conservativehome--2020-09-04--Channel crossings are undermining the Government’s narrative about ‘taking back control’ of immigrat

Channel crossings are undermining the Government’s narrative about ‘taking back control’ of immigration

When Vote Leave promised to ‘ take back control ’ , one of the issues at the top of the list was immigration .
Leaving the EU meant ending freedom of movement and gaining the freedom to implement a points-based system which better reflected Britain ’ s national priorities .
This did not necessarily mean a draconian system – evidence suggested voters ’ attitudes towards immigration actually got more liberal after the referendum – but that would be up to Parliament .
Yet only months after the electoral triumph of what has been called a ‘ Vote Leave ’ government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermined by the toxic drip-feed of stories about migrant boats crossing the Channel .
Priti Patel clearly grasps that this is a problem , which is why we ’ re getting tough-sounding stories about calls to institute Royal Navy patrols and thwarting bids by ‘ activist lawyers ’ to prevent deportations .
This morning she hit out at social media companies for allegedly failing to take action against people smugglers publicising their businesses online .
But it is less obvious what can actually be done .
Patrolling the Channel invites the same problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wherein refugees located by the Italian Navy often put themselves into the water knowing the Italians won ’ t leave them there .
Likewise footage of dingies arriving on the beach and their occupants disappearing inland may spark outrage , but the Home Office can ’ t really prevent that without erecting some sort of Atlantic Wall on the Kent coast .
Theresa May ’ s strategy was a more ‘ defence in depth ’ approach , with the Home Office drafting landlords and employers to help locate illegal entrants once they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment ’ .
The problem with this , setting aside the political challenges posed by the fallout from Windrush , is that without an effective detention and deportation system it risks just forcing people into the black economy .
This is all without getting into the possible difficulties posed by the above-mentioned ‘ activist lawyers ’ , the courts , our membership of the ECHR , and so on , which Natalie Elphicke MP touched on in her article on the subject .
Usually Australia , which has been running ‘ Operation Sovereign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up as the example to follow .
But it enjoys some advantages Britain does not : it is outside some of the aforementioned legal structures ; would-be ‘ boat people ’ face a much longer journey ; and it has in Nauru a very handy offshore detention option unavailable to the Home Office ( unless Sealand were interested ) .
Some of these problems are soluble .
It should be fairly straightforward to legislate on the issue of traffickers exploiting social media , and Tim Loughton ’ s suggestion of using cruise ships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timely given that the industry is facing a billion-dollar question about what to do with its mothballed vessels .
Smoothing the legal pathway to deportation could also be including in whatever replaces the Government ’ s now-abandoned Constitution , Democracy , and Human Rights Commission .
But ultimately the Home Secretary is in a difficult position because the real keys to a lasting solution – new agreements with France and the other countries to which illegal entrants ultimately need to be deported – are not her department .
But managing the day-to-day fallout @ @

When Vote Leave promised to ‘take back control’, one of the issues at the top of the list was immigration. Leaving the EU meant ending freedom of movement and gaining the freedom to implement a points-based system which better reflected Britain’s national priorities.
This did not necessarily mean a draconian system – evidence suggested voters’ attitudes towards immigration actually got more liberal after the referendum – but that would be up to Parliament.
Yet only months after the electoral triumph of what has been called a ‘Vote Leave’ government, this narrative of control is being undermined by the toxic drip-feed of stories about migrant boats crossing the Channel.
Priti Patel clearly grasps that this is a problem, which is why we’re getting tough-sounding stories about calls to institute Royal Navy patrols and thwarting bids by ‘activist lawyers’ to prevent deportations. This morning she hit out at social media companies for allegedly failing to take action against people smugglers publicising their businesses online.
But it is less obvious what can actually be done. Patrolling the Channel invites the same problem as we see in the Mediterranean, wherein refugees located by the Italian Navy often put themselves into the water knowing the Italians won’t leave them there. Likewise footage of dingies arriving on the beach and their occupants disappearing inland may spark outrage, but the Home Office can’t really prevent that without erecting some sort of Atlantic Wall on the Kent coast.
Theresa May’s strategy was a more ‘defence in depth’ approach, with the Home Office drafting landlords and employers to help locate illegal entrants once they were in the UK – the ‘hostile environment’. The problem with this, setting aside the political challenges posed by the fallout from Windrush, is that without an effective detention and deportation system it risks just forcing people into the black economy.
This is all without getting into the possible difficulties posed by the above-mentioned ‘activist lawyers’, the courts, our membership of the ECHR, and so on, which Natalie Elphicke MP touched on in her article on the subject.
Usually Australia, which has been running ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ since 2013, is held up as the example to follow. But it enjoys some advantages Britain does not: it is outside some of the aforementioned legal structures; would-be ‘boat people’ face a much longer journey; and it has in Nauru a very handy offshore detention option unavailable to the Home Office (unless Sealand were interested).
Some of these problems are soluble. It should be fairly straightforward to legislate on the issue of traffickers exploiting social media, and Tim Loughton’s suggestion of using cruise ships as offshore detention facilities could be very timely given that the industry is facing a billion-dollar question about what to do with its mothballed vessels. Smoothing the legal pathway to deportation could also be including in whatever replaces the Government’s now-abandoned Constitution, Democracy, and Human Rights Commission.
But ultimately the Home Secretary is in a difficult position because the real keys to a lasting solution – new agreements with France and the other countries to which illegal entrants ultimately need to be deported – are not her department. But managing the day-to-day fallout is.


conservativehome--2020-09-05--Finkelstein shows that moderate, decent, pragmatic, intelligent conservatism is alive and well

Everything in Moderation by Daniel Finkelstein One of the many merits of Daniel Finkelstein ’ s collection of his columns from The Times is that it sent me back , for purposes of comparison , to the two other collections by writers for that paper which I happen to possess .
Taking Sides , the first selection of Bernard Levin ’ s journalism to be published , includes his account of his mother ’ s troubles with the North Thames Gas Board , written in 1973 .
Rather to my surprise , it still made me laugh out loud .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wit and Parliamentary Chronicles of Frank Johnson , edited by his widow , Virginia Fraser , includes the piece read at his memorial service by David Cameron , which was written in 1981 for Now !
Magazine and begins : “ Unsuccessfully , as will now emerge , I had resolved from the outset that there were two subjects which had received sufficient airing on this page and would not be mentioned further : Wagner and Mr Roy Hattersley .
“ Concerning the one : nobody in his right mind would deny his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lyricism , his sheer weight and scale , but there is also his torrential prolixity , his essentially outdated nineteenth-century attitude towards his art , his foggy symbolism and an epic tedium which modern audiences should surely not be expected to endure .
These are some of the drawbacks of Mr Hattersley.
” Again I laughed out loud .
Johnson was an even finer comic writer than Levin .
They were among the wittiest figures of their time , gave enormous pleasure to their readers , and are now passing into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists .
Finkelstein is not so brilliant a stylist as his two illustrious predecessors , but it is right to place him in this tradition , for since the age of eight , when he started to read The Times for its football coverage , he has been a devoted reader of that paper , and treats it with the high seriousness , one might say the reverence , which is required if one is going to do one ’ s best work for it .
He is now 58 , has contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brings to it several qualities which neither Levin nor Johnson possessed .
One is a knowledge of politics as conducted on the inside : Finkelstein has worked closely for David Owen , John Major , William Hague , George Osborne and David Cameron .
His columns are informed by his experience of what works , and more importantly , what does not work .
On 4th October 2006 he began a piece with the words : Finkelstein proceeds to an exposition of political parties as “ identity brands ” : I am allergic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brands ” , but Finkelstein does it so well that I always read him on the subject .
Apart from anything else , he has invariably read some book , on , say , game theory or social psychology , which I know I shall never read , and has extracted valuable insights from it , which he proceeds to share with his readers .
The principal task of the social scientist is to establish , by the most laborious research , the correctness of propositions which were already known , by anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be true .
Finkelstein gives us the best of this social science , without himself degenerating into a deluded policy wonk .
As he goes on to say in his piece about brands : And he applies this insight to the then Labour Government : I ’ m sure Boris Johnson – who barely appears in these pages – would agree with every word of that .
So would Lord Salisbury , who said “ the commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies ” .
Like all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to entertain the reader .
For New Year ’ s Eve 2014 he reflects on how much time he spends writing individual replies to emails , and devises a number of standard replies to the most common ones : If Finkelstein had wanted to be a comic writer , he might have been in the Stephen Leacock class .
But the charm of his columns lies in their mixture of deeply felt politics with a sense of his own absurdity .
Max Beerbohm said Trollope reminds us that sanity need not be philistine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finkelstein .
He reminds us that a devotion to compromise , moderation , loving one ’ s parents and getting on with one ’ s neighbours need not be philistine : are among the pillars of our civilisation .
He defends the suburbs , including Brent Cross Shopping Centre , and made me feel a bit snobbish for disliking that place so much .
And although he makes almost no references to English literature , not even to that eminently political playwright , William Shakespeare , Finkelstein knows more about our political history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than just about any other columnist now writing .
When he suggests that “ the British voter never gets it wrong ” , and the right party has won every election for the last 80 years , he is not indulging in windy idealism , but has at his fingertips the arguments needed to support his case : “ You see , for all that the Conservatives fell apart in the 1992 Parliament , I still think it was clear that a Kinnock government would have been worse .
No one needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1997 , because I was there ( I always insist on the retention of that comma ) .
But I still assert with confidence that the voters did the right thing putting the Conservatives back in power .
“ Neil Kinnock was entirely unsuited to being prime minister .
His endless whirling speeches showed that .
As John Major pricelessly commented , as Kinnock didn ’ t know what he was saying , he never knew when he had finished saying it.
” A collection of newspaper articles is like a box of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scoffs the whole lot at a sitting , one will end up feeling sick .
But with Finkelstein , I kept on saying to myself “ I ’ ll have just one more ” , and didn ’ t end up feeling sick .
I felt that moderate , decent , pragmatic , intelligent conservatism is alive and well .

Everything in Moderation by Daniel Finkelstein
One of the many merits of Daniel Finkelstein’s collection of his columns from The Times is that it sent me back, for purposes of comparison, to the two other collections by writers for that paper which I happen to possess.
Taking Sides, the first selection of Bernard Levin’s journalism to be published, includes his account of his mother’s troubles with the North Thames Gas Board, written in 1973. Rather to my surprise, it still made me laugh out loud.
Best Seat in the House: The Wit and Parliamentary Chronicles of Frank Johnson, edited by his widow, Virginia Fraser, includes the piece read at his memorial service by David Cameron, which was written in 1981 for Now! Magazine and begins:
“Unsuccessfully, as will now emerge, I had resolved from the outset that there were two subjects which had received sufficient airing on this page and would not be mentioned further: Wagner and Mr Roy Hattersley. “Concerning the one: nobody in his right mind would deny his capacity for the sublime, his surges of lyricism, his sheer weight and scale, but there is also his torrential prolixity, his essentially outdated nineteenth-century attitude towards his art, his foggy symbolism and an epic tedium which modern audiences should surely not be expected to endure. These are some of the drawbacks of Mr Hattersley.”
Again I laughed out loud. Johnson was an even finer comic writer than Levin. They were among the wittiest figures of their time, gave enormous pleasure to their readers, and are now passing into the obscurity which awaits even the most celebrated journalists.
Finkelstein is not so brilliant a stylist as his two illustrious predecessors, but it is right to place him in this tradition, for since the age of eight, when he started to read The Times for its football coverage, he has been a devoted reader of that paper, and treats it with the high seriousness, one might say the reverence, which is required if one is going to do one’s best work for it.
He is now 58, has contributed to The Times since 2001, and brings to it several qualities which neither Levin nor Johnson possessed. One is a knowledge of politics as conducted on the inside: Finkelstein has worked closely for David Owen, John Major, William Hague, George Osborne and David Cameron.
His columns are informed by his experience of what works, and more importantly, what does not work. On 4th October 2006 he began a piece with the words:
“I am worried about David Cameron. I fear he will have too much policy. I am concerned that there will be too much substance and not enough style.”
Finkelstein proceeds to an exposition of political parties as “identity brands”:
“Voters make choices in order to make statements about themselves, to establish their own identity, as much as they do because of anything the parties offer them.”
I am allergic to the discussion of parties as “brands”, but Finkelstein does it so well that I always read him on the subject. Apart from anything else, he has invariably read some book, on, say, game theory or social psychology, which I know I shall never read, and has extracted valuable insights from it, which he proceeds to share with his readers.
The principal task of the social scientist is to establish, by the most laborious research, the correctness of propositions which were already known, by anyone with a modicum of common sense, to be true.
Finkelstein gives us the best of this social science, without himself degenerating into a deluded policy wonk. As he goes on to say in his piece about brands:
“Policymaking…is a bit of a con. Manifestos pretend to be an entire programme for government when in reality even the most detailed of them only cover a few items. Voters don’t make judgments based on these programmes and they shouldn’t either. “What matters is not such bogus ‘substance’, it is the governing style of the prospective rulers. Are they strong or weak? Interferers or liberals? Atlanticists or Europhiles? Moderates or extremists? Localisers or centralisers? Tax cutters or big spenders?”
And he applies this insight to the then Labour Government:
“Labour has spent much of the past five years undoing stupid things it committed itself to in opposition and then did in its first five years. The problem with politicians, you see, is not that they don’t do what they say they will, but the opposite – they try to do what they said they would do, even after realising it wasn’t a good plan.”
I’m sure Boris Johnson – who barely appears in these pages – would agree with every word of that. So would Lord Salisbury, who said “the commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies”.
Like all good columnists, Finkelstein acknowledges his duty to entertain the reader. For New Year’s Eve 2014 he reflects on how much time he spends writing individual replies to emails, and devises a number of standard replies to the most common ones:
“Thank you for your email. I would be happy to help you with your PhD on ‘Idiots who have given the Conservative Party electorally disastrous advice’. Please thank your supervisor for thinking of me. Since you need only four hours of my time, we must fit in a meeting. It might be difficult in the next twelve months, as it is election year, but I will make every effort to organise it. It would certainly be easier for me if I didn’t need to visit you in Sheffield.”
If Finkelstein had wanted to be a comic writer, he might have been in the Stephen Leacock class. But the charm of his columns lies in their mixture of deeply felt politics with a sense of his own absurdity.
Max Beerbohm said Trollope reminds us that sanity need not be philistine. Something similar might be said of Finkelstein. He reminds us that a devotion to compromise, moderation, loving one’s parents and getting on with one’s neighbours need not be philistine: are among the pillars of our civilisation.
He defends the suburbs, including Brent Cross Shopping Centre, and made me feel a bit snobbish for disliking that place so much.
And although he makes almost no references to English literature, not even to that eminently political playwright, William Shakespeare, Finkelstein knows more about our political history, and our 55 Prime Ministers, than just about any other columnist now writing.
When he suggests that “the British voter never gets it wrong”, and the right party has won every election for the last 80 years, he is not indulging in windy idealism, but has at his fingertips the arguments needed to support his case:
“You see, for all that the Conservatives fell apart in the 1992 Parliament, I still think it was clear that a Kinnock government would have been worse. No one needs to tell me how bad things got by 1997, because I was there (I always insist on the retention of that comma). But I still assert with confidence that the voters did the right thing putting the Conservatives back in power. “Neil Kinnock was entirely unsuited to being prime minister. His endless whirling speeches showed that. As John Major pricelessly commented, as Kinnock didn’t know what he was saying, he never knew when he had finished saying it.”
A collection of newspaper articles is like a box of chocolates: one fears that if one scoffs the whole lot at a sitting, one will end up feeling sick.
But with Finkelstein, I kept on saying to myself “I’ll have just one more”, and didn’t end up feeling sick. I felt that moderate, decent, pragmatic, intelligent conservatism is alive and well.


conservativehome--2020-09-06--WATCH: Raab – Why should we allow the EU to treat us with double standards?

On the issue of state aid being one of the final sticking points in a Brexit trade deal , Foreign @ @ @ @ @ `` only question is why we should be treated with such double standards '' .

On the issue of state aid being one of the final sticking points in a Brexit trade deal, Foreign Secretary @DominicRaab says the "only question is why we should be treated with such double standards".
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/tuVH0RBjLk pic.twitter.com/blrc0Jq3Q3
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) September 6, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-06--WATCH: The idea that Britain will revisit Brexit within two or three years is “for the birds”, says

WATCH: The idea that Britain will revisit Brexit within two or three years is “for the birds”, says Davey

' I think the idea that people want to revisit this in two or three years time will be for @ @ @ @ @ asked if the Lib Dems will campaign to rejoin the EU in the future , @ @ @ @ @ `` a pro-European party '' .
# Ridge live : https : //t.co/NZtlQe2tCY pic.twitter.com/dHQt32DZGx

'I think the idea that people want to revisit this in two or three years time will be for the birds.'
When asked if the Lib Dems will campaign to rejoin the EU in the future, @EdwardJDavey says they are "a pro-European party".#Ridge live: https://t.co/NZtlQe2tCY pic.twitter.com/dHQt32DZGx
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) September 6, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-06--WATCH: Abbott on whether Starmer took a left line to win the Labour leadership. “I couldn’t possibly

WATCH: Abbott on whether Starmer took a left line to win the Labour leadership. “I couldn’t possibly comment.”

.
@ SophyRidgeSky : 'Do you think @ Keir_Starmer was happy to appear more left-wing , more pro-Corbyn during the @ @ @ @ @ get votes ? '
@ HackneyAbbott : `` You may say that , I could @ @ @ @ @ # Ridge live : https : //t.co/NZtlQe2tCY pic.twitter.com/yBJPfBnWBB

.@SophyRidgeSky: 'Do you think @Keir_Starmer was happy to appear more left-wing, more pro-Corbyn during the leadership election to try and get votes?' @HackneyAbbott: "You may say that, I couldn't possibly comment."#Ridge live: https://t.co/NZtlQe2tCY pic.twitter.com/yBJPfBnWBB
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) September 6, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-06--Operation shut-down-the-right. Extinction Rebellion’s target isn’t so much what’s said as who says i

Operation shut-down-the-right. Extinction Rebellion’s target isn’t so much what’s said as who says it.

Extinction Rebellion ’ s disruption of right-of-centre newpapers was always going to gain more coverage than its disruption of lots of other businesses – and people .
Which is why its members , if that ’ s quite the right word for them , acted as they did .
But it was only the latest wrecking-ball swung by this apocalyptic cult , which is essentially religious end-timism wrapped in environmentalist clothing .
Home Office sources say that the tactics of these green extremists are constantly evolving : using encrypted systems to get ahead of the police – and glueing or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removal .
Today being today , there must be a Government response in the Sunday papers , and one can ’ t help wondering how much of what we read has been thoroughly thought through .
Ministers apparently want to stop demonstrators from entering particular areas – but these are not pre-planned , pre-announced demostrations .
They may bolster protections for critical national infrastructure , but the police can ’ t be everywhere at once .
Parliament could outlaw disruption to “ tenets of democracy ” – such as MPs voting in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the printing and distribution of newspapers .
But passing new laws is one thing ; enforcing them can be quite another .
So a key question to ask is not whether new laws are needed , but whether the ones we have are already being enforced .
There are two main aspects of police work in this context – preventing disruption from happening in the first place , and enforcing the law if it does .
Not everything that the zealots do is encrypted , so there is plenty of scope for prevention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , recruiting and deploying informers , and using the significant public order powers that already exist .
The public don ’ t usually see that side of police work .
However , they do see enforcement , or rather a lack of it .
The police seem all too eager to leap in at anti-lockdown Piers Corbyn and right-wing protesters ; but all too ready to stand back when a mob is chucking a statue in a river in Bristol .
Many people know more about Black Lives Matter than they did during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what on earth were some police doing “ taking a knee ” ?
It ’ s being written today that Extinction Rebellion is trying to shut down free speech .
That ’ s the truth but not the whole truth , which is that its target isn ’ t so much what ’ s said as who says it .
Hence its targeting of right-of-centre think tanks .
Which is part of a bigger picture .
Some of its features are institutional – such as , say , support within the civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter ’ s theology of “ white privilege ” .
And some of it is personal .
Consider the case of Tony Abbott .
Maybe his trade appointment is a good idea and maybe it isn ’ t .
But either way , supporting same-sex marriage shouldn ’ t be a disqualification .
Boris Johnson clearly holds that view but didn ’ t quite say so when confirming Abbott ’ s appointment .
Why not ?
We will return to the question tomorrow .

Extinction Rebellion’s disruption of right-of-centre newpapers was always going to gain more coverage than its disruption of lots of other businesses – and people. Which is why its members, if that’s quite the right word for them, acted as they did.
But it was only the latest wrecking-ball swung by this apocalyptic cult, which is essentially religious end-timism wrapped in environmentalist clothing. Home Office sources say that the tactics of these green extremists are constantly evolving: using encrypted systems to get ahead of the police – and glueing or locking themselves to structures to slow their removal.
Today being today, there must be a Government response in the Sunday papers, and one can’t help wondering how much of what we read has been thoroughly thought through. Ministers apparently want to stop demonstrators from entering particular areas – but these are not pre-planned, pre-announced demostrations. They may bolster protections for critical national infrastructure, but the police can’t be everywhere at once. Parliament could outlaw disruption to “tenets of democracy” – such as MPs voting in the Commons, judges attending court, and the printing and distribution of newspapers. But passing new laws is one thing; enforcing them can be quite another.
So a key question to ask is not whether new laws are needed, but whether the ones we have are already being enforced. There are two main aspects of police work in this context – preventing disruption from happening in the first place, and enforcing the law if it does.
Not everything that the zealots do is encrypted, so there is plenty of scope for prevention: monitoring what they get up online, recruiting and deploying informers, and using the significant public order powers that already exist. The public don’t usually see that side of police work. However, they do see enforcement, or rather a lack of it. The police seem all too eager to leap in at anti-lockdown Piers Corbyn and right-wing protesters; but all too ready to stand back when a mob is chucking a statue in a river in Bristol. Many people know more about Black Lives Matter than they did during early protests here: all the same, what on earth were some police doing “taking a knee”?
It’s being written today that Extinction Rebellion is trying to shut down free speech. That’s the truth but not the whole truth, which is that its target isn’t so much what’s said as who says it. Hence its targeting of right-of-centre think tanks. Which is part of a bigger picture. Some of its features are institutional – such as, say, support within the civil service at senior levels for Black Lives Matter’s theology of “white privilege”.
And some of it is personal. Consider the case of Tony Abbott. Maybe his trade appointment is a good idea and maybe it isn’t. But either way, supporting same-sex marriage shouldn’t be a disqualification. Boris Johnson clearly holds that view but didn’t quite say so when confirming Abbott’s appointment. Why not? We will return to the question tomorrow.


conservativehome--2020-09-07--Conservatives can’t be neutral about culture

MPs are to be made to take unconscious bias training .
A former Prime Minister of Australia is targeted because he is a social conservative .
The British Library links changes to the way it will work to George Floyd ’ s murder in America .
Extinction Rebellion clip the wings of a free press .
Senior civil servants declare publicly for Black Lives Matter .
Boris Johnson ’ s Conservatives have a majority of 80 .
But the Left ’ s long march through the institutions seems , if anything , to speed up .
And the Government either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or doesn ’ t want to – or both .
What ’ s the point of a Tory Government , a stonking majority and Brexit itself if nothing changes ?
That ’ s the case for the prosection from some on the Right .
Should Johnson and his Government be found guilty ?
The first thing a fair-minded jury would do is mull the charge sheet above .
It would see at once that the incidents and developments above vary in important ways .
For example , the Executive does not control the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ training or otherwise is a matter for MPs , not Ministers .
The second course it would take is to try to work out what government should and shouldn ’ t do .
To take another example , Ministerial control of police operations would be alien to the British model of policing by consent , and to a free society .
Third , it would ask those at the top of the Government what they have to say for themselves .
The answers ConservativeHome gets when it puts that question , off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following .
Downing Street has “ limited bandwidth ” – i.e : fewer people than it needs .
Changing the culture of government is like turning round a supertanker , but it can be done .
Look at the change of tone from the BBC ’ s new Director-General .
And there are victories as well as defeats : the corporation backed down over Last Night of the Proms and the Government didn ’ t over Abbott ’ s appointment .
But that ’ s not all that some of our sources will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They say that the Prime Minister moves slowly not just for reasons of political calculation , but because he ’ s internally conflicted .
His upbringing , attitudes and reflexes are liberal as well as conservative .
So he moves cautiously – being slower out of traps to champion the singing of Rule Britannia , as it happens , than did Keir Starmer .
You , ladies and gentlemen of the conservative jury , will reach your own verdict – or , if you ’ re sensible , conclude that putting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had less than a year in office is premature .
Nonetheless , here ’ s our provisional take .
Johnson is denounced by much of the Remain-flavoured Left as a British Trumpian Bannonite – a misreading which helps to explain why he keeps on winning .
He is right not to declare a culture war from Downing Street .
The British people aren ’ t in our view enthusiasts for wars of any kind .
But if you think about it for a moment , you ’ ll see that one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declare such a war is that is already being fought .
The noisiest and nastiest parts of it tend to be where race , sex and religion are contested .
Those in the front line aren ’ t necessarily conservatives , let alone Conservatives .
They include J.K.Rowling as well as Katherine Birbalsingh ( who ’ s being interviewed live by Mark Wallace this week ; Germaine Greer as well as Nigel Biggar .
That they and others are in the hottest parts of the action may explain why , to large parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heroes of our time are private citizens rather than public ones .
Consider the case of Jordan Peterson .
Some will say that the Conservative Party , and the centre-right more broadly , is divided about this cultural struggle , citing such telltale signs as Matt Hancock deliberately declaring “ Black Lives Matter ” at a Government Coronavirus press conference , or Grant Shapps declaring that he ’ d check Abbott ’ s record before going for a drink with him .
We think this is an over-complication .
Sure , conservatives won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than they will about economics .
That ’ s why , inter alia , the flavour of David Cameron ’ s Downing Street was different from that of Johnson ’ s .
Near the top , there were fewer northern accents , more women , and fewer “ weirdos and misfits ” .
But we suspect that if Tory MPs were surveyed , the following attitudes would be found .
Support for equality of opportunity , or as close as one can get to it , rather than equality of outcome .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than on the Labour benches .
Much more for the free market being a friend of the environment , not an enemy .
Caution on reforming the Gender Recognition Act .
Agreement that real diversity must include a diversity of viewpoints .
Disagreement that poor working-class white people have a race privilege .
Poll them and prove us wrong .
In other words , Conservative MPs are more likely to share the patriotic instincts of most voters than Labour ones .
If you doubt it , ask yourself why Starmer is so anxious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; why he was quicker than Johnson in coming out for Rule Britannia , and why – we read – his team want to present him as a very British hero who led in prosecuting an Islamist bomb plot .
That ’ s solid ground for the Prime Minister to have beneath him So while these are early days , we say that just because a Tory Government can ’ t – and shouldn ’ t – do everything , there ’ s no reason why it shouldn ’ t do something .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Civil Service .
He is no less senior a figure than the Prime Minister himself .
So it ’ s up to Johnson to ensure that senior civil servants don ’ t promote , in practice if not in theory , causes that are outside any reasonable reading of its code – such as Black Lives Matter which , on any impartial reading , is tainted by anti-white dogma .
( Which doesn ’ t for a moment preclude following-up on Theresa May ’ s observation that “ if you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you ’ re white ” . )
Cultural change isn ’ t driven by governments , and thank goodness for that .
Over time , those that have transformed human lives most are the products of human invention ( railways ; the pill ; vaccines ) or conviction ( the Abrahamic religions ; the Enlightenment ; secular humanism – or , talking of black lives mattering , America ’ s civil war .
But though the role of government should be limited , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always be more than just a market with a flag on top .
Governments propose laws , present manifestos , fund public services , make arguments – just as Johnson ’ s pre-election one did for delivering Brexit .
And , talking of Extinction Rebellion , set the framework for policing policy .
We ’ d like to see the Prime Minister speak more swiftly when what Neil O ’ Brien calls the New Puritans – i.e : the legions of the woke – try to silence their opponents .
And ensure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government does .
Were Cummings and co to reduce its size and scope , that task would become just a bit easier .

MPs are to be made to take unconscious bias training. A former Prime Minister of Australia is targeted because he is a social conservative. The British Library links changes to the way it will work to George Floyd’s murder in America. Extinction Rebellion clip the wings of a free press. Senior civil servants declare publicly for Black Lives Matter.
Boris Johnson’s Conservatives have a majority of 80. But the Left’s long march through the institutions seems, if anything, to speed up.
And the Government either won’t do anything about it or doesn’t want to – or both. What’s the point of a Tory Government, a stonking majority and Brexit itself if nothing changes?
That’s the case for the prosection from some on the Right. Should Johnson and his Government be found guilty?
The first thing a fair-minded jury would do is mull the charge sheet above. It would see at once that the incidents and developments above vary in important ways. For example, the Executive does not control the Legislature. So whether to conduct bias training or otherwise is a matter for MPs, not Ministers.
The second course it would take is to try to work out what government should and shouldn’t do. To take another example, Ministerial control of police operations would be alien to the British model of policing by consent, and to a free society.
Third, it would ask those at the top of the Government what they have to say for themselves. The answers ConservativeHome gets when it puts that question, off the record, is a mix of the following.
Downing Street has “limited bandwidth” – i.e: fewer people than it needs. Changing the culture of government is like turning round a supertanker, but it can be done. Look at the change of tone from the BBC’s new Director-General. And there are victories as well as defeats: the corporation backed down over Last Night of the Proms and the Government didn’t over Abbott’s appointment.
But that’s not all that some of our sources will say when they’re being candid. They say that the Prime Minister moves slowly not just for reasons of political calculation, but because he’s internally conflicted. His upbringing, attitudes and reflexes are liberal as well as conservative. So he moves cautiously – being slower out of traps to champion the singing of Rule Britannia, as it happens, than did Keir Starmer.
You, ladies and gentlemen of the conservative jury, will reach your own verdict – or, if you’re sensible, conclude that putting the Government on a trial after it has had less than a year in office is premature. Nonetheless, here’s our provisional take.
Johnson is denounced by much of the Remain-flavoured Left as a British Trumpian Bannonite – a misreading which helps to explain why he keeps on winning. He is right not to declare a culture war from Downing Street. The British people aren’t in our view enthusiasts for wars of any kind.
But if you think about it for a moment, you’ll see that one of the reasons he doesn’t need to declare such a war is that is already being fought. The noisiest and nastiest parts of it tend to be where race, sex and religion are contested.
Those in the front line aren’t necessarily conservatives, let alone Conservatives. They include J.K.Rowling as well as Katherine Birbalsingh (who’s being interviewed live by Mark Wallace this week ; Germaine Greer as well as Nigel Biggar.
That they and others are in the hottest parts of the action may explain why, to large parts of the conservative movement, the real heroes of our time are private citizens rather than public ones. Consider the case of Jordan Peterson.
Some will say that the Conservative Party, and the centre-right more broadly, is divided about this cultural struggle, citing such telltale signs as Matt Hancock deliberately declaring “Black Lives Matter” at a Government Coronavirus press conference, or Grant Shapps declaring that he’d check Abbott’s record before going for a drink with him.
We think this is an over-complication. Sure, conservatives won’t always agree about culture any more than they will about economics. That’s why, inter alia, the flavour of David Cameron’s Downing Street was different from that of Johnson’s. Near the top, there were fewer northern accents, more women, and fewer “weirdos and misfits”.
But we suspect that if Tory MPs were surveyed, the following attitudes would be found. Support for equality of opportunity, or as close as one can get to it, rather than equality of outcome. Much less backing for abortion on demand than on the Labour benches. Much more for the free market being a friend of the environment, not an enemy. Caution on reforming the Gender Recognition Act. Agreement that real diversity must include a diversity of viewpoints. Disagreement that poor working-class white people have a race privilege. Poll them and prove us wrong.
In other words, Conservative MPs are more likely to share the patriotic instincts of most voters than Labour ones. If you doubt it, ask yourself why Starmer is so anxious to present as Labour a patriotic party; why he was quicker than Johnson in coming out for Rule Britannia, and why – we read – his team want to present him as a very British hero who led in prosecuting an Islamist bomb plot. That’s solid ground for the Prime Minister to have beneath him
So while these are early days, we say that just because a Tory Government can’t – and shouldn’t – do everything, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t do something. For example, there is a Minister for the Civil Service. He is no less senior a figure than the Prime Minister himself.
So it’s up to Johnson to ensure that senior civil servants don’t promote, in practice if not in theory, causes that are outside any reasonable reading of its code – such as Black Lives Matter which, on any impartial reading, is tainted by anti-white dogma. (Which doesn’t for a moment preclude following-up on Theresa May’s observation that “if you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white”.)
Cultural change isn’t driven by governments, and thank goodness for that. Over time, those that have transformed human lives most are the products of human invention (railways; the pill; vaccines) or conviction (the Abrahamic religions; the Enlightenment; secular humanism – or, talking of black lives mattering, America’s civil war.
But though the role of government should be limited, it is real, and modern Britain will always be more than just a market with a flag on top. Governments propose laws, present manifestos, fund public services, make arguments – just as Johnson’s pre-election one did for delivering Brexit. And, talking of Extinction Rebellion, set the framework for policing policy.
We’d like to see the Prime Minister speak more swiftly when what Neil O’Brien calls the New Puritans – i.e: the legions of the woke – try to silence their opponents. And ensure that the Government keeps them out of what government does. Were Cummings and co to reduce its size and scope, that task would become just a bit easier.


conservativehome--2020-09-07--Neil O’Brien: Introducing the new Levelling Up Taskforce – and its first report on how we can measur

Neil O’Brien: Introducing the new Levelling Up Taskforce – and its first report on how we can measure progress

Were you still up for Penistone ?
One of joys of election night last December was winning so many seats we ’ ve not held for decades .
The constituencies we won over in 2019 are quite different from the party ’ s traditional base , in the deep red bits of the map above .
Seats we gained last year don ’ t just have lower earnings than the seats we held , but earnings five per cent lower than Labour seats .
Of the bottom quarter of seats in Great Britain with the lowest earnings , more are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Compared to seats we gained , homes in Labour constituencies are a third more expensive .
Many of the places we won have felt neglected for a long time .
And led from the front by the Prime Minister , the new Government has committed to “ levelling up ” poorer places .
But what does that really mean ?
How can we measure if we are succeeding ?
How can we get the private sector growing faster in these places , making the country stronger overall ?
To help the Government answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative MPs have formed a new Levelling Up Taskforce .
Our first report is out today , looking at how we can measure progress .
It also examines what ’ s been happening in different parts of the UK economy over recent decades .
Income per person in London ( before paying taxes and receiving benefits ) grew two thirds faster than the rest of the country between 1997 and 2018 : it ’ s now 70 per cent higher in London than the rest of the country , up from 30 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divergence seen since the 90s has been a story of London pulling away from all of the rest of the country , it follows decades in which former industrial areas in the north , midlands , Scotland and Wales fell behind .
Between 1977 and 1995 South Yorkshire , Teesside and Merseyside saw GDP per person fall by 20 per cent compared to the national average , and most such areas haven ’ t caught up that lost ground .
Why does this matter ?
It matters , first , because opportunity is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fewer opportunities to climb the ladder in poorer places .
Not just fewer good jobs , but less opportunity in other ways .
In London , over 45 per cent of poorer pupils who were eligible for free school meals progressed to higher education in 2018/19 .
Outside London there were 80 local authorities where richer pupils who were not on free school meals were less likely than this to go to university .
Overall , more than 60 per cent go to university in places like Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like in Knowsley , Barnsley , Hull , and Thurrock .
It also matters because more balanced economies are stronger overall .
In an unbalanced economy , resources like land and infrastructure are overloaded in some places , even while they are underused elsewhere .
This might be particularly true where cities have seen population shrinkage , and have surplus infrastructure and land .
If there are greater distances between workers and good job opportunities that makes it harder for people to get on : not everyone can ( or wants ) to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better job .
More balanced is stronger overall , but on a wide range of measures the UK is one of the most geographically unbalanced economies .
In Germany 12 per cent of people live in areas where the average income is 10 per cent below the national average , while in the UK 35 per cent do .
It is very striking that there is no industrialised country that has a more unbalanced economy than the UK and also a higher income , while all the countries that have a higher income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are we going to do about it ?
Well , that ’ s the question our new group will try to answer .
The answer isn ’ t any of the traditional Labour ones : pumping public sector jobs into places , or subsidising low wage employment , or trying to hold back successful places : we ’ re interested in levelling up , not levelling down .
Different things will work in different places .
For example , transport improvements might make a bigger difference for remote areas .
The ONS defines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the north of Devon and Cornwall , most of central Wales , Shropshire and Herefordshire , most of Cumbria and the rural north east , along with large parts of North Yorkshire , Lincolnshire and North Norfolk .
In these places income levels are 17-18 per cent lower .
Even controlling for the qualifications and age of people living there , these sparse areas have income levels between £600-£1,300 a year lower , likely driven by poor connectivity .
In other places , the answers are different .
I ’ ve written before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on things like R & D , transport and housing is skewed towards already-successful areas , creating a vicious circle .
We should change that .
But tax cuts could also play a bigger role in helping poorer areas .
There ’ s actually been convergence between regions at the bottom end of the earnings distribution , driven by things like the National Living Wage , tax cuts for low income workers , and things like Universal Credit , which have reduced the differences between places by levelling up the poorer areas more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit from these policies .
The reason there are growing gaps between areas overall is divergence higher up the income scale .
Looking at the gap between earnings for full-time workers in London and the North East , the pay gap shrank for the bottom 30 per cent of workers , but grew for those higher up .
For those at the 10th percentile the pay gap between the two places shrank from 32 per cent to 20 per cent .
But for richer folks at the 90th percentile , it grew from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So how do we get more good , high-paying jobs into poorer areas ?
There are a million different specific opportunities , but one that ’ s relevant in a lot of Red Wall seats is advanced manufacturing .
Over recent decades , Chancellors have tended to cut capital allowances ( a tax break for investment ) in order to lower the headline rate of corporation tax .
I ’ m not sure that was a good idea : Britain has a lower rate of fixed capital investment than competitors and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But either way , this change has had a pronounced regional impact : it favours services over manufacturing , so helps some areas more than others .
One way to blast our way through the current economic turmoil would be to get businesses investing again by turning capital allowances right up ( “ full expensing ” in the jargon ) .
That would be particularly likely to help poorer areas .
Indeed , when we have tried this in a targeted way before it worked .
Government should think more about how tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
It should produce geographical analysis of all budgets and fiscal events , setting out the different impact that tax and spending changes will have on different areas .
The Treasury ’ s Labour Markets and Distributional Analysis unit should have geographical analysis added to its remit .
This whole agenda is exciting .
But a lot of people are cynical , because they heard New Labour talk the talk – but not deliver .
We ’ ve got to deliver .
So let ’ s hold ourselves to account , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s get earnings growing faster than before in poorer areas .
Let ’ s get unemployment down in the places it ’ s worst .
They say that “ what gets measured gets managed.
” So let ’ s “ measure up ” our progress on levelling up .

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
Were you still up for Penistone? One of joys of election night last December was winning so many seats we’ve not held for decades.
The constituencies we won over in 2019 are quite different from the party’s traditional base, in the deep red bits of the map above. Seats we gained last year don’t just have lower earnings than the seats we held, but earnings five per cent lower than Labour seats. Of the bottom quarter of seats in Great Britain with the lowest earnings, more are now held by us than Labour. Compared to seats we gained, homes in Labour constituencies are a third more expensive.
Many of the places we won have felt neglected for a long time. And led from the front by the Prime Minister, the new Government has committed to “levelling up” poorer places. But what does that really mean? How can we measure if we are succeeding? How can we get the private sector growing faster in these places, making the country stronger overall?
To help the Government answer these questions, I and 40 other Conservative MPs have formed a new Levelling Up Taskforce.
Our first report is out today, looking at how we can measure progress. It also examines what’s been happening in different parts of the UK economy over recent decades.
Income per person in London (before paying taxes and receiving benefits) grew two thirds faster than the rest of the country between 1997 and 2018: it’s now 70 per cent higher in London than the rest of the country, up from 30 per cent higher in 1997.
While the divergence seen since the 90s has been a story of London pulling away from all of the rest of the country, it follows decades in which former industrial areas in the north, midlands, Scotland and Wales fell behind. Between 1977 and 1995 South Yorkshire, Teesside and Merseyside saw GDP per person fall by 20 per cent compared to the national average, and most such areas haven’t caught up that lost ground.
Why does this matter?
It matters, first, because opportunity is linked to the economy. There are fewer opportunities to climb the ladder in poorer places. Not just fewer good jobs, but less opportunity in other ways.
In London, over 45 per cent of poorer pupils who were eligible for free school meals progressed to higher education in 2018/19. Outside London there were 80 local authorities where richer pupils who were not on free school meals were less likely than this to go to university. Overall, more than 60 per cent go to university in places like Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster. But less than a third go places like in Knowsley, Barnsley, Hull, and Thurrock.
It also matters because more balanced economies are stronger overall. In an unbalanced economy, resources like land and infrastructure are overloaded in some places, even while they are underused elsewhere. This might be particularly true where cities have seen population shrinkage, and have surplus infrastructure and land. If there are greater distances between workers and good job opportunities that makes it harder for people to get on: not everyone can (or wants) to move away from family to find a better job.
More balanced is stronger overall, but on a wide range of measures the UK is one of the most geographically unbalanced economies. In Germany 12 per cent of people live in areas where the average income is 10 per cent below the national average, while in the UK 35 per cent do. It is very striking that there is no industrialised country that has a more unbalanced economy than the UK and also a higher income, while all the countries that have a higher income have a more balanced economy.
What are we going to do about it? Well, that’s the question our new group will try to answer.
The answer isn’t any of the traditional Labour ones: pumping public sector jobs into places, or subsidising low wage employment, or trying to hold back successful places: we’re interested in levelling up, not levelling down.
Different things will work in different places.
For example, transport improvements might make a bigger difference for remote areas. The ONS defines certain places as “sparse”: the north of Devon and Cornwall, most of central Wales, Shropshire and Herefordshire, most of Cumbria and the rural north east, along with large parts of North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and North Norfolk. In these places income levels are 17-18 per cent lower. Even controlling for the qualifications and age of people living there, these sparse areas have income levels between £600-£1,300 a year lower, likely driven by poor connectivity.
In other places, the answers are different. I’ve written before about how the way we spend money on things like R&D, transport and housing is skewed towards already-successful areas, creating a vicious circle. We should change that.
But tax cuts could also play a bigger role in helping poorer areas. There’s actually been convergence between regions at the bottom end of the earnings distribution, driven by things like the National Living Wage, tax cuts for low income workers, and things like Universal Credit, which have reduced the differences between places by levelling up the poorer areas more. In poorer places, more people benefit from these policies.
The reason there are growing gaps between areas overall is divergence higher up the income scale.
Looking at the gap between earnings for full-time workers in London and the North East, the pay gap shrank for the bottom 30 per cent of workers, but grew for those higher up. For those at the 10th percentile the pay gap between the two places shrank from 32 per cent to 20 per cent. But for richer folks at the 90th percentile, it grew from 62 per cent to 88 per cent.
So how do we get more good, high-paying jobs into poorer areas? There are a million different specific opportunities, but one that’s relevant in a lot of Red Wall seats is advanced manufacturing.
Over recent decades, Chancellors have tended to cut capital allowances (a tax break for investment) in order to lower the headline rate of corporation tax. I’m not sure that was a good idea: Britain has a lower rate of fixed capital investment than competitors and our tax treatment of investment is stingy. But either way, this change has had a pronounced regional impact: it favours services over manufacturing, so helps some areas more than others.
One way to blast our way through the current economic turmoil would be to get businesses investing again by turning capital allowances right up (“full expensing” in the jargon). That would be particularly likely to help poorer areas. Indeed, when we have tried this in a targeted way before it worked.
Government should think more about how tax and spending decisions can help us level up. It should produce geographical analysis of all budgets and fiscal events, setting out the different impact that tax and spending changes will have on different areas. The Treasury’s Labour Markets and Distributional Analysis unit should have geographical analysis added to its remit.
This whole agenda is exciting. But a lot of people are cynical, because they heard New Labour talk the talk – but not deliver. We’ve got to deliver. So let’s hold ourselves to account, and set ourselves some ambitious goals.
Let’s get earnings growing faster than before in poorer areas. Let’s get unemployment down in the places it’s worst. They say that “what gets measured gets managed.” So let’s “measure up” our progress on levelling up.


conservativehome--2020-09-07--Gary Powell: Conservative councillors should strongly oppose extreme-Left gender politics

Peter Hitchens , who has described the Conservative Party as “ the main Left-wing party in the country ” , once told me on Twitter that the Conservative Party would end up disappointing me one day .
Simple words , but they stuck with me , and I grudgingly sensed their prescience at the time .
Disappointment , of course , is a ubiquitous characteristic of the human condition and need not necessarily lead to the abandonment of a fundamentally positive organisation or person .
Otherwise , how would any of our relationships survive or endeavours continue ?
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear .
That ’ s the time to cut and run .
Last year , Peter Hitchens wrote about my futile attempts ( second item ) to encourage the Metropolitan Police to arrest a man ( coincidentally also called “ Powell ” ) who had incited a murderous terrorist attack on Boris Johnson and his Cabinet .
This incident demonstrated the ideological degradation of the Metropolitan Police ( one of so many similarly-blighted entities ) on the Conservative watch .
No criticism is implied here of the many long-suffering and heroic police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from above .
We should be very concerned about the state of the UK ’ s politicised police forces today , where one person can be admonished and given a disclosable police record for expressing a simple belief in biological reality , whereas another person can call on terrorists to blow up the Prime Minister yet be assured he is “ not in any trouble whatsoever ” and even apologised to for the “ unsolicited nature ” of the Police letter .
My consequent two letters of complaint ( the second a chase-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MPs elicited concerned replies from my MPs but no response from the Home Office .
As Wittgenstein said , “ That whereof we can not speak , thereof we must remain silent.
” My great hankering is for the Conservative Party to behave like a conservative party .
A large majority of its members seem , like me , to be political conservatives , and it still remains a far better option than the other left-wing alternatives .
Yet Conservative governments have presided over a society that is becoming increasingly left-totalitarian , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without them realising or perhaps even caring .
Why have our local authority schools been allowed to become left-wing indoctrination centres , where child safeguarding is abandoned to make way for imposed gender ideology extremism championing non-binary-beings and biologically male “ lesbians ” with penises and beards , promoted by socialist pedagogues high on virtue-signal flavoured dopamine ?
These indoctrinated children are the voters of the future .
They also include many gay and lesbian people of the future who will become sterilised by hormones , mutilated by amputations , and groomed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heterosexual ) when they are not .
The kind of tedious left-wing “ woke ” ideology I regularly hear spouted in council meetings and elsewhere is bad enough when it comes from opposition parties .
For very many members and voters , I suspect , the gradual ideological capture of the Conservative Party by this ideology will serve as a reminder that parties such as UKIP and the Brexit Party can do extremely well when the electorate is pushed too far .
The Brexit Party is still waiting watchfully in the wings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Conservative Party really need to indulge in so much appeasement , when most of those whom they try to keep sweet would never vote for us anyway ?
It feels as though the Left is being allowed to set the agenda with forceful , confident assertion of its ideologies , while the Conservative Party hesitates to counter with the equivalent confident assertion of conservative values .
Instead , the Conservative Party seems to be appeasing the Left ’ s agenda and adapting itself to it .
As though winning votes at any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and minds to conservative values .
Following the demise of foundational belief systems in the West , some terrifying dogmata are emerging to fill the void .
Extreme gender ideology is one of them .
The kind of grip that this hatefully intolerant and dangerous ideology is inflicting on the West particularly harms women , gay and lesbian people , people with high-functioning autism , and children , and Stonewall has been its main driver in the UK since 2015 , once legal equality had been achieved for gay and lesbian people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , no matter how much you defend the legitimate rights and dignity of transsexual people , merely stating there is an insuperable biological difference between men and women is enough to get you sacked , silenced , no-platformed , labelled a “ transphobe ” , and accused of “ hating trans people ” .
Don ’ t expect any respectful and measured discussion : you are the Salem ’ s witch of the 21st Century , and you must be silenced and punished , robbed of your livelihood , have your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your human rights taken down .
We desperately need our Conservative Government to defend freedom of speech and children ’ s safeguarding against this extreme ideology and its activists , and to enforce the public sector equality duty to protect the rights of women , girls , and of gay , lesbian and autistic children , who are particularly vulnerable to gender identity grooming and indoctrination .
While genuinely transsexual people must be protected from unfair discrimination , to be sacked simply for saying that biological men can not become biological women is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure , inter alia , that transwomen ( i.e .
biological men ) convicted of physically or sexually abusing women or children or viewing child abuse pornography , must be reported in the media as male , and not female .
These are crimes overwhelmingly associated with men .
It is an outrage to women , as well as to statistical crime analysis , to see such criminals recorded and reported as “ women ” .
Instead , we now see our Conservative Government dithering over whether or not to steer British society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology .
Some Conservative MPs actively promote this ideology , clearly lacking any understanding of the harm it causes .
In our Party , appeasement , assimilation , and virtue-signalling , seem to be replacing intelligent thought and principled conservative activism .
Meanwhile , many of Britain ’ s conservatives may soon be ready to weigh anchor .

Cllr Gary Powell is a councillor in Buckinghamshire
Peter Hitchens, who has described the Conservative Party as “the main Left-wing party in the country”, once told me on Twitter that the Conservative Party would end up disappointing me one day. Simple words, but they stuck with me, and I grudgingly sensed their prescience at the time. Disappointment, of course, is a ubiquitous characteristic of the human condition and need not necessarily lead to the abandonment of a fundamentally positive organisation or person. Otherwise, how would any of our relationships survive or endeavours continue? There are times, however, when disappointment becomes nuclear. That’s the time to cut and run.
Last year, Peter Hitchens wrote about my futile attempts (second item) to encourage the Metropolitan Police to arrest a man (coincidentally also called “Powell”) who had incited a murderous terrorist attack on Boris Johnson and his Cabinet. This incident demonstrated the ideological degradation of the Metropolitan Police (one of so many similarly-blighted entities) on the Conservative watch. No criticism is implied here of the many long-suffering and heroic police officers enduring the imposition of noxious leftist ideology from above.
We should be very concerned about the state of the UK’s politicised police forces today, where one person can be admonished and given a disclosable police record for expressing a simple belief in biological reality, whereas another person can call on terrorists to blow up the Prime Minister yet be assured he is “not in any trouble whatsoever” and even apologised to for the “unsolicited nature” of the Police letter. My consequent two letters of complaint (the second a chase-up) to the Home Secretary via my MPs elicited concerned replies from my MPs but no response from the Home Office. As Wittgenstein said, “That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.”
My great hankering is for the Conservative Party to behave like a conservative party. A large majority of its members seem, like me, to be political conservatives, and it still remains a far better option than the other left-wing alternatives. Yet Conservative governments have presided over a society that is becoming increasingly left-totalitarian, like absentee landlords whose house is being trashed without them realising or perhaps even caring.
Why have our local authority schools been allowed to become left-wing indoctrination centres, where child safeguarding is abandoned to make way for imposed gender ideology extremism championing non-binary-beings and biologically male “lesbians” with penises and beards, promoted by socialist pedagogues high on virtue-signal flavoured dopamine? These indoctrinated children are the voters of the future. They also include many gay and lesbian people of the future who will become sterilised by hormones, mutilated by amputations, and groomed into believing they are transgender (and hence heterosexual) when they are not.
The kind of tedious left-wing “woke” ideology I regularly hear spouted in council meetings and elsewhere is bad enough when it comes from opposition parties. For very many members and voters, I suspect, the gradual ideological capture of the Conservative Party by this ideology will serve as a reminder that parties such as UKIP and the Brexit Party can do extremely well when the electorate is pushed too far. The Brexit Party is still waiting watchfully in the wings, lest we forget.
Does today’s Conservative Party really need to indulge in so much appeasement, when most of those whom they try to keep sweet would never vote for us anyway? It feels as though the Left is being allowed to set the agenda with forceful, confident assertion of its ideologies, while the Conservative Party hesitates to counter with the equivalent confident assertion of conservative values. Instead, the Conservative Party seems to be appeasing the Left’s agenda and adapting itself to it. As though winning votes at any cost were more important than winning hearts and minds to conservative values.
Following the demise of foundational belief systems in the West, some terrifying dogmata are emerging to fill the void. Extreme gender ideology is one of them. The kind of grip that this hatefully intolerant and dangerous ideology is inflicting on the West particularly harms women, gay and lesbian people, people with high-functioning autism, and children, and Stonewall has been its main driver in the UK since 2015, once legal equality had been achieved for gay and lesbian people, and Stonewall needed a new fundraising cause.
Today, no matter how much you defend the legitimate rights and dignity of transsexual people, merely stating there is an insuperable biological difference between men and women is enough to get you sacked, silenced, no-platformed, labelled a “transphobe”, and accused of “hating trans people”. Don’t expect any respectful and measured discussion: you are the Salem’s witch of the 21st Century, and you must be silenced and punished, robbed of your livelihood, have your life destroyed and any crowdfunder to defend your human rights taken down.
We desperately need our Conservative Government to defend freedom of speech and children’s safeguarding against this extreme ideology and its activists, and to enforce the public sector equality duty to protect the rights of women, girls, and of gay, lesbian and autistic children, who are particularly vulnerable to gender identity grooming and indoctrination.
While genuinely transsexual people must be protected from unfair discrimination, to be sacked simply for saying that biological men cannot become biological women is outrageous. The Government also needs to ensure, inter alia, that transwomen (i.e. biological men) convicted of physically or sexually abusing women or children or viewing child abuse pornography, must be reported in the media as male, and not female. These are crimes overwhelmingly associated with men. It is an outrage to women, as well as to statistical crime analysis, to see such criminals recorded and reported as “women”.
Instead, we now see our Conservative Government dithering over whether or not to steer British society into the post-modernist dystopia of extreme gender ideology. Some Conservative MPs actively promote this ideology, clearly lacking any understanding of the harm it causes.
In our Party, appeasement, assimilation, and virtue-signalling, seem to be replacing intelligent thought and principled conservative activism. Meanwhile, many of Britain’s conservatives may soon be ready to weigh anchor.


conservativehome--2020-09-07--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Independent Committee on Police Conduct –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Independent Committee on Police Conduct – and more

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

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
British Film Institute (BFI) – Chair
“This role is therefore an extraordinary opportunity for an individual who is passionate about the success of the BFI and the wider British film/screen industry, and who has a track record of board leadership, to support the next chapter of British film and the continued success of the screen sectors. The selected Board Chair will be expected to work alongside the recently appointed CEO in shaping and delivering an emerging vision for the sectors’ recovery from Covid-19, and long-term success thereafter. To do so, the selected Board Chair must have achieved leadership stature in the film industry, business, a major charitable or cultural institution, or government.”
Time: Up to two days per month.
Remuneration: Expenses.
Closes: 11 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Charity Commission – Board Member
“The Charity Commission has a clear purpose: to ensure charity can thrive and inspire trust so that people can improve lives and strengthen society. To help us meet that purpose, fulfil our proud commitment to represent the public interest in charity, and meet the challenges we face, in the autumn of 2018 the Board set an ambitious five-year strategic plan… The Secretary of State for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden MP, wishes to appoint a Board member to the Charity Commission for England and Wales. A vacancy for a Non-Executive Director will be created when one member completes their term in October 2020. This is a senior role requiring someone with the necessary experience and non-executive skills to support the Chair in providing strategic leadership and oversight of the Charity Commission. ”
Time: Approx. 24 days per year.
Remuneration: £350 per diem plus expenses.
Closes: 13 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – Chief Inspector
“Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service is supported by an inspectorate: Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). The inspectorate provides independently assessed evidence about the operation, efficiency, and effectiveness of the public prosecutors (the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)). The purpose of this is to provide the evidence needed to allow the public prosecutors to be held to account and to improve, thereby strengthening the public’s trust in the prosecution process. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and the inspectorate may inspect other prosecuting authorities by invitation.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £125,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Forensic Science Regulator
“The Forensic Science Regulator ensures that the provision of forensic science services across the criminal justice system is subject to an appropriate regime of scientific quality standards. They are responsible for: identifying the requirement for new or improved quality standards; leading on the development of new standards; and where necessary, providing advice and guidance so that providers of forensic science services can demonstrate compliance with common standards. The successful candidate will ideally have a substantial background in operating at a senior level in a relevant field, encompassing at least one of the following: leadership in a forensic, or related, scientific discipline; the development and application of quality standards in a scientific or technical environment; the regulatory process involving scientific standards; or the criminal justice system.”
Time: 3-4 days per week.
Remuneration: £96,000 per annum FTE.
Closes: 14 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Children’s Commissioner for England
“The Commissioner operates as a corporation sole, sponsored by the Department for Education and is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education. The Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England. The legislative basis for the office of Children’s Commissioner is in Part 1 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 2004. This establishes the independence of the office and the six year tenure of the post holder. The legislation relating to the Children’s Commissioner is permissive, allowing significant flexibility for the Commissioner to determine how best to carry out his or her primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. The Commissioner is not an Ombudsman and, in general, cannot conduct investigations into the case of an individual child.”
Time: Full time.
Remuneration: £120-130,000 per annum.
Closes: 18 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Police Advisory Board for England and Wales – Chair
“The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964, now section 63 of the Police Act 1996. Under the remit of the Board, sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee. In addition to this, the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum (PCF), a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW. We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing. The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000, the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.”
Time: Approx. 21 days per annum.
Remuneration: £437 per diem, plus expenses.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October