conservativehome--2020-06-02--Rosalind Beck: Extending the evictions ban would not help the vulnerable

Dr Rosalind Beck is a doctor of Criminology and a Conservative Party member in South Wales .
The three-month eviction ban and effective shutting down of the rental market for nearly two months in England ( longer in the rest of the UK ) has led to thousands of pounds in lost income for many private and social landlords .
Contrary to what might be assumed , many of the rent defaults to date have not been caused by covid-19 .
By far the biggest problem has come from those who stopped paying rent months before the pandemic began .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that most evictions are currently frozen in the court system – but still accruing rent arrears in most cases – ‘ are down to existing ongoing anti-social behaviour issues and have nothing to do with Covid.
’ Paul Shamplina , an eviction specialist , has also said he has 500 cases on his books which pre-date the pandemic .
Across the country , there will be many thousands of similar cases .
With the three-month eviction ban due to end on June 25th , the predictable clamour has begun to extend it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Groups such as Shelter and Generation Rent who seem to have the ear of Government are at the forefront of demanding the ban be extended .
This appears to be an easy solution ; effectively making landlords continue to house people who aren ’ t paying and shoring up the problem for a later date .
In the meantime , the Government and others suggest that landlords take out additional loans – misleadingly presented as ‘ mortgage holidays ’ – to replace the missing rent of non-paying tenants .
This is in contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Spain where tenants are the ones expected to take out Government loans to cover their own debts .
Once the possession hearings are finally heard in court , a ‘ tsunami of evictions ’ has been predicted .
All an extension will achieve is a delayed , bigger tsunami , with bigger losses for landlords and larger County Court Judgements against tenants , which will cause them grave problems when they look to rent again .
The Government ’ s latest announcement of millions of money to be spent on housing 6,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be multiplied by an as yet unknown figure with the wave of newly homeless people arriving at council doors .
Supply of rental property will shrink massively just as a greater number of homes are needed .
Many of the 45 per cent of landlords who own only one rental property will sell or leave their property empty .
One can ’ t take the risk of getting a non-payer when there is no legal redress .
Other landlords will go bankrupt as a result of paying for other people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs .
What ’ s more , the eviction ban and the proposed scrapping of Section 21 notices will make those who do remain in the market , particularly portfolio landlords who house the majority of tenants , reluctant to rent to anyone other than those considered to carry the least risk of defaulting .
Guarantors will become indispensable – which will disqualify many tenants from consideration .
Just how many hotels , B & Bs , camp or caravan sites will be needed to house those unable to access any rented housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State chipping away at the property rights of those willing to loan their property to others .
Handing unconditional ‘ security of tenure ’ to tenants – some are now demanding tenants have the right to remain regardless of whether or not they pay the rent ‘ for a minimum of 12 months ’ – means the non-owner and even non-payer would have more control over the property than the owner , who may also be paying a mortgage and who remains responsible for all maintenance , insurance , adherence to regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be terrified they might rent to the wrong person and be faced with this disastrous scenario .
Confidence within the sector will be seriously damaged .
In this context , victims of domestic violence will be especially vulnerable .
There are likely be more deaths of women in particular as a result .
This is because currently , private landlords provide 90 per cent of all housing to the homeless and according to official figures only two per cent of households made homeless in England because of domestic abuse between April and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The state ’ s role is negligible .
These victims need to move out of the home where they are in danger ; others need to move on from women ’ s refuges , instead of inadvertently ‘ bed blocking ’ accommodation desperately needed by other women under threat of violence .
When there are no private rentals for them to go to this flow from abusive home to refuge to a privately rented home will come to an abrupt halt .
That a Conservative Government should be considering this assault on private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more extreme than most things Jeremy Corbyn had planned .
In fact , what the Government needs to do is perform an immediate u-turn in the approach to the sector it has taken since George Osborne introduced the pernicious Section 24 whereby many landlords now pay more tax than they receive in profit .
This absurd law had placed huge financial stress on landlords even before the Government ’ s lockdown measures .
If the ban is now extended it is going to have catastrophic consequences in situations where landlords are already facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more tenants lose their jobs .
It is simply wrong for the Government to expect private citizens – that is , landlords – to not only accommodate the ‘ rogue ’ element of tenants rent-free but also to indefinitely accommodate people affected by covid whilst receiving no rent .
It is unjust , unsustainable and ill-thought-out .
The Government must stop meekly adopting the policy suggestions of groups who despise private landlords and who do not understand the sector , having never been involved in housing provision and having no expertise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shelter with an annual budget of around £60 million does not provide a single roof over anyone ’ s head .
The Government must stop listening to this organisation and must instead consider the wider consequences of an extension to the ban .
Private landlords remaining in the sector won ’ t touch with a barge pole those they know left other landlords with huge debts .
Social housing providers also won ’ t house them ; they will be facing a similar tsunami of evictions in their sector ; added to which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ books and have long waiting lists and no spare capacity .
The Government must categorically not extend the eviction ban ; not unless it wants to make a big problem even bigger .

Dr Rosalind Beck is a doctor of Criminology and a Conservative Party member in South Wales.
The three-month eviction ban and effective shutting down of the rental market for nearly two months in England (longer in the rest of the UK) has led to thousands of pounds in lost income for many private and social landlords.
Contrary to what might be assumed, many of the rent defaults to date have not been caused by covid-19. By far the biggest problem has come from those who stopped paying rent months before the pandemic began.
Indeed the National Residential Landlords Association has found that most evictions are currently frozen in the court system – but still accruing rent arrears in most cases – ‘are down to existing ongoing anti-social behaviour issues and have nothing to do with Covid.’ Paul Shamplina, an eviction specialist, has also said he has 500 cases on his books which pre-date the pandemic. Across the country, there will be many thousands of similar cases.
With the three-month eviction ban due to end on June 25th, the predictable clamour has begun to extend it for another three months or more. Groups such as Shelter and Generation Rent who seem to have the ear of Government are at the forefront of demanding the ban be extended. This appears to be an easy solution; effectively making landlords continue to house people who aren’t paying and shoring up the problem for a later date.
In the meantime, the Government and others suggest that landlords take out additional loans – misleadingly presented as ‘mortgage holidays’ – to replace the missing rent of non-paying tenants.
This is in contrast to the approach taken in countries such as Spain where tenants are the ones expected to take out Government loans to cover their own debts.
Once the possession hearings are finally heard in court, a ‘tsunami of evictions’ has been predicted. All an extension will achieve is a delayed, bigger tsunami, with bigger losses for landlords and larger County Court Judgements against tenants, which will cause them grave problems when they look to rent again.
The Government’s latest announcement of millions of money to be spent on housing 6,000 rough sleepers will pale into insignificance and need to be multiplied by an as yet unknown figure with the wave of newly homeless people arriving at council doors.
Supply of rental property will shrink massively just as a greater number of homes are needed. Many of the 45 per cent of landlords who own only one rental property will sell or leave their property empty. One can’t take the risk of getting a non-payer when there is no legal redress. Other landlords will go bankrupt as a result of paying for other people’s accommodation and often also their utility costs.
What’s more, the eviction ban and the proposed scrapping of Section 21 notices will make those who do remain in the market, particularly portfolio landlords who house the majority of tenants, reluctant to rent to anyone other than those considered to carry the least risk of defaulting.
Guarantors will become indispensable – which will disqualify many tenants from consideration. Just how many hotels, B&Bs, camp or caravan sites will be needed to house those unable to access any rented housing?
This is the natural consequence of the State chipping away at the property rights of those willing to loan their property to others. Handing unconditional ‘security of tenure’ to tenants – some are now demanding tenants have the right to remain regardless of whether or not they pay the rent ‘for a minimum of 12 months’ – means the non-owner and even non-payer would have more control over the property than the owner, who may also be paying a mortgage and who remains responsible for all maintenance, insurance, adherence to regulations and so on. Landlords are going to be terrified they might rent to the wrong person and be faced with this disastrous scenario. Confidence within the sector will be seriously damaged.
In this context, victims of domestic violence will be especially vulnerable. There are likely be more deaths of women in particular as a result. This is because currently, private landlords provide 90 per cent of all housing to the homeless and according to official figures only two per cent of households made homeless in England because of domestic abuse between April and December 2018 were offered social housing. The state’s role is negligible.
These victims need to move out of the home where they are in danger; others need to move on from women’s refuges, instead of inadvertently ‘bed blocking’ accommodation desperately needed by other women under threat of violence. When there are no private rentals for them to go to this flow from abusive home to refuge to a privately rented home will come to an abrupt halt.
That a Conservative Government should be considering this assault on private property rights is astonishing. It is more extreme than most things Jeremy Corbyn had planned.
In fact, what the Government needs to do is perform an immediate u-turn in the approach to the sector it has taken since George Osborne introduced the pernicious Section 24 whereby many landlords now pay more tax than they receive in profit. This absurd law had placed huge financial stress on landlords even before the Government’s lockdown measures.
If the ban is now extended it is going to have catastrophic consequences in situations where landlords are already facing really high rent arrears and further arrears as more tenants lose their jobs. It is simply wrong for the Government to expect private citizens – that is, landlords – to not only accommodate the ‘rogue’ element of tenants rent-free but also to indefinitely accommodate people affected by covid whilst receiving no rent. It is unjust, unsustainable and ill-thought-out.
The Government must stop meekly adopting the policy suggestions of groups who despise private landlords and who do not understand the sector, having never been involved in housing provision and having no expertise in it. Not everyone knows this but Shelter with an annual budget of around £60 million does not provide a single roof over anyone’s head.
The Government must stop listening to this organisation and must instead consider the wider consequences of an extension to the ban. Private landlords remaining in the sector won’t touch with a barge pole those they know left other landlords with huge debts. Social housing providers also won’t house them; they will be facing a similar tsunami of evictions in their sector; added to which, they too need to balance their books and have long waiting lists and no spare capacity.
The Government must categorically not extend the eviction ban; not unless it wants to make a big problem even bigger.


conservativehome--2020-06-02--On the 14-day quarantine, the Government has got it right

Since it was first announced , there has been huge backlash over the Government ’ s plan to introduce a 14-day quarantine period for people arriving in Britain after June 8 .
Many feel that it has been implemented too late in the day ; that it ’ s unenforceable , and worst of all , economically destructive .
Huw Merriman , Conservative Chair of the Transport Select Committee , described it as the “ wrong policy ” that “ disproportionately impacts the economy ” , and 217 tourism and travel businesses put forward similar concerns in a letter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is due to outline details of the quarantine in the House of Commons , but it remains to be seen what happens next .
Because it is a statutory instrument , it does not automatically need to be voted on .
However , Sir Lindsay Hoyle , Speaker of the House of Commons will be able to decide if the scale of opposition warrants a debate .
Given that this week over 20 Tory MPs demanded that the Government rethinks its strategy , with the support of around 50 MPs , it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side gets a hearing .
MPs and travel leaders are right to be concerned ; travel accounts for more than £5 billion sales and four million jobs , so quarantine is going to have a big economic toll .
That ’ s before we get to the impact it could have on national morale , particularly with the advent of summer .
Research by the International Air Transport Association showed that Brits willingness to travel again soon was above that of the United States , Japan , Germany , Canada and Australia – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barriers will be received badly .
It could even be said to be socio-economically unjust ; people who can work-from-home will find it much easier to isolate after holidays than those in frontline jobs , such as nurses , carers and delivery staff .
Even so , the Government has said its priority is to keep the R number below one ; it is doing everything it can to minimise more infections of this virus , especially as Britain comes down from the peak .
With that in mind , it makes sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel , even if spite of the economic consequences .
Ultimately the Government ’ s critics can ’ t be entirely surprised it ’ s so cautious after numerous accusations that it did not impose lockdown soon enough .
Now that the figures are under control , it is seizing the moment to knock the virus on the head .
Yes the measures may be excessive in retrospect , but given that Britain ’ s airports are some of the busiest in the world , it is simply not worth taking the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-run .
Furthermore , the measures are temporary and subject to a review on June 29 , when the Government will have a much better understanding of how many cases there are in Britain , and should be in more of a position to relax the rules .
It has even been said that plans are being drawn up in Whitehall for “ air bridges ” between countries ; an agreement which would allow the Brits to venture to various destinations .
This idea was first proposed by Grant Shapps in May , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could open up travel to Spain , Germany , Italy and France .
One thing that ’ s worth remembering , for UK citizens who question the move , is that even if the Government scrapped the quarantine plan , there are countries that will not have Brits there .
Spain ’ s tourism minister , for instance , said that the UK ’ s coronavirus figures had “ to improve ” before they allow visitors , and Greece has said no too .
Other countries have strict guidelines about who can come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certificates proving a negative Covid-19 result , and Cyprus is only allowing citizens from Germany , Greece and Malta in .
So it is a fallacy to believe the quarantine itself is blocking movement back and forth from Britain ; one of the main problems is that other countries are wary of our Covid-19 levels .
Hence why the Government is being so vigilant about quarantine ; we have to prove we can totally get our Coronavirus rate down .
So it is a question of the long-game .
In the immediate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists , lorry drivers and others – who can keep part of the economy going .
But anything that would compromise the trajectory Brits are on – to get rid of the Coronavirus – will merely push holidays even further away .

Since it was first announced, there has been huge backlash over the Government’s plan to introduce a 14-day quarantine period for people arriving in Britain after June 8. Many feel that it has been implemented too late in the day; that it’s unenforceable, and worst of all, economically destructive.
Huw Merriman, Conservative Chair of the Transport Select Committee, described it as the “wrong policy” that “disproportionately impacts the economy”, and 217 tourism and travel businesses put forward similar concerns in a letter to Priti Patel.
Today the Home Secretary is due to outline details of the quarantine in the House of Commons, but it remains to be seen what happens next. Because it is a statutory instrument, it does not automatically need to be voted on.
However, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons will be able to decide if the scale of opposition warrants a debate. Given that this week over 20 Tory MPs demanded that the Government rethinks its strategy, with the support of around 50 MPs, it may very well be the case that their side gets a hearing.
MPs and travel leaders are right to be concerned; travel accounts for more than £5 billion sales and four million jobs, so quarantine is going to have a big economic toll. That’s before we get to the impact it could have on national morale, particularly with the advent of summer.
Research by the International Air Transport Association showed that Brits willingness to travel again soon was above that of the United States, Japan, Germany, Canada and Australia – so by all indications these sort of barriers will be received badly.
It could even be said to be socio-economically unjust; people who can work-from-home will find it much easier to isolate after holidays than those in frontline jobs, such as nurses, carers and delivery staff.
Even so, the Government has said its priority is to keep the R number below one; it is doing everything it can to minimise more infections of this virus, especially as Britain comes down from the peak. With that in mind, it makes sense that it is being extremely careful about travel, even if spite of the economic consequences.
Ultimately the Government’s critics can’t be entirely surprised it’s so cautious after numerous accusations that it did not impose lockdown soon enough. Now that the figures are under control, it is seizing the moment to knock the virus on the head. Yes the measures may be excessive in retrospect, but given that Britain’s airports are some of the busiest in the world, it is simply not worth taking the risk – and causing more disruption in the long-run.
Furthermore, the measures are temporary and subject to a review on June 29, when the Government will have a much better understanding of how many cases there are in Britain, and should be in more of a position to relax the rules.
It has even been said that plans are being drawn up in Whitehall for “air bridges” between countries; an agreement which would allow the Brits to venture to various destinations. This idea was first proposed by Grant Shapps in May, and has become increasingly popular. It could open up travel to Spain, Germany, Italy and France.
One thing that’s worth remembering, for UK citizens who question the move, is that even if the Government scrapped the quarantine plan, there are countries that will not have Brits there. Spain’s tourism minister, for instance, said that the UK’s coronavirus figures had “to improve” before they allow visitors, and Greece has said no too. Other countries have strict guidelines about who can come; Austria and Iceland ask for medical certificates proving a negative Covid-19 result, and Cyprus is only allowing citizens from Germany, Greece and Malta in.
So it is a fallacy to believe the quarantine itself is blocking movement back and forth from Britain; one of the main problems is that other countries are wary of our Covid-19 levels. Hence why the Government is being so vigilant about quarantine; we have to prove we can totally get our Coronavirus rate down.
So it is a question of the long-game. In the immediate, there are exemptions for health workers, scientists, lorry drivers and others – who can keep part of the economy going. But anything that would compromise the trajectory Brits are on – to get rid of the Coronavirus – will merely push holidays even further away.


conservativehome--2020-06-03--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Pensions Ombudsman – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration provides independent scrutiny of the UK ’ s border and immigration functions , providing security , confidence and assurance as to their effectiveness and efficiency .
They report annually to the Home Secretary and their reports are placed before Parliament .
Leading a team of approximately 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK ’ s approach to the Border , Immigration and Citizenship System .
Candidates will have experience of working successfully at a senior level , ideally within a regulation or enforcement arena .
Whatever your background , you will appreciate the importance and opportunity that this role presents .
Excellent communication skills , decisiveness , independence and unquestionable integrity will be essential.
” “ The Imperial War Museum ( IWM ) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War .
Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the world ’ s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain , its former Empire and the Commonwealth , from the First World War to the present .
The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose , fulfilled in different ways at its different branches , both physical and virtual .
In addition to its headquarters building , IWM London , in Southwark , the Museum ’ s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London , IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire , and IWM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind .
The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces , and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.
” Time : Up to one day per month .
“ Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice , supporting as well as challenging the executive , and covering such issues as : support , guidance and challenge on the progress and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single departmental plan ) ; performance ( including agreeing key performance indicators ) , operational issues ( including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals ) , adherence to relevant standards ( e.g .
commercial , digital ) , and on the effective management of the department ; [ and ] the recruitment , appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives , as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.
” Her Majesty ’ s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty ’ s Chief Inspector of Prisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government , and deliver the services under the Inspectorate ’ s scrutiny .
The Inspectorate ’ s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate , and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required .
In addition to its annual inspection programme , the Inspectorate has , since 2019 , introduced Independent Reviews of Progress , which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.
” “ The Pensions Ombudsman ( TPO ) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run .
The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) Board under the PPF ’ s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) Financial Assistance Scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separately in legislation , they are held by one post holder .
Throughout this document the term ‘ PO ’ will therefore cover both roles .
TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints .
Determinations are final and binding on all parties , subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law .
Services are provided free of charge .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Home Office – Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration provides independent scrutiny of the UK’s border and immigration functions, providing security, confidence and assurance as to their effectiveness and efficiency. They report annually to the Home Secretary and their reports are placed before Parliament. Leading a team of approximately 30 staff you will strive to continually improve the UK’s approach to the Border, Immigration and Citizenship System. Candidates will have experience of working successfully at a senior level, ideally within a regulation or enforcement arena. Whatever your background, you will appreciate the importance and opportunity that this role presents. Excellent communication skills, decisiveness, independence and unquestionable integrity will be essential.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £130,000
Closes: 06 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Imperial War Museum – RAF Trustee and Navy Trustee
“The Imperial War Museum (IWM) was founded in 1917 to record the story of the Great War. Its remit was subsequently extended to cover the Second World War and today, IWM is the world’s leading authority on conflict and its impact focusing on Britain, its former Empire and the Commonwealth, from the First World War to the present. The IWM is a single institution with a single purpose, fulfilled in different ways at its different branches, both physical and virtual. In addition to its headquarters building, IWM London, in Southwark, the Museum’s branches comprise the Churchill War Rooms and HMS Belfast in London, IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire, and IWM North in Trafford, Greater Manchester which is housed in a stunning building by Daniel Libeskind. The IWM has traditionally had a Trustee on its Board from each of the three branches of the armed forces, and is currently recruiting for two Trustees to represent the RAF and Navy branches.”
Time: Up to one day per month.
Remuneration: Expenses reasonably incurred.
Closes: 12 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for International Trade – Lead Non-Executive Board Member/Non-Executive Board Member
“Both Non-Executive Board Members roles will exercise their role through influence and advice, supporting as well as challenging the executive, and covering such issues as: support, guidance and challenge on the progress and implementation of the Departments Strategy (the single departmental plan); performance (including agreeing key performance indicators), operational issues (including the operational and delivery implications of policy proposals), adherence to relevant standards (e.g. commercial, digital), and on the effective management of the department; [and] the recruitment, appraisal and suitable succession planning of senior executives, as appropriate within the principles set out by the Civil Service Commission.”
Time: Approx. 15-20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000/£15,000 per annum.
Closes: 14 June
– – – – – – – – – –
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons – Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
“Reporting directly to Ministers, the successful candidate will have a proven ability to act with integrity and independence from Government, and deliver the services under the Inspectorate’s scrutiny. The Inspectorate’s methodology focuses on outcomes for those detained within the custodial estate, and encourages establishments to seek improvement in those outcomes where required. In addition to its annual inspection programme, the Inspectorate has, since 2019, introduced Independent Reviews of Progress, which will assess progress made by a prison in implementing previous recommendations in up to 20 prisons a year. The next Chief Inspector will be expected to use their expertise to innovate and evolve the inspection approach to further strengthen the work and impact of the Inspectorate.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £135,000 per annum.
Closes: 15 June
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pensions Ombudsman – Chair
“The Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) investigates and determines complaints and disputes about the way that occupational and personal pension schemes are run. The Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman considers decisions made by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Board under the PPF’s internal procedures and decides on appeals against decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Financial Assistance Scheme. Although the roles are provided for separately in legislation, they are held by one post holder. Throughout this document the term ‘PO’ will therefore cover both roles. TPO provides an accessible service for dealing with pensions complaints. Determinations are final and binding on all parties, subject only to appeal in the High Court on a point of law. Services are provided free of charge.”
Time: Min. 30 days per annum.
Remuneration: £20,000 per annum.
Closes: 19 June


conservativehome--2020-06-03--When it comes to dealing with its own MPs, this Government is out of its depth

“ Happy families are all alike ; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way ” , Tolstoy wrote , in the opening sentence of Anna Karenina .
The Conservative Parliamentary Party is a family ( of sorts ) .
And it is always unhappy in its own way .
Most of its members want to be Ministers .
All will have daydreamed about being Prime Minister .
Only one can be at any time , assuming that the Tories are in government , and there are only so many Ministerial jobs to go round .
All will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the time ; and some will be unhappy about what it is doing all of the time .
Issues of principle and belief will often be the driving reason .
Add frustration , spousal discontent and unhappiness to the brew , and you have a recipe for trouble .
Conservative MPs complained about Theresa May ’ s inertia and paralysis ; David Cameron ’ s alliance with the Liberal Democrats ; John Major ’ s five year-long car crash ; about Margaret Thatcher – to the point of ousting her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back , talking of ditching leaders , to Robert Peel and beyond .
But there is reason to believe that the relations between Boris Johnson and Conservative MPs pose are especially challenging .
There are three sets of problems .
Those that can be fixed easily ; those that may not get fixed at all – and one that may be beyond fixing altogether .
First , then : those that can be fixed easily .
No modern Parliament has previously been sent home , not even during either World War .
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the Dominic Cummings contretemps , has arisen because most MPs are pack animals and , like other kinds , behave oddly when isolated .
Here are roughly ten action points for Number Ten and the Whips now that Westminster is back .
The latter can kick off with a big listening exercise .
The former can start calling groups of unhappy ones in for meetings with senior Ministers who have a big role in the anti-virus drive : step forward , Michael Gove .
Johnson can invite small clusters of MPs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinks , which will get easier as the lockdown relaxes .
The Whips can study their list of the disaffected – and the Government ’ s own of trade envoys and special ambassadors can then be refreshed .
The 1922 Committee could play its part by reviving policy committees to shadow each Government department , which would give backbenchers with special interests a platform from which to make their case .
An MP from each county or city could take responsibility for convening his colleagues ’ collective relations with government .
The ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to relay concerns about the new arrangements to the Leader of the House : if one had been in place , the row about extending proxy voting to the shielded , for which our columnist Robert Halfon has made an unanswerable case , might have been avoided .
As others have suggested , Johnson could appoint an Andrew Mackay-style PPS with special responsibility for sniffing out trouble .
Given the sensitivity of MPs in the former Red Wall seats , he might try a pre-2019 MP with a record of taking a seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The Whips and Downing Street could make more use of all five MPs who took Midlands and Northern seats in 2017 in any event .
All this could be done and some of it perhaps will be .
We now come to the second set of problems : those that may not get fixed at all .
Number Ten briefed during January ’ s reshuffle that it was selecting on the basis of three factors : loyalty , not complaining to the media , and competence .
However , that last factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the model is of the centre instructing Ministers .
Much of the Cabinet is consequently weak .
Johnson is scarcely the first Prime Minister to try running government in this way .
Tony Blair began the process and Nick Timothy completed it , briefly creating a centralised command and control system .
Johnson has revived it under Cummings .
It is a Tory fundamental that such systems don ’ t work , and the David Cameron model of government , with a balance between a strong centre and vigorous Ministers such as Gove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has much to recommend it .
Johnson is reportedly planning a July reshuffle .
This would give him a chance to appoint on merit and give the new Ministers their head .
ConservativeHome will return to the theme soon and suggest some names .
Our member panel ’ s top choice last month was Jeremy Hunt .
Now to the problem that may be beyond fixing .
Others have identified issues thrown up by December ’ s astonishing Red Wall gains .
One arises from the long change that is turning MPs into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigners in their seats – rather than privately-funded elected representatives .
Fewer of these new MPs seem to want to be Ministers than in previous intakes .
In one way , that ’ s a plus for the system , because there will consequently be fewer agitating for jobs .
In another , it ’ s a minus , because fewer will also put the whip before their constituents .
Which is a good thing , most will say .
Up to a point .
MPs have a responsibility to lead public opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even those who disagree will concede that MPs should interpret what their voters want correctly .
This takes us to the crux of the problem .
“ Some of my colleagues have no experience of Just Saying No , ” an old Parliamentary hand told ConservativeHome .
He is right , and not because recent intakes are any more or less tough-minded than their predecessors .
Rather , because current Parliamentary circumstances are unique .
Johnson was elected to deliver Brexit .
Which he has done – and the country is in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corbyn .
But what was the rest of his programme ?
Turn to the Conservative Manifesto headline pledges for an answer .
Fifty thousand more nurses !
Twenty thousand more police !
Fifty million more GP appointments !
Leave aside for a moment the practicability of all-round higher spending in the wake of the Coronavirus .
There is an even bigger issue at stake .
Whatever happened to reform ?
Both the Thatcher and Cameron Governments took it as a given that Britain ’ s economy and public services must deliver more effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some constitutional exceptions , Johnson ducked reform last December , and one understands why : like all his predecessors , Conservative and Labour alike , he had an election to win .
Instead , the big theme is “ levelling up Britain ” .
But neither “ boosterism ” nor reform can ultimately be delivered if MPs are incapable of saying No – however tactfully they dress that Ulsterish word up .
No to 38 Degrees ’ clickbait write-ins .
No to people who aren ’ t constituents but clog up their e-mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t a reasonable case to make .
No to those who say “ I ’ ve always voted Conservative ” – and haven ’ t .
No to those who claim “ I ’ ll never vote Conservative again ” – and will .
No to those whose answer to every problem is simply : more money .
If MPs can ’ t sometimes deploy the N-word , Johnson won ’ t be able to deliver the G-word : government .
And nor will anyone else .

“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”, Tolstoy wrote, in the opening sentence of Anna Karenina. The Conservative Parliamentary Party is a family (of sorts). And it is always unhappy in its own way.
Most of its members want to be Ministers. All will have daydreamed about being Prime Minister. Only one can be at any time, assuming that the Tories are in government, and there are only so many Ministerial jobs to go round.
All will be unhappy about what the leadership is doing some of the time; and some will be unhappy about what it is doing all of the time. Issues of principle and belief will often be the driving reason. Add frustration, spousal discontent and unhappiness to the brew, and you have a recipe for trouble.
Conservative MPs complained about Theresa May’s inertia and paralysis; David Cameron’s alliance with the Liberal Democrats; John Major’s five year-long car crash; about Margaret Thatcher – to the point of ousting her. And so on, all the way back, talking of ditching leaders, to Robert Peel and beyond.
But there is reason to believe that the relations between Boris Johnson and Conservative MPs pose are especially challenging. There are three sets of problems. Those that can be fixed easily; those that may not get fixed at all – and one that may be beyond fixing altogether.
First, then: those that can be fixed easily. No modern Parliament has previously been sent home, not even during either World War. Much of the current discontent, which surfaced during the Dominic Cummings contretemps, has arisen because most MPs are pack animals and, like other kinds, behave oddly when isolated.
Here are roughly ten action points for Number Ten and the Whips now that Westminster is back. The latter can kick off with a big listening exercise. The former can start calling groups of unhappy ones in for meetings with senior Ministers who have a big role in the anti-virus drive: step forward, Michael Gove.
Johnson can invite small clusters of MPs and their spouses to Chequers for socially distant drinks, which will get easier as the lockdown relaxes. The Whips can study their list of the disaffected – and the Government’s own of trade envoys and special ambassadors can then be refreshed.
The 1922 Committee could play its part by reviving policy committees to shadow each Government department, which would give backbenchers with special interests a platform from which to make their case. An MP from each county or city could take responsibility for convening his colleagues’ collective relations with government.
The ’22 could also form a working group to relay concerns about the new arrangements to the Leader of the House: if one had been in place, the row about extending proxy voting to the shielded, for which our columnist Robert Halfon has made an unanswerable case, might have been avoided.
As others have suggested, Johnson could appoint an Andrew Mackay-style PPS with special responsibility for sniffing out trouble. Given the sensitivity of MPs in the former Red Wall seats, he might try a pre-2019 MP with a record of taking a seat off Labour. Eddie Hughes, anyone?
The Whips and Downing Street could make more use of all five MPs who took Midlands and Northern seats in 2017 in any event. All this could be done and some of it perhaps will be. We now come to the second set of problems: those that may not get fixed at all.
Number Ten briefed during January’s reshuffle that it was selecting on the basis of three factors: loyalty, not complaining to the media, and competence. However, that last factor looks a lot more like compliance: the model is of the centre instructing Ministers. Much of the Cabinet is consequently weak.
Johnson is scarcely the first Prime Minister to try running government in this way. Tony Blair began the process and Nick Timothy completed it, briefly creating a centralised command and control system. Johnson has revived it under Cummings.
It is a Tory fundamental that such systems don’t work, and the David Cameron model of government, with a balance between a strong centre and vigorous Ministers such as Gove, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith has much to recommend it.
Johnson is reportedly planning a July reshuffle. This would give him a chance to appoint on merit and give the new Ministers their head. ConservativeHome will return to the theme soon and suggest some names. Our member panel’s top choice last month was Jeremy Hunt.
Now to the problem that may be beyond fixing. Others have identified issues thrown up by December’s astonishing Red Wall gains. One arises from the long change that is turning MPs into taxpayer-funded professional politicians – and full-time time campaigners in their seats – rather than privately-funded elected representatives.
Fewer of these new MPs seem to want to be Ministers than in previous intakes. In one way, that’s a plus for the system, because there will consequently be fewer agitating for jobs. In another, it’s a minus, because fewer will also put the whip before their constituents.
Which is a good thing, most will say. Up to a point. MPs have a responsibility to lead public opinion and not simply follow it. And even those who disagree will concede that MPs should interpret what their voters want correctly. This takes us to the crux of the problem.
“Some of my colleagues have no experience of Just Saying No,” an old Parliamentary hand told ConservativeHome. He is right, and not because recent intakes are any more or less tough-minded than their predecessors. Rather, because current Parliamentary circumstances are unique.
Johnson was elected to deliver Brexit. Which he has done – and the country is in his debt for both doing so and trouncing Corbyn. But what was the rest of his programme? Turn to the Conservative Manifesto headline pledges for an answer. Fifty thousand more nurses! Twenty thousand more police! Fifty million more GP appointments!
Leave aside for a moment the practicability of all-round higher spending in the wake of the Coronavirus. There is an even bigger issue at stake. Whatever happened to reform? Both the Thatcher and Cameron Governments took it as a given that Britain’s economy and public services must deliver more effectively as our population gradually ages.
With some constitutional exceptions, Johnson ducked reform last December, and one understands why: like all his predecessors, Conservative and Labour alike, he had an election to win. Instead, the big theme is “levelling up Britain”.
But neither “boosterism” nor reform can ultimately be delivered if MPs are incapable of saying No – however tactfully they dress that Ulsterish word up. No to 38 Degrees’ clickbait write-ins. No to people who aren’t constituents but clog up their e-mail boxes. No to those who haven’t a reasonable case to make.
No to those who say “I’ve always voted Conservative” – and haven’t. No to those who claim “I’ll never vote Conservative again” – and will. No to those whose answer to every problem is simply: more money. If MPs can’t sometimes deploy the N-word, Johnson won’t be able to deliver the G-word: government. And nor will anyone else.


conservativehome--2020-06-03--Join us for our first ever ConservativeHome Live online event with Matt Ridley

I ’ m very pleased to announce a new venture for our site : ConservativeHome Live , a series of online events in which our readers will get the chance to hear from and put their questions to a range of the leading thinkers , politicians , campaigners and writers in the Conservative movement .
In our first event we will be joined by Matt Ridley – best-selling science writer , prominent Leave campaigner , Conservative peer , newspaper columnist and author of the forthcoming new book How Innovation Works .
I ’ ll be interviewing Matt , and putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 8pm on Wednesday 10th June , via Zoom , the online video chat service .
We ’ ll be discussing a variety of essential topics , including : Do politicians really understand science ?
What has the pandemic revealed about how our national and international institutions work ( or don ’ t work ) ?
What place is there for freedom in a time of lockdown ?
How can Boris Johnson ensure the UK , outside the EU , is best-placed to encourage the innovation and entrepreneurial creativity that will be necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to growth ?
I ’ m sure that our audience will have many questions of their own , too .
We ’ re excited to be exploring new ways to provide new insights and experiences for ConservativeHome readers , and I hope you ’ ll join us for our very first live broadcast .
As well as being a new medium for our readers , these events are also a way to help to support us as a company .
We provide Britain ’ s leading independent centre right source of news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over two million readers a year .
Frankly , like every other media business our traditional revenues have been hurt by the pandemic and the lockdown , and new events help to support the valuable service that our writers provide .
I want these events to be as widely and easily accessible as possible , which is why we ’ ve set a ticket price of just £2.50 for the chance to tune in to hear Matt Ridley ’ s thoughts and put your questions to him .
To book your ticket today @ @ @ @ @

I’m very pleased to announce a new venture for our site: ConservativeHome Live, a series of online events in which our readers will get the chance to hear from and put their questions to a range of the leading thinkers, politicians, campaigners and writers in the Conservative movement.
In our first event we will be joined by Matt Ridley – best-selling science writer, prominent Leave campaigner, Conservative peer, newspaper columnist and author of the forthcoming new book How Innovation Works.
I’ll be interviewing Matt, and putting your questions to him, from 7pm to 8pm on Wednesday 10th June, via Zoom, the online video chat service.
We’ll be discussing a variety of essential topics, including: Do politicians really understand science? What has the pandemic revealed about how our national and international institutions work (or don’t work)? What place is there for freedom in a time of lockdown? How can Boris Johnson ensure the UK, outside the EU, is best-placed to encourage the innovation and entrepreneurial creativity that will be necessary to get us out of quarantine and back to growth? I’m sure that our audience will have many questions of their own, too.
We’re excited to be exploring new ways to provide new insights and experiences for ConservativeHome readers, and I hope you’ll join us for our very first live broadcast.
As well as being a new medium for our readers, these events are also a way to help to support us as a company. We provide Britain’s leading independent centre right source of news and analysis, for free, to over two million readers a year. Frankly, like every other media business our traditional revenues have been hurt by the pandemic and the lockdown, and new events help to support the valuable service that our writers provide. I want these events to be as widely and easily accessible as possible, which is why we’ve set a ticket price of just £2.50 for the chance to tune in to hear Matt Ridley’s thoughts and put your questions to him.
To book your ticket today, please click here.
Our first ConservativeHome Live event is kindly supported by Thorncliffe.


conservativehome--2020-06-03--Darren Grimes: A Pride Day?  There’s a good case for one.  But a whole Pride Month?  That’s just vir

Darren Grimes: A Pride Day?  There’s a good case for one.  But a whole Pride Month?  That’s just virtue signalling.

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK .
Last year marked half a century since the protest in retaliation against a threatening police raid at the Stonewall Inn in New York .
It began a new era of defiance in the campaign to secure equal rights for gay men and women , playing a part in a global movement that eventually culminated in the legalisation of same-sex marriage .
So maybe a ‘ Pride Month ’ to mark the event last year was justifiable .
But is an entire month necessary every year ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ‘ Pride Day ’ to celebrate and commemorate the UK ’ s achievements in overcoming the criminalisation of homosexuality and the lack of protections for trans men and women .
And to help us stand in solidarity with people in other countries where it ’ s still illegal and life-threatening to be gay .
But to dedicate a whole month to this seems to debase the value of such well-intentioned acts , particularly when the month seems more grounded in virtue-signalling and the criticism of others than genuine feelings of celebration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Conservative Party changed its profile picture across its social media channels , stripping the light blue oak tree logo , which until 2017 proudly boasted the Union Jack , and instead bedazzling it in the colours of the rainbow .
The Party justifies this by arguing in a post on its website that : “ Freedom lies at the heart of our Party ’ s values and we will always stand up for the rights of LGBT people to live and love without fear.
” I find it utterly depressing that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our national life over our own national flag .
Our national flag is sneered at with Emily Thornberry levels of derision , but what , might I ask , could stand for the values of freedom and of the Conservative and Unionist Party better than the Union Jack ?
Our common flag , representing our common direction and identity – one that internationally boasts a pro-freedom message .
The Union Jack groups together all four constituent parts of the world ’ s most successful political and economic union a hell of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ‘ LGBT community ’ , which does not exist .
Being gay is an incredibly unreliable characteristic on which to try and build an individual identity , never mind trying to group the four ( and increasingly more ) together as a so-called community .
Yet still politicians speak of ‘ LGBT Plus ’ , as though we ’ re one religious grouping that gather each week around some sacred text .
It isn ’ t just the Conservative Party splashing the cash on a rainbow update – the ‘ woke capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious , with it being very easy for big corporations to whack a pride flag everywhere – but being woke is an expensive business as far as government is concerned , too .
According to the Taxpayers ’ Alliance , Whitehall departments often abuse taxpayer cash in pursuit of appealing to identity politics .
Whitehall departments have spent more than £65,000 installing gender-neutral toilets , and purchasing LGBTQ lanyards , stationery and flags .
The Cabinet Office and 10 Downing Street own four pride flags , compared to only three St. George ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which identity is king , who cares about England ’ s national identity ?
The cost per LGBT+ lanyard from the departments who responded ranged from £3.53 to £0.49 .
However , a plain lanyard costs from as little as £0.13 .
I wonder how much all of the diversity training and the social media videos for each department during ‘ pride month ’ will cost the taxpayer too ?
In the end , was the Conservative Party thanked for its unabashed support of this entire month of pride at the altar of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course not .
Shortly after throwing the rainbow mob a bit of meat , ‘ Section 28 ’ was trending on Twitter to bash the Party ’ s efforts .
Deliberately ignoring David Cameron ’ s support of same-sex marriage , the final frontier in gay equality .
I hope that one positive outcome of our dalliance with a potentially fatal virus that has shuttered much of our economy and seen us all squirrel ourselves away indoors will be a rejection of the fake culture wars .
In which arguments over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deemed less important than issues that are higher on the electorate ’ s agenda like debt , growth and jobs for the next generation .
After all , what ‘ LGBT+ ’ battles are left to be fought ?
Same-sex marriage is secured and attitudes are catching up with it .
And as trans woman Dr Debbie Hayton writes : “ It ’ s true that trans rights are human rights , but those rights are already protected .
It is illegal to harass me or treat me less favourably on the grounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so.
” So what battles are left that justify a Pride Month ?
Are we not free until we can walk around the streets in puppy fetish gear without raising eyebrows ?
Saying all of this will see me attacked by UK ’ s legacy gay press such as Pink News .
To argue that my sexuality does not define me and that I am not oppressed is an act of heresy – despite the fact that our sexuality is the least interesting thing about us .
Indeed , the fight for gay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
You didn ’ t choose to be gay , you didn ’ t achieve being gay – and society not caring about you being so is cause to celebrate .
A prominent case of being cancelled for holding such views was when the co-founder of PayPal , Peter Thiel , addressed the Republican National Convention in 2016 – hardly a crowd known historically for being A-OK with gay men and women .
Thiel told the Convention that : “ I am proud to be gay .
I am proud to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I am proud to be an American.
” The crowd ’ s response ?
A standing ovation !
This should have been seen as cause for celebration of the breakneck speed at which attitudes towards gay men and women have changed , but no , Thiel was instead denounced as “ not a gay man ” by The Advocate magazine .
If the legacy gay press spent half as much time attacking the medieval practices of those who murder and hound gay men and women in countries around the world as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they disagree with in democracies like ours , who knows what they could achieve ?
At the end of the day , being gay in 2020 is ok. We are no longer oppressed by the law and are accepted by the vast majority of wider society .
We should hold on to that and reject a month of self-indulgence and narcissism : these groups should be ignored in their attempts to find oppression where little exists .
We don ’ t need a ‘ Pride month ’ .
We don ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Whitehall and our politicians could find as much pride in the Union Jack as they do in waving the Pride flag , Boris Johnson ’ s levelling-up agenda would be a much easier task .

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK.
Last year marked half a century since the protest in retaliation against a threatening police raid at the Stonewall Inn in New York. It began a new era of defiance in the campaign to secure equal rights for gay men and women, playing a part in a global movement that eventually culminated in the legalisation of same-sex marriage.
So maybe a ‘Pride Month’ to mark the event last year was justifiable. But is an entire month necessary every year?
There are some good arguments to have a ‘Pride Day’ to celebrate and commemorate the UK’s achievements in overcoming the criminalisation of homosexuality and the lack of protections for trans men and women. And to help us stand in solidarity with people in other countries where it’s still illegal and life-threatening to be gay.
But to dedicate a whole month to this seems to debase the value of such well-intentioned acts, particularly when the month seems more grounded in virtue-signalling and the criticism of others than genuine feelings of celebration, commemoration and solidarity.
On Monday, the Conservative Party changed its profile picture across its social media channels, stripping the light blue oak tree logo, which until 2017 proudly boasted the Union Jack, and instead bedazzling it in the colours of the rainbow. The Party justifies this by arguing in a post on its website that: “Freedom lies at the heart of our Party’s values and we will always stand up for the rights of LGBT people to live and love without fear.”
I find it utterly depressing that the pride flag now takes pride of place in our national life over our own national flag. Our national flag is sneered at with Emily Thornberry levels of derision, but what, might I ask, could stand for the values of freedom and of the Conservative and Unionist Party better than the Union Jack? Our common flag, representing our common direction and identity – one that internationally boasts a pro-freedom message.
The Union Jack groups together all four constituent parts of the world’s most successful political and economic union a hell of a lot better than the artificial union of the ‘LGBT community’, which does not exist. Being gay is an incredibly unreliable characteristic on which to try and build an individual identity, never mind trying to group the four (and increasingly more) together as a so-called community. Yet still politicians speak of ‘LGBT Plus’, as though we’re one religious grouping that gather each week around some sacred text.
It isn’t just the Conservative Party splashing the cash on a rainbow update – the ‘woke capital’ commercialisation of it all is increasingly obvious, with it being very easy for big corporations to whack a pride flag everywhere – but being woke is an expensive business as far as government is concerned, too. According to the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Whitehall departments often abuse taxpayer cash in pursuit of appealing to identity politics.
Whitehall departments have spent more than £65,000 installing gender-neutral toilets, and purchasing LGBTQ lanyards, stationery and flags. The Cabinet Office and 10 Downing Street own four pride flags, compared to only three St. George’s flags: in a world in which identity is king, who cares about England’s national identity?
The cost per LGBT+ lanyard from the departments who responded ranged from £3.53 to £0.49. However, a plain lanyard costs from as little as £0.13. I wonder how much all of the diversity training and the social media videos for each department during ‘pride month’ will cost the taxpayer too?
In the end, was the Conservative Party thanked for its unabashed support of this entire month of pride at the altar of the rainbow mob? No, no. Of course not. Shortly after throwing the rainbow mob a bit of meat, ‘Section 28’ was trending on Twitter to bash the Party’s efforts. Deliberately ignoring David Cameron’s support of same-sex marriage, the final frontier in gay equality.
I hope that one positive outcome of our dalliance with a potentially fatal virus that has shuttered much of our economy and seen us all squirrel ourselves away indoors will be a rejection of the fake culture wars. In which arguments over gender neutral bathrooms and changing rooms are deemed less important than issues that are higher on the electorate’s agenda like debt, growth and jobs for the next generation.
After all, what ‘LGBT+’ battles are left to be fought? Same-sex marriage is secured and attitudes are catching up with it. And as trans woman Dr Debbie Hayton writes: “It’s true that trans rights are human rights, but those rights are already protected. It is illegal to harass me or treat me less favourably on the grounds of my gender reassignment – and rightly so.” So what battles are left that justify a Pride Month? Are we not free until we can walk around the streets in puppy fetish gear without raising eyebrows?
Saying all of this will see me attacked by UK’s legacy gay press such as Pink News. To argue that my sexuality does not define me and that I am not oppressed is an act of heresy – despite the fact that our sexuality is the least interesting thing about us. Indeed, the fight for gay liberation was in large part about recognising this. You didn’t choose to be gay, you didn’t achieve being gay – and society not caring about you being so is cause to celebrate.
A prominent case of being cancelled for holding such views was when the co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, addressed the Republican National Convention in 2016 – hardly a crowd known historically for being A-OK with gay men and women.
Thiel told the Convention that: “I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all, I am proud to be an American.” The crowd’s response? A standing ovation! This should have been seen as cause for celebration of the breakneck speed at which attitudes towards gay men and women have changed, but no, Thiel was instead denounced as “not a gay man” by The Advocate magazine.
If the legacy gay press spent half as much time attacking the medieval practices of those who murder and hound gay men and women in countries around the world as they do those gay men and women that they disagree with in democracies like ours, who knows what they could achieve?
At the end of the day, being gay in 2020 is ok. We are no longer oppressed by the law and are accepted by the vast majority of wider society. We should hold on to that and reject a month of self-indulgence and narcissism: these groups should be ignored in their attempts to find oppression where little exists. We don’t need a ‘Pride month’. We don’t need your taxpayer-funded lanyards and flags. Perhaps if Whitehall and our politicians could find as much pride in the Union Jack as they do in waving the Pride flag, Boris Johnson’s levelling-up agenda would be a much easier task.


conservativehome--2020-06-03--Robert Halfon: There must be no tax rises for lower income voters to help meet the costs of the viru

Robert Halfon: There must be no tax rises for lower income voters to help meet the costs of the virus

Boris Johnson did not just win the December election because of Brexit , although that was , of course , a core part of his success .
There was another reason ; he genuinely connected with working people – those on lower incomes , those doing tough jobs and those just about managing .
I saw this extraordinary affinity for myself when he visited my constituency of Harlow in October last year .
At that time , I genuinely began to realise that we would win the general glection , though I never ever imagined the majority would be so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister and working people is being sorely tested amid Coronavirus , not only because of recent events but also , as has been highlighted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others , because coronavirus has been a disease of inequality .
Data from the Office for National Statistics found that men in low-skilled jobs are almost four times more likely to die from Coronavirus than professionals , with 21.4 deaths per 100,000 people , compared with 5.6 among white-collar male workers .
Meanwhile , women working as carers are twice as likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technical roles .
For our children , the Institute for Fiscal Studies ’ latest report points to widening inequalities .
Their research suggests that 64 per cent of secondary pupils in state schools from the richest households are being offered active help from schools , such as online teaching , compared with 47 per cent from the poorest fifth of families .
Over the 34 days ( at a minimum ) that schools will be closed , students in the best-off families will have done more than seven full school days ’ worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if schools do not go back until September and current rates of home learning continue , the gap would double to 15 full school days .
Without wishing opprobrium on my head from esteemed ConservativeHome readers , when Emily Maitlis set this out on Newsnight a few weeks ago , she was right to do so .
It is not something that can just be swept under the carpet and just wished away .
Of course , anyone can get this disease : the Prime Minister is an example of that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are on a lower income , if you live in overcrowded conditions you are at a greater risk of being afflicted with COVID-19 , far greater than the so-called “ professional classes ” , safely ensconced at home , often with a garden .
It is the single parent families living in small studio/bedsits in permitted development housing who will have suffered enormously from the effects of this virus – even with the help of Universal Credit .
It is the families – of which one parent is self-employed or redundant – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Chancellor ’ s ( albeit generous ) furlough or Self-Employed Income Support Scheme .
The small businesses , facing collapse because all of their customers have gone elsewhere .
The list goes on .
Many thousands are likely to be made redundant , many more will be looking for work at a time when businesses will be cautious about spending and recruitment As we come down from this Pandemic Everest , it is these groups that will need the Government ’ s support the most and will be looking to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December – to do something real to make their lives better .
These people are not arch free-marketeers fighting to end an over mighty state .
Their asks are quite simple : to cut the cost of living , protect the NHS , build affordable and quality housing , ensure that the streets are safe from crime and anti-social behaviour , to be able to send their children to a state school of their choice ( ideally near whey live ) and to have an offer of quality apprenticeships and good FE courses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt that comes with a university degree .
They feel a sense of community and pride in their country .
The very first thing the Prime Minister needs to do , when we eventually get further down that mountain that he so describes , is to reaffirm this Government ’ s commitment to blue-collar voters .
He should offer a number of guarantees on the cost of living , on education and skills and on housing , for a start .
Johnson should not be afraid to use the two words “ social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to ensure genuine equal access to the ladder of opportunity .
Take the cost of living as just one example .
If we come out the other side of Coronavirus and start hurting folk with fuel duty rises , self-employed taxes , income tax rises , more taxes on food and drink and the like , Conservatives will be giving a message that , far from being the party that cuts the cost of living , this is a Government that puts it up .
So there should be a cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower incomes will see their costs rise from the Government .
A triple lock on income tax , essential duties and VAT .
On top of the work that the Government has done since 2010 on raising the tax threshold for the lower paid , the National Living Wage and the fuel duty freeze , Conservatives must find ways and develop policies to ensure that the lower paid do not have to struggle in the way that they do at present .
What is needed after this pandemic is for the Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – building social capital and economic capital hand in hand .

Wanted from the Prime Minister: Social Capitalism
Boris Johnson did not just win the December election because of Brexit, although that was, of course, a core part of his success. There was another reason; he genuinely connected with working people – those on lower incomes, those doing tough jobs and those just about managing.
I saw this extraordinary affinity for myself when he visited my constituency of Harlow in October last year. At that time, I genuinely began to realise that we would win the general glection, though I never ever imagined the majority would be so high.
That link between the Prime Minister and working people is being sorely tested amid Coronavirus, not only because of recent events but also, as has been highlighted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others, because coronavirus has been a disease of inequality.
Data from the Office for National Statistics found that men in low-skilled jobs are almost four times more likely to die from Coronavirus than professionals, with 21.4 deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 5.6 among white-collar male workers. Meanwhile, women working as carers are twice as likely to die than those in professional and technical roles.
For our children, the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ latest report points to widening inequalities. Their research suggests that 64 per cent of secondary pupils in state schools from the richest households are being offered active help from schools, such as online teaching, compared with 47 per cent from the poorest fifth of families. Over the 34 days (at a minimum) that schools will be closed, students in the best-off families will have done more than seven full school days’ worth of extra learning time. They warn that if schools do not go back until September and current rates of home learning continue, the gap would double to 15 full school days.
Without wishing opprobrium on my head from esteemed ConservativeHome readers, when Emily Maitlis set this out on Newsnight a few weeks ago, she was right to do so. It is not something that can just be swept under the carpet and just wished away.
Of course, anyone can get this disease: the Prime Minister is an example of that. But the harsh truth is that if you are on a lower income, if you live in overcrowded conditions you are at a greater risk of being afflicted with COVID-19, far greater than the so-called “professional classes”, safely ensconced at home, often with a garden.
It is the single parent families living in small studio/bedsits in permitted development housing who will have suffered enormously from the effects of this virus – even with the help of Universal Credit. It is the families – of which one parent is self-employed or redundant – that are falling through the inevitable cracks of the Chancellor’s (albeit generous) furlough or Self-Employed Income Support Scheme. The small businesses, facing collapse because all of their customers have gone elsewhere. The list goes on. Many thousands are likely to be made redundant, many more will be looking for work at a time when businesses will be cautious about spending and recruitment
As we come down from this Pandemic Everest, it is these groups that will need the Government’s support the most and will be looking to the Prime Minister – who they trusted last December – to do something real to make their lives better.
These people are not arch free-marketeers fighting to end an over mighty state. Their asks are quite simple: to cut the cost of living, protect the NHS, build affordable and quality housing, ensure that the streets are safe from crime and anti-social behaviour, to be able to send their children to a state school of their choice (ideally near whey live) and to have an offer of quality apprenticeships and good FE courses for their teenagers, without the overhanging debt that comes with a university degree. They feel a sense of community and pride in their country.
The very first thing the Prime Minister needs to do, when we eventually get further down that mountain that he so describes, is to reaffirm this Government’s commitment to blue-collar voters. He should offer a number of guarantees on the cost of living, on education and skills and on housing, for a start. Johnson should not be afraid to use the two words “social capitalism” and state that his mission is to ensure genuine equal access to the ladder of opportunity.
Take the cost of living as just one example. If we come out the other side of Coronavirus and start hurting folk with fuel duty rises, self-employed taxes, income tax rises, more taxes on food and drink and the like, Conservatives will be giving a message that, far from being the party that cuts the cost of living, this is a Government that puts it up. So there should be a cost of living guarantee that says no one on lower incomes will see their costs rise from the Government. A triple lock on income tax, essential duties and VAT.
On top of the work that the Government has done since 2010 on raising the tax threshold for the lower paid, the National Living Wage and the fuel duty freeze, Conservatives must find ways and develop policies to ensure that the lower paid do not have to struggle in the way that they do at present.
What is needed after this pandemic is for the Prime Minister to place social capitalism first and foremost – building social capital and economic capital hand in hand.


conservativehome--2020-06-03--Luke Evans: Covid-19 has put a stop to much.  But not to one big local problem, which continues.  Ro

Luke Evans: Covid-19 has put a stop to much.  But not to one big local problem, which continues.  Rows over planning.

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
It ’ s strange to think that after three months of talking , thinking , even dreaming Coronavirus that there is a world outside of it that all of us long to return to .
Whether it ’ s going for an evening stroll to the pub , or getting back to the daily routine of politics , most of us are hoping for normality to return sooner rather than later .
The funny thing is that , in many respects , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , albeit in a virtual way rather than face to face , without skipping a beat .
This whole time that we have been locked down , planning applications have been made , consulted on and determined ; and in some cases building work has even started .
The Government has been keen to deliver on its pledge to continue house building , and this is critical for those looking to get onto the housing ladder and those who are looking to downsize .
Being elected into a rural seat in which a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loosest grip on planning policy means that the largest part of my non-COVID postbag from constituents is about a topic which an MP arguably has the most negligible impact over .
Bosworth is a desirable place to live , well situated , beautiful countryside and well connected , so it is no wonder that with no five year housing supply opportunistic house builders are putting new applications in .
The result is a piecemeal approach to significant development across my constituency , but I know from conversations with colleagues that by no means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our democracy means that its right that local councillors decide upon planning applications – I am at pains to explain that to those who write to me – but as normality returns it ’ s very clear that planning is becoming an increasingly pressing issue once more .
Of course that doesn ’ t mean we MPs should ignore planning and simply wash our hands of it , on the contrary it is our role to steer the national framework as we do have a pivotal role to play in the planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been taking some time to think how we can influence that law during lockdown and make planning even more accountable and predictable too .
I would love to hear your thoughts on the ideas that I have been having .
Parish councils are often reluctant to write neighbourhood plans .
They look at the amount of work involved ( and their scant and usually voluntary resources ) and think to themselves ‘ what ’ s the point ?
’ They know they have multiple hurdles to jump and even when they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their views can be easily overturned by the lack of a local plan or five year housing supply .
I want to see a planning system where a neighbourhood plan really means something , where they are not compromised by the failings of the planning authority , where localism is put into practice rather than being an easy to ignore box to tick .
Ordinary people are not stupid : they know there is a need for new housing .
So here ’ s a suggestion .
Why don ’ t we make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even include a moratorium on new applications whilst it is being determined , on the basis that communities will be able to say where they want development to take place , and not simply stop it ?
I think that ’ s a deal which most communities would jump at .
And if they don ’ t ?
Well , the local people would have spoken .
That would be real localism .
I hear many a complaint too about the practices of land banking .
We need more houses , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning applications lying dormant whilst developers wait for a better price per unit .
Surely a use it or lose it plan would help to spur on development ?
So rather than turning a blind eye , why not start charging developers council tax not from completion but from a specified date in their planning consent ?
That is one of a myriad of ways to see the reduction in land banking .
Might we see much needed homes being constructed that little bit faster ?
And whilst we are on the subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quicker , wouldn ’ t it be great to see them paying their Section 106 monies on time and without appealing the level of them ?
Developer contributions are there to improve local infrastructure and facilities .
We know they are needed when a planning application is given consent , they don ’ t go away just because a developer goes to appeal .
I entered Parliament straight from a career , and so don ’ t have the experience of some who were first councillors , and who understand the idiosyncrasies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very much admire the work councillors do and sympathise with the frustrations that they face , but I can also look at the planning system that we do have with a fresh eye .
It ’ s a planning system which has its strengths but also has major flaws , and one which ordinary people are having less and less faith in .
Planning is about local democracy , and local democracy about true localism .
Isn ’ t it time localism becomes more than a box to tick ?

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
It’s strange to think that after three months of talking, thinking, even dreaming Coronavirus that there is a world outside of it that all of us long to return to. Whether it’s going for an evening stroll to the pub, or getting back to the daily routine of politics, most of us are hoping for normality to return sooner rather than later.
The funny thing is that, in many respects, the world has been going on normally, albeit in a virtual way rather than face to face, without skipping a beat. This whole time that we have been locked down, planning applications have been made, consulted on and determined; and in some cases building work has even started.
The Government has been keen to deliver on its pledge to continue house building, and this is critical for those looking to get onto the housing ladder and those who are looking to downsize.
Being elected into a rural seat in which a Liberal Democrat Borough Council has only the loosest grip on planning policy means that the largest part of my non-COVID postbag from constituents is about a topic which an MP arguably has the most negligible impact over.
Bosworth is a desirable place to live, well situated, beautiful countryside and well connected, so it is no wonder that with no five year housing supply opportunistic house builders are putting new applications in. The result is a piecemeal approach to significant development across my constituency, but I know from conversations with colleagues that by no means is my patch unique.
The nature of our democracy means that its right that local councillors decide upon planning applications – I am at pains to explain that to those who write to me – but as normality returns it’s very clear that planning is becoming an increasingly pressing issue once more.
Of course that doesn’t mean we MPs should ignore planning and simply wash our hands of it, on the contrary it is our role to steer the national framework as we do have a pivotal role to play in the planning law that guides them.
I’ve been taking some time to think how we can influence that law during lockdown and make planning even more accountable and predictable too.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the ideas that I have been having.
Parish councils are often reluctant to write neighbourhood plans. They look at the amount of work involved (and their scant and usually voluntary resources) and think to themselves ‘what’s the point?’ They know they have multiple hurdles to jump and even when they do manage to clear them they know that their views can be easily overturned by the lack of a local plan or five year housing supply.
I want to see a planning system where a neighbourhood plan really means something, where they are not compromised by the failings of the planning authority, where localism is put into practice rather than being an easy to ignore box to tick.
Ordinary people are not stupid: they know there is a need for new housing. So here’s a suggestion. Why don’t we make the neighbourhood planning system more streamlined, and even include a moratorium on new applications whilst it is being determined, on the basis that communities will be able to say where they want development to take place, and not simply stop it?
I think that’s a deal which most communities would jump at. And if they don’t? Well, the local people would have spoken. That would be real localism.
I hear many a complaint too about the practices of land banking. We need more houses, in the right places, now and not planning applications lying dormant whilst developers wait for a better price per unit. Surely a use it or lose it plan would help to spur on development?
So rather than turning a blind eye, why not start charging developers council tax not from completion but from a specified date in their planning consent? That is one of a myriad of ways to see the reduction in land banking. Might we see much needed homes being constructed that little bit faster?
And whilst we are on the subject of developers starting to move a little quicker, wouldn’t it be great to see them paying their Section 106 monies on time and without appealing the level of them?
Developer contributions are there to improve local infrastructure and facilities. We know they are needed when a planning application is given consent, they don’t go away just because a developer goes to appeal.
I entered Parliament straight from a career, and so don’t have the experience of some who were first councillors, and who understand the idiosyncrasies of planning from the ground up. I very much admire the work councillors do and sympathise with the frustrations that they face, but I can also look at the planning system that we do have with a fresh eye.
It’s a planning system which has its strengths but also has major flaws, and one which ordinary people are having less and less faith in.
Planning is about local democracy, and local democracy about true localism. Isn’t it time localism becomes more than a box to tick?


Coronavirus Count

Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 277,985 ( Up from 276,332 ) .
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 39,369 ( Up from 39,045 ) .
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 1,613 ( Up from 1,570 ) .
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths : 324 ( Up from 111 ) .
From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk to the UK has been raised to high ” – From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD : THE UK GOVERNMENT ’ S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY See here .
New as of Monday May 11 .
See here .
New as of Tuesday June 2 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19 See here .
New as of Tuesday June 2 .
See here .
New as of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LANDLORDS , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus .
• In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( if available in your area ) or 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 7.00 on Tuesday June 2 . )

HEADLINE FACTS
Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 292,950 (Up from 291,409).
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 41,481 (Up from 41,279).
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 1,541 (Up from 1,266).
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 202 (Up from 151).
England total cases: 156,410 (Up from 156,018 ).
England total deaths: 37,069 (Up from 36,883).
England death rate: 279.4 (Was 278.7).
Scotland total cases: 15,709 (Up from 15,682).
Scotland total deaths: 2,439 (Up from 2,434).
Scotland death rate: 288.9 (Was 288.4).
Wales total cases: 14,658 (Up from 14,581).
Wales total deaths: 1,435 (Up from 1,425).
Wales death rate: 467.0 (Was 464.6)
Northern Ireland total cases: 4,838 (Up from 4,822)
Northern Ireland total deaths: 538 (Up from 537).
Northern Ireland death rate: 257.1 (Was 256.3).
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED
DAILY NUMBER OF LAB-CONFIRMED ENGLAND CASES
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
RISK
“The risk to the UK has been raised to high” –
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
NHS VOLUNTEER RESPONDER FORM
See here
(The Government’s scheme to recruit 250,000 volunteers.)
– – –
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD: THE UK GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY
See here. New as of Monday May 11.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON THE LOCKDOWN.
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL DISTANCING
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: GENERAL ADVICE
See here.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CAN’T DO
See here.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW
See here. Published on Saturday March 28.
– – –
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS
Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when you cough or sneeze .
Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell.
SYMPTOMS
The symptoms of coronavirus are:
A cough.
A high temperature.
Shortness of breath.
However, these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness.
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common, such as cold and flu.
USING 111
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do.
Use this service if:
You think you might have coronavirus.
In the last 14 days you’ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers.
You’ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus.
In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours.
In Wales call 111 (if available in your area) or 0845 46 47.
In Northern Ireland call 111.
Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital.
FURTHER LINKS TO GOVERNMENT ADVICE
– – –
(All information taken from Government sources.
Updated as of 19.00 on Friday June 12.)