conservativehome--2020-11-11--Daniel Hannan: It’s time to explode the myth of Trump and his unique appeal

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
Has Donald Trump permanently transformed his party ?
Has the old GOP – the party of limited government , low spending , free trade and constitutional rectitude – metamorphosed into something altogether more nativist , protectionist and autocratic ?
Will the next Republican presidential nominee inescapably be a Trumpster – or , indeed , an actual Trump ?
Hmm .
As T.S .
Eliot nearly wrote : “ Gentile or Jew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and look to windward , / Consider Corbyn , who was once handsome and tall as you.
” Consider Corbyn .
He , too , was said definitively to have refashioned his party .
His eventual successor , we kept being told , would be chosen by the same Momentum-heavy electorate that had picked him .
Communism was back , baby .
Yet here we are , less than a year on from his defeat , and Labour has swung so convincingly back to the mainstream that the Absolute Boy could be suspended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corbyn have more in common than partisans of either man admit : outsiders who seized their parties by appealing to the base , but who never overcame the suspicion of their elected representatives ; agitators who were more comfortable addressing rallies than working within democratic institutions ; radicals who promised to bring down the old system ; economic nostalgics who wanted to bring back manufacturing ; political loners who were followed on their own account .
Might the GOP dump Trump as unsentimentally as Labour dumped Corbyn ?
Possibly .
But there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood for .
Corbynism , although it had individually popular elements , was a fringe creed .
Trumpery , by contrast – and I ’ m defining it loosely here as a combination of patriotism and economic activism with a dash of Führerprizip – has a certain appeal .
Leaning Left on economics but Right on social and cultural issues is usually a vote-winner .
Most GOP Congressmen are uneasily aware that classical liberalism and strict constitutionalism have only limited appeal among their supporters .
Almost every elected Republican I have spoken since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that his refusal to concede is petulant , and that his behaviour threatens their hopes of winning next month ’ s Senate elections in Georgia and thus keeping control of the chamber .
But they won ’ t say so .
Why not ?
For fear of their base .
Voice even the mildest criticism of Trump and his supporters will piranha-shoal around you in a frenzy ( something else he has in common with Corbyn ) .
I decided to test the premise while writing this article .
Choosing my words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unduly provocative , I experimentally tweeted the following : “ my hunch is that quite a few elected Republicans believe that Trump is behaving disgracefully , but won ’ t say so for fear of their audience.
” As expected , I immediately attracted 500 furious comments and lost a similar number of followers .
But I have no real skin in the game : I am not an American politician .
Perhaps we should feel some sympathy for those with actual votes to lose .
Still , Republican Congressmen and Senators can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end , it is up to them to determine whether Trump will be an aberration , Corbyn-like , or whether the party of Reagan has gone forever .
Yes , Trump did some things that mainstream conservatives liked : cutting taxes , lifting regulations , appointing judges who ruled on the basis of what the law said rather than what they felt it ought to say .
But these are precisely the areas where he took little personal interest , and was content to leave the details to those swampy establishment Republicans he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , traditional conservatives were astonishingly forgiving about every other aspect of his presidency .
Foreign policy hawks overlooked his submissiveness before Vladimir Putin .
Evangelical Christians ignored his lies and adulteries .
Tea partiers did not protest when , pre-Covid , the deficit went above a trillion dollars .
With each passing month , the GOP attracted Trumpier representatives – for example , Josh Hawley elected to the Senate from Missouri two years ago , who blames what he calls “ market worship , ” for “ the collapse of community.
” At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as Florida ’ s Marco Rubio , began to shift their positions , dropping their former optimism and raging against the offshoring of jobs .
The Coronavirus will almost certainly accelerate these authoritarian and anti-market tendencies : crises of this kind always do .
Yet the fundamental premise of Trumpism , namely that globalisation is bad for ordinary people , is false .
Nothing has done more to boost the living standards of people on low incomes than the reduction in the cost of living brought about by the removal of trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that argument .
Who will make it today ?
Let ’ s not fall for the idea , often asserted but never substantiated , that Trump has a unique capacity to reach blue-collar voters .
This legend was born in 2016 , as shell-shocked pundits scrabbled to explain why they had been wrong .
But it is impossible to reconcile with the way Trump was outpolled by down-ballot Republican candidates .
This was clearest in the Senate races , where the electorates were exactly congruent .
Trump did worse than Republican Senate candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia , Colorado , North Carolina , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Wisconsin .
He was five points behind John McCain in Arizona , three points behind Marco Rubio in Florida and nine points behind Chuck Grassley in Iowa .
Although we must wait for the final tally to be sure , early indications are that something similar happened last week .
The myth of Trump and his unique appeal to callused Pennsylvania steel-workers or stump-toothed Appalachian mountain-men or whatever is so widespread that it is hard to prise away .
But there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was the Democrats ’ turn to lose , and they picked an unpopular candidate .
Despite her disqualifications , she still won a plurality of the vote against a Republican who was less popular than his party .
Four years on , with a mildly more appealing candidate , the Democrats scraped over the line .
If that analysis is right , it is good news for traditional small-government Republicans .
But only if they man up and do something about it .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
Has Donald Trump permanently transformed his party? Has the old GOP – the party of limited government, low spending, free trade and constitutional rectitude – metamorphosed into something altogether more nativist, protectionist and autocratic? Will the next Republican presidential nominee inescapably be a Trumpster – or, indeed, an actual Trump?
Hmm. As T.S. Eliot nearly wrote: “Gentile or Jew / O you who turn the wheel and look to windward, / Consider Corbyn, who was once handsome and tall as you.”
Consider Corbyn. He, too, was said definitively to have refashioned his party. His eventual successor, we kept being told, would be chosen by the same Momentum-heavy electorate that had picked him. Communism was back, baby.
Yet here we are, less than a year on from his defeat, and Labour has swung so convincingly back to the mainstream that the Absolute Boy could be suspended with barely a ripple.
Trump and Corbyn have more in common than partisans of either man admit: outsiders who seized their parties by appealing to the base, but who never overcame the suspicion of their elected representatives; agitators who were more comfortable addressing rallies than working within democratic institutions; radicals who promised to bring down the old system; economic nostalgics who wanted to bring back manufacturing; political loners who were followed on their own account.
Might the GOP dump Trump as unsentimentally as Labour dumped Corbyn? Possibly. But there is a difference between what the two men stood for. Corbynism, although it had individually popular elements, was a fringe creed. Trumpery, by contrast – and I’m defining it loosely here as a combination of patriotism and economic activism with a dash of Führerprizip – has a certain appeal. Leaning Left on economics but Right on social and cultural issues is usually a vote-winner.
Most GOP Congressmen are uneasily aware that classical liberalism and strict constitutionalism have only limited appeal among their supporters. Almost every elected Republican I have spoken since the poll believes that Donald Trump lost, that his refusal to concede is petulant, and that his behaviour threatens their hopes of winning next month’s Senate elections in Georgia and thus keeping control of the chamber. But they won’t say so.
Why not? For fear of their base. Voice even the mildest criticism of Trump and his supporters will piranha-shoal around you in a frenzy (something else he has in common with Corbyn). I decided to test the premise while writing this article. Choosing my words carefully, so as not to be unduly provocative, I experimentally tweeted the following: “my hunch is that quite a few elected Republicans believe that Trump is behaving disgracefully, but won’t say so for fear of their audience.”
As expected, I immediately attracted 500 furious comments and lost a similar number of followers. But I have no real skin in the game: I am not an American politician. Perhaps we should feel some sympathy for those with actual votes to lose.
Still, Republican Congressmen and Senators cannot keep shtum forever. In the end, it is up to them to determine whether Trump will be an aberration, Corbyn-like, or whether the party of Reagan has gone forever.
Yes, Trump did some things that mainstream conservatives liked: cutting taxes, lifting regulations, appointing judges who ruled on the basis of what the law said rather than what they felt it ought to say.
But these are precisely the areas where he took little personal interest, and was content to leave the details to those swampy establishment Republicans he was so rude about. In exchange, traditional conservatives were astonishingly forgiving about every other aspect of his presidency. Foreign policy hawks overlooked his submissiveness before Vladimir Putin. Evangelical Christians ignored his lies and adulteries. Tea partiers did not protest when, pre-Covid, the deficit went above a trillion dollars.
With each passing month, the GOP attracted Trumpier representatives – for example, Josh Hawley elected to the Senate from Missouri two years ago, who blames what he calls “market worship,” for “the collapse of community.” At the same time, established figures, such as Florida’s Marco Rubio, began to shift their positions, dropping their former optimism and raging against the offshoring of jobs. The Coronavirus will almost certainly accelerate these authoritarian and anti-market tendencies: crises of this kind always do.
Yet the fundamental premise of Trumpism, namely that globalisation is bad for ordinary people, is false. Nothing has done more to boost the living standards of people on low incomes than the reduction in the cost of living brought about by the removal of trade barriers. Reagan knew how to win that argument. Who will make it today?
Let’s not fall for the idea, often asserted but never substantiated, that Trump has a unique capacity to reach blue-collar voters. This legend was born in 2016, as shell-shocked pundits scrabbled to explain why they had been wrong.
But it is impossible to reconcile with the way Trump was outpolled by down-ballot Republican candidates. This was clearest in the Senate races, where the electorates were exactly congruent. Trump did worse than Republican Senate candidates in almost all the swing states: Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. He was five points behind John McCain in Arizona, three points behind Marco Rubio in Florida and nine points behind Chuck Grassley in Iowa. Although we must wait for the final tally to be sure, early indications are that something similar happened last week.
The myth of Trump and his unique appeal to callused Pennsylvania steel-workers or stump-toothed Appalachian mountain-men or whatever is so widespread that it is hard to prise away. But there is a more plausible narrative. In 2016, it was the Democrats’ turn to lose, and they picked an unpopular candidate. Despite her disqualifications, she still won a plurality of the vote against a Republican who was less popular than his party. Four years on, with a mildly more appealing candidate, the Democrats scraped over the line.
If that analysis is right, it is good news for traditional small-government Republicans. But only if they man up and do something about it.


conservativehome--2020-11-11--Ryan Bourne: A British overspill from America’s result. Why the debate on the right over economics w

Ryan Bourne: A British overspill from America’s result. Why the debate on the right over economics will now intensify.

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Donald Trump loyalists might not yet admit it , but their man was defeated handily in the U.S. Presidential election .
A post-mortem will soon be undertaken within the Republican party , and with it a debate that has been bubbling since his primary victory in 2016 on both sides of the Atlantic : what economics should conservatives champion ?
Ideally , that debate would be about what policies actually work to improve our lives or liberties .
But winning elections is politicians ’ raison d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little surprise that those representing major strands of Republican economic thought have conflicting economic narratives of the results already as to what is electorally desirable , a division made somewhat easier by the fact that “ Trumpism ” blended free-market policies with protectionism and interventionism , in turn offering something for everyone .
Free-market Republicans ’ story goes like this : tax cuts and deregulation delivered by a Republican Senate and Presidency delivered robust pre-pandemic economic growth , low unemployment , and rising household incomes .
So strong was that economy before Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession , 56 percent of surveyed voters nationwide said their family was still better off financially after four years of The Donald in the White House .
Tellingly , Trump led Joe Biden in every battleground state on who voters trusted most to “ manage ” the economy .
Combine that evidence with the party ’ s unexpected electoral resilience in the Senate , and huge pick up of Cuban-American and Mexican-America votes in Florida and Texas , and it ’ s easy to conclude , as former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not unpopular .
In fact , polls suggest voters baulked at the socialist ideas aired in the Democratic primary , and were wary of even Joe Biden ’ s quite ambitious progressive agenda , particularly on decarbonisation .
What lost Trump the election was , in this view , not his domestic economic policies then , but his personal conduct , handling of Covid-19 , and , possibly , even downsides of his trade wars , the most obvious consequences of which were government welfare for Americans farmers and manufacturers struggling with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative ” counter-blast provided by , for example , Samuel Hammond in the Guardian , says the exact opposite .
The last two elections supposedly show the party ’ s future is to reach into working-class communities of all ethnicities .
This opportunity , in part , came about from Trump ’ s willingness to challenge traditional Republican views on free trade and industrial policy , giving him a hearing with voters suffering the effects of market-led deindustrialisation .
The party should build on that to become a true “ workers ’ party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market and manufacturing agenda , according to the Missouri and Florida senators , Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio .
This interpretation even posits that Republicans may have failed to win the Presidency because they did not sufficiently embrace the “ good government can do ” ( to use a Theresa May phrase . )
Hammond postulates , for example , that Biden was able to pick up white working-class votes in the Rust Belt by going further on nationalistic “ Buy American ” agendas and tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs than Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious policy agenda and a compassionate Republican frontman could therefore build a whole new electoral coalition on this type of platform that Trump opened the door to , if only the Republicans could move on from Reaganism and their commitment to free market ideas .
Now , on the facts , I ( perhaps unsurprisingly ) find the first narrative more compelling .
Exit polling shows that , contra the national conservative view , Republican support still skewed towards those on higher incomes , not lower .
If preferences for a more interventionist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the culture war or Donald Trump ’ s personality , are the dominant explanation of vote patterns , it ’ s difficult to square that with Republican Senate candidates , most of whom are more free market on economics than Trump , outperforming the current President .
Of course , in reality voters don ’ t vote according to policy preferences , so a monocausal link between economics and electoral outcomes is dodgy ground on both sides .
But at heart here is a debate that we ’ ve heard plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political realignment we are seeing necessitate a change in conservatives ’ economic ideas ?
The new “ national conservatives ” in the U.S. and modern “ One Nation ” Tories in the UK , such as Nick Timothy , want to throw-off any libertarian influence with the latter even thinking the 2017 Tory manifesto an appropriate place to caricature the “ libertarian right , ” as if voters would read that document and take that signal as a cue to shift their vote .
Two things have frustrated me about these intra-conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the anti-market conservatives appear to just assume that the left is correct and that economic policy is class-based : that policies that are pro-the interests of the working class must necessarily be more interventionist than conservatives have previously considered acceptable .
I ’ ve written before about why that is not true and how market-led policies could deliver pro-poor outcomes .
The U.S. results also show that the assumption is a sham in electoral terms : working class minorities in the south were frightened of Democratic industrial strategies when it meant cheap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vast new regulation of a structurally sound labour market were proposed .
But my second frustration is deeper .
Thus far thinkers such as Timothy and others in the U.S. have written extensively on why conservatives should move on from free market ideas in the abstract .
They document social and economic phenomena that have moved in the wrong direction in the past three to four decades , and then link these to the Thatcher-Reagan revolutions and supposed commitments to “ market fundamentalism ” .
Yet anyone who has followed conservative policy closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to frame recent offerings as being influenced by an unabashed commitment to libertarian ideas .
So this narrative is best understood as rolling the pitch for an even more interventionist conservative economics .
What we have had far less off yet is the specifics : what , exactly , do those such as Timothy want from policy instead of what we see today ?
National conservative thinkers have hid behind the shield of big picture views of what is electorally desirable to win in the Rust Belt or the Red Wall as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done , and providing evidence for why those proposals would in fact work where previous dalliances with industrial planning have failed .
One consequence of this messy Presidential election outcome and its failure to clearly repudiate Trumpism is that those debates will now be crucial in determining the future direction of the Republican party .
And stateside narratives have a tendency to be imported into UK politics too .

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Donald Trump loyalists might not yet admit it, but their man was defeated handily in the U.S. Presidential election. A post-mortem will soon be undertaken within the Republican party, and with it a debate that has been bubbling since his primary victory in 2016 on both sides of the Atlantic: what economics should conservatives champion?
Ideally, that debate would be about what policies actually work to improve our lives or liberties. But winning elections is politicians’ raison d’être. So it’s little surprise that those representing major strands of Republican economic thought have conflicting economic narratives of the results already as to what is electorally desirable, a division made somewhat easier by the fact that “Trumpism” blended free-market policies with protectionism and interventionism, in turn offering something for everyone.
Free-market Republicans’ story goes like this: tax cuts and deregulation delivered by a Republican Senate and Presidency delivered robust pre-pandemic economic growth, low unemployment, and rising household incomes. So strong was that economy before Covid-19, that even after a deep pandemic-induced recession, 56 percent of surveyed voters nationwide said their family was still better off financially after four years of The Donald in the White House. Tellingly, Trump led Joe Biden in every battleground state on who voters trusted most to “manage” the economy.
Combine that evidence with the party’s unexpected electoral resilience in the Senate, and huge pick up of Cuban-American and Mexican-America votes in Florida and Texas, and it’s easy to conclude, as former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has, that more free-market Republican economic policies are not unpopular.
In fact, polls suggest voters baulked at the socialist ideas aired in the Democratic primary, and were wary of even Joe Biden’s quite ambitious progressive agenda, particularly on decarbonisation. What lost Trump the election was, in this view, not his domestic economic policies then, but his personal conduct, handling of Covid-19, and, possibly, even downsides of his trade wars, the most obvious consequences of which were government welfare for Americans farmers and manufacturers struggling with inflated input costs.
The “national conservative” counter-blast provided by, for example, Samuel Hammond in the Guardian, says the exact opposite. The last two elections supposedly show the party’s future is to reach into working-class communities of all ethnicities. This opportunity, in part, came about from Trump’s willingness to challenge traditional Republican views on free trade and industrial policy, giving him a hearing with voters suffering the effects of market-led deindustrialisation. The party should build on that to become a true “workers’ party” by embracing a more interventionist abour market and manufacturing agenda, according to the Missouri and Florida senators, Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio.
This interpretation even posits that Republicans may have failed to win the Presidency because they did not sufficiently embrace the “good government can do” (to use a Theresa May phrase.) Hammond postulates, for example, that Biden was able to pick up white working-class votes in the Rust Belt by going further on nationalistic “Buy American” agendas and tax incentives for re-shoring manufacturing jobs than Republicans would ever opt for. A more serious policy agenda and a compassionate Republican frontman could therefore build a whole new electoral coalition on this type of platform that Trump opened the door to, if only the Republicans could move on from Reaganism and their commitment to free market ideas.
Now, on the facts, I (perhaps unsurprisingly) find the first narrative more compelling. Exit polling shows that, contra the national conservative view, Republican support still skewed towards those on higher incomes, not lower. If preferences for a more interventionist agenda, as opposed to, say, the culture war or Donald Trump’s personality, are the dominant explanation of vote patterns, it’s difficult to square that with Republican Senate candidates, most of whom are more free market on economics than Trump, outperforming the current President. Of course, in reality voters don’t vote according to policy preferences, so a monocausal link between economics and electoral outcomes is dodgy ground on both sides.
But at heart here is a debate that we’ve heard plenty of in the UK: how far does the political realignment we are seeing necessitate a change in conservatives’ economic ideas? The new “national conservatives” in the U.S. and modern “One Nation” Tories in the UK, such as Nick Timothy, want to throw-off any libertarian influence with the latter even thinking the 2017 Tory manifesto an appropriate place to caricature the “libertarian right,” as if voters would read that document and take that signal as a cue to shift their vote.
Two things have frustrated me about these intra-conservative debates to date. The first is that the anti-market conservatives appear to just assume that the left is correct and that economic policy is class-based: that policies that are pro-the interests of the working class must necessarily be more interventionist than conservatives have previously considered acceptable.
I’ve written before about why that is not true and how market-led policies could deliver pro-poor outcomes. The U.S. results also show that the assumption is a sham in electoral terms: working class minorities in the south were frightened of Democratic industrial strategies when it meant cheap energy was set to be sacrificed and vast new regulation of a structurally sound labour market were proposed.
But my second frustration is deeper. Thus far thinkers such as Timothy and others in the U.S. have written extensively on why conservatives should move on from free market ideas in the abstract. They document social and economic phenomena that have moved in the wrong direction in the past three to four decades, and then link these to the Thatcher-Reagan revolutions and supposed commitments to “market fundamentalism”.
Yet anyone who has followed conservative policy closely since the 1990s would find it laughable to frame recent offerings as being influenced by an unabashed commitment to libertarian ideas. So this narrative is best understood as rolling the pitch for an even more interventionist conservative economics.
What we have had far less off yet is the specifics: what, exactly, do those such as Timothy want from policy instead of what we see today? National conservative thinkers have hid behind the shield of big picture views of what is electorally desirable to win in the Rust Belt or the Red Wall as a substitute for outlining what actually should be done, and providing evidence for why those proposals would in fact work where previous dalliances with industrial planning have failed.
One consequence of this messy Presidential election outcome and its failure to clearly repudiate Trumpism is that those debates will now be crucial in determining the future direction of the Republican party. And stateside narratives have a tendency to be imported into UK politics too.


conservativehome--2020-11-11--John Hartley: Planning reform will protect us from aesthetically offensive development

To be involved in local government in the current climate is to be at the forefront of the very mixed response to the recent ‘ Planning for the Future ’ White Paper .
Wychavon District Council occupies the lion ’ s share of the Mid Worcestershire constituency , but also includes West Worcestershire , represented by Harriet Baldwin .
Both are set to face a disproportionate increase in allocation from Whitehall , in spite of working hard over the past decade to bring their land supply and housing stock up to levels what would originally have safeguarded against such dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I spent time with the Wychavon planning department in order to better understand the development process .
Speaking to the planning officers , I was struck by the complexity of what seemed an impossible balancing act .
While interpretation of Government policy , as the criteria against which a prospective development is appraised , should function as the principle consideration , in reality it is often a game of cat and mouse with the major housebuilders .
They can afford access to the best resources in order to best exploit that policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major developers themselves are battling to satisfy shareholder expectations and maintain consistent growth in the midst of turbulent commodities markets , where the cost of raw materials and project delivery can fluctuate dramatically .
For this reason , Local Government planners often look at indices as indicators to predict developer activity and forecast the rate of development , in terms of the amount of units delivered against units approved .
The difficulties are clear : a local authority is powerless to guarantee delivery of the units approved , so that multiple sites must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and planners must work against an estimated completion rate , in order to satisfy delivery targets .
The recent White Paper represents a fundamental shift , away from measuring development purely in terms of units delivered .
It recognises the limitations and failures of previous policy , which has empowered developers to deliver poor quality and aesthetically offensive development .
While developers have lived up to the ‘ letter of the law ’ they have failed to embrace the raison d ’ etre for development , namely to provide edifying homes fit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the edification of the individual and families , to build stronger communities and reduce social isolation and loneliness .
The belief that place-making and urban design play a vital role in the edification of the human person permeates and underpins the current paper .
The term ‘ beauty ’ appears on fifty two occasions in the paper itself .
The ancient concept that has occupied the minds of philosophers since time immortal plays a pivotal role in unlocking the rationale behind the latest planning reforms .
Read as fragmented series of planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost on those who seek to compartmentalise aspects into positive or negative elements .
However , ‘ Planning for the Future ’ must be read through the lens of ‘ Living with beauty ’ , the report of the Building Better , Building Beautiful Commission .
The report must itself be read through the work of the late Sir Roger Scruton , who asserted that anything built purely for function would not last , and indeed would inevitably become functionless , insofar as the pursuit of beauty , as a gateway to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all human endeavours .

Cllr John Hartley is a councillor on Wychavon District Council.
To be involved in local government in the current climate is to be at the forefront of the very mixed response to the recent ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper. Wychavon District Council occupies the lion’s share of the Mid Worcestershire constituency, but also includes West Worcestershire, represented by Harriet Baldwin. Both are set to face a disproportionate increase in allocation from Whitehall, in spite of working hard over the past decade to bring their land supply and housing stock up to levels what would originally have safeguarded against such dramatic increases.
As a newly elected councillor, I spent time with the Wychavon planning department in order to better understand the development process. Speaking to the planning officers, I was struck by the complexity of what seemed an impossible balancing act. While interpretation of Government policy, as the criteria against which a prospective development is appraised, should function as the principle consideration, in reality it is often a game of cat and mouse with the major housebuilders. They can afford access to the best resources in order to best exploit that policy. At the same time, the major developers themselves are battling to satisfy shareholder expectations and maintain consistent growth in the midst of turbulent commodities markets, where the cost of raw materials and project delivery can fluctuate dramatically.
For this reason, Local Government planners often look at indices as indicators to predict developer activity and forecast the rate of development, in terms of the amount of units delivered against units approved. The difficulties are clear: a local authority is powerless to guarantee delivery of the units approved, so that multiple sites must be put forward as a contingency, and planners must work against an estimated completion rate, in order to satisfy delivery targets.
The recent White Paper represents a fundamental shift, away from measuring development purely in terms of units delivered. It recognises the limitations and failures of previous policy, which has empowered developers to deliver poor quality and aesthetically offensive development. While developers have lived up to the ‘letter of the law’ they have failed to embrace the raison d’etre for development, namely to provide edifying homes fit and proper for human habitation, to contribute to the edification of the individual and families, to build stronger communities and reduce social isolation and loneliness.
The belief that place-making and urban design play a vital role in the edification of the human person permeates and underpins the current paper. The term ‘beauty’ appears on fifty two occasions in the paper itself. The ancient concept that has occupied the minds of philosophers since time immortal plays a pivotal role in unlocking the rationale behind the latest planning reforms. Read as fragmented series of planning directives, the meaning can easily be lost on those who seek to compartmentalise aspects into positive or negative elements. However, ‘Planning for the Future’ must be read through the lens of ‘Living with beauty’, the report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. The report must itself be read through the work of the late Sir Roger Scruton, who asserted that anything built purely for function would not last, and indeed would inevitably become functionless, insofar as the pursuit of beauty, as a gateway to the divine, necessitates the import of aesthetics in all human endeavours.


conservativehome--2020-11-11--Andrew Gimson’s PMQs sketch: Johnson the heavyweight champion parades his new boxing gloves

Boris Johnson , the heavyweight champion , swaggered into the ring at noon for his weekly bout against Sir Keir Starmer .
Sir Keir is widely admired for his scientific approach to boxing .
He sees his opponent ’ s weak spot , and with forensic accuracy lands punch after punch on it .
Only the other day he knocked out Jeremy Corbyn .
Johnson is about twice the size of Corbyn , but British heavyweights often run to seed , and Sir Keir remains confident that this one will not last the distance .
And yet there was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicated that this week he saw Sir Keir as an irrelevance , a sideshow , a mere nit-picking pedant .
For Johnson the life-and-death battle is against Covid-19 .
It nearly killed him , and could yet kill his career .
But Johnson today brought good news to the House .
He has “ two big boxing gloves ” , a vaccine and mass testing , with which he is going to “ pummel ” the virus “ into submission ” .
“ Neither of them is capable of delivering a knock-out blow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but together they will bring victory .
How confident he sounded .
In the ring , that can be a fatal quality : a boxer lowers his guard for a moment , and down he goes .
But today , Sir Keir could not lay a glove on him .
In vain he objected to the £670,000 of public money spent on PR consultants by the chair of the Government ’ s vaccine taskforce .
Johnson observed that some of that was to counter anti-vaxxers and persuade people to take part in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failing to “ pay tribute ” to the vaccine taskforce .
“ Nobody ’ s attacking individuals , ” Sir Keir said , which did not seem quite right , for here he was attacking Johnson .
All devotees of the noble art will wish Sir Keir well , and will hope that in the weeks to come he starts once more to land some blows .

Boris Johnson, the heavyweight champion, swaggered into the ring at noon for his weekly bout against Sir Keir Starmer.
Sir Keir is widely admired for his scientific approach to boxing. He sees his opponent’s weak spot, and with forensic accuracy lands punch after punch on it. Only the other day he knocked out Jeremy Corbyn.
Johnson is about twice the size of Corbyn, but British heavyweights often run to seed, and Sir Keir remains confident that this one will not last the distance.
And yet there was a spring in Johnson’s step which indicated that this week he saw Sir Keir as an irrelevance, a sideshow, a mere nit-picking pedant.
For Johnson the life-and-death battle is against Covid-19. It nearly killed him, and could yet kill his career.
But Johnson today brought good news to the House. He has “two big boxing gloves”, a vaccine and mass testing, with which he is going to “pummel” the virus “into submission”.
“Neither of them is capable of delivering a knock-out blow on its own,” he admitted, but together they will bring victory.
How confident he sounded. In the ring, that can be a fatal quality: a boxer lowers his guard for a moment, and down he goes.
But today, Sir Keir could not lay a glove on him. In vain he objected to the £670,000 of public money spent on PR consultants by the chair of the Government’s vaccine taskforce.
Johnson observed that some of that was to counter anti-vaxxers and persuade people to take part in trials, and chided Sir Keir for failing to “pay tribute” to the vaccine taskforce.
“Nobody’s attacking individuals,” Sir Keir said, which did not seem quite right, for here he was attacking Johnson.
All devotees of the noble art will wish Sir Keir well, and will hope that in the weeks to come he starts once more to land some blows.


conservativehome--2020-11-12--Henry Hill: Sturgeon’s timeline on Salmond scandal called into question as MSPs demand evidence

Two weeks ago , this column had a section entitled “ SNP woes deepen again ” , the latest in what is becoming a regular feature on the growing laundry list of problems besetting the Scottish Government ( not that you ’ d know it from the polls ) .
At the top of quite a long list of new challenges was a call by Alex Salmond for the ongoing inquiry into the handling of allegations against him by the SNP administration should be ‘ broadened ’ to look at “ whether the First Minister would be investigated for potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal advice ” .
It ’ s been a little while since we last had a proper look at how this row is developing , but this week saw a couple of important developments as the former First Minister , and opposition MSPs , continue to pick through the Nationalists ’ story .
The first , reported here in the Courier , is that Nicola Sturgeon appeared to write to her most senior civil servant to confirm that the Scottish Government ’ s new harassment policy would apply to former ministers only two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private secretary and one of the women who made allegations against Salmond .
As the paper notes , the timing of these events will only encourage those who accuse Sturgeon of being out to get her predecessors .
This group certainly includes the man himself and his supporters , but opposition MSPs have also suggested that the two events “ appeared to have been co-ordinated ” .
Meanwhile Sturgeon has also been trying to claim that she has forgotten the details of a ‘ bombshell ’ meeting at which she first learned of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baillie , a Labour MSP , attacked her administration ’ s “ pervasive culture of secrecy ” after it provided the same “ no information ” answer to five separate questions about the incident .
The SNP suffered another setback when they were ordered by the Scottish Parliament to hand over the legal advice it received during its ‘ doomed ’ legal battle with Salmond , according to the Herald .
The defeat led to the current Holyrood inquiry after the former First Minister mounted a successful legal challenge to the Scottish Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , accusing it of bias .
His victory cost the taxpayer over £500,000 .
Now MSPs have apparently given ministers a Friday deadline to hand over the documents .
Writing in the Scotsman , Murdo Fraser suggests that the “ only reason for the Scottish Government not to publish legal advice is if they have something to hide ” .
Yet typically , the SNP ’ s woes were not confined to this single front .
It is reportedly refusing to reveal the final destination of cash the party raised through an ill-judged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was promised to charity .
Meanwhile , the Scottish Sun reports that the Scottish Government ’ s test-and-trace system “ is performing up to five times worse than previously claimed ” .
According to a ‘ bombshell report ’ : “ Staff at the virus defence scheme failed to contact around half of recent positive cases within 24 hours of being told of their swab results , revised official stats reveal.
” Douglas Ross , the Scottish Conservative leader , has attacked the SNP for “ peddling wildly inaccurate data ” .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the Nationalists ’ perceived competence in handling the Covid-19 crisis is one of the big drivers fuelling support for separation in the polls .
Elsewhere on that front , Alister Jack appears to have hardened the Government ’ s opposition to a second independence referendum by reiterating once again its “ once in a generation ” argument ( more robust arguments are available ) whilst Sir John Major suggested offering the SNP a two-vote plebiscite instead .
The police are reportedly ‘ actively ’ monitoring loyalist groups in the expectation of organised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal .
Activists may ‘ descend ’ on ports to oppose the new Irish Sea border the Prime Minister signed up to when he capitulated on the Irish Protocol .
Unionist opinion is rapidly hardening against the deal , which sees sweeping new checks imposed on commerce between Northern Ireland and the British mainland , as the scale of the impact becomes clear .
Owen Polley provides an overview at CapX , but the most visible symbol of unease is the joint letter from Arlene Foster , the DUP leader , and Michelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging it not to impose checks which risk severely restricting Ulster ’ s food supplies .
Advocates of the Irish Protocol insisted on a sea border over a land border because the latter was easier to police .
But this failed to factor in that the volume of trade between the Province and the mainland vastly exceeds that with either the Republic or the rest of the European Union , so any checks there would affect a much greater slice of Northern Irish economic life .
It is also notable that nobody is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border render it a breach of the Belfast Agreement , despite the prospect of republican anger at landward checks being taken as evidence of such – another sign of the Government ’ s hapless failure to develop its own interpretation of the treaty .
One concession ministers did secure was the right of Stormont to set aside the Protocol .
Obviously neither Brussels nor Dublin expected it to do so , now that unionists have lost their majority – but a unionism with fight left in it would recognise that protecting east-west commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign could be won .
Yet such a campaign seems a long way off with the DUP , unionism ’ s pre-eminent party , deeply embroiled in an entirely dysfunctional Stormont system .
This week the News Letter has run some truly excoriating reporting on the “ rank incompetence ” of the Executive , a DUP-Sinn Fein duopoly .
Over the years since this column started , we have covered several attempts to establish new forces in Northern Irish unionism , focused less on little-Ulster rent seeking .
In these stories one can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , running against the Protocol and the Stormont system , could make headway .
But it remains nowhere to be seen .

SNP timeline on Salmond grows ‘murkier’ as MSPs demand legal advice
Two weeks ago, this column had a section entitled “SNP woes deepen again”, the latest in what is becoming a regular feature on the growing laundry list of problems besetting the Scottish Government (not that you’d know it from the polls).
At the top of quite a long list of new challenges was a call by Alex Salmond for the ongoing inquiry into the handling of allegations against him by the SNP administration should be ‘broadened’ to look at “whether the First Minister would be investigated for potentially misleading parliament and failing to act on legal advice”.
It’s been a little while since we last had a proper look at how this row is developing, but this week saw a couple of important developments as the former First Minister, and opposition MSPs, continue to pick through the Nationalists’ story.
The first, reported here in the Courier, is that Nicola Sturgeon appeared to write to her most senior civil servant to confirm that the Scottish Government’s new harassment policy would apply to former ministers only two days after a meeting between her principal private secretary and one of the women who made allegations against Salmond.
As the paper notes, the timing of these events will only encourage those who accuse Sturgeon of being out to get her predecessors. This group certainly includes the man himself and his supporters, but opposition MSPs have also suggested that the two events “appeared to have been co-ordinated”.
Meanwhile Sturgeon has also been trying to claim that she has forgotten the details of a ‘bombshell’ meeting at which she first learned of the allegations against her predecessor. Jackie Baillie, a Labour MSP, attacked her administration’s “pervasive culture of secrecy” after it provided the same “no information” answer to five separate questions about the incident.
The SNP suffered another setback when they were ordered by the Scottish Parliament to hand over the legal advice it received during its ‘doomed’ legal battle with Salmond, according to the Herald. The defeat led to the current Holyrood inquiry after the former First Minister mounted a successful legal challenge to the Scottish Government’s handling of complaints against him, accusing it of bias. His victory cost the taxpayer over £500,000.
Now MSPs have apparently given ministers a Friday deadline to hand over the documents. Writing in the Scotsman, Murdo Fraser suggests that the “only reason for the Scottish Government not to publish legal advice is if they have something to hide”.
Yet typically, the SNP’s woes were not confined to this single front. It is reportedly refusing to reveal the final destination of cash the party raised through an ill-judged sale of branded anti-Covid masks, which was promised to charity.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Sun reports that the Scottish Government’s test-and-trace system “is performing up to five times worse than previously claimed”. According to a ‘bombshell report’: “Staff at the virus defence scheme failed to contact around half of recent positive cases within 24 hours of being told of their swab results, revised official stats reveal.”
Douglas Ross, the Scottish Conservative leader, has attacked the SNP for “peddling wildly inaccurate data”. This is a key issue for the Tories because the Nationalists’ perceived competence in handling the Covid-19 crisis is one of the big drivers fuelling support for separation in the polls.
Elsewhere on that front, Alister Jack appears to have hardened the Government’s opposition to a second independence referendum by reiterating once again its “once in a generation” argument (more robust arguments are available) whilst Sir John Major suggested offering the SNP a two-vote plebiscite instead.
Loyalist protests anticipated against backdrop of Stormont’s ‘rank incompetence’
The police are reportedly ‘actively’ monitoring loyalist groups in the expectation of organised protests against Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal. Activists may ‘descend’ on ports to oppose the new Irish Sea border the Prime Minister signed up to when he capitulated on the Irish Protocol.
Unionist opinion is rapidly hardening against the deal, which sees sweeping new checks imposed on commerce between Northern Ireland and the British mainland, as the scale of the impact becomes clear. Owen Polley provides an overview at CapX, but the most visible symbol of unease is the joint letter from Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, and Michelle O’Neill to the European Union urging it not to impose checks which risk severely restricting Ulster’s food supplies.
Advocates of the Irish Protocol insisted on a sea border over a land border because the latter was easier to police. But this failed to factor in that the volume of trade between the Province and the mainland vastly exceeds that with either the Republic or the rest of the European Union, so any checks there would affect a much greater slice of Northern Irish economic life.
It is also notable that nobody is suggesting that loyalist protests against a sea border render it a breach of the Belfast Agreement, despite the prospect of republican anger at landward checks being taken as evidence of such – another sign of the Government’s hapless failure to develop its own interpretation of the treaty.
One concession ministers did secure was the right of Stormont to set aside the Protocol. Obviously neither Brussels nor Dublin expected it to do so, now that unionists have lost their majority – but a unionism with fight left in it would recognise that protecting east-west commerce could be grounds on which such a campaign could be won.
Yet such a campaign seems a long way off with the DUP, unionism’s pre-eminent party, deeply embroiled in an entirely dysfunctional Stormont system. This week the News Letter has run some truly excoriating reporting on the “rank incompetence” of the Executive, a DUP-Sinn Fein duopoly.
Over the years since this column started, we have covered several attempts to establish new forces in Northern Irish unionism, focused less on little-Ulster rent seeking. In these stories one can see the space where such a party, running against the Protocol and the Stormont system, could make headway. But it remains nowhere to be seen.


conservativehome--2020-11-12--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – and

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – 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 Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit .
The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority ( the UK Health Ministers ) and its executive arm , the Medicines and Healthcare products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe , efficacious and of good quality .
The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required .
They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues , many of which would be out of any one practitioner ’ s area of expertise , and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.
” Remuneration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting , to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation ’ s independence .
As per the BBC Royal Charter , the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition .
The Governance Code , including the public appointment principles , must be followed in making the appointment .
The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.
” Time : 3-4 days per week ( Chair ) / Up to 2 days per week .
“ The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board .
The primary role of CCW ’ s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead role in an area of CCW ’ s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area .
Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication , vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers .
The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘ additional expertise ’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board ’ s existing strengths .
CCW ’ s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes more detail on the role of Board Members.
” “ As the independent regulator of public appointments made by ministers in the UK and Welsh governments , the Commissioner ’ s statutory functions are set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019 .
The Order in Council also sets out those bodies and posts that are within the Commissioner ’ s regulatory remit .
The Commissioner ’ s primary role is to provide independent assurance that public appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The new Commissioner will need to work closely with a number of stakeholders including ( but not limited to ) UK and Welsh Government Ministers , Chairs of public bodies , senior officials/accounting officers in departments and officials in the Cabinet Office ’ s Public Appointments Policy team.
” “ The Prime Minister ’ s Council for Science and Technology ( CST ) is the Government ’ s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions , and in building a robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the UK , post Covid .
The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business , Energy and Industrial Strategy , responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress , tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors .
It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain .
We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation , delivers key Government commitments , and continues its record of strong performance against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair , the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors .
The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service , with particular emphasis on its strategic direction , management controls , and corporate governance.
” “ We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee , who will play a central role in the committee ’ s task of recommending designs for United Kingdom coins , official medals , seals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for leading numismatic design in the United Kingdom , collaborating closely with Government departments , the Royal Household and the Royal Mint .
This role will involve leading all aspects of new and innovative ways of commemorating events , individuals and symbology of national significance in numismatic form .
The chair of the RMAC will lead and guide meetings of the committee , reaching consensus on various design proposals and ultimately advise HM Treasury , other government departments and the Crown on artistic excellence in design .
The RMAC chair is responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner , acting impartially , ensuring effective governance and excellence in delivery.. ” Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee “ The FPC is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system .
The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ The Steering Board ’ s role is to : advise on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of targets , within the framework of the UK Space Agency ’ s objectives , BEIS and wider Government objectives ; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer ; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance , including process of setting of targets and performance against them ; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency ’ s role or activities and on its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Commission on Human Medicines – Chair
“The Chair will provide strong and effective leadership of the Commission in the fulfilment of its remit. The Chair of CHM has to lead an expert science advisory committee whose principal tasks are to advise the Licensing Authority (the UK Health Ministers) and its executive arm, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on matters relating to human medicinal products including the licensing of medicines that are safe, efficacious and of good quality. The Chair needs to be able to synthesize complex information and present it authoritatively to ministers as required. They have to be able to master a very wide range of medical and pharmacological issues, many of which would be out of any one practitioner’s area of expertise, and chair to consensus a commission which comprises a range of eminent medical experts and some lay members.”
Time: Approx. 33 days per annum.
Remuneration: Up to £500 per meeting
Closes: 10 November
– – – – – – – – – –
British Broadcasting Corporation – Chair/Member for England
“We are looking for an outstanding individual with demonstrable leadership skills and a passion for the media and public broadcasting, to represent the public interest in the BBC and maintain the Corporation’s independence. As per the BBC Royal Charter, the Chair of the BBC Board must be appointed by Order in Council following a fair and open competition. The Governance Code, including the public appointment principles, must be followed in making the appointment. The Commissioner for Public Appointments will ensure that the appointment is made in accordance with the Governance Code. Candidates should be aware that the preferred candidate for the post of Chair will be required to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee prior to appointment.”
Time: 3-4 days per week (Chair) / Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £160,000 (Chair) / £33,000 per annum, +£5,000 for committee chairs, reasonable expenses (Member)
Closes: 11 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Consumer Council for Water – Independent Board Members
“The Secretary of State is seeking to appoint four Independent Members to the CCW Board. The primary role of CCW’s Independent Board Members is to contribute to the good governance of the organisation by bringing wide experience and critical detachment to the work of the Board. Board Members take a lead role in an area of CCW’s strategic work or its campaigns and work closely with members of the Executive Team and employees in this area. Examples of lead areas include engagement and communication, vulnerable consumers and improving water regulation for consumers. The Essential Criteria section later in this document includes the ‘additional expertise’ that CCW is looking for from successful candidates to enhance and complement the Board’s existing strengths. CCW’s Code of Governance sets out more details on the operation of the Board and its Committees and includes more detail on the role of Board Members.”
Time: Three days per month.
Remuneration: £11,718 per annum.
Closes: 16 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Commissioner for Public Appointments
“As the independent regulator of public appointments made by ministers in the UK and Welsh governments, the Commissioner’s statutory functions are set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. The Order in Council also sets out those bodies and posts that are within the Commissioner’s regulatory remit. The Commissioner’s primary role is to provide independent assurance that public appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, including the Principles of Public Appointments. The new Commissioner will need to work closely with a number of stakeholders including (but not limited to) UK and Welsh Government Ministers, Chairs of public bodies, senior officials/accounting officers in departments and officials in the Cabinet Office’s Public Appointments Policy team.”
Time: 2 days per week on average.
Remuneration: £56,000 per annum.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Insolvency Service – Chair
“The Insolvency Service is an Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, responsible for helping to deliver economic confidence by supporting those in financial distress, tackling financial wrongdoing and maximising returns to creditors. It employs around 1,700 staff operating from 22 locations across Great Britain. We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Insolvency Service Board to lead the organisation as it takes forward its programme of transformation, delivers key Government commitments, and continues its record of strong performance against the backdrop of an uncertain economy following the Covid-19 pandemic… Headed by the non-executive Chair, the Board currently comprises a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors. The Board is collectively responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Insolvency Service, with particular emphasis on its strategic direction, management controls, and corporate governance.”
Time: 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £18,000.
Closes: 22 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Royal Mint Advisory Committee – Chair
“We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, who will play a central role in the committee’s task of recommending designs for United Kingdom coins, official medals, seals and decorations. The new chair will be responsible for leading numismatic design in the United Kingdom, collaborating closely with Government departments, the Royal Household and the Royal Mint. This role will involve leading all aspects of new and innovative ways of commemorating events, individuals and symbology of national significance in numismatic form. The chair of the RMAC will lead and guide meetings of the committee, reaching consensus on various design proposals and ultimately advise HM Treasury, other government departments and the Crown on artistic excellence in design. The RMAC chair is responsible for leading the committee in an ethical manner, acting impartially, ensuring effective governance and excellence in delivery..”
Time: Six meetings per annum.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 27 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Space Agency – Non-Executive Members/Audit Chair
“The Steering Board’s role is to: advise on external drivers, strategic direction and development of targets, within the framework of the UK Space Agency’s objectives, BEIS and wider Government objectives; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance, including process of setting of targets and performance against them; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency’s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 20/22 days per annum.
Remuneration: £8,000/10,000 per annum honorarium.
Closes: 29 November


conservativehome--2020-11-12--Will Cummings quit? It’s Carrie Symonds v Vote Leave – as tensions over the Government’s future expl

Will Cummings quit? It’s Carrie Symonds v Vote Leave – as tensions over the Government’s future explode

On a surface level , the story behind Lee Cain ’ s coming departure as Downing Street ’ s Director of Communications is just another tale of personnel and processology , involving a tour of the Whitehall maze of briefings , leaks and inquiries .
At a deeper one , it has the potential to change the nature , strategy and direction of the Government – bringing in its wake the possible resignation of Dominic Cummings , and so the end of Vote Leave ’ s grip on the Conservative Party in government .
For it marks a clash between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s restless culture of permanent revolution , and a greener , more recognisably conservative , gentler one – as championed by Carrie Symonds , herself a former senior SpAd .
This is a simplification of a more complex picture , as Cummings ’ original appointment last year as the Prime Minister ’ s Chief Adviser demonstrates : there is no suggestion that Symonds opposed it .
But it will serve .
With Cummings came a number of his former Vote Leave team – including Lee Cain , who had worked with Boris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Conservative leadership , as Director of Communications .
Cain was not the Prime Minister ’ s first choice for the role , but made his feelings about the possibility of being passed over very clear .
Johnson , who dislikes confrontation , gave him the job after all .
The dislike that both Cummings and Cain have for Tory MPs is overstated , but their contempt for the media is not – much of it , anyway .
The smashing election win last year did nothing to quell their sense that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cummings came back after it exercising the same role in Number Ten as before .
Some insist on seeing him as an Alastair Campbell figure , spinning the press .
Or as an all-dominant managerial figure in Downing Street .
This is simply wrong .
Cummings doesn ’ t run Number Ten ’ s media operation , rarely engages with journalists , and whatever synoptic view he may have had of the government ’ s activities has narrowed as time has passed .
Increasingly , his energies have been expended on getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schemes up and running from scratch ; bits of Brexit , and above all his driving passions : creating a British DARPA and reforming procurement systems .
So near the top of Government we have Cummings , Cain – and now Simon Case , the Cabinet Secretary .
But there is no fourth C : that ’ s to say , no Chief of Staff .
Eddie Lister ( or Baron Udny-Lister , as he now is ) does bits and pieces of the job as the Prime Minister ’ s Chief Political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 71 he is no spring chicken , has recently gone to the Lords , and is winding down .
Now go forward in time from last year ’ s election to this year ’ s main event – the advent of Coronavirus and , with it , those daily Government press conferences .
Viewership was variable over time , but the bigger-hitter Ministers , such as Johnson and Rishi Sunak , attracted viewers .
Cain floated the idea of widening their scope and holding them regularly , American-style .
Which would bring with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ questions in public .
It seems to have been agreed all-round that a woman would fit the bill .
But at this point , differences within Johnson ’ s top team began to set in .
For by now , Symonds and some Ministers wanted the media operation to work in what they saw as a less confrontational way .
Essentially , they were losing patience with Cain , and the confrontational flavour of Continuity Vote Leave .
So it is perhaps unsurprising that there was resistance to Cain ’ s candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the BBC .
It went to one of the well-established front-runners , who is on very good terms with Symonds : Allegra Stratton .
Stratton is currently Rishi Sunak ’ s Director of Communications , and will be Downing Street ’ s Press Secretary from the New Year .
Cain , who would have worked with Price , was unwilling to so with Stratton : he appears to see her as taking his job .
Which takes us to another appointment – that , at long last , of a Chief of Staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Number Ten needs one badly .
But , again , there is no agreement over who should take the post .
Cummings wants Cain , no doubt as a way of maintaining the hold of the Vote Leave project on Downing Street , which he believes is inseparable from any kind of governmental success .
And all those opposed to that project do not – a spectrum of opinion that runs , in Tory circles , from Symonds through some Ministers to those MPs who have clashed with Cummings during the EU referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cloud of unknowing that obscures the last few days .
Did the Prime Minister promise Cain the post ?
Did Cain think that the Prime Minister had promised him the post ?
What , if anything , did Johnson actually say ?
Was there a misunderstanding ?
Or did the Prime Minister , who holds a Nobel Prize for Conversational Ambiguity , lay on a masterclass demonstration of it ?
All will doubtless be revealed , but what ’ s certain is that a story suggesting that Cain ’ s appointment was imminent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This site ’ s snap take was that such a story could only serve to mobilise Cain ’ s internal opponents , and so was unlikely to have come from him or from Cummings .
It does indeed appear to have had such an effect – but , today , getting the story into print looks more likely to have been a Vote Leave-approved means of putting pressure on Johnson to make the appointment .
If so , it failed .
Furthermore , yesterday ’ s Times story wasn ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently in the paper .
The Saturday before last , it reported , together with the Daily Mail and , in part , Sky News , that lockdown was coming .
That story ’ s purpose , almost certainly , was to bounce the Prime Minister into announcing one .
If so , the gambit succeeded .
Johnson held a sudden press conference that very day to so do .
The decision meant more kickback from shutdown-sceptic backbenchers , a Commons revolt , and embarrassment for the Government ’ s scientific advisers when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of date figures to help make their case .
It may be worth noting that Cummings , perhaps contrary to expectation , has been a strong supporter of lockdowns – and has long been anxious , too , about the prospect of a second wave .
Nothing in the last year has angered him more than what he insists is a false claim that he favoured a herd immunity approach to the virus , and said that it would consequently be acceptable to some pensioners to die .
Perhaps this explains why their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were the source of the leak – an allegation that his friends also deny .
For what it ’ s worth , this site has reason to believe that , as is so often the case , there may well have been no single leak – and that the Times/Mail/Sky accounts may not necessarily have come from the same source .
At any rate , Helen Macnamara has charge of the Prime Minister ’ s investigation .
She has also been reported to be blocking any move by Johnson to clear Priti Patel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s pan the camera back from the Kremlinology of who may have leaked what to whom ; and who gets on and doesn ’ t get on with whom , and raise our eyes to the horizan .
Today , soon , during the run-up to Christmas or in the New Year – who knows ?
– Cummings , Oliver Lewis and other Vote Leavers may quit .
It is too early to know whether Cummings ’ insurgent commitment to smashing consensus will bring results – in science , in technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service renewal .
What ’ s become clear , however , is that a small band of true believers simply doesn ’ t have the bandwidth to run Downing Street on its own .
Even if a persistent cause of its present troubles is the Prime Minister ’ s disorderly character .
But if Johnson can ’ t manage with Vote Leave in control , how likely is it that he would be able to manage without it ?
Ponder the trail of the last few years .
The Prime Minister appointed Cummings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ languishing in the polls , and a general election apparently impossible to obtain – and , were it somehow to happen , very hard to win .
Like it or not , Cummings was instrumental in gaining the election , and then winning it by a near-landslide – just as Vote Leave succeeded in 2016 during the EU referendum campaign .
The Government must now face the following challenges , in no special order : the Brexit trade deal , this very week and next ; Covid-19 ; a coming spending review , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet the Coronavirus bills… …the strategic defence review , next year ’ s Scottish elections and the spectre of independence , and constructing a post-Brexit trade policy – not to mention levelling up , and much else .
Through this smog of choking problems , and the whisper of briefing and counter-briefing , a well-known but ultimately riddling figure can vaguely be discerned .
What does Johnson really want to do in government ?
Is he at heart Dominic Cummings , the Vote Leave radical ?
Or is he the more consensual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of London ?
Does he even know ?
At any rate , Gladstone once said of Lord Derby , then the Conservative leader , that Disraeli was “ at once his necessity and his curse ” .
Perhaps the same is true of insurrectionary , unTory Vote Leave .

On a surface level, the story behind Lee Cain’s coming departure as Downing Street’s Director of Communications is just another tale of personnel and processology, involving a tour of the Whitehall maze of briefings, leaks and inquiries.
At a deeper one, it has the potential to change the nature, strategy and direction of the Government – bringing in its wake the possible resignation of Dominic Cummings, and so the end of Vote Leave’s grip on the Conservative Party in government.
For it marks a clash between two styles of government: Vote Leave’s restless culture of permanent revolution, and a greener, more recognisably conservative, gentler one – as championed by Carrie Symonds, herself a former senior SpAd.
This is a simplification of a more complex picture, as Cummings’ original appointment last year as the Prime Minister’s Chief Adviser demonstrates: there is no suggestion that Symonds opposed it. But it will serve.
With Cummings came a number of his former Vote Leave team – including Lee Cain, who had worked with Boris Johnson during his post-Foreign Office campaign for the Conservative leadership, as Director of Communications.
Cain was not the Prime Minister’s first choice for the role, but made his feelings about the possibility of being passed over very clear. Johnson, who dislikes confrontation, gave him the job after all.
The dislike that both Cummings and Cain have for Tory MPs is overstated, but their contempt for the media is not – much of it, anyway. The smashing election win last year did nothing to quell their sense that it is out of touch with many voters.
Cummings came back after it exercising the same role in Number Ten as before. Some insist on seeing him as an Alastair Campbell figure, spinning the press. Or as an all-dominant managerial figure in Downing Street.
This is simply wrong. Cummings doesn’t run Number Ten’s media operation, rarely engages with journalists, and whatever synoptic view he may have had of the government’s activities has narrowed as time has passed.
Increasingly, his energies have been expended on getting the “moonshot” test and trace schemes up and running from scratch; bits of Brexit, and above all his driving passions: creating a British DARPA and reforming procurement systems.
So near the top of Government we have Cummings, Cain – and now Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary. But there is no fourth C: that’s to say, no Chief of Staff.
Eddie Lister (or Baron Udny-Lister, as he now is) does bits and pieces of the job as the Prime Minister’s Chief Political Adviser. But at the age of 71 he is no spring chicken, has recently gone to the Lords, and is winding down.
Now go forward in time from last year’s election to this year’s main event – the advent of Coronavirus and, with it, those daily Government press conferences.
Viewership was variable over time, but the bigger-hitter Ministers, such as Johnson and Rishi Sunak, attracted viewers. Cain floated the idea of widening their scope and holding them regularly, American-style.
Which would bring with it a press spokesman, answering journalists’ questions in public. It seems to have been agreed all-round that a woman would fit the bill. But at this point, differences within Johnson’s top team began to set in.
For by now, Symonds and some Ministers wanted the media operation to work in what they saw as a less confrontational way. Essentially, they were losing patience with Cain, and the confrontational flavour of Continuity Vote Leave.
So it is perhaps unsurprising that there was resistance to Cain’s candidate for the post: Ellie Price of the BBC. It went to one of the well-established front-runners, who is on very good terms with Symonds: Allegra Stratton.
Stratton is currently Rishi Sunak’s Director of Communications, and will be Downing Street’s Press Secretary from the New Year. Cain, who would have worked with Price, was unwilling to do so with Stratton: he appears to see her as taking his job.
Which takes us to another appointment – that, at long last, of a Chief of Staff. All concerned agree that this disorganised Number Ten needs one badly. But, again, there is no agreement over who should take the post.
Cummings wants Cain, no doubt as a way of maintaining the hold of the Vote Leave project on Downing Street, which he believes is inseparable from any kind of governmental success.
And all those opposed to that project do not – a spectrum of opinion that runs, in Tory circles, from Symonds through some Ministers to those MPs who have clashed with Cummings during the EU referendum and since.
We now enter the cloud of unknowing that obscures the last few days. Did the Prime Minister promise Cain the post? Did Cain think that the Prime Minister had promised him the post?
What, if anything, did Johnson actually say? Was there a misunderstanding? Or did the Prime Minister, who holds a Nobel Prize for Conversational Ambiguity, lay on a masterclass demonstration of it?
All will doubtless be revealed, but what’s certain is that a story suggesting that Cain’s appointment was imminent ended up in yesterday’s Times.
This site’s snap take was that such a story could only serve to mobilise Cain’s internal opponents, and so was unlikely to have come from him or from Cummings.
It does indeed appear to have had such an effect – but, today, getting the story into print looks more likely to have been a Vote Leave-approved means of putting pressure on Johnson to make the appointment. If so, it failed.
Furthermore, yesterday’s Times story wasn’t the only intriguing one to have popped up recently in the paper. The Saturday before last, it reported, together with the Daily Mail and, in part, Sky News, that lockdown was coming.
That story’s purpose, almost certainly, was to bounce the Prime Minister into announcing one. If so, the gambit succeeded. Johnson held a sudden press conference that very day to so do.
The decision meant more kickback from shutdown-sceptic backbenchers, a Commons revolt, and embarrassment for the Government’s scientific advisers when it emerged that they had deployed out of date figures to help make their case.
It may be worth noting that Cummings, perhaps contrary to expectation, has been a strong supporter of lockdowns – and has long been anxious, too, about the prospect of a second wave.
Nothing in the last year has angered him more than what he insists is a false claim that he favoured a herd immunity approach to the virus, and said that it would consequently be acceptable to some pensioners to die.
Perhaps this explains why their opponents are suggesting that he and Cain were the source of the leak – an allegation that his friends also deny.
For what it’s worth, this site has reason to believe that, as is so often the case, there may well have been no single leak – and that the Times/Mail/Sky accounts may not necessarily have come from the same source.
At any rate, Helen Macnamara has charge of the Prime Minister’s investigation. She has also been reported to be blocking any move by Johnson to clear Priti Patel from allegations of bullying.
Finally, let’s pan the camera back from the Kremlinology of who may have leaked what to whom; and who gets on and doesn’t get on with whom, and raise our eyes to the horizan.
Today, soon, during the run-up to Christmas or in the New Year – who knows? – Cummings, Oliver Lewis and other Vote Leavers may quit.
It is too early to know whether Cummings’ insurgent commitment to smashing consensus will bring results – in science, in technology, in better procurement, in civil service renewal.
What’s become clear, however, is that a small band of true believers simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to run Downing Street on its own. Even if a persistent cause of its present troubles is the Prime Minister’s disorderly character.
But if Johnson can’t manage with Vote Leave in control, how likely is it that he would be able to manage without it? Ponder the trail of the last few years.
The Prime Minister appointed Cummings because Parliament was gridlocked, the Conservatives languishing in the polls, and a general election apparently impossible to obtain – and, were it somehow to happen, very hard to win.
Like it or not, Cummings was instrumental in gaining the election, and then winning it by a near-landslide – just as Vote Leave succeeded in 2016 during the EU referendum campaign.
The Government must now face the following challenges, in no special order: the Brexit trade deal, this very week and next; Covid-19; a coming spending review, in which it will must prepare to meet the Coronavirus bills…
…the strategic defence review, next year’s Scottish elections and the spectre of independence, and constructing a post-Brexit trade policy – not to mention levelling up, and much else.
Through this smog of choking problems, and the whisper of briefing and counter-briefing, a well-known but ultimately riddling figure can vaguely be discerned – the Prime Minister himself.
What does Johnson really want to do in government? Is he at heart Dominic Cummings, the Vote Leave radical? Or is he the more consensual, cuddly figure that he cut as Mayor of London? Does he even know?
At any rate, Gladstone once said of Lord Derby, then the Conservative leader, that Disraeli was “at once his necessity and his curse”. Perhaps the same is true of insurrectionary, unTory Vote Leave.