conservativehome--2020-09-21--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee – 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 .
“ We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience , international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair .
The central priority of Innovate UK , under a new Executive Chair , will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capability , taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget .
The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation ’ s position within key markets , providing impactful thought leadership to the UK ’ s innovation system .
As the pivotal funding body for business R & D , especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country , the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R & D and technologies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annum base , up to £37,500 performance-related .
“ The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964 , now section 63 of the Police Act 1996 .
Under the remit of the Board , sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee .
In addition to this , the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum ( PCF ) , a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing .
The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000 , the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report.
” “ ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers , senior civil servants and other Crown servants .
In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly , sensibly and transparently… Members will : play a full and active part in ACOBA ’ s work , engaging in the collective consideration of applications ( usually by email ) ; taking account of the relevant factors and information ; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented ; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure ; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year ( in London or virtually ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arranged where necessary ; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions , whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018 ; [ and ] agree an Annual Report.
” “ The role has six broad elements : setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan ; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC ; providing strong leadership to your staff ; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices ; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following : strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery ; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation ; outstanding communication , interpersonal and influencing skills ; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives ; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement ; and evidence-based decision making.
” “ Help us make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment in mining areas .
The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities : effective , cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction .
This includes enabling a high standard of discussion ; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government ; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles ; Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan ; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.
” “ Formed in 2009 , and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body ( NDPB ) since 2012 , the RPC ’ s role is to provide Government with external , independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures .
It assesses the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments to inform their regulatory proposals , and by doing so , helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses , civil society , charities and other non-government organisations .
The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department ’ s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members , who provide robust and objective advice to government , parliament , and the wider public regarding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Innovate UK – Chair
“We are seeking an inspirational leader with extensive business experience, international standing and a proven track record to lead Innovate UK as its Executive Chair. The central priority of Innovate UK, under a new Executive Chair, will be to transition from a grant funding body to an agency focused on transforming the UK’s innovation capacity and capability, taking full advantage of its considerable growth in budget. The new Executive Chair will be expected to actively strengthen the organisation’s position within key markets, providing impactful thought leadership to the UK’s innovation system. As the pivotal funding body for business R&D, especially for start-ups and SMEs across the country, the Executive Chair will be expected to develop and implement system wide strategies for investment that promote the UK as a global leader in R&D and technologies of the future.”
Time: Full time, ‘other arrangements considered’.
Remuneration: £180,000 per annum base, up to £37,500 performance-related.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Police Advisory Board for England and Wales – Chair
“The PABEW was established as a non-departmental public body under section 46 of the Police Act 1964, now section 63 of the Police Act 1996. Under the remit of the Board, sits the Police Pensions Scheme Advisory Board and the Discipline Sub-Committee. In addition to this, the Chair has responsibility of chairing the Police Consultative Forum (PCF), a voluntary forum for employer and staff representative bodies that sits outside the statutory functions of the PABEW. We are seeking a new Chair to lead the organisation forward in a time of considerable change for policing. The Government has committed to considerable investment in the police workforce over the coming three years as part of the Police Uplift Programme which will increase officer numbers by 20,000, the biggest police recruitment drive in decades.”
Time: Approx. 21 days per annum.
Remuneration: £437 per diem, plus expenses.
Closes: 28 September
– – – – – – – – – –
Independent Committee on Police Conduct – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 18-24 days per annum.
Remuneration: £350 per diem.
Closes: 05 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments – Members
“ACOBA provides independent advice on applications submitted under the Business Appointment Rules from former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. In doing so it advises on the conditions that should apply to new appointments or employment after individuals have left Crown service. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the Business Appointment Rules are implemented fairly, sensibly and transparently… Members will: play a full and active part in ACOBA’s work, engaging in the collective consideration of applications (usually by email); taking account of the relevant factors and information; and challenge where necessary the information or recommendations presented; support the wider aims of the Chair in relation to policy and procedure; attend and contribute to between 3 and 5 ACOBA meetings per year (in London or virtually), and occasional attendance at casework related meetings arranged where necessary; ensure the confidentiality of individual applications and associated discussions, whilst operating within the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 2018; [and] agree an Annual Report.”
Time: 1-2 days per month.
Remuneration: £3,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 09 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Small Business Commissioner
“The role has six broad elements: setting the strategic direction of the organisation and delivering against a robust business plan; raising the awareness and profile of the Commissioner and the Office of the SBC; providing strong leadership to your staff; overseeing investigations into complaints and publishing outcomes; leading the Prompt Payment Code compliance and supporting Code reforms to ensure it plays a more significant role in driving improved payment practices; and performing the role of Accounting Officer for the organisation… The successful candidate will demonstrate in their application all of the following: strategic outcome-focussed leadership and delivery; targeted partner engagement to raise the profile of organisation; outstanding communication, interpersonal and influencing skills; encouraging staff to excel in the delivery of corporate objectives; driving a culture of innovation and continuous improvement; and evidence-based decision making.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: £120,000 per annum.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Coal Authority – Chair
“Help us make a better future for people and the environment in mining areas. The Chair has the following leadership responsibilities: effective, cooperative and inclusive leadership of the Board that will provide sound strategic direction. This includes enabling a high standard of discussion; helping to steer the Coal Authority by collaborative working across Government; and ensuring that systems are in place to provide Board members and the Executive team with the support they need to carry out their roles;
Working with the Board to ensure that they and the Executive team have an appropriate and diverse range of skills, experience and outlook; offering support and counsel to the Executive team while holding them to account and providing constructive challenge on the delivery of the Coal Authority Business Plan; and maintaining clear and effective channels of communication with internal and external stakeholders and acting as an ambassador for the Coal Authority.”
Time: Five days per month.
Remuneration: £27,050 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 25 October
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulatory Policy Committee – Chair
“Formed in 2009, and a BEIS Non-departmental Public Body (NDPB) since 2012, the RPC’s role is to provide Government with external, independent scrutiny of proposed new regulatory and deregulatory measures. It assesses the quality of evidence and analysis used by departments to inform their regulatory proposals, and by doing so, helps ensure that the Government produces better regulatory outcomes for businesses, civil society, charities and other non-government organisations. The RPC is accountable to Parliament through the BEIS Permanent Secretary and to the BEIS Secretary of State and through the Department’s Principal Accounting Officer in respect of its use of public funds… To lead a committee of independent members, who provide robust and objective advice to government, parliament, and the wider public regarding the quality of evidence and analysis supporting decisions on proposed changes to legislation that impact or regulate businesses.”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £500 per diem.
Closes: 25 October


conservativehome--2020-09-22--Andy Street: We must support our veterans through this national crisis

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis .
At times this year , it has felt like we are at war .
In the battle against Covid-19 , the many lives tragically lost and the impact of lockdown on our individual freedoms have often brought echoes of wartime life .
The reaction of the nation to the pandemic invoked the ‘ blitz spirit ’ .
The sight of military personnel mobilising to help build NHS Nightingale hospitals here in the West Midlands and elsewhere instilled national confidence .
As we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use this column to highlight the challenges facing our veterans today – as well as championing one group of service personnel whose sacrifice has gone unrecognised for too long .
Here in the diverse West Midlands , we are deeply aware of the debt owed to veterans , including the immense contribution of the commonwealth nations .
One of our region ’ s most notable military monuments , in Smethwick , is a bronze statue of a Sikh soldier which honours personnel of all faiths from the Indian subcontinent who fought for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am proud to have been recruited by the West Midlands ’ Caribbean community to help raise funds to erect a suitable tribute to the 16,000 men of the British West Indies Regiment who fought at Passchendaele , Ypres and Poelcappelle .
But while the hardships of this year may have rekindled thoughts of the past , it ’ s vital that we ensure today ’ s veterans get the support they need now .
Our veterans , and the essential networks that support them , have been hard hit by the effects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is the tough choices now facing armed forces charity Help For Heroes , which saw demand for its services rise by 33 per cent during May and June – as the consequences of the national lockdown impacted on veterans ’ mental health – while seeing fundraising activities cancelled .
As a result , it faces the difficult decision to close its recovery centres .
There are 76,000 veterans living in the West Midlands , all of whom will have made the difficult move back to civvy street .
Former service personnel of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be unemployed than the rest of the general population .
Some estimates suggest that in the UK 700,000 veterans aged 16 to 64 are unemployed , with personnel who leave the services early most like to find themselves jobless .
When I became Mayor of the West Midlands , I was determined to ensure that our region reached out to help veterans in their present and future challenges .
My successful Mayor ’ s Mentors programme , which supports more than 6000 young people across the West Midlands , was rolled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returning to civilian life .
Mayor ’ s Mentors for Veterans recruited business mentors to support individuals for 12 months , providing friendship , ideas and contacts to help them back into the workplace .
Another successful scheme provides veterans with both an introduction to construction skills to enable them to be site-ready for work and , crucially , guarantees them a job interview on completion of the course .
After completing the course , veterans are supported on their journey to work through the National Careers Service for as long as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview is a success .
Those who are not offered a job immediately are added to the West Midlands ‘ site-ready talent pool ’ – which is shared with construction recruiters and provides a list of people who are ready for work immediately – helping them access jobs working on projects like HS2 .
In addition , the WMCA advertises its own vacancies on the Ministry of Defence ’ s career transition partnership website and provides a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans provided they meet essential job criteria .
Finally , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into rough sleeping can get support and help from specialists who understand not only their military experiences but the specific challenges they can face as a consequence of their service to our nation .
In June , to coincide with Armed Forces Day , the WMCA announced a grant to the Royal British Legion to help veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness .
During the pandemic , the Legion has been working hard alongside local authorities to bring rough-sleeping veterans off the streets and into emergency accommodation .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in demand for its crisis support services as Covid-19 support packages , including rent and mortgage relief agreements , come to an end .
The £20,000 WMCA grant will support veterans , with up to £750 each , who through no fault of their own may have built up rent arrears and faced other difficulties as a result of the pandemic .
The individual grants will help to pay for vital items such as a deposit for accommodation or first month ’ s rent , travel passes to find work , and basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Armed Forces Covenant – a pledge acknowledging that those who serve or who have served should be treated with fairness and respect , as should their families .
We take our responsibility towards the covenant very seriously indeed .
Last week , our commitment to the covenant was recognised by the Ministry of Defence with a Silver Award , highlighting the WMCA ’ s support for the Armed Forces and veterans in the region .
While I am pleased that our work has received this recognition , I know that there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help those who have served our country .
The challenges of this pandemic , just as in wartime , mean that vulnerable veterans can fall through gaps in the net meant to catch them .
We can not allow this to happen .
At the same time , I believe we must also ensure that , in a diverse and inclusive UK , all veterans groups are remembered and honoured for their sacrifice – which brings me back to the British West Indies Regiment .
Through numerous conflicts , men and women from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help the Mother Country .
They remain part of the backbone of today ’ s British military today .
Yet there is no national monument in the UK honouring their sacrifice .
I am proud to be associated with The National Caribbean Monument Charity , which aims to raise £500,000 for a monument at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire .
Sculptor Martin Jennings has been commissioned to design the monument , which will join the 360 monuments in the Arboretum , including the Armed Forces Memorial , which bears the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1945 .
This monument will help to provide a lasting reminder of the sacrifice made by Caribbean personnel in serving Queen and country at a time when Britain needed them most .
This is part of the dent society owes to veterans .
When people sign up to serve , they are taking on a role that often impacts on the rest of their lives .
Today , as we face Covid-19 shoulder to shoulder , we owe them practical support .
For tomorrow , we must ensure that their sacrifice is honoured @ @ @

Andy Street is Mayor of the West Midlands and is a former Managing Director of John Lewis.
At times this year, it has felt like we are at war. In the battle against Covid-19, the many lives tragically lost and the impact of lockdown on our individual freedoms have often brought echoes of wartime life.
The reaction of the nation to the pandemic invoked the ‘blitz spirit’. The sight of military personnel mobilising to help build NHS Nightingale hospitals here in the West Midlands and elsewhere instilled national
confidence.
As we face this national crisis, I want to use this column to highlight the challenges facing our veterans today – as well as championing one group of service personnel whose sacrifice has gone unrecognised for
too long.
Here in the diverse West Midlands, we are deeply aware of the debt owed to veterans, including the immense contribution of the commonwealth nations. One of our region’s most notable military monuments, in Smethwick,
is a bronze statue of a Sikh soldier which honours personnel of all faiths from the Indian subcontinent who fought for Britain during World War One.
I am proud to have been recruited by the West Midlands’ Caribbean community to help raise funds to erect a suitable tribute to the 16,000 men of the British West Indies Regiment who fought at Passchendaele, Ypres and Poelcappelle.
But while the hardships of this year may have rekindled thoughts of the past, it’s vital that we ensure today’s veterans get the support they need now.
Our veterans, and the essential networks that support them, have been hard hit by the effects of the pandemic. A clear indication of this is the tough choices now facing armed forces charity Help For Heroes, which saw demand for its services rise by 33 per cent during May and June – as the consequences of the national lockdown impacted on veterans’ mental health – while seeing fundraising activities cancelled. As a result, it faces the difficult decision to close its recovery centres.
There are 76,000 veterans living in the West Midlands, all of whom will have made the difficult move back to civvy street. Former service personnel of working age are nearly twice as likely to be unemployed than the rest of the general population. Some estimates suggest that in the UK 700,000 veterans aged 16 to 64 are unemployed, with personnel who leave the services early most like to find themselves jobless.
When I became Mayor of the West Midlands, I was determined to ensure that our region reached out to help veterans in their present and future challenges.
My successful Mayor’s Mentors programme, which supports more than 6000 young people across the West Midlands, was rolled out to help members of the armed forces returning to civilian life. Mayor’s Mentors for Veterans recruited business mentors to support individuals for 12 months, providing friendship, ideas and contacts to help them back into the workplace.
Another successful scheme provides veterans with both an introduction to construction skills to enable them to be site-ready for work and, crucially, guarantees them a job interview on completion of the course.
After completing the course, veterans are supported on their journey to work through the National Careers Service for as long as they need, regardless of whether their first interview is a success. Those who are not offered a job immediately are added to the West Midlands ‘site-ready talent pool’ – which is shared with construction recruiters and provides a list of people who are ready for work immediately – helping them access jobs working on projects like HS2.
In addition, the WMCA advertises its own vacancies on the Ministry of Defence’s career transition partnership
website and provides a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans provided they meet essential job criteria.
Finally, we are determined to ensure that veterans who fall into rough sleeping can get support and help from specialists who understand not only their military experiences but the specific challenges they can
face as a consequence of their service to our nation.
In June, to coincide with Armed Forces Day, the WMCA announced a grant to the Royal British Legion to help veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. During the pandemic, the Legion has been working
hard alongside local authorities to bring rough-sleeping veterans off the streets and into emergency accommodation.
Now, the Legion is expecting a significant increase in demand for its crisis support services as Covid-19 support packages, including rent and mortgage relief agreements, come to an end.
The £20,000 WMCA grant will support veterans, with up to £750 each, who through no fault of their own may have built up rent arrears and faced other difficulties as a result of the pandemic. The individual grants will help to pay for vital items such as a deposit for accommodation or first month’s rent, travel passes to find work, and basic furnishings.
In 2019, we signed the Armed Forces Covenant – a pledge acknowledging that those who serve or who have served should be treated with fairness and respect, as should their families. We take our responsibility towards the covenant very seriously indeed.
Last week, our commitment to the covenant was recognised by the Ministry of Defence with a Silver Award, highlighting the WMCA’s support for the Armed Forces and veterans in the region. While I am pleased that our work has received this recognition, I know that there is always more that must be done to help those who have served our country.
The challenges of this pandemic, just as in wartime, mean that vulnerable veterans can fall through gaps in the net meant to catch them. We cannot allow this to happen.
At the same time, I believe we must also ensure that, in a diverse and inclusive UK, all veterans groups are remembered and honoured for their sacrifice – which brings me back to the British West Indies Regiment.
Through numerous conflicts, men and women from 18 British Caribbean Islands have joined up to help the Mother Country. They remain part of the backbone of today’s British military today. Yet there is no national monument in the UK honouring their sacrifice.
I am proud to be associated with The National Caribbean Monument Charity, which aims to raise £500,000 for a monument at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire.
Sculptor Martin Jennings has been commissioned to design the monument, which will join the 360 monuments in the Arboretum, including the Armed Forces Memorial, which bears the name of every serviceman or woman
killed since 1945.
This monument will help to provide a lasting reminder of the sacrifice made by Caribbean personnel in serving Queen and country at a time when Britain needed them most. This is part of the dent society owes to veterans.
When people sign up to serve, they are taking on a role that often impacts on the rest of their lives. Today, as we face Covid-19 shoulder to shoulder, we owe them practical support. For tomorrow, we must ensure that their sacrifice is honoured and remembered.


conservativehome--2020-09-22--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee –


conservativehome--2020-09-22--Opposition to new national lockdowns is growing on the Conservative backbenches

Boris Johnson will speak to the Commons this afternoon and to the nation this evening about the Government ’ s latest Coronavirus measures .
We wait to see exactly what he will announce , but the thrust of his proposals seems clear enough .
Essentially , he wants to separate work and home life .
The Prime Minister aims to keep work going in as normal a way as possible – with face covers , hand-washing and social distancing in place to help make this possible .
This is government “ putting its arms ” around the economy , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is the part of the policy aimed at protecting livelihoods .
Meanwhile , home life and leisure will take the strain of reducing the growth in Covid-19 cases .
There is a rule of six .
Pubs and restaurants will shut at 10pm .
There will be marshalls as well as fines .
Not to mention lockdowns – like those currently now in place in Merseyside , Greater Manchester , Birmingham and elsewhere .
This is the half of the policy intended to save lives .
Whether this scheme will last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained previously on this site why many schools may not stay open fully , or may close altogether .
That will have a knock-on effect on the economy , since parents with younger children will often have no alternative but to stay at home , and provide the childcare themselves .
Furthermore , the division between work , home and leisure isn ’ t always clear .
The first and third meet in retail : some shopping is leisure ; all staffing is work .
As the debate within government over the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and outlets indicates , non-essential shopping is vulnerable to new closures .
And Ministers are already backing off the push to get workers to return to offices ( since they will be more relucant to use public transport ) .
It looks as though we ’ re on the way to another national lockdown – in effect , if most cities are locked down ; or formally , if the Government eventually declares one .
Tomorrow , in the wake of the Prime Minister ’ s broadcast , we will return to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the fundamental aim of the policy ?
If it is no longer to protect the NHS , is it to suppress the virus ?
If so , are the healthcare trade-offs that would arise from such a policy worthwhile – let alone the wider economic ones ?
Why isn ’ t testing and tracing , rather than lockdowns , taking the strain of reducing the disease , as intended ?
For today , we want to probe what happened yesterday during Matt Hancock ’ s Commons statement .
Of these , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Latham , Baker , Wragg and Brine were all , to varying degrees , hostile to another national lockdown .
Browne ’ s question was perhaps in broadly the same camp .
We are beginning to see resistence to new national shutdowns intensify on the Conservative backbenches .

Boris Johnson will speak to the Commons this afternoon and to the nation this evening about the Government’s latest Coronavirus measures. We wait to see exactly what he will announce, but the thrust of his proposals seems clear enough. Essentially, he wants to separate work and home life.
The Prime Minister aims to keep work going in as normal a way as possible – with face covers, hand-washing and social distancing in place to help make this possible. This is government “putting its arms” around the economy, to borrow a phrase he likes to use. It is the part of the policy aimed at protecting livelihoods.
Meanwhile, home life and leisure will take the strain of reducing the growth in Covid-19 cases. There is a rule of six. Pubs and restaurants will shut at 10pm. There will be marshalls as well as fines. Not to mention lockdowns – like those currently now in place in Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere. This is the half of the policy intended to save lives.
Whether this scheme will last long is doubtful. We’ve explained previously on this site why many schools may not stay open fully, or may close altogether. That will have a knock-on effect on the economy, since parents with younger children will often have no alternative but to stay at home, and provide the childcare themselves.
Furthermore, the division between work, home and leisure isn’t always clear. The first and third meet in retail: some shopping is leisure; all staffing is work. As the debate within government over the new 10pm closing time for pubs, restaurants and outlets indicates, non-essential shopping is vulnerable to new closures. And Ministers are already backing off the push to get workers to return to offices (since they will be more relucant to use public transport).
It looks as though we’re on the way to another national lockdown – in effect, if most cities are locked down; or formally, if the Government eventually declares one. Tomorrow, in the wake of the Prime Minister’s broadcast, we will return to the big questions.
Such as: what’s the fundamental aim of the policy? If it is no longer to protect the NHS, is it to suppress the virus? If so, are the healthcare trade-offs that would arise from such a policy worthwhile – let alone the wider economic ones? Why isn’t testing and tracing, rather than lockdowns, taking the strain of reducing the disease, as intended? For today, we want to probe what happened yesterday during Matt Hancock’s Commons statement.
Chris Grayling, Greg Clark, Harriet Baldwin, Simon Fell, Simon Clarke, Alec Shelbrooke, Anthony Browne, Graham Brady, Andrew Percy, Jason McCartney, Shaun Bailey, Marco Longhi, Edward Leigh, Pauline Latham, Bernard Jenkin, Duncan Baker, James Davies, William Wragg, Steve Brine, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan spoke.
Of these, Grayling, Clarke, Brady, Leigh, Latham, Baker, Wragg and Brine were all, to varying degrees, hostile to another national lockdown. Browne’s question was perhaps in broadly the same camp. We are beginning to see resistence to new national shutdowns intensify on the Conservative backbenches.


conservativehome--2020-09-22--Radical: Self-ID for transgendered people has been stopped for now. But the struggle for truth and s

Radical: Self-ID for transgendered people has been stopped for now. But the struggle for truth and sense continues.

Last weekend , The Sunday Times reported that gender “ self-ID ” proposals originally put forward by the May government in 2018 will not be taken forward .
We ’ ve written here many times about this topic , but it ’ s worth a quick reminder of the context , before we address this momentous news .
Since the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act ( GRA ) in 2004 , people meeting certain conditions have been able to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate ( GRC ) .
A GRC legally recognises someone ’ s change of gender , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their birth certificate changed to match this gender change , for legal purposes .
Under the terms of the act , obtaining a GRC requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria , and evidence of having lived in one ’ s “ acquired gender ” for two years .
It is worth noting here the difference afforded to sex and gender within the process .
For instance , it is often stated that a GRC “ changes someone ’ s gender ” on their birth certificate , yet this is clearly wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a birth certificate – rather , sex is .
The terms “ sex ” and “ gender ” are often used interchangeably in conversation , and various relevant pieces of legislations are lax on their clarity of use of these terms .
But , as the Government ’ s GRA consultation document notes , “ gender ” technically relates to “ socially constructed characteristics ” associated with societal notions of masculinity and femininity , whereas “ sex ” relates to the biological characteristics that determine whether someone is male or female .
Regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is crucial for many reasons .
In 2018 , Penny Mordaunt , the then Minister for Women and Equalities , launched a consultation – as referred to above – on the reform of the GRA .
The aim of this consultation was to determine “ how best Government might make the existing process under the [ act ] a better service for those trans and non-binary people who wish to use it ” .
The consultation closed in October of 2018 , and although the Government Equalities Office has stated that it received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have ever been published by the Government .
The most notable reforms discussed in the consultation were proposals that would entail that , to obtain a GRC , a person would no longer require a diagnosis of dysphoria , or need to prove that they had been living in their acquired gender .
Rather , someone would be able to obtain a GRC , and change their sex for legal purposes , simply by making a statutory declaration of their intention live in the opposite gender .
This is already the case in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examples in the consultation document , and is informally known as “ self-identification ” or “ self-ID ” .
These proposals for change were strongly supported by trans activist campaigners ( including those within the Conservative Party ) , but were strongly opposed by women ’ s groups and people concerned about myriad practical and legal implications that seemed to have gone unnoticed in the consultation .
We have discussed many of these implications in our columns , ranging from concerns about prison safety to census data collection .
We strongly believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditionally associated with membership of the opposite biological sex should be treated just as respectfully as anyone else , all other things being equal .
But we also believe that acknowledging the importance of the right to free expression does not equate to believing that the law should mandate that biological men must be treated as women , or biological women as men – on their demand .
The consequences of such an approach would not only include the violation of natal women ’ s rights to security and privacy , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , the Government seems finally to have clarified its position on self-ID .
Although Liz Truss , the current Minister for Women and Equalities , had stated back in April that it was her intention to “ [ maintain ] the proper checks and balances in the system ” , the announcement confirming that the Government would not be going forward with self-ID did not come before the summer break , as she had implied .
In the meantime , there was , unsurprisingly , a new flurry of campaigning for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fear that the powerful influence of organisations like Stonewall ( whose diversity scheme most government departments subscribe to ) would prevail , and that the proposed changes would be brought forward , after all .
It comes as a great relief , therefore , to learn that , aside from dropping the £140 fee , the current process will remain unchanged .
A government spokesperson was quoted by The Sunday Times as saying , ” We think that the current legislation , which supports people ’ s rights to change their sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not mean that our struggle for civil rights and truth is over , however .
The battle over self-ID has shone a light on the state of law and policy concerning sex and gender .
In this column , we have written many times about the confusion and misinformation that has been propagated by public authorities , often on the advice of campaigners like Stonewall .
Illegal guidance by bodies ranging from local authorities to the Crown Prosecution Service has been successfully challenged by women and children who refused to accept that girls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in toilets , changing rooms , and dormitories .
Legal actions in respect of medical intervention on children and young people are ongoing ; the NHS has already changed its official position on the “ reversibility ” of puberty blockers , to recognise that these powerful drugs have effects on young people that are not reversible .
A challenge to the lawfulness of guidance issued by the body tasked with overseeing and enforcing equalities legislation , the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) , is under way .
It is particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Stonewall to the news that the GRA reforms would not proceed was to state an incorrect interpretation of the Equality Act .
This was rightly described by Jackie Doyle-Price , the Conservative MP , as a “ wilful misrepresentation ” from a body that purports to advise public- and private-sector organisations on how to comply with equalities laws .
Now that the law on gender recognition looks to be stable again , the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC should urgently attend to clarifying guidance on gender reassignment and sex under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should consider whether such close involvement with politically-driven organisations such as Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence is consistent with impartiality .
It is clear that the Gender Recognition Act is not a good law .
Its key provisions are badly drafted , mixing the terms “ sex ” and “ gender ” without defining either .
This both reflects and contributes to widespread confusion , which has been exploited to pursue outcomes that the MPs and peers who voted for the act in 2004 had no conception of – such as the right for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use female changing rooms , be housed in female prisons , and be recorded as female in crime statistics and census data .
The GRA could certainly still be improved – but at least it now seems that it is not going to be made worse by the introduction of self-ID .
Equivalent reform is still being pursued in Scotland , however .
In combination with the Scottish hate speech bill , this would be dangerously authoritarian , and Conservatives across the UK should hope that opposition parties and groups will succeed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Victoria Hewson is a solicitor and Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. Together they found Radical, a campaign for truth and freedom in the gender recognition debate.
Last weekend, The Sunday Times reported that gender “self-ID” proposals originally put forward by the May government in 2018 will not be taken forward. We’ve written here many times about this topic, but it’s worth a quick reminder of the context, before we address this momentous news.
Since the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) in 2004, people meeting certain conditions have been able to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). A GRC legally recognises someone’s change of gender, and allows them to have their sex on their birth certificate changed to match this gender change, for legal purposes.
Under the terms of the act, obtaining a GRC requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and evidence of having lived in one’s “acquired gender” for two years. It is worth noting here the difference afforded to sex and gender within the process. For instance, it is often stated that a GRC “changes someone’s gender” on their birth certificate, yet this is clearly wrong, as gender is not recorded on a birth certificate – rather, sex is.
The terms “sex” and “gender” are often used interchangeably in conversation, and various relevant pieces of legislations are lax on their clarity of use of these terms. But, as the Government’s GRA consultation document notes, “gender” technically relates to “socially constructed characteristics” associated with societal notions of masculinity and femininity, whereas “sex” relates to the biological characteristics that determine whether someone is male or female. Regardless of the terms used, this distinction is crucial for many reasons.
In 2018, Penny Mordaunt, the then Minister for Women and Equalities, launched a consultation – as referred to above – on the reform of the GRA. The aim of this consultation was to determine “how best Government might make the existing process under the [act] a better service for those trans and non-binary people who wish to use it”. The consultation closed in October of 2018, and although the Government Equalities Office has stated that it received more than 100,000 responses, no responses have ever been published by the Government.
The most notable reforms discussed in the consultation were proposals that would entail that, to obtain a GRC, a person would no longer require a diagnosis of dysphoria, or need to prove that they had been living in their acquired gender. Rather, someone would be able to obtain a GRC, and change their sex for legal purposes, simply by making a statutory declaration of their intention live in the opposite gender.
This is already the case in a number of countries, cited as examples in the consultation document, and is informally known as “self-identification” or “self-ID”. These proposals for change were strongly supported by trans activist campaigners (including those within the Conservative Party), but were strongly opposed by women’s groups and people concerned about myriad practical and legal implications that seemed to have gone unnoticed in the consultation.
We have discussed many of these implications in our columns, ranging from concerns about prison safety to census data collection. We strongly believe that people who choose to act in ways traditionally associated with membership of the opposite biological sex should be treated just as respectfully as anyone else, all other things being equal.
But we also believe that acknowledging the importance of the right to free expression does not equate to believing that the law should mandate that biological men must be treated as women, or biological women as men – on their demand. The consequences of such an approach would not only include the violation of natal women’s rights to security and privacy, but also the undermining of biological truth.
This week, the Government seems finally to have clarified its position on self-ID. Although Liz Truss, the current Minister for Women and Equalities, had stated back in April that it was her intention to “[maintain] the proper checks and balances in the system”, the announcement confirming that the Government would not be going forward with self-ID did not come before the summer break, as she had implied.
In the meantime, there was, unsurprisingly, a new flurry of campaigning for the change. And opponents of reform began to fear that the powerful influence of organisations like Stonewall (whose diversity scheme most government departments subscribe to) would prevail, and that the proposed changes would be brought forward, after all.
It comes as a great relief, therefore, to learn that, aside from dropping the £140 fee, the current process will remain unchanged. A government spokesperson was quoted by The Sunday Times as saying, ”We think that the current legislation, which supports people’s rights to change their sex, is sufficient”.
This does not mean that our struggle for civil rights and truth is over, however. The battle over self-ID has shone a light on the state of law and policy concerning sex and gender. In this column, we have written many times about the confusion and misinformation that has been propagated by public authorities, often on the advice of campaigners like Stonewall.
Illegal guidance by bodies ranging from local authorities to the Crown Prosecution Service has been successfully challenged by women and children who refused to accept that girls and boys should no longer be separated in toilets, changing rooms, and dormitories.
Legal actions in respect of medical intervention on children and young people are ongoing; the NHS has already changed its official position on the “reversibility” of puberty blockers, to recognise that these powerful drugs have effects on young people that are not reversible. A challenge to the lawfulness of guidance issued by the body tasked with overseeing and enforcing equalities legislation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), is under way.
It is particularly notable, therefore, that the reaction of Stonewall to the news that the GRA reforms would not proceed was to state an incorrect interpretation of the Equality Act. This was rightly described by Jackie Doyle-Price, the Conservative MP, as a “wilful misrepresentation” from a body that purports to advise public- and private-sector organisations on how to comply with equalities laws.
Now that the law on gender recognition looks to be stable again, the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC should urgently attend to clarifying guidance on gender reassignment and sex under the Equality Act. Police and civil-service leadership should consider whether such close involvement with politically-driven organisations such as Stonewall and Gendered Intelligence is consistent with impartiality.
It is clear that the Gender Recognition Act is not a good law. Its key provisions are badly drafted, mixing the terms “sex” and “gender” without defining either. This both reflects and contributes to widespread confusion, which has been exploited to pursue outcomes that the MPs and peers who voted for the act in 2004 had no conception of – such as the right for male-bodied people who identify as women to use female changing rooms, be housed in female prisons, and be recorded as female in crime statistics and census data.
The GRA could certainly still be improved – but at least it now seems that it is not going to be made worse by the introduction of self-ID. Equivalent reform is still being pursued in Scotland, however. In combination with the Scottish hate speech bill, this would be dangerously authoritarian, and Conservatives across the UK should hope that opposition parties and groups will succeed in their campaigns against both pieces of legislation.


conservativehome--2020-09-22--Andrew Carter: Devolving responsibilities to our town halls must also mean devolving money

Andrew Carter is Chief Executive of Centre for Cities , who have published a new report Levelling Up Local Government in England Last year , the Conservative election manifesto pledged to deliver a system of full English devolution and , as I understand it , the Government is now finalising these plans in a white paper due to be published this autumn .
Reform of England ’ s complicated local government structures is long overdue .
There are currently 349 district , county , unitary , and combined authorities in England , as well as the Greater London Authority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nottingham , for example , has nine separate councils , all with responsibilities for local planning and economic development in their part of the city .
The seven district councils have responsibility for new housing , but then the two county councils are charged with delivering the transport infrastructure that new homes need .
This bureaucratic arrangement makes joined-up long-term strategic decision making about Nottingham ’ s future much more difficult than it needs to be .
Additionally , many smaller district councils have neither the capacity nor the political will to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to level up their areas , and the financial challenges of maintaining this patchwork system are increasing every year .
But the problems in English local government are about more than just function and finance .
There is also a democratic deficit , with little public awareness or understanding of councils ’ roles .
Back in 2012 , just eight per cent of people could name their local council leader , and I doubt this figure has improved much since then .
And a system in which a council leader is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only to a tiny electorate makes it difficult for them to balance their voters ’ priorities with their duty to the wider area .
This means that hyper-local issues can crowd out the long-term planning and investment that an area needs .
The current system is the product of decades of political compromise and piecemeal reform , but it ’ s having a damaging effect on the places that the Prime Minister has promised to level up , many of which have been hit harder economically by the Covid-19 pandemic than more affluent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tinkering around the edges – only wholescale reform will work now .
First , England ’ s existing 349 councils should be reduced down to 69 new , larger unitary and combined authorities that mirror as much as possible the economic areas in which people live and work .
This would make joined-up strategic decision-making far easier .
When I make this argument , people often stress the importance of ensuring that historic or cultural boundaries are reflected in local government .
I have two points to make on this : First , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority boundaries ; it is possible to celebrate civic identity while having council boundaries that reflect the area over which people live and work .
And second , as our proposals show , it is possible to create a new system that aligns political and economic geography whilst respecting existing historic county boundaries .
Second , the leader-and-cabinet model for local government should be scrapped and the 69 new authorities should be headed by a directly-elected political figure .
In cities and large towns they should be called a mayor , in rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name .
But whatever they are called they should be given the mandate , powers , and resources to improve the lives of people living and in working in them .
Responsibility for key areas of the levelling up agenda such as housing delivery , infrastructure , management of public transport , and adult education provision should all be moved out of Whitehall and put in the hands of the new leaders and their authorities .
The relevant government departments – Business , Transport , Education – could then be shrunk to reflect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Housing , Communities and Local Government could be transformed into an England Office similar to the Scotland , Wales , and Northern Ireland Offices and , like in the devolved nations , be given responsibility for managing England ’ s devolution deals .
This simpler system , with a directly elected political leader , will begin to address the lack of public engagement in local politics .
Though less than one in ten people nationally can name their council leader , in the Tees Valley , 40 per cent of people know the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they can name a policy achievement of his .
But it would be disingenuous to restructure local government and give it extra powers and responsibilities , without also providing it with the funding it needs to make good on these extra responsibilities .
Devolving control over how local business rates , council tax , and charges are raised and spent , and giving greater discretion to councils on how they manage their budgets would give them the freedom and incentives they need to drive forward improvements in their areas – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade of local government austerity .
Opponents of what I ’ m proposing will tell you that , despite its flaws , the current system works ; and perhaps on a purely functional day-to-day level it does .
But we should be asking ourselves what we want from local government in the future , particularly in light of the Covid-19 crisis .
Should it just be emptying bins and collecting library fines ?
Or should it be applying its deep understanding of England ’ s cities , towns , and counties to deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue it ’ s the latter , and I hope that ministers writing the devolution white paper , agree with me .

Andrew Carter is Chief Executive of Centre for Cities, who have published a new report Levelling Up Local Government in England
Last year, the Conservative election manifesto pledged to deliver a system of full English devolution and, as I understand it, the Government is now finalising these plans in a white paper due to be published this autumn.
Reform of England’s complicated local government structures is long overdue. There are currently 349 district, county, unitary, and combined authorities in England, as well as the Greater London Authority, many with overlapping responsibilities and competing interests.
Nottingham, for example, has nine separate councils, all with responsibilities for local planning and economic development in their part of the city. The seven district councils have responsibility for new housing, but then the two county councils are charged with delivering the transport infrastructure that new homes need. This bureaucratic arrangement makes joined-up long-term strategic decision making about Nottingham’s future much more difficult than it needs to be.
Additionally, many smaller district councils have neither the capacity nor the political will to deliver the large-scale housing and infrastructure projects needed to level up their areas, and the financial challenges of maintaining this patchwork system are increasing every year.
But the problems in English local government are about more than just function and finance. There is also a democratic deficit, with little public awareness or understanding of councils’ roles. Back in 2012, just eight per cent of people could name their local council leader, and I doubt this figure has improved much since then.
And a system in which a council leader is also a local ward councillor directly answerable to only to a tiny electorate makes it difficult for them to balance their voters’ priorities with their duty to the wider area. This means that hyper-local issues can crowd out the long-term planning and investment that an area needs.
The current system is the product of decades of political compromise and piecemeal reform, but it’s having a damaging effect on the places that the Prime Minister has promised to level up, many of which have been hit harder economically by the Covid-19 pandemic than more affluent areas. We can’t keep tinkering around the edges – only wholescale reform will work now.
First, England’s existing 349 councils should be reduced down to 69 new, larger unitary and combined authorities that mirror as much as possible the economic areas in which people live and work. This would make joined-up strategic decision-making far easier.
When I make this argument, people often stress the importance of ensuring that historic or cultural boundaries are reflected in local government. I have two points to make on this: First, civic identity is not determined by local authority boundaries; it is possible to celebrate civic identity while having council boundaries that reflect the area over which people live and work. And second, as our proposals show, it is possible to create a new system that aligns political and economic geography whilst respecting existing historic county boundaries.
Second, the leader-and-cabinet model for local government should be scrapped and the 69 new authorities should be headed by a directly-elected political figure. In cities and large towns they should be called a mayor, in rural areas they could have a more appropriate name. But whatever they are called they should be given the mandate, powers, and resources to improve the lives of people living and in working in them.
Responsibility for key areas of the levelling up agenda such as housing delivery, infrastructure, management of public transport, and adult education provision should all be moved out of Whitehall and put in the hands of the new leaders and their authorities. The relevant government departments – Business, Transport, Education – could then be shrunk to reflect their smaller roles and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government could be transformed into an England Office similar to the Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland Offices and, like in the devolved nations, be given responsibility for managing England’s devolution deals.
This simpler system, with a directly elected political leader, will begin to address the lack of public engagement in local politics. Though less than one in ten people nationally can name their council leader, in the Tees Valley, 40 per cent of people know the directly elected Conservative mayor, Ben Houchan, and they can name a policy achievement of his.
But it would be disingenuous to restructure local government and give it extra powers and responsibilities, without also providing it with the funding it needs to make good on these extra responsibilities. Devolving control over how local business rates, council tax, and charges are raised and spent, and giving greater discretion to councils on how they manage their budgets would give them the freedom and incentives they need to drive forward improvements in their areas – and would be a welcome relief after a decade of local government austerity.
Opponents of what I’m proposing will tell you that, despite its flaws, the current system works; and perhaps on a purely functional day-to-day level it does. But we should be asking ourselves what we want from local government in the future, particularly in light of the Covid-19 crisis. Should it just be emptying bins and collecting library fines? Or should it be applying its deep understanding of England’s cities, towns, and counties to deliver the levelling up agenda? I would argue it’s the latter, and I hope that ministers writing the devolution white paper, agree with me.


conservativehome--2020-09-22--Starmer’s speech: Passionate, confident – yet, will it prove his patriotism?

After Labour ’ s disastrous performance at the last General Election , Keir Starmer was keen to put the Corbyn years behind him at the party ’ s conference today .
He gave one of the most passionate speeches of his career , telling voters that “ [ t ] his party is under new leadership.
” It had been carefully constructed , and tried to address many of the reasons why Labour lost , as well as giving Starmer some much-needed personality .
At one point he commented that “ while Boris Johnson was writing flippant columns about bendy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecuting terrorists ” .
He later attacked the Tories on Covid-19 and social care , the latter of which the Labour leader said was a “ disgrace to a rich nation ” .
Starmer reinforced his commitment to “ root out the antisemitism that has infected ” Labour and repeatedly spoke about “ security ” , in yet another attempt to reverse Corbynism .
No doubt many voters will still remember the former leader failing to condemn Russia after it launched a chemical attack on Britain , among other events , and Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – to prove that Labour can protect the country .
This is why patriotism was such a dominant feature of Starmer ’ s speech .
He talked about “ the country I love ” ; his desire for Britain to be “ the best country to grow up in and the best country to grow old in ” , and how he ’ s “ hugely ambitious for this country ” .
But will this do the trick ?
Much of the reaction – on Twitter , at least – was incredibly optimistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling on Labour – which shows the party closing in on Conservatives .
Even so , it ’ ll take a lot more than overuse of the word “ country ” to convince the electorate , particularly in the Red Wall , that Labour is now patriotic .
The biggest reason for this is Brexit , in which voters expected all politicians to stick up for Britain – and instead found Starmer and others pushing for a second referendum .
Today he promised that Labour “ is not going to be a party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and it ’ s no wonder he wants to move on , given his previous actions .
During the speech he discussed “ decency ” and “ fairness ” , but 17.4 million people will be wondering where these traits were when he , and other MPs , tried to overturn their vote .
Furthermore , Starmer ’ s speech lacked substance .
Though he has promised new leadership for the party , it ’ s not obvious what this looks like in policy terms , although he promised Labour ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arriving ” ( whatever that means ) .
Without more concrete proposals , and given the continued factionalism of Labour , many will simply think it sounds like more of the same .

After Labour’s disastrous performance at the last General Election, Keir Starmer was keen to put the Corbyn years behind him at the party’s conference today. He gave one of the most passionate speeches of his career, telling voters that “[t]his party is under new leadership.”
It had been carefully constructed, and tried to address many of the reasons why Labour lost, as well as giving Starmer some much-needed personality. At one point he commented that “while Boris Johnson was writing flippant columns about bendy bananas, I was defending victims and prosecuting terrorists”. He later attacked the Tories on Covid-19 and social care, the latter of which the Labour leader said was a “disgrace to a rich nation”.
Starmer reinforced his commitment to “root out the antisemitism that has infected” Labour and repeatedly spoke about “security”, in yet another attempt to reverse Corbynism. No doubt many voters will still remember the former leader failing to condemn Russia after it launched a chemical attack on Britain, among other events, and Starmer knows he has a lot to do – to prove that Labour can protect the country.
This is why patriotism was such a dominant feature of Starmer’s speech. He talked about “the country I love”; his desire for Britain to be “the best country to grow up in and the best country to grow old in”, and how he’s “hugely ambitious for this country”.
But will this do the trick? Much of the reaction – on Twitter, at least – was incredibly optimistic about Starmer, partly spurred by recent polling on Labour – which shows the party closing in on Conservatives.
Even so, it’ll take a lot more than overuse of the word “country” to convince the electorate, particularly in the Red Wall, that Labour is now patriotic. The biggest reason for this is Brexit, in which voters expected all politicians to stick up for Britain – and instead found Starmer and others pushing for a second referendum.
Today he promised that Labour “is not going to be a party that keeps banging on about Europe” – and it’s no wonder he wants to move on, given his previous actions. During the speech he discussed “decency” and “fairness”, but 17.4 million people will be wondering where these traits were when he, and other MPs, tried to overturn their vote.
Furthermore, Starmer’s speech lacked substance. Though he has promised new leadership for the party, it’s not obvious what this looks like in policy terms, although he promised Labour’s manifesto “will sound like the future arriving” (whatever that means). Without more concrete proposals, and given the continued factionalism of Labour, many will simply think it sounds like more of the same.


conservativehome--2020-09-22--WATCH: “We reserve the right to deploy greater fire power, with significantly greater restrictions”,

WATCH: “We reserve the right to deploy greater fire power, with significantly greater restrictions”, says Johnson

“ We should assume the restrictions that I have announced will remain in place for six months ” PM Boris @ @ @ @ @ fail to bring the R below 1 , then we reserve the right to deploy @ @ @ @ @ significantly greater restrictions ” https : //t.co/NcgD0xk77O pic.twitter.com/eddnby3OEc

“We should assume the restrictions that I have announced will remain in place for six months”
PM Boris Johnson adds if we “fail to bring the R below 1, then we reserve the right to deploy greater fire power, with significantly greater restrictions”https://t.co/NcgD0xk77O pic.twitter.com/eddnby3OEc
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) September 22, 2020


conservativehome--2020-09-22--“We are acting on the principle that a stitch in time saves nine.” The Prime Minister’s Coronavirus

“We are acting on the principle that a stitch in time saves nine.” The Prime Minister’s Coronavirus statement. Full text.

“ Mr Speaker , with your permission , I will make a statement on our response to the rising number of Coronavirus cases , and how we must act now to avoid still graver consequences later on .
At every stage in this pandemic we have struck a delicate balance between saving lives by protecting our NHS and minimising the wider impact of our restrictions .
And it is because of the common sense and fortitude of the British people that earlier this year we were able to avert an even worse catastrophe , forming a human shield around our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country moving again by reopening key sectors of our economy and returning children to school .
But we always knew that while we might have driven the virus into retreat , the prospect of a second wave was real .
And I am sorry to say that – as in Spain and France and many other countries – we have reached a perilous turning point .
A month ago , on average around a thousand people across the UK were testing positive for Coronavirus every day .
The latest figure has almost quadrupled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser warned that the doubling rate for new cases could be between seven and 20 days with the possibility of tens of thousands of new infections next month .
I wish I could reassure the House that the growing number of cases is merely a function of more testing , but a rising proportion of the tests themselves are yielding a positive result .
I also wish I could say that more of our people now have the antibodies to keep the virus off , but the latest data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us are in this position .
It is true that the number of new cases is growing fastest amongst those aged 20-29 , but the evidence shows that the virus is spreading to other more vulnerable age groups , as we have seen in France and Spain where this has led to increased hospital admissions and , sadly , more deaths .
In the last fortnight , daily hospital admissions in England have more than doubled .
Tens of thousands of daily infections in October would , as night follows day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November and those numbers would continue to grow unless we act .
And as with all respiratory viruses , Covid is likely to spread faster as autumn becomes winter .
Yesterday , on the advice of the four Chief Medical Officers , the UK ’ s Covid alert level was raised from 3 to 4 , the second most serious stage , meaning that transmission is high or rising exponentially .
So this is the moment when we must act .
If we can curb the number of daily infections , and reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can save lives , protect the NHS , and the most vulnerable , and shelter the economy from the far sterner and more costly measures that would inevitably become necessary later .
So we are acting on the principle that a stitch in time saves nine .
The Government will introduce new restrictions in England , carefully judged to achieve the maximum reduction in the R number with the minimum damage to lives and livelihoods .
I want to stress that this is by no means a return to the full lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a general instruction to stay at home .
We will ensure that schools , colleges and universities stay open – because nothing is more important than the education , health and well-being of our young people .
We will ensure that businesses can stay open in a Covid-compliant way .
However , we must take action to suppress the disease .
First , we are once again asking office workers who can work from home to do so .
In key public services – and in all professions where homeworking is not possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people should continue to attend their workplaces .
And like Government , this House will be free to take forward its business in a Covid-secure way which you , Mr Speaker , have pioneered .
Second , from Thursday all pubs , bars and restaurants must operate table-service only , Mr Speaker , except for takeaways .
Together with all hospitality venues , they must close at 10pm .
To help the police to enforce this rule , I am afraid that means alas closing , and not just calling for last orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will apply to takeaways – though deliveries can continue thereafter .
I am sorry this will hurt many businesses just getting back on their feet , but we must act to stop the virus from being transmitted in bars and restaurants .
Third , we will extend the requirement to wear face coverings to include staff in retail , all users of taxis and private hire vehicles , and staff and customers in indoor hospitality , except when seated at a table to eat or drink .
Fourth , in retail , leisure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-secure guidelines will become legal obligations .
Businesses will be fined and could be closed if they breach these rules .
Fifth , now is the time to tighten up the rule of six .
I ’ m afraid that from Monday , a maximum of 15 people will be able to attend wedding ceremonies and receptions .
Though , up to 30 can still attend a funeral as now .
We will also have to extend the rule of six to all adult indoor team sports .
Finally , we have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now affecting our ability to reopen business conferences , exhibitions and large sporting events so we will not be able to do this from 1 October .
And I recognise the implications for our sports clubs , which are the life and soul of our communities , and my Right Honourable Friends the Chancellor and Culture Secretary are working urgently on what we can do now to support them .
Mr Speaker , these rules and measures will only work if people comply .
There is nothing more frustrating for the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comply than the sight of a few brazenly defying the rules .
So these rules will be enforced by tighter penalties .
We have already introduced a fine of up to £10,000 for those who fail to self-isolate and such fines will now be applied to businesses breaking Covid rules .
The penalty for failing to wear a mask or breaking the rule of six will now double to £200 for a first offence .
We will provide the police and local authorities with the extra funding they need , a greater police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option to draw on military support where required to free up the police .
The measures I have announced all apply in England and the Devolved Administrations are taking similar steps .
I spoke yesterday with each of the First Ministers and again today and I thank them for their collaboration : the health of everyone in these islands depends on our common success .
Already about 13 million people across England are living under various local restrictions , over and above national measures .
We will continue to act against local flare-ups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where necessary .
And I want to speak directly to those who were shielding early in the pandemic and may be anxious about being at greater risk .
Following advice from our senior clinicians , our guidance continues to be that you do not need to shield – except in local lockdown areas – and we will keep this under constant review .
I must emphasise that if all our actions fail to bring the R below 1 , then we reserve the right to deploy greater firepower , with significantly greater restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this step , as do the Devolved Administrations , but we will only be able to avoid it if our new measures work and our behaviour changes .
Mr Speaker , we will spare no effort in developing vaccines , treatments and new forms of mass-testing , but unless we palpably make progress , we should assume that the restrictions I have announced will remain in place for perhaps six months .
For the time being , this virus is a fact of our lives and I must tell the House and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue .
We will not listen to those who say let the virus rip ; nor to those who urge a permanent lockdown ; we are taking decisive and appropriate steps to balance saving lives with protecting jobs and livelihoods .
I know all of this will have profound consequences for our constituents , so the Government will give the House every opportunity to scrutinise our decisions .
In addition to regular statements and debates , Hon Members will be able to question the government ’ s scientific advisers more regularly , gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your constituencies and join daily calls with my RH Friend the Paymaster General .
After six months of restrictions , it would be tempting to hope that the threat has faded , and seek comfort in the belief that if you have avoided the virus so far then you are somehow immune .
I have to say that it is that kind of complacency that could be our undoing .
If we fail to act together now we will not only place others at risk but jeopardise our own futures with the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to take .
Mr Speaker , no British Government would wish to stifle our freedoms in the ways that we have found necessary this year .
Yet even now we can draw some comfort from the fact that schools and universities and places of worship are staying open , shops can serve their customers , construction workers can go to building sites , and the vast majority of the UK economy can continue moving forwards .
We are also , Mr Speaker , better prepared for a second wave , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Nightingale Hospitals , and a hundred times as much testing .
So now it falls to each of us and every one of us to remember the basics – wash our hands , cover our faces , observe social distancing – and follow the rules .
Then we can fight back against this virus , shelter our economy from even greater damage , protect the most vulnerable in care homes and hospitals , and save many more lives .
And I commend this statement to the House .
”

“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will make a statement on our response to the rising number of Coronavirus cases, and how we must act now to avoid still graver consequences later on.
At every stage in this pandemic we have struck a delicate balance between saving lives by protecting our NHS and minimising the wider impact of our restrictions.
And it is because of the common sense and fortitude of the British people that earlier this year we were able to avert an even worse catastrophe, forming a human shield around our NHS, and then by getting our country moving again by reopening key sectors of our economy and returning children to school.
But we always knew that while we might have driven the virus into retreat, the prospect of a second wave was real.
And I am sorry to say that – as in Spain and France and many other countries – we have reached a perilous turning point.
A month ago, on average around a thousand people across the UK were testing positive for Coronavirus every day.
The latest figure has almost quadrupled to 3,929.
Yesterday the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser warned that the doubling rate for new cases could be between seven and 20 days with the possibility of tens of thousands of new infections next month.
I wish I could reassure the House that the growing number of cases is merely a function of more testing, but a rising proportion of the tests themselves are yielding a positive result.
I also wish I could say that more of our people now have the antibodies to keep the virus off, but the latest data suggest that fewer than 8 per cent of us are in this position.
It is true that the number of new cases is growing fastest amongst those aged 20-29, but the evidence shows that the virus is spreading to other more vulnerable age groups, as we have seen in France and Spain where this has led to increased hospital admissions and, sadly, more deaths.
In the last fortnight, daily hospital admissions in England have more than doubled. Tens of thousands of daily infections in October would, as night follows day, lead to hundreds of daily deaths in November and those numbers would continue to grow unless we act.
And as with all respiratory viruses, Covid is likely to spread faster as autumn becomes winter. Yesterday, on the advice of the four Chief Medical Officers, the UK’s Covid alert level was raised from 3 to 4, the second most serious stage, meaning that transmission is high or rising exponentially.
So this is the moment when we must act. If we can curb the number of daily infections, and reduce the Reproduction rate to 1, then we can save lives, protect the NHS, and the most vulnerable, and shelter the economy from the far sterner and more costly measures that would inevitably become necessary later.
So we are acting on the principle that a stitch in time saves nine. The Government will introduce new restrictions in England, carefully judged to achieve the maximum reduction in the R number with the minimum damage to lives and livelihoods.
I want to stress that this is by no means a return to the full lockdown of March. We are not issuing a general instruction to stay at home.
We will ensure that schools, colleges and universities stay open – because nothing is more important than the education, health and well-being of our young people.
We will ensure that businesses can stay open in a Covid-compliant way.
However, we must take action to suppress the disease.
First, we are once again asking office workers who can work from home to do so.
In key public services – and in all professions where homeworking is not possible, such as construction or retail – people should continue to attend their workplaces.
And like Government, this House will be free to take forward its business in a Covid-secure way which you, Mr Speaker, have pioneered.
Second, from Thursday all pubs, bars and restaurants must operate table-service only, Mr Speaker, except for takeaways.
Together with all hospitality venues, they must close at 10pm.
To help the police to enforce this rule, I am afraid that means alas closing, and not just calling for last orders. Simplicity is paramount.
The same will apply to takeaways – though deliveries can continue thereafter.
I am sorry this will hurt many businesses just getting back on their feet, but we must act to stop the virus from being transmitted in bars and restaurants.
Third, we will extend the requirement to wear face coverings to include staff in retail, all users of taxis and private hire vehicles, and staff and customers in indoor hospitality, except when seated at a table to eat or drink.
Fourth, in retail, leisure, tourism and other sectors, our Covid-secure guidelines will become legal obligations. Businesses will be fined and could be closed if they breach these rules.
Fifth, now is the time to tighten up the rule of six. I’m afraid that from Monday, a maximum of 15 people will be able to attend wedding ceremonies and receptions.
Though, up to 30 can still attend a funeral as now. We will also have to extend the rule of six to all adult indoor team sports.
Finally, we have to acknowledge that the spread of the virus is now affecting our ability to reopen business conferences, exhibitions and large sporting events so we will not be able to do this from 1 October.
And I recognise the implications for our sports clubs, which are the life and soul of our communities, and my Right Honourable Friends the Chancellor and Culture Secretary are working urgently on what we can do now to support them.
Mr Speaker, these rules and measures will only work if people comply.
There is nothing more frustrating for the vast majority, the law-abiding majority that do comply than the sight of a few brazenly defying the rules.
So these rules will be enforced by tighter penalties.
We have already introduced a fine of up to £10,000 for those who fail to self-isolate and such fines will now be applied to businesses breaking Covid rules.
The penalty for failing to wear a mask or breaking the rule of six will now double to £200 for a first offence.
We will provide the police and local authorities with the extra funding they need, a greater police presence on our streets, and the option to draw on military support where required to free up the police.
The measures I have announced all apply in England and the Devolved Administrations are taking similar steps. I spoke yesterday with each of the First Ministers and again today and I thank them for their collaboration: the health of everyone in these islands depends on our common success.
Already about 13 million people across England are living under various local restrictions, over and above national measures.
We will continue to act against local flare-ups, working alongside councils and strengthening measures where necessary.
And I want to speak directly to those who were shielding early in the pandemic and may be anxious about being at greater risk.
Following advice from our senior clinicians, our guidance continues to be that you do not need to shield – except in local lockdown areas – and we will keep this under constant review.
I must emphasise that if all our actions fail to bring the R below 1, then we reserve the right to deploy greater firepower, with significantly greater restrictions.
I fervently want to avoid taking this step, as do the Devolved Administrations, but we will only be able to avoid it if our new measures work and our behaviour changes.
Mr Speaker, we will spare no effort in developing vaccines, treatments and new forms of mass-testing, but unless we palpably make progress, we should assume that the restrictions I have announced will remain in place for perhaps six months.
For the time being, this virus is a fact of our lives and I must tell the House and the country that our fight against it will continue.
We will not listen to those who say let the virus rip; nor to those who urge a permanent lockdown; we are taking decisive and appropriate steps to balance saving lives with protecting jobs and livelihoods.
I know all of this will have profound consequences for our constituents, so the Government will give the House every opportunity to scrutinise our decisions.
In addition to regular statements and debates, Hon Members will be able to question the government’s scientific advisers more regularly, gain access to data about their constituencies, your constituencies and join daily calls with my RH Friend the Paymaster General.
After six months of restrictions, it would be tempting to hope that the threat has faded, and seek comfort in the belief that if you have avoided the virus so far then you are somehow immune.
I have to say that it is that kind of complacency that could be our undoing. If we fail to act together now we will not only place others at risk but jeopardise our own futures with the more drastic action that we would inevitably be forced to take.
Mr Speaker, no British Government would wish to stifle our freedoms in the ways that we have found necessary this year.
Yet even now we can draw some comfort from the fact that schools and universities and places of worship are staying open, shops can serve their customers, construction workers can go to building sites, and the vast majority of the UK economy can continue moving forwards.
We are also, Mr Speaker, better prepared for a second wave, with the ventilators, the PPE, the dexamethasone, the Nightingale Hospitals, and a hundred times as much testing.
So now it falls to each of us and every one of us to remember the basics – wash our hands, cover our faces, observe social distancing – and follow the rules.
Then we can fight back against this virus,
shelter our economy from even greater damage,
protect the most vulnerable in care homes and hospitals,
safeguard our NHS
and save many more lives.
And I commend this statement to the House.”