conservativehome--2020-01-06--Teresa O’Neill: Cutting the costs of Bexley’s politics

Cllr Teresa O ’ Neill is the Leader of Bexley Council .
Harry Phibbs makes some important points about local councillors needing to review their own numbers and whether they could work more efficiently .
In fact , Bexley ’ s Conservative Councillors have been leading the way on this – as we cut the number of our councillors by 30 per cent at the 2018 local elections , from 63 to 45 .
We also reduced the number of wards from 21 to 17 , and now we have a mix of two member and three member wards .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ year freeze of Councillors allowances .
We made this reduction voluntarily – and explicitly asked the Boundary Commission to undertake the review with the aim to reduce the number of councillors .
The main reason for doing so was because we believed it was wrong to exempt ourselves from the overall impact of spending reductions on local government .
It would be impossible to look our own staff in the eye and ask them to change how they work while not being prepared to do the same ourselves .
We also saw we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than finding the same amounts of money from frontline services .
It ’ s staggering to read in Harry ’ s article that some councils in London are seeking to increase the number of councillors .
We also wanted to address some long-standing anomalies .
For example , we had town centres where several wards met in the middle for no logical reason , so we wanted to make sure the new wards reflected the identities of their local communities .
We made the commitment in our 2014 manifesto , and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment in full , immediately after being re-elected , we set up a cross-party committee to get the work moving .
While Labour councillors had made a similar pledge in their 2014 manifesto , it was clear it was a pledge they never expected to be in a position to deliver , but equally , it was clear they never thought we were serious about doing this – they were a bit shocked when the first meeting took place and we set out what needed to be done .
We had productive meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got underway in 2015 , and the final proposals were published in November 2016 .
We worked hard at developing and modelling our own proposals and submitted them to the review , as did other political parties , but we were pleased that the final proposals were only slightly different to our original plans .
The review also made changes to the number of councillors per ward .
The wards that retained three members are now broadly a third larger , and the new smaller wards have two members .
Once the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associations and their respective wards could begin selecting their candidates for 2018 .
The three associations agreed that they would effectively start from scratch and any one on the approved Borough candidates list could apply for any of the new 45 seats .
Considering the scope for problems , or upset , in choosing far fewer candidates , the process went very smoothly and we quickly had all our candidates in place more than a year before the elections were due .
This gave everyone time to learn the new wards and different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began campaigning then .
Of course , while the extensive modelling we did on the proposals suggested the new arrangements would in theory give us a substantial victory when the elections came , the only test of new structures like this is when the votes are actually cast .
Having been elected with three landslide victories in 2006 , 2010 , and 2014 , we were all nervous about what could happen under this new system .
But the number-crunching which had been done over the previous months was almost spot on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ share ever – 55 per cent – and we secured a 12 per cent increase in the number of votes cast and overall ended up with seven per cent more seats – winning 35 seats compared to Labour ’ s ten .
What has been the impact ?
First of all , we , as councillors , have contributed towards the budget savings by reducing our numbers voluntarily , saving hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result , exactly as we pledged .
Meetings seem to work much more effectively now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ around a huge table , smaller committees gives the Members more opportunity to get involved in the issues and properly scrutinise service delivery .
We also deleted some committees altogether , and merged others , but , just as importantly , we increased the number of Overview and Scrutiny Committees , so we could all focus on service delivery and outcomes .
The key lesson from all this is that rather than waiting for the Boundary Commission to start your Council ’ s review , it is better to be pro-active , initiate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what you want to achieve from it .
An opportunity to review the numbers of councillors or the locations of wards does not come along very often so make the most it .
Have clear objectives , set them out as clearly as possible to the Boundary Commission , and then see them through .
Model the impact properly , not just about what it means for your Party , but what it means for other parties as well .
But it is astonishing that there are Labour councils wanting to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ councillors .
How can they call for more councillors and then look their own council staff in the eye and tell them they have to do more with less ?
More importantly , how can they look their own residents in the eye ?

Cllr Teresa O’Neill is the Leader of Bexley Council.
Harry Phibbs makes some important points about local councillors needing to review their own numbers and whether they could work more efficiently.
In fact, Bexley’s Conservative Councillors have been leading the way on this – as we cut the number of our councillors by 30 per cent at the 2018 local elections, from 63 to 45. We also reduced the number of wards from 21 to 17, and now we have a mix of two member and three member wards. This, incidentally, followed a nine year freeze of Councillors allowances.
We made this reduction voluntarily – and explicitly asked the Boundary Commission to undertake the review with the aim to reduce the number of councillors. The main reason for doing so was because we believed it was wrong to exempt ourselves from the overall impact of spending reductions on local government. It would be impossible to look our own staff in the eye and ask them to change how they work while not being prepared to do the same ourselves. We also saw we could achieve substantial savings for Bexley taxpayers rather than finding the same amounts of money from frontline services. It’s staggering to read in Harry’s article that some councils in London are seeking to increase the number of councillors.
We also wanted to address some long-standing anomalies. For example, we had town centres where several wards met in the middle for no logical reason, so we wanted to make sure the new wards reflected the identities of their local communities. We made the commitment in our 2014 manifesto, and, as we have always delivered every manifesto commitment in full, immediately after being re-elected, we set up a cross-party committee to get the work moving. While Labour councillors had made a similar pledge in their 2014 manifesto, it was clear it was a pledge they never expected to be in a position to deliver, but equally, it was clear they never thought we were serious about doing this – they were a bit shocked when the first meeting took place and we set out what needed to be done.
We had productive meetings with the Boundary Commission, the review got underway in 2015, and the final proposals were published in November 2016. We worked hard at developing and modelling our own proposals and submitted them to the review, as did other political parties, but we were pleased that the final proposals were only slightly different to our original plans. The review also made changes to the number of councillors per ward. The wards that retained three members are now broadly a third larger, and the new smaller wards have two members.
Once the new arrangements were approved by Parliament our three associations and their respective wards could begin selecting their candidates for 2018. The three associations agreed that they would effectively start from scratch and any one on the approved Borough candidates list could apply for any of the new 45 seats. Considering the scope for problems, or upset, in choosing far fewer candidates, the process went very smoothly and we quickly had all our candidates in place more than a year before the elections were due. This gave everyone time to learn the new wards and different polling districts and in reality we effectively began campaigning then.
Of course, while the extensive modelling we did on the proposals suggested the new arrangements would in theory give us a substantial victory when the elections came, the only test of new structures like this is when the votes are actually cast. Having been elected with three landslide victories in 2006, 2010, and 2014, we were all nervous about what could happen under this new system. But the number-crunching which had been done over the previous months was almost spot on. We were elected with our largest vote share ever – 55 per cent – and we secured a 12 per cent increase in the number of votes cast and overall ended up with seven per cent more seats – winning 35 seats compared to Labour’s ten.
What has been the impact?
First of all, we, as councillors, have contributed towards the budget savings by reducing our numbers voluntarily, saving hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result, exactly as we pledged. Meetings seem to work much more effectively now. Instead of large numbers of councillors sitting around a huge table, smaller committees gives the Members more opportunity to get involved in the issues and properly scrutinise service delivery. We also deleted some committees altogether, and merged others, but, just as importantly, we increased the number of Overview and Scrutiny Committees, so we could all focus on service delivery and outcomes.
The key lesson from all this is that rather than waiting for the Boundary Commission to start your Council’s review, it is better to be pro-active, initiate the review yourself, and be clear about what you want to achieve from it. An opportunity to review the numbers of councillors or the locations of wards does not come along very often so make the most it.
Have clear objectives, set them out as clearly as possible to the Boundary Commission, and then see them through. Model the impact properly, not just about what it means for your Party, but what it means for other parties as well.
But it is astonishing that there are Labour councils wanting to use the reviews to increase the number of councillors.
How can they call for more councillors and then look their own council staff in the eye and tell them they have to do more with less?
More importantly, how can they look their own residents in the eye?


conservativehome--2020-01-07--Andrew Gimson’s Commons sketch: In the name of Cabinet government, Wallace speaks for Johnson

Where ’ s Boris Johnson ?
It sounds like some dreadful party game , and Jeremy Corbyn wanted to play it .
He insisted the Prime Minister was hiding behind the Defence Secretary .
We gazed at Ben Wallace , a chunky figure in a Brigade tie , but surely not chunky enough to hide Johnson .
There were , it is true , plenty of Tory MPs behind Wallace , pretty much filling that side of the House , but many are new , so as yet unknown , and none bore the slightest resemblance to the party leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected .
Corbyn ventured a joke : “ I ’ ve long spoken out against the Iranian government ’ s human rights record.
” The Tories erupted in heavy , mocking laughter , old hands showing the new recruits how this is done .
The Leader of the Opposition said “ the law is that we don ’ t go around assassinating foreign leaders ” .
He wondered whether the British Government thought what the Americans had done was legal .
It sounded as if Corbyn suspected Donald Trump was hiding behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Wallace thought .
He said America had acted in self-defence , a right in which Britain very much believes , but it was “ for the United States to answer about the intelligence ” on which the killing of General Soleimani had been based .
The Defence Secretary launched a counter-attack on Corbyn , whom he accused of spouting the usual anti-American sentiments and “ anti-imperialist guff ” .
There is a lot of anti-imperialist guff around .
The late Julian Amery ( Con , Brighton Pavilion ) used to support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the middle east , and to think that the Americans had made a bit of a mess of things when they took over from the British and the French , but Wallace decided discretion was the better part of valour , and did not treat us to the pro-imperialist case .
On the question of Johnson ’ s whereabouts , the Defence Secretary assured us the Prime Minister is running the country , something Corbyn will never do .
Wallace added that “ the Prime Minister actually believes in Cabinet government ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ministers believe in to begin with .
Tommy Sheppard ( SNP , Edinburgh East ) wondered whether there were any other Iranians “ whose assassination the United Kingdom would find acceptable ” .
Wallace indicated that he found this question in rather poor taste .
Unfortunately , on this occasion a “ kinetic or lethal strike ” had been required , but it was not , he implied , the sort of thing he wanted to see every day of the week .
Simon Hoare ( Con , North Dorset ) wondered whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pandora ’ s Box he has potentially opened ” .
Wallace did not offer a direct answer to that question .
Soon he was declaring that “ our hand of friendship is there for the people of Iran ” .
Further conflict is in no one ’ s interests , added to which it is not actually American policy to destroy Iranian heritage sites .
Whether in Tehran , or in the White House , so peaceable an outlook prevails , Wallace did not venture to say .

Where’s Boris Johnson? It sounds like some dreadful party game, and Jeremy Corbyn wanted to play it.
He insisted the Prime Minister was hiding behind the Defence Secretary. We gazed at Ben Wallace, a chunky figure in a Brigade tie, but surely not chunky enough to hide Johnson.
There were, it is true, plenty of Tory MPs behind Wallace, pretty much filling that side of the House, but many are new, so as yet unknown, and none bore the slightest resemblance to the party leader who did so much to get them elected.
Corbyn ventured a joke: “I’ve long spoken out against the Iranian government’s human rights record.”
The Tories erupted in heavy, mocking laughter, old hands showing the new recruits how this is done.
The Leader of the Opposition said “the law is that we don’t go around assassinating foreign leaders”. He wondered whether the British Government thought what the Americans had done was legal.
It sounded as if Corbyn suspected Donald Trump was hiding behind the Defence Secretary too.
This was not what Wallace thought. He said America had acted in self-defence, a right in which Britain very much believes, but it was “for the United States to answer about the intelligence” on which the killing of General Soleimani had been based.
The Defence Secretary launched a counter-attack on Corbyn, whom he accused of spouting the usual anti-American sentiments and “anti-imperialist guff”.
There is a lot of anti-imperialist guff around. The late Julian Amery (Con, Brighton Pavilion) used to support the maintenance of an imperial system of control in the middle east, and to think that the Americans had made a bit of a mess of things when they took over from the British and the French, but Wallace decided discretion was the better part of valour, and did not treat us to the pro-imperialist case.
On the question of Johnson’s whereabouts, the Defence Secretary assured us the Prime Minister is running the country, something Corbyn will never do.
Wallace added that “the Prime Minister actually believes in Cabinet government”. That is a doctrine all Prime Ministers believe in to begin with.
Tommy Sheppard (SNP, Edinburgh East) wondered whether there were any other Iranians “whose assassination the United Kingdom would find acceptable”.
Wallace indicated that he found this question in rather poor taste. Unfortunately, on this occasion a “kinetic or lethal strike” had been required, but it was not, he implied, the sort of thing he wanted to see every day of the week.
Simon Hoare (Con, North Dorset) wondered whether President Trump was “alert to the Pandora’s Box he has potentially opened”.
Wallace did not offer a direct answer to that question. Soon he was declaring that “our hand of friendship is there for the people of Iran”. Further conflict is in no one’s interests, added to which it is not actually American policy to destroy Iranian heritage sites.
Whether in Tehran, or in the White House, so peaceable an outlook prevails, Wallace did not venture to say.


conservativehome--2020-01-07--WATCH: Where is the Prime Minister? asks Corbyn

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says UK PM Boris Johnson is “ scared to stand up to President Trump ” over @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani , adding the UK government is “ giving cover ” to the UShttps : @ @

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says UK PM Boris Johnson is “scared to stand up to President Trump” over the US assassination of Qasem Soleimani, adding the UK government is “giving cover” to the UShttps://t.co/bwSpmuknTq pic.twitter.com/6BUYGsqw67
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) January 7, 2020


conservativehome--2020-01-07--WATCH: Wallace – “Soleimani was no friend of UK or our allies”

“ General Soleimani was no friend of the UK or our allies in the region , he was not an @ @ @ @ @ or a prosperous Middle East ” Defence Secretary Ben Wallace update MPs on the situation @ @ @ @ @

“General Soleimani was no friend of the UK or our allies in the region, he was not an advocate of a more peaceful or a prosperous Middle East”
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace update MPs on the situation in Iranhttps://t.co/Ju8kTwdzV7 pic.twitter.com/g9R6i3ddkF
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) January 7, 2020


conservativehome--2020-01-08--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--2020-01-08--“Trillion dollar bills lying on the street”

Ken Clarke delights in pointing out that under Margaret Thatcher , who he served as a reforming Minister , a political cycle would turn roughly as follows .
She would win an election .
Her Government would then undertake a series of reforms , all of which would swiftly run into opposition , not least from all the interest groups concerned .
The Conservative poll ratings would plummet .
Another election would eventually come .
She would then win it again…at which point the cycle would once again commence .
Last year ’ s Tory manifesto and yesterday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all rather different these days .
The former was stress-tested in order to avoid a repetition of the social care calamity of 2017 .
Quite right too .
But a consequence is that one can scour its pages without finding much by way of major reform .
Fifty thousand more nurses !
Twenty thousand more police !
Millions more invested in schools , science , apprenticeships and infrastucture !
A massive programme of improvements for our roads !
As for our armed forces , “ we will always fund them properly ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Javid has helped to ensure that the Government is committed to ensuring that “ public sector net investment will not average more than 3 per cent of GDP ” and that “ debt will be lower at the end of the Parliament ” .
That means a squeeze on current spending – it is a different matter with capital – if taxes are not to rise higher than they otherwise might .
The Government has said that it “ will not raise the rate of income tax , VAT or National Insurance ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some jiggery-pockery with thresholds , but both Javid and Boris Johnson will want to avoid that if at all possible .
So there is a trade-off between tax hikes elsewhere and spending rise reductions .
Ministers have consequently been told to slaughter sacred cows even though the interest groups concerned will fight like protective tigers .
Some officials will “ squeal ” .
It is an entire animal farm .
Departments have been told to go through their spending line by line .
In his latest famous blog , Dominic Cummings has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of low hanging fruit — trillion dollar bills lying on the street ” .
If these can be found in the ways he then suggests then departmental ministers can relax .
But it may all not be quite that straightforward .
Another Dominic , Raab – now embroiled in Iran – once proposed a plan for radical savings .
He wanted to slash the number of departments from 20 to eleven .
Many of his proposals echo current ones , or vice-versa .
For example , he wanted to put the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It isn ’ t clear whether Johnson intends such structural reform .
And if does whether the civil service will ensure that it becomes a shuffling rather than the removing of deckchairs .
But whatever happens , there are limits to what can be squeezed out of departmental change .
One comes back in the end to reform if one wants savings – and stable let alone lower taxes .
On healthcare , the manifesto pledges to “ study carefully the recommendations of the ongoing review led by NHS clinical staff into A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On education , provision will be expanded for those who have been excluded from school .
On social care , the Government will let you know ; sorry , “ build a cross-party consensus ” .
That defence pledge costs money if met .
So does Universal Credit .
We don ’ t believe that “ reaching net zero by 2050 ” can be done without cost .
“ Tougher sentencing ” means more prison place .
Oh , and “ we will keep the triple lock , the winter fuel payment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other pensioner benefits ” .
Some claim that Laffer curves can solve all these problems .
But all Conservative Governments , including Thatcher ’ s , have put sound money first .
In a properly-ordered political world , there would be a real fundamental spending review , looking at everything government does , and asking whether it must be done and , if so , whether civil society or the private sector can do it more effectively .
But this Government is roughly a million light years away from undertaking any such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ austerity ” – whatever that may mean now .
That mass of Red Wall seats was won precisely because Johnson was able to bat off claims that he leads the “ same old Tories ” .
That meant no big reform plan .
All these challenges can be danced around or ducked or evaded for a while .
But not indefinitely .

Ken Clarke delights in pointing out that under Margaret Thatcher, who he served as a reforming Minister, a political cycle would turn roughly as follows. She would win an election. Her Government would then undertake a series of reforms, all of which would swiftly run into opposition, not least from all the interest groups concerned.
The Conservative poll ratings would plummet. Another election would eventually come. She would then win it again…at which point the cycle would once again commence.
Last year’s Tory manifesto and yesterday’s Cabinet meeting are a reminder that it is all rather different these days.
The former was stress-tested in order to avoid a repetition of the social care calamity of 2017. Quite right too. But a consequence is that one can scour its pages without finding much by way of major reform.
Fifty thousand more nurses! Twenty thousand more police! Millions more invested in schools, science, apprenticeships and infrastucture! A massive programme of improvements for our roads! As for our armed forces, “we will always fund them properly”.
Over at the Treasury, Sajid Javid has helped to ensure that the Government is committed to ensuring that “public sector net investment will not average more than 3 per cent of GDP” and that “debt will be lower at the end of the Parliament”.
That means a squeeze on current spending – it is a different matter with capital – if taxes are not to rise higher than they otherwise might. The Government has said that it “will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance”.
That form of wording leaves room for some jiggery-pockery with thresholds, but both Javid and Boris Johnson will want to avoid that if at all possible. So there is a trade-off between tax hikes elsewhere and spending rise reductions.
Ministers have consequently been told to slaughter sacred cows even though the interest groups concerned will fight like protective tigers. Some officials will “squeal”. It is an entire animal farm. Departments have been told to go through their spending line by line.
In his latest famous blog, Dominic Cummings has written that “there is a huge amount of low hanging fruit — trillion dollar bills lying on the street”. If these can be found in the ways he then suggests then departmental ministers can relax. But it may all not be quite that straightforward.
Another Dominic, Raab – now embroiled in Iran – once proposed a plan for radical savings. He wanted to slash the number of departments from 20 to eleven. Many of his proposals echo current ones, or vice-versa. For example, he wanted to put the Department for International Development into…the Foreign Office.
It isn’t clear whether Johnson intends such structural reform. And if does whether the civil service will ensure that it becomes a shuffling rather than the removing of deckchairs. But whatever happens, there are limits to what can be squeezed out of departmental change.
One comes back in the end to reform if one wants savings – and stable let alone lower taxes. On healthcare, the manifesto pledges to “study carefully the recommendations of the ongoing review led by NHS clinical staff into A&E and clinical performance”.
On education, provision will be expanded for those who have been excluded from school. On social care, the Government will let you know; sorry, “build a cross-party consensus”. That defence pledge costs money if met. So does Universal Credit. We don’t believe that “reaching net zero by 2050” can be done without cost.
“Tougher sentencing” means more prison place. Oh, and “we will keep the triple lock, the winter fuel payment, the older person’s bus pass and other pensioner benefits”. Some claim that Laffer curves can solve all these problems. But all Conservative Governments, including Thatcher’s, have put sound money first.
In a properly-ordered political world, there would be a real fundamental spending review, looking at everything government does, and asking whether it must be done and, if so, whether civil society or the private sector can do it more effectively.
The Big Society, anyone?
But this Government is roughly a million light years away from undertaking any such thing. Voters are sick and tired of “austerity” – whatever that may mean now.
That mass of Red Wall seats was won precisely because Johnson was able to bat off claims that he leads the “same old Tories”. That meant no big reform plan. All these challenges can be danced around or ducked or evaded for a while. But not indefinitely.


conservativehome--2020-01-08--Daniel Hannan: Revolutionary Iran is a threat to our national security – not just regional stability

Daniel Hannan: Revolutionary Iran is a threat to our national security – not just regional stability. It must be confronted and defeated.

Daniel Hannan is an MEP for South-East England , and a journalist , author , and broadcaster .
His most recent book is What Next : How to Get the Best from Brexit .
In 2015 , MI5 uncovered an Iranian-sponsored bomb factory in Hillingdon .
Police found three metric tonnes of ammonium nitrate – the explosive material used in , among other terrorist abominations , the Oklahoma bombing .
The date is important .
A few months earlier , Britain , as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council , had struck a deal with Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s reintegration into the world community as a non-nuclear state .
2015 was arguably the high point of the international community ’ s policy of constructive engagement with the ayatollahs .
The bomb-making operation , in other words , was not a response to British or American provocation .
It was simply an example of Iran being Iran – the world ’ s pre-eminent exporter of violence .
There is a tendency in Britain to think of Iran simply as a regional nuisance – a threat , no doubt , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Arab allies , but hardly a global menace .
This is fundamentally to misunderstand the way the mullahs think .
Consider the following list of countries : Albania , Argentina , Bahrain , Denmark , France , India , Kenya , Thailand .
What do they have in common ?
Only this : they have all been on the receiving end of Iranian-sponsored terrorism , most of it masterminded by the late and unlamented Qasem Soleimani .
A strange list , no ?
I mean , what possible interest could the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Argentina ?
In 1994 , a Jewish cultural centre in Buenos Aires was bombed , with 85 fatalities and hundreds of injuries .
The trail led back to Teheran .
What were the mullahs trying to achieve ?
Could it have been precisely Argentina ’ s distance from Iran that made it attractive ?
That Iran ’ s leaders wanted to show that they could strike anywhere ?
That state sovereignty , territorial jurisdiction and geographical remoteness meant nothing to them ?
When we think of the 1979 Islamic Revolution , we tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second .
Yes , Iran ’ s leaders are theocrats ; but , far more immediately , they are revolutionaries , committed to spreading their revolt across the world .
Like the French revolutionaries after 1789 , or the Russian revolutionaries after 1917 , they immediately spilled out from behind their borders , sponsoring militias and terrorist cells on every continent .
In retrospect , their intentions were clear from their first act , namely the attack on the US embassy in Teheran .
It is hard , forty years on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make hostages of diplomatic personnel .
The sanctity of legation buildings is the cornerstone of the international order .
When , for example , Gen Galtieri invaded the Falkland Islands , British diplomats in Buenos Aires never seriously feared for their safety .
Even during the Second World War , when barbaric dictatorships fought to destroy one another , diplomatic personnel were peacefully evacuated through neutral countries .
In refusing to recognise that norm , the ayatollahs were sending out the clearest possible signal : “ Your rules don ’ t apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognise your notions of international law ” .
And so they have continued for four decades .
Their apologists in the West want to make all this about us .
If only we stopped meddling in the region , they argue , there would be no blowback .
If only we hadn ’ t backed the coup against Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 , all would have been well .
If we carry on intervening , we can hardly complain when we get attacked in return .
This line is taken especially strenuously by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Iranian state TV station .
But it misses the nature of the regime in Teheran .
Revolutionaries are precisely that – revolutionary .
Their regimes depend on a degree of overseas conflict .
Again like the French and Russian revolutionaries , the Iranian revolutionaries win support at home by picking fights abroad .
In Leninist terms , they export their internal contradictions .
Or , to borrow a metaphor from chaos theory , they drink order from their surroundings .
During the years when the West , led by the EU , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comity of nations , the ayatollahs continued to sponsor militias from the Balkans to the old Silk Road Khanates .
They backed terrorist bombs , cyberattacks and drone shootings .
The event that immediately triggered the retaliation against Soleimani was another Iranian attack on an American embassy – this time in Iraq .
Those who warn us sonorously against about “ the cost of escalation ” should at least acknowledge the cost of non-escalation .
During the Cold War , Western leaders were careful to stress that their quarrel was with revolutionary communism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , East Germany or Cuba .
They were clear that the problem was communism itself : that its internal logic made it expansionist and destabilising .
Precisely the same applies today .
Few nations can match Persia in the depth of their civilization .
But that country ’ s present leaders are a menace to their people , their neighbours and everyone else .
They need to be confronted and defeated .

Daniel Hannan is an MEP for South-East England, and a journalist, author, and broadcaster. His most recent book is What Next: How to Get the Best from Brexit.
In 2015, MI5 uncovered an Iranian-sponsored bomb factory in Hillingdon. Police found three metric tonnes of ammonium nitrate – the explosive material used in, among other terrorist abominations, the Oklahoma bombing.
The date is important. A few months earlier, Britain, as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, had struck a deal with Iran that was meant to provide for that country’s reintegration into the world community as a non-nuclear state. 2015 was arguably the high point of the international community’s policy of constructive engagement with the ayatollahs. The bomb-making operation, in other words, was not a response to British or American provocation. It was simply an example of Iran being Iran – the world’s pre-eminent exporter of violence.
There is a tendency in Britain to think of Iran simply as a regional nuisance – a threat, no doubt, to Israel, and to some of Britain’s Arab allies, but hardly a global menace. This is fundamentally to misunderstand the way the mullahs think.
Consider the following list of countries: Albania, Argentina, Bahrain, Denmark, France, India, Kenya, Thailand. What do they have in common? Only this: they have all been on the receiving end of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, most of it masterminded by the late and unlamented Qasem Soleimani.
A strange list, no? I mean, what possible interest could the Iranian state have in, say, Argentina? In 1994, a Jewish cultural centre in Buenos Aires was bombed, with 85 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. The trail led back to Teheran. What were the mullahs trying to achieve? Could it have been precisely Argentina’s distance from Iran that made it attractive? That Iran’s leaders wanted to show that they could strike anywhere? That state sovereignty, territorial jurisdiction and geographical remoteness meant nothing to them?
When we think of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, we tend to overemphasise the first word and underemphasise the second. Yes, Iran’s leaders are theocrats; but, far more immediately, they are revolutionaries, committed to spreading their revolt across the world.
Like the French revolutionaries after 1789, or the Russian revolutionaries after 1917, they immediately spilled out from behind their borders, sponsoring militias and terrorist cells on every continent.
In retrospect, their intentions were clear from their first act, namely the attack on the US embassy in Teheran. It is hard, forty years on, to emphasise quite how shocking it was to make hostages of diplomatic personnel. The sanctity of legation buildings is the cornerstone of the international order. When, for example, Gen Galtieri invaded the Falkland Islands, British diplomats in Buenos Aires never seriously feared for their safety. Even during the Second World War, when barbaric dictatorships fought to destroy one another, diplomatic personnel were peacefully evacuated through neutral countries.
In refusing to recognise that norm, the ayatollahs were sending out the clearest possible signal: “Your rules don’t apply to us. We don’t recognise your notions of international law”. And so they have continued for four decades.
Their apologists in the West want to make all this about us. If only we stopped meddling in the region, they argue, there would be no blowback. If only we hadn’t backed the coup against Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, all would have been well. If we carry on intervening, we can hardly complain when we get attacked in return. This line is taken especially strenuously by Jeremy Corbyn, a former employee of an Iranian state TV station.
But it misses the nature of the regime in Teheran. Revolutionaries are precisely that – revolutionary. Their regimes depend on a degree of overseas conflict. Again like the French and Russian revolutionaries, the Iranian revolutionaries win support at home by picking fights abroad. In Leninist terms, they export their internal contradictions. Or, to borrow a metaphor from chaos theory, they drink order from their surroundings.
During the years when the West, led by the EU, sought to draw Iran back into the comity of nations, the ayatollahs continued to sponsor militias from the Balkans to the old Silk Road Khanates. They backed terrorist bombs, cyberattacks and drone shootings. The event that immediately triggered the retaliation against Soleimani was another Iranian attack on an American embassy – this time in Iraq. Those who warn us sonorously against about “the cost of escalation” should at least acknowledge the cost of non-escalation.
During the Cold War, Western leaders were careful to stress that their quarrel was with revolutionary communism, not with the peoples of Russia, East Germany or Cuba. They were clear that the problem was communism itself: that its internal logic made it expansionist and destabilising.
Precisely the same applies today. Few nations can match Persia in the depth of their civilization. But that country’s present leaders are a menace to their people, their neighbours and everyone else. They need to be confronted and defeated.


conservativehome--2020-01-08--Ryan Bourne: The limits of weirdos and misfits

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
It is fast becoming one of the most discussed employment advertisements ever .
Dominic Cummings ’ call for No .
10 job applications from data scientists and software developers , quirky economists and policy experts , and other assorted “ weirdos and misfits ” has drawn reaction from global public intellectuals , former civil servants , and experience-weary ex-government digital experts .
Now , civil service employment practices , SpAds ’ competences , and government project management , are outside my “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might say .
Without in-house experience , I ’ ll avoid passing judgment on whether better physics and maths skills or expertise in the economics of auctions might improve Downing Street ’ s performance .
Others who I respect seem positive about his proposals , particularly as it pertains to quantitative skills and institutionalising analysis of uncertainty .
Likewise , some of Cummings ’ broad proposals for Civil Service reform seem sensible as an outsider : “ red teams ” to push back on conventional wisdom ; rewards for officials actually seeing through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorly performing officials ; more specialism , less generalism .
All have clear rationales , though are easier said than delivered .
And some tensions clearly exist between them .
Greater longevity for brilliantly specialist civil servants , for example , surely creates an institutional impediment to radically adaptive change .
Given all the ink spilt debating these ideas , however , an obvious point has been missed .
Cummings ’ ideas here are for personnel and structural changes to a technocracy .
For “ better ” management and people to deliver systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
They do not tell us anything , per se , about what he perceives to be the correct role of government – of when it should act , what it should do , and why .
Yet without knowing what recruits and the civil service will be working on , it ’ s impossible to assess claims of the supposed “ trillions of dollars lying on the sidewalk ” from the “ low-hanging fruit ” of improved government performance .
Yes , yes , we have breadcrumbs signalling towards certain “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks Cummings seeks a world of politics as “ enterprise association , ” harnessing AI , science , big data , cutting-edge communications in pursuit of regional rebalancing , science-led industrial strategies , and value-for-money procurement .
Brexit , as Cummings acknowledges , brings necessary major policy change in other areas too , not least the promised immigration system .
But reading Cummings ’ blog suggests a more romantic and expansive view of what an effective technocracy can achieve .
He places central importance on “ people , ” reading as if tons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other projects become viable , if only more brilliant physicists , data scientists , or mathematicians , armed with cutting-edges models of uncertainty and understanding of non-linearities , were in government .
Policy failure and other challenges , in other words , are downstream .
“ Bad management ” or “ the wrong skills ” or “ incompetent people ” are held up as the root cause of bad government ; better rational planners could be transformative .
My central gripe is that I doubt this is true .
Government action ultimately reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political process .
And politics causes a range of structural problems that explain government failure , particularly on economics , irrespective of the brilliance of officials and project managers : • : civil servants ultimately work for politicians , and politicians can be myopic and ignorant , while wanting results conducive to re-election or pleasing interest groups .
How else to explain prestige projects such as HS2 when other transport projects clearly could deliver better bang for the buck ?
Or moving from hugging huskies to denouncing “ green crap ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police spending levels with inflexion points at elections ?
If civil servants come and go , so do Ministers .
There have been five transport secretaries alone since 2010 .
It ’ s all very well lamenting a lack of error correction in the civil service , but what about politicians continually demanding things with little record of success in their role as local champions ( see current debates about high streets and activist government regeneration ) .
• : Data can help inform better policy , of course .
But some significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even to the smartest brains or the newest methods .
Politicians and planners seek “ a solution , ” often creating huge unintended consequences .
Markets , by being open forums to fulfil individual wants and needs , instead find tailored solutions for different people .
Economies are not predictable systems – if they were , then machine learning could make socialism a reality .
Even “ the best people ” or “ the best models ” can ’ t forecast the macroeconomy with decent accuracy because “ the British economy ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses , each acting relatively freely .
• : Cummings might want to replicate successful private sector innovation .
But market-based activity tends to start small and expand when signals like profits or consumer surveys suggest success .
The public sector usually doesn ’ t have these signals .
They could be mimicked by experimentation at local level , or hospital level , or school , with best practice spreading organically .
That though , means decentralising power and accepting “ post-code lotteries , ” which governments are reluctant to do .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money and large-scale solutions .
Without profit and loss , and the threat of financial failure , finding the correct “ efficient scale ” for much government activity is difficult , no matter what modeling or expertise you have .
• : Government engages in an extraordinarily diverse range of activities .
Yes , individual-focused projects , such as the Apollo programme Cummings highlights , can be successful ; but healthcare is more complex .
Different policy areas often have conflicting objectives too ( see the lower VAT rate on domestic fuel vs. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Reformers constantly run into Chesterton Fences – not least because no man can account for all of what the state does .
Having a framework of what constitutes core activities and why ( whether it ’ s delivering public goods , solving other market failures , redistributing or more ) is , therefore , an important prerequisite for the type of management , resources and approach required .
• : government projects or the hiring of more “ brilliant people ” would suck individuals and resources out of the private sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It also disincentives individuals and businesses from finding their own solutions to problems , often creating de-facto monopolies less responsive to users/consumers and technological change .
Now , if Cummings is just laser-focused on improving delivery of core functions or projects , necessary Brexit-related change , or solving market failures , then this critique is neutered somewhat .
His ideas could well generate improvements to delivery of activities government would be undertaking anyway .
But my fear , reading between the lines , is that these hires reflect an ambition for projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that case , it ’ s worth revisiting why governments fail where markets succeed .
There are limits to what talented weirdos and misfits can achieve .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
It is fast becoming one of the most discussed employment advertisements ever. Dominic Cummings’ call for No. 10 job applications from data scientists and software developers, quirky economists and policy experts, and other assorted “weirdos and misfits” has drawn reaction from global public intellectuals, former civil servants, and experience-weary ex-government digital experts.
Now, civil service employment practices, SpAds’ competences, and government project management, are outside my “circle of competence,” as Cummings might say. Without in-house experience, I’ll avoid passing judgment on whether better physics and maths skills or expertise in the economics of auctions might improve Downing Street’s performance. Others who I respect seem positive about his proposals, particularly as it pertains to quantitative skills and institutionalising analysis of uncertainty.
Likewise, some of Cummings’ broad proposals for Civil Service reform seem sensible as an outsider: “red teams” to push back on conventional wisdom; rewards for officials actually seeing through on delivering government projects; redundancy for poorly performing officials; more specialism, less generalism. All have clear rationales, though are easier said than delivered. And some tensions clearly exist between them. Greater longevity for brilliantly specialist civil servants, for example, surely creates an institutional impediment to radically adaptive change.
Given all the ink spilt debating these ideas, however, an obvious point has been missed. Cummings’ ideas here are for personnel and structural changes to a technocracy. For “better” management and people to deliver systems for a large enterprise (the state). They do not tell us anything, per se, about what he perceives to be the correct role of government – of when it should act, what it should do, and why. Yet without knowing what recruits and the civil service will be working on, it’s impossible to assess claims of the supposed “trillions of dollars lying on the sidewalk” from the “low-hanging fruit” of improved government performance.
Yes, yes, we have breadcrumbs signalling towards certain “ends.” This site’s editor thinks Cummings seeks a world of politics as “enterprise association,” harnessing AI, science, big data, cutting-edge communications in pursuit of regional rebalancing, science-led industrial strategies, and value-for-money procurement. Brexit, as Cummings acknowledges, brings necessary major policy change in other areas too, not least the promised immigration system.
But reading Cummings’ blog suggests a more romantic and expansive view of what an effective technocracy can achieve. He places central importance on “people,” reading as if tons of government failures would dissipate, and other projects become viable, if only more brilliant physicists, data scientists, or mathematicians, armed with cutting-edges models of uncertainty and understanding of non-linearities, were in government. Policy failure and other challenges, in other words, are downstream. “Bad management” or “the wrong skills” or “incompetent people” are held up as the root cause of bad government; better rational planners could be transformative.
My central gripe is that I doubt this is true. Government action ultimately reflects a decision to deliver collective action through the political process. And politics causes a range of structural problems that explain government failure, particularly on economics, irrespective of the brilliance of officials and project managers:
Political incentives and short-termism : civil servants ultimately work for politicians, and politicians can be myopic and ignorant, while wanting results conducive to re-election or pleasing interest groups. How else to explain prestige projects such as HS2 when other transport projects clearly could deliver better bang for the buck? Or moving from hugging huskies to denouncing “green crap” to meeting Greta within a decade? Or police spending levels with inflexion points at elections? If civil servants come and go, so do Ministers. There have been five transport secretaries alone since 2010. It’s all very well lamenting a lack of error correction in the civil service, but what about politicians continually demanding things with little record of success in their role as local champions (see current debates about high streets and activist government regeneration).
: civil servants ultimately work for politicians, and politicians can be myopic and ignorant, while wanting results conducive to re-election or pleasing interest groups. How else to explain prestige projects such as HS2 when other transport projects clearly could deliver better bang for the buck? Or moving from hugging huskies to denouncing “green crap” to meeting Greta within a decade? Or police spending levels with inflexion points at elections? If civil servants come and go, so do Ministers. There have been five transport secretaries alone since 2010. It’s all very well lamenting a lack of error correction in the civil service, but what about politicians continually demanding things with little record of success in their role as local champions (see current debates about high streets and activist government regeneration). Knowledge problem : Data can help inform better policy, of course. But some significant economic problems are complex and intractable, even to the smartest brains or the newest methods. Politicians and planners seek “a solution,” often creating huge unintended consequences. Markets, by being open forums to fulfil individual wants and needs, instead find tailored solutions for different people. Economies are not predictable systems – if they were, then machine learning could make socialism a reality. Even “the best people” or “the best models” can’t forecast the macroeconomy with decent accuracy because “the British economy” is really 66.4 million people and 6 million businesses, each acting relatively freely.
: Data can help inform better policy, of course. But some significant economic problems are complex and intractable, even to the smartest brains or the newest methods. Politicians and planners seek “a solution,” often creating huge unintended consequences. Markets, by being open forums to fulfil individual wants and needs, instead find tailored solutions for different people. Economies are not predictable systems – if they were, then machine learning could make socialism a reality. Even “the best people” or “the best models” can’t forecast the macroeconomy with decent accuracy because “the British economy” is really 66.4 million people and 6 million businesses, each acting relatively freely. Centralisation : Cummings might want to replicate successful private sector innovation. But market-based activity tends to start small and expand when signals like profits or consumer surveys suggest success. The public sector usually doesn’t have these signals. They could be mimicked by experimentation at local level, or hospital level, or school, with best practice spreading organically. That though, means decentralising power and accepting “post-code lotteries,” which governments are reluctant to do. Instead, project failure is met with new money and large-scale solutions. Without profit and loss, and the threat of financial failure, finding the correct “efficient scale” for much government activity is difficult, no matter what modeling or expertise you have.
: Cummings might want to replicate successful private sector innovation. But market-based activity tends to start small and expand when signals like profits or consumer surveys suggest success. The public sector usually doesn’t have these signals. They could be mimicked by experimentation at local level, or hospital level, or school, with best practice spreading organically. That though, means decentralising power and accepting “post-code lotteries,” which governments are reluctant to do. Instead, project failure is met with new money and large-scale solutions. Without profit and loss, and the threat of financial failure, finding the correct “efficient scale” for much government activity is difficult, no matter what modeling or expertise you have. Scope : Government engages in an extraordinarily diverse range of activities. Yes, individual-focused projects, such as the Apollo programme Cummings highlights, can be successful; but healthcare is more complex. Different policy areas often have conflicting objectives too (see the lower VAT rate on domestic fuel vs. policies to make fossil fuels less attractive). Reformers constantly run into Chesterton Fences – not least because no man can account for all of what the state does. Having a framework of what constitutes core activities and why (whether it’s delivering public goods, solving other market failures, redistributing or more) is, therefore, an important prerequisite for the type of management, resources and approach required.
: Government engages in an extraordinarily diverse range of activities. Yes, individual-focused projects, such as the Apollo programme Cummings highlights, can be successful; but healthcare is more complex. Different policy areas often have conflicting objectives too (see the lower VAT rate on domestic fuel vs. policies to make fossil fuels less attractive). Reformers constantly run into Chesterton Fences – not least because no man can account for all of what the state does. Having a framework of what constitutes core activities and why (whether it’s delivering public goods, solving other market failures, redistributing or more) is, therefore, an important prerequisite for the type of management, resources and approach required. Crowd out : government projects or the hiring of more “brilliant people” would suck individuals and resources out of the private sector, where they could benefit society more. It also disincentives individuals and businesses from finding their own solutions to problems, often creating de-facto monopolies less responsive to users/consumers and technological change.
Now, if Cummings is just laser-focused on improving delivery of core functions or projects, necessary Brexit-related change, or solving market failures, then this critique is neutered somewhat. His ideas could well generate improvements to delivery of activities government would be undertaking anyway.
But my fear, reading between the lines, is that these hires reflect an ambition for projects encompassing greater government economic activism. In that case, it’s worth revisiting why governments fail where markets succeed. There are limits to what talented weirdos and misfits can achieve.


conservativehome--2020-01-08--Judy Terry: Real local accountability could reduce wasteful spending in the NHS

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk .
The suffocating public sector bureaucracy we all face every day leaves many of us in despair at the waste of public money .
Endless commissions appointed to ‘ review ’ but without any outcome , or anyone ever held to account for not implementing policies and recommendations .
Nobody taking responsibility for failed IT projects .
Poor procurement , and over-regulation stifles ingenuity and the ability to welcome change , instead of blocking it .
A case in point is the NHS which has taken bureaucracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the difference between NHS England and NHS Providers ?
How can anyone make sense of the attached Structure Chart ?
What is the point of Healthwatch , with its regional office network , conducting surveys and writing endless reports ?
Talking of reports , at the beginning of December I attended another meeting of the Ipswich and East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group ( CCG ) .
It is one of two CCGs covering 40 GP practices in the county ; together with West Suffolk , they share 271 staff .
Having belatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Blakenham , since 2017 Ipswich & East Suffolk is based at Suffolk County Council ’ s HQ in Ipswich , whilst West Suffolk CCG is based at West Suffolk Council ’ s offices .
Established in 2012 to replace Primary Care Trusts , 191 CCGs across England have responsibility for “ planning and commissioning healthcare services in their local areas ” .
Despite complaints of a lack of funding for the NHS , they cost billions , yet mergers are opposed .
Is there any evidence that they add value ?
Ipswich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board , including the Chairman ( who is paid £65,000 on top of his GP income ; the others receive a more modest £30,000 ) .
West Suffolk has six GPs on its main board , all in receipt of the same annual payments , including the Chairman .
More GPs are involved in a range of other committees across both CCGs , tying them up for days ; is this really the best use of their time , when patients can ’ t get GP appointments ?
Glossy Annual Reports for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published last May .
Why not a joint report ?
These are reviews of activities over more than 100 pages – to what purpose , when it is doubtful that anyone , including in Government , will read them ?
And what was the cost ?
The two websites are another expense , kept updated for the few who bother to access them – when almost no-one has ever heard of CCGs .
Because of that lack of awareness , the bi-monthly public meetings are poorly attended , and most people will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As usual , the Ipswich and East Suffolk agenda comprised a dozen or so reports ( not available at the meeting in hard copy , to save paper , and difficult to follow , even downloaded to a laptop as board members discussed without inviting comment from the public ) , together with details of staff consultation and further recruitment , including director posts .
Because of election purdah , public questions were restricted .
Being responsible for commissioning the East Anglian Ambulance Service , the board was asked to hold a minute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who died within 10 days of each other in November , one allegedly confirmed as suicide .
An independent investigation is under way by an officer from the Metropolitan police , amid accusations of bullying and ‘ a toxic culture ’ .
However , the CQC ( Care Quality Commission ) had already identified that the Service suffered from poor leadership and requires improvement .
At the last count , the Service had 300 vacancies and its difficulties were widely known , not least through extensive media coverage over several years .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for ambulance services , and how did they hold its leadership to account , when they were aware of deficiencies , as noted in their annual reports ?
Just what is the purpose of the Health & Wellbeing Board ?
It is attended by representatives from both CCGs but it doesn ’ t address obvious failings .
What are they doing to reduce pharmaceuticals waste , dumped whilst still within date , costing millions of pounds annually ?
Or to improve management of temporary aids like crutches and walking sticks , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and re-use to hospitals , instead of being scrapped , at considerable expense ?
Are they reviewing annual flu jabs , which seem to make people ill , instead of protecting their health ?
Suffolk ’ s Health & Wellbeing Board has recently refreshed its strategy but appears to avoid detailed scrutiny or engagement with services in crisis .
Adding to bureaucracy , Suffolk also has a joint Health Scrutiny Committee with Essex , ‘ scrutinising issues relating to the implementation of the NHS Suffolk and NE Essex Sustainability and Transformation Plan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ implement its Five Year Forward Plan .
We are constantly reminded that the NHS is “ free ” .
But it is not free .
It is funded by taxpayers , and only free at the point of delivery , but increasingly top-down , lacking genuine engagement with highly skilled professionals on the front line who do a remarkable job .
Instead of spending their time completing paperwork , struggling with outdated computer systems , they know they could do an even better job if someone listened to them .
For example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their surgeries – why not here ?
It would aid early diagnosis , saving time , when patients can spend weeks or even months going backwards and forwards to GPs and hospital – seeing different consultants – for tests and ( usually as a last resort ) scans .
Co-ordinating appointments to do all this within days would save stress and money .
On January 3rd , BBC Look East investigated a tragic case of a young man , in extreme pain and paralysed for the last four years , following car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by ambulance more than 100 times in the last two years .
Stoke Mandeville Hospital will help with specialist treatment , but the Mid Essex CCG will not commit to funding it .
Meanwhile , why should older people , who worked hard all their lives and paid their National Insurance , have to wait years for a hip or knee replacement , as worsening pain affects both independence and quality of life ?
Allowing older people to go blind because they can ’ t get treatment for cataracts is unacceptable and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost for personal care when a simple operation would sustain their independence .
Some CCGs reportedly ration cataract treatment to one eye , not both .
Consequently , those with savings are forced to spend thousands of pounds on private treatment from their NHS consultants , whose operating theatres are unused .
Having watched a number of programmes about the Air Ambulance and how lives are saved in the most difficult circumstances , it ’ s evident that the Service should not have to rely on charity for its funding – Government should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his experience as an army surgeon was invaluable dealing with emergencies , and some of the helicopters fly from military bases , could there be mutual benefits in closer working with the Armed Services , each learning from the other , boosting expertise ?
This could include the provision of state of the art prosthetics and rehabilitation for amputees .
The NHS is , rightly , a sacred institution to be proud of .
As an emergency medicine consultant , who led responses to the 7/7 bombings , and other major incidents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When you watch the NHS kick in , the effort that goes into saving people is unbelievable .
It ’ s an amazing statement of how society does care.
” We can all agree that such commitment deserves to be acknowledged , cherished and respected – but that doesn ’ t mean that it can ’ t be helped to adapt to fresh challenges and enabled to broaden access to amazing developments in new treatments .
The Prime Minister promised a revolution in Government ; he should start with the Health Service .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are all guilty of in our own lives , could redirect funds and improve procurement .
A review , not via a lengthy commission , or one of the five main accountancy groups , but led by someone beyond Westminster and its somewhat incestuous appointments system .
Someone outside politics and unconnected with the healthcare sector , who understands delivering best value for the wider community , listening and learning from those on the front line , who see problems first hand – and have the solutions .
Ideal candidates would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership , credited with creating one of the top-performing LEPs in the country .
Their strong leadership , insight , aspiration , business acumen and lack of ego , could be just what ’ s needed to inspire the transformation of our treasured NHS , by reducing interfering management , allowing the focus to return to the patient – and staff .

Judy Terry is a marketing professional and a former local councillor in Suffolk.
The suffocating public sector bureaucracy we all face every day leaves many of us in despair at the waste of public money. Endless commissions appointed to ‘review’ but without any outcome, or anyone ever held to account for not implementing policies and recommendations. Nobody taking responsibility for failed IT projects. Poor procurement, and over-regulation stifles ingenuity and the ability to welcome change, instead of blocking it.
A case in point is the NHS which has taken bureaucracy to a new level: what’s the difference between NHS England and NHS Providers? How can anyone make sense of the attached Structure Chart? What is the point of Healthwatch, with its regional office network, conducting surveys and writing endless reports?
Talking of reports, at the beginning of December I attended another meeting of the Ipswich and East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). It is one of two CCGs covering 40 GP practices in the county; together with West Suffolk, they share 271 staff. Having belatedly given up its expensive leased offices at Great Blakenham, since 2017 Ipswich & East Suffolk is based at Suffolk County Council’s HQ in Ipswich, whilst West Suffolk CCG is based at West Suffolk Council’s offices. Established in 2012 to replace Primary Care Trusts, 191 CCGs across England have responsibility for “planning and commissioning healthcare services in their local areas”. Despite complaints of a lack of funding for the NHS, they cost billions, yet mergers are opposed. Is there any evidence that they add value?
Ipswich & East Suffolk has eight GPs on the board, including the Chairman (who is paid £65,000 on top of his GP income; the others receive a more modest £30,000). West Suffolk has six GPs on its main board, all in receipt of the same annual payments, including the Chairman. More GPs are involved in a range of other committees across both CCGs, tying them up for days; is this really the best use of their time, when patients can’t get GP appointments?
Glossy Annual Reports for 2018/19 (here and here) were published last May. Why not a joint report? These are reviews of activities over more than 100 pages – to what purpose, when it is doubtful that anyone, including in Government, will read them? And what was the cost? The two websites are another expense, kept updated for the few who bother to access them – when almost no-one has ever heard of CCGs.
Because of that lack of awareness, the bi-monthly public meetings are poorly attended, and most people will be at work when they are held. As usual, the Ipswich and East Suffolk agenda comprised a dozen or so reports (not available at the meeting in hard copy, to save paper, and difficult to follow, even downloaded to a laptop as board members discussed without inviting comment from the public), together with details of staff consultation and further recruitment, including director posts. Because of election purdah, public questions were restricted.
Being responsible for commissioning the East Anglian Ambulance Service, the board was asked to hold a minute’s silence for the three paramedics who died within 10 days of each other in November, one allegedly confirmed as suicide. An independent investigation is under way by an officer from the Metropolitan police, amid accusations of bullying and ‘a toxic culture’. However, the CQC (Care Quality Commission) had already identified that the Service suffered from poor leadership and requires improvement. At the last count, the Service had 300 vacancies and its difficulties were widely known, not least through extensive media coverage over several years.
The obvious question is why the CCGs are responsible for ambulance services, and how did they hold its leadership to account, when they were aware of deficiencies, as noted in their annual reports?
Just what is the purpose of the Health & Wellbeing Board? It is attended by representatives from both CCGs but it doesn’t address obvious failings. What are they doing to reduce pharmaceuticals waste, dumped whilst still within date, costing millions of pounds annually? Or to improve management of temporary aids like crutches and walking sticks, and even wheelchairs, by encouraging their return and re-use to hospitals, instead of being scrapped, at considerable expense? Are they reviewing annual flu jabs, which seem to make people ill, instead of protecting their health?
Suffolk’s Health & Wellbeing Board has recently refreshed its strategy but appears to avoid detailed scrutiny or engagement with services in crisis. Adding to bureaucracy, Suffolk also has a joint Health Scrutiny Committee with Essex, ‘scrutinising issues relating to the implementation of the NHS Suffolk and NE Essex Sustainability and Transformation Plan. Introduced by NHS England in 2016 to implement its Five Year Forward Plan.
We are constantly reminded that the NHS is “free”. But it is not free. It is funded by taxpayers, and only free at the point of delivery, but increasingly top-down, lacking genuine engagement with highly skilled professionals on the front line who do a remarkable job. Instead of spending their time completing paperwork, struggling with outdated computer systems, they know they could do an even better job if someone listened to them. For example, GPs in France have ultra sound equipment in their surgeries – why not here? It would aid early diagnosis, saving time, when patients can spend weeks or even months going backwards and forwards to GPs and hospital – seeing different consultants – for tests and (usually as a last resort) scans. Co-ordinating appointments to do all this within days would save stress and money.
On January 3rd, BBC Look East investigated a tragic case of a young man, in extreme pain and paralysed for the last four years, following car accidents, taken to hospital in Chelmsford by ambulance more than 100 times in the last two years. Stoke Mandeville Hospital will help with specialist treatment, but the Mid Essex CCG will not commit to funding it.
Meanwhile, why should older people, who worked hard all their lives and paid their National Insurance, have to wait years for a hip or knee replacement, as worsening pain affects both independence and quality of life? Allowing older people to go blind because they can’t get treatment for cataracts is unacceptable and, in the longer term potentially a huge cost for personal care when a simple operation would sustain their independence. Some CCGs reportedly ration cataract treatment to one eye, not both. Consequently, those with savings are forced to spend thousands of pounds on private treatment from their NHS consultants, whose operating theatres are unused.
Having watched a number of programmes about the Air Ambulance and how lives are saved in the most difficult circumstances, it’s evident that the Service should not have to rely on charity for its funding – Government should contribute. When one consultant explained how his experience as an army surgeon was invaluable dealing with emergencies, and some of the helicopters fly from military bases, could there be mutual benefits in closer working with the Armed Services, each learning from the other, boosting expertise? This could include the provision of state of the art prosthetics and rehabilitation for amputees.
The NHS is, rightly, a sacred institution to be proud of. As an emergency medicine consultant, who led responses to the 7/7 bombings, and other major incidents, said in a recent interview:
“When you watch the NHS kick in, the effort that goes into saving people is unbelievable. It’s an amazing statement of how society does care.”
We can all agree that such commitment deserves to be acknowledged, cherished and respected – but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be helped to adapt to fresh challenges and enabled to broaden access to amazing developments in new treatments.
The Prime Minister promised a revolution in Government; he should start with the Health Service. Reducing waste in the system, something we are all guilty of in our own lives, could redirect funds and improve procurement. A review, not via a lengthy commission, or one of the five main accountancy groups, but led by someone beyond Westminster and its somewhat incestuous appointments system.
Someone outside politics and unconnected with the healthcare sector, who understands delivering best value for the wider community, listening and learning from those on the front line, who see problems first hand – and have the solutions.
Ideal candidates would be either of the two founder Chairmen of the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership, credited with creating one of the top-performing LEPs in the country. Their strong leadership, insight, aspiration, business acumen and lack of ego, could be just what’s needed to inspire the transformation of our treasured NHS, by reducing interfering management, allowing the focus to return to the patient – and staff.


conservativehome--2020-01-08--Four former Brexit Party MEPs – including Rees-Mogg – join the Conservative Party

Readers will remember that during the election campaign , a key moment in the Tory squeeze on the Brexit Party came when four prominent MEPs resigned from Nigel Farage ’ s group to urge Brexireers to vote Conservative .
At the time , the four – Annunziata Rees-Mogg , Lance Forman , Lucy Harris and John Longworth – opted to become independents .
Pleasingly , it has emerged today that all four have now chosen to join the Conservative Party .
They have been accepted , and I understand the intention is that they will end their terms – having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Tory MEPs .
This is an important part of the process of moving on as Brexit is delivered : reuniting the right , healing the divisions the process has inflicted , and focusing on what comes next .
The same goes , of course , for those on the centre right who held the opposite view on EU membership , but for obvious reasons a rapprochement there might be more difficult and take longer .
It ’ s early days , of course , but this is a positive start .
Welcome @ @ @ @

Readers will remember that during the election campaign, a key moment in the Tory squeeze on the Brexit Party came when four prominent MEPs resigned from Nigel Farage’s group to urge Brexireers to vote Conservative.
At the time, the four – Annunziata Rees-Mogg, Lance Forman, Lucy Harris and John Longworth – opted to become independents.
Pleasingly, it has emerged today that all four have now chosen to join the Conservative Party. They have been accepted, and I understand the intention is that they will end their terms – having helped to abolish their own jobs – as Tory MEPs.
This is an important part of the process of moving on as Brexit is delivered: reuniting the right, healing the divisions the process has inflicted, and focusing on what comes next. The same goes, of course, for those on the centre right who held the opposite view on EU membership, but for obvious reasons a rapprochement there might be more difficult and take longer.
It’s early days, of course, but this is a positive start. Welcome to the four.


conservativehome--2020-01-08--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Good King Boris sets out to reunite his kingdom

After France ’ s wars of religion came good King Henry IV , le roi de la poule au pot .
After Britain ’ s Brexit wars comes good King Boris , a monarch of unbounded benevolence , setting out to unify once more the divided kingdom in a common patriotism and prosperity .
Such at least was king Boris ’ s demeanour today as he scattered with royal magnanimity the fruits of victory among his followers .
David Morris ( Con , Morecambe and Lunesdale ) wants the Eden Project to come to Morecambe : King Boris assured him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come to Morecambe ” .
Dehenna Davison ( Con , Bishop Auckland ) , a new MP who captured her seat from Labour and the eye of spectators by wearing bright pink two rows behind the PM , wanted his support for the stroke rehabilitation unit in her constituency .
After congratulating her and all new Conservative MPs on their victories , King Boris assured her in his most gracious manner that “ it is our intention to help Bishop Auckland ” .
There were , of course , a few cavilling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune to King Boris ’ s charm .
Chief among these was Jeremy Corbyn , who was worried by the assassination of General Suleimani and asked what evidence there was “ that this was not an illegal act ” .
King Boris said “ that man had the blood of British troops on his hands ” .
He waxed very hot as he said this , and expressed surprise that Corbyn “ has yet to condemn the activities of Qasem Suleimani ” .
The Scottish Nationalists tried to disconcert King Boris by calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence .
Their leader , Ian Blackford , has bagged the first seat below the gangway , where Dennis Skinner used to sit until ejected by the electors of Bolsover .
King Boris said the people of Scotland had decided in the referendum of 2014 to remain within the most successful Union the world has ever seen , and everyone had agreed at that time that this should be a once-in-a-generation event .
The new Speaker , Lindsay Hoyle , brought PMQs to a close within 31 minutes : a vast improvement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of allowing it to drag on for almost an hour .

After France’s wars of religion came good King Henry IV, le roi de la poule au pot. After Britain’s Brexit wars comes good King Boris, a monarch of unbounded benevolence, setting out to unify once more the divided kingdom in a common patriotism and prosperity.
Such at least was king Boris’s demeanour today as he scattered with royal magnanimity the fruits of victory among his followers.
David Morris (Con, Morecambe and Lunesdale) wants the Eden Project to come to Morecambe: King Boris assured him “the Eden Project is very likely to come to Morecambe”.
Dehenna Davison (Con, Bishop Auckland), a new MP who captured her seat from Labour and the eye of spectators by wearing bright pink two rows behind the PM, wanted his support for the stroke rehabilitation unit in her constituency.
After congratulating her and all new Conservative MPs on their victories, King Boris assured her in his most gracious manner that “it is our intention to help Bishop Auckland”.
There were, of course, a few cavilling agitators of a republican disposition who proved immune to King Boris’s charm.
Chief among these was Jeremy Corbyn, who was worried by the assassination of General Suleimani and asked what evidence there was “that this was not an illegal act”.
King Boris said “that man had the blood of British troops on his hands”. He waxed very hot as he said this, and expressed surprise that Corbyn “has yet to condemn the activities of Qasem Suleimani”.
The Scottish Nationalists tried to disconcert King Boris by calling on him to hold another referendum on independence.
Their leader, Ian Blackford, has bagged the first seat below the gangway, where Dennis Skinner used to sit until ejected by the electors of Bolsover.
King Boris said the people of Scotland had decided in the referendum of 2014 to remain within the most successful Union the world has ever seen, and everyone had agreed at that time that this should be a once-in-a-generation event.
The new Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, brought PMQs to a close within 31 minutes: a vast improvement on the unhappy practice instituted by his predecessor of allowing it to drag on for almost an hour.