quite have made it in North West Durham if it had been just this national picture alone.
Little picture
We started campaigning almost immediately. With hardly any data to go on, I blind canvassed different parts of the constituency to get a feel for the most prominent local issues (one of the worst things you can do as a candidate is to fail to recognise that your local association know ‘their bit’ of the area well, but individually rarely understand the whole seat.)
After a couple of nights at a room in the local pub I rented a cottage in Weardale for the duration of the campaign, and purely by being around got myself involved in the local community – including attending a rather boozy night at the Wolsingham showground (thanks Mark!)…
I threw myself into daily campaigning across the constituency with daily Facebook updates and tweets. Our tiny team grew steadily with the support of some of the more active Association members and people who got involved when they saw what we were doing. We went everywhere and spoke to as many people as we could. And people liked it. They liked seeing someone fighting. And they told their friends.
Labour’s reaction locally was unbelievable. I became convinced they had better data from generations of campaigning. Their slavish re-iteration of Labour’s national messaging was helpful. It was like campaigning against a cult rather than a political party.
When Labour did campaign, they turned people off. They had a mistaken belief in the strength of the personal brand of the sitting MP. On the doorstep they’d pretend to be more pro-Brexit or pro-Remain depending on how the person answered the question on the doorstep. Then people talked to their neighbours and found out they were again being treated as fools by the local Labour Party.
And the rest, as they say, is history. On the night we got a 10.5 per cent swing, turning an almost 9,000 Labour majority into a Conservative majority of 1,144.
This is the first of many of these fortnightly columns, and the only one to focus on what has happened, rather than the future. The future is clear, and along the lines of what the Prime Minister has already said. A lot of people lent us their votes this time in the hope of something new and different.
We need to build long-term trust to hold seats like North West Durham. We can win again but we must deliver. Better transport (better bus services, improved roads and, hopefully rail too), protecting and enhancing local services (Shotley Bridge Hospital, GP Services) and ensuring local police and schools have the resources they need are all vital.
What is key underpinning this is for those of us who have had the honour of being elected by these communities to fight remorselessly and with positivity for our communities. The people aren’t stupid as Labour would have you believe. They know that if you try you won’t succeed every time ,but they want you to try – and for your ambition as their MP to match their ambition and aspirations for themselves, their families and communities.
By showing people locally that we get this, we stand a good chance not just of holding seats but of gaining more. If I were in the MP in Wansbeck, Hull East or Sunderland now, I would be rightly very concerned about the next election because it’s clear, from the Prime Minister down, Conservatives see 2019 as a new baseline, not a high water mark.