conservativehome--2020-12-06--Is Macron really prepared to go for No Deal? And if so, is Merkel really willing to try and stop him

Is Macron really prepared to go for No Deal? And if so, is Merkel really willing to try and stop him?

The Withdrawal Agreement negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union arguably boiled down to one between the UK and a single member state : Ireland .
For the most knotty of the three main issues at stake was neither money nor citizens ’ rights , but where the UK/EU border was drawn in relation to the island of Ireland .
Once the UK and the Irish Republic had clinched a deal over it , as presaged by Boris Johnson and Leo Veradkar at their meeting in the Wirral , the Withdrawal Agreement was swiftly settled and signed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the UK and a single member state , but one of the latter may be about to decide it .
This time round , that country isn ’ t Ireland .
It is France .
Angela Merkel ’ s spokesman said recently that “ for the Chancellor , and that hasn ’ t changed for weeks , the willingness to compromise is needed on both sides .
[ our italics ] .
” “ If you want to have a deal , both sides need to move towards each other .
Everybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines , that ’ s clear but there ’ s always room for compromise.
” These remarks were clearly aimed not only at the UK , but also at a loose coalition of EU member states of which the most prominent member is France .
When we last wrote about the negotiation , the two sides of the table were reported to be “ miles apart ” on fishing , closer on state aid – and at loggerheads over regulatory and other alignment .
The Government ’ s version of where the talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely at the beginning of the week than the end , because Emmanuel Macron made late demands on non-regression clauses and fishing .
Some reports suggests that his view is that – to borrow a phrase from the Brexiteer lexicon – “ No Deal is better than bad deal ” .
And that a loose coalition of countries including Belgium , Holland , Denmark , Italy and Spain agree .
Against them is set another which wants a deal rather than No Deal – led by Germany , and including Ireland , Austria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , there are questions about whether , in the last resort , Macron is really prepared to push for No Deal ; and whether , if he is , Angela Merkel is really willing to stop him .
When Brexiteers look at the EU , their gaze tends to fix on Germany – partly because it is the biggest economic power within the Union ; partly because of twentieth century history , with its two world wars .
But the present state of play in the negotiation is a reminder not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in casting a veto when the UK and Europe are concerned – De Gaulle ’ s Non of 1962 .
Indeed , there is more UK-German understanding on the centre-right .
Both countries have a broad post-war history of being pro-market , pro-free trade and pro-American .
And there are institutions through which such Anglo-German conversation is mediated – such as the Konrad Adenauer Stifftung , which has a presence in London ( and had a larger one until fairly recently ) .
There is no real equivalent on the centre-right ( though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Anglo-French Parliamentary Group are all Conservatives : Stephen Crabb , Edward Leigh and Bob Neill ) .
This absence is not , on reflection , all that surprising , because France ’ s centre-right has been , over time , dirigiste in outlook rather than market-orientated , often protectionist , and hostile to American leadership .
Furthermore , it is republican where the UK ’ s is monarchist , and less bound up with party : necessarily , since De Gaulle ’ s RPR went and Jacques Chirac ’ s UMP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republicans ” by Nicholas Sarkozy .
Above all , Britain and France have tended to approach dealing with Germany from different ends , hence their opposing reflexes when it comes to the EU , shaped by wartime and historical experience .
France ’ s gambit has been to seek to tie Germany down through European institutions , beginning with the Coal and Steel community and ending with the EU itself .
Britain has ultimately opted to cut itself loose from Germany , and from the entire EU order that France played such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to restrain its neighbour .
Indeed , another centre-right French leader , Giscard d ’ Estaing ( who died last week ) drew up the constitution for Europe rejected by the French people themselves in the 2005 referendum .
Tony Blair pledged a referendum on that constitution .
And the Conservatives argued for one on the Lisbon Treaty , which reproduced substantial parts of it .
Which helped to set the UK on the road to the 2016 referendum .
De Gaulle himself wasn ’ t a European federalist : far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe of nations ” – but didn ’ t see Britain as potential partner in helping to create one .
This was because he believed , correctly , that the UK would not detach itself from the United States .
And that leadership in Europe must come from within Europe itself – and from one country in particular : his own Marcon is no Gaullist .
Our columnist Garvan Walshe wrote after his 2017 election victory that “ the most ideologically pro-European man since d ’ Estaing now occupies the Elysée ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with de Gaulle a national trait which the latter exemplified : the conviction that France is central to the world ’ s civilisation and culture .
Perhaps this is the real certaine idee de la France .
Over at UnHerd , Aris Roussinos describes how Macron is setting himself up as the uncompromising champion of enlightenment values or , the author puts it… “ …a defender of the French and European Enlightenment against Chinese totalitarianism , the seductive lures of Europe ’ s radical right , and the counter-Enlightenment obscurantism of both jihadists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cameron ’ s “ muscular liberalism ” made flesh – muscular being an appropriate word here , as French riot police wade in against anti-government protesters in the same uninhibited way as they did against the gilets jaunes .
Which is a reminder that French politics has a lower boiling-point than our own .
But for all the differences of outlook , the two countries remain close as the only two substantial military powers in western Europe .
Only last week , Ben Wallace set out the terms of engagement for the 300 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United Nations mission in Mali .
The country is a former French colony ; France provides the biggest element of the U.N mission , and has been actively engaged there in military action against Islamist extremists during recent years .
“ The mission to the Sahel region of Africa has been described as the world ’ s most dangerous peacekeeping deployment , the BBC reports .
It is an intriguing setting for what looks like the first substantial deployment of combat troops in a new country since the Iraq War ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No Deal on trade would scarcely be helpful to this and other co-operation on security .
Government sources are ramping up the possibility of the talks breaking up without agreement .
If the reporting of some close to the action is right , Boris Johnson and Ursula von der Leyen talked yesterday with the negotiation at a real impasse .
And , like Johnson , Macron has his own domestic audience to please .
Perhaps the French view is that the UK would crumble after a few weeks of No Deal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ escalation , given Johnson ’ s mandate , his party ’ s Brexit take , and his majority ?
In which context , it may be worth noting that today ’ s Observer finds an expectation among some on the EU side that a deal will reached before Wednesday and signed off at a virtual summit on Thursday .

The Withdrawal Agreement negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union arguably boiled down to one between the UK and a single member state: Ireland.
For the most knotty of the three main issues at stake was neither money nor citizens’ rights, but where the UK/EU border was drawn in relation to the island of Ireland.
Once the UK and the Irish Republic had clinched a deal over it, as presaged by Boris Johnson and Leo Veradkar at their meeting in the Wirral, the Withdrawal Agreement was swiftly settled and signed.
This Brexit trade negotiation is not exactly between the UK and a single member state, but one of the latter may be about to decide it. This time round, that country isn’t Ireland. It is France.
Angela Merkel’s spokesman said recently that “for the Chancellor, and that hasn’t changed for weeks, the willingness to compromise is needed on both sides. [our italics].”
“If you want to have a deal, both sides need to move towards each other. Everybody has their principles, there are red lines, that’s clear but there’s always room for compromise.”
These remarks were clearly aimed not only at the UK, but also at a loose coalition of EU member states of which the most prominent member is France.
When we last wrote about the negotiation, the two sides of the table were reported to be “miles apart” on fishing, closer on state aid – and at loggerheads over regulatory and other alignment.
The Government’s version of where the talks stand is that a deal looked more likely at the beginning of the week than the end, because Emmanuel Macron made late demands on non-regression clauses and fishing.
Some reports suggests that his view is that – to borrow a phrase from the Brexiteer lexicon – “No Deal is better than bad deal”. And that a loose coalition of countries including Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Italy and Spain agree.
Against them is set another which wants a deal rather than No Deal – led by Germany, and including Ireland, Austria and some central and eastern European states.
However, there are questions about whether, in the last resort, Macron is really prepared to push for No Deal; and whether, if he is, Angela Merkel is really willing to stop him.
When Brexiteers look at the EU, their gaze tends to fix on Germany – partly because it is the biggest economic power within the Union; partly because of twentieth century history, with its two world wars.
But the present state of play in the negotiation is a reminder not to overlook the country which has form in casting a veto when the UK and Europe are concerned – De Gaulle’s Non of 1962.
Indeed, there is more UK-German understanding on the centre-right. Both countries have a broad post-war history of being pro-market, pro-free trade and pro-American.
And there are institutions through which such Anglo-German conversation is mediated – such as the Konrad Adenauer Stifftung, which has a presence in London (and had a larger one until fairly recently).
There is no real equivalent on the centre-right (though, interestingly, the three main officers of the Anglo-French Parliamentary Group are all Conservatives: Stephen Crabb, Edward Leigh and Bob Neill).
This absence is not, on reflection, all that surprising, because France’s centre-right has been, over time, dirigiste in outlook rather than market-orientated, often protectionist, and hostile to American leadership.
Furthermore, it is republican where the UK’s is monarchist, and less bound up with party: necessarily, since De Gaulle’s RPR went and Jacques Chirac’s UMP came – later to be rebranded “the Republicans” by Nicholas Sarkozy.
Above all, Britain and France have tended to approach dealing with Germany from different ends, hence their opposing reflexes when it comes to the EU, shaped by wartime and historical experience.
France’s gambit has been to seek to tie Germany down through European institutions, beginning with the Coal and Steel community and ending with the EU itself.
Britain has ultimately opted to cut itself loose from Germany, and from the entire EU order that France played such a significant part in creating, partly in order to restrain its neighbour.
Indeed, another centre-right French leader, Giscard d’Estaing (who died last week) drew up the constitution for Europe rejected by the French people themselves in the 2005 referendum.
Tony Blair pledged a referendum on that constitution. And the Conservatives argued for one on the Lisbon Treaty, which reproduced substantial parts of it. Which helped to set the UK on the road to the 2016 referendum.
De Gaulle himself wasn’t a European federalist: far from it. He wanted a “Europe of nations” – but didn’t see Britain as potential partner in helping to create one.
This was because he believed, correctly, that the UK would not detach itself from the United States. And that leadership in Europe must come from within Europe itself – and from one country in particular: his own
Marcon is no Gaullist. Our columnist Garvan Walshe wrote after his 2017 election victory that “the most ideologically pro-European man since d’Estaing now occupies the Elysée”.
Nonetheless, he has, in common with de Gaulle a national trait which the latter exemplified: the conviction that France is central to the world’s civilisation and culture. Perhaps this is the real certaine idee de la France.
Over at UnHerd, Aris Roussinos describes how Macron is setting himself up as the uncompromising champion of enlightenment values or, the author puts it…
“…a defender of the French and European Enlightenment against Chinese totalitarianism, the seductive lures of Europe’s radical right, and the counter-Enlightenment obscurantism of both jihadists and Americans”.
This is David Cameron’s “muscular liberalism” made flesh – muscular being an appropriate word here, as French riot police wade in against anti-government protesters in the same uninhibited way as they did against the gilets jaunes.
Which is a reminder that French politics has a lower boiling-point than our own. But for all the differences of outlook, the two countries remain close as the only two substantial military powers in western Europe.
Only last week, Ben Wallace set out the terms of engagement for the 300 UK ground troops now serving as part of the United Nations mission in Mali.
The country is a former French colony; France provides the biggest element of the U.N mission, and has been actively engaged there in military action against Islamist extremists during recent years.
“The mission to the Sahel region of Africa has been described as the world’s most dangerous peacekeeping deployment, the BBC reports.
It is an intriguing setting for what looks like the first substantial deployment of combat troops in a new country since the Iraq War (with the exception of special forces).
No Deal on trade would scarcely be helpful to this and other co-operation on security. Government sources are ramping up the possibility of the talks breaking up without agreement.
If the reporting of some close to the action is right, Boris Johnson and Ursula von der Leyen talked yesterday with the negotiation at a real impasse. And, like Johnson, Macron has his own domestic audience to please.
Perhaps the French view is that the UK would crumble after a few weeks of No Deal. But is climbdown really more likely than escalation, given Johnson’s mandate, his party’s Brexit take, and his majority?
In which context, it may be worth noting that today’s Observer finds an expectation among some on the EU side that a deal will reached before Wednesday and signed off at a virtual summit on Thursday.


conservativehome--2020-12-06--WATCH: “We cannot be the only country in the world that doesn’t control its own waters” – Eustice

# Marr : Can you keep your promises to farmers and fishermen ?
Environment Secretary George Eustice : `` We @ @ @ @ @ be the only country in the world that doesn ’ t control its own waters @ @ @ @ @ //t.co/XJOGgZil5C pic.twitter.com/siS6eh7w0W

#Marr: Can you keep your promises to farmers and fishermen?
Environment Secretary George Eustice: "We will see… we cannot be the only country in the world that doesn’t control its own waters"#Brexit https://t.co/XJOGgZil5C pic.twitter.com/siS6eh7w0W
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 6, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-06--WATCH: Will Labour back a Johnson Brexit trade deal or not? Reeves takes the same route as Thomas-Sy

WATCH: Will Labour back a Johnson Brexit trade deal or not? Reeves takes the same route as Thomas-Symonds.

# Marr : If the Government gets a trade deal with the EU , will Labour back it ?
Shadow @ @ @ @ @ : `` We ’ ll have to look at the deal… we ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ blank cheque '' # Brexit https : //t.co/XJOGgZil5C pic.twitter.com/3GRsCOMT1b

#Marr: If the Government gets a trade deal with the EU, will Labour back it?
Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Rachel Reeves: "We’ll have to look at the deal… we’re not going to give them a blank cheque"#Brexit https://t.co/XJOGgZil5C pic.twitter.com/3GRsCOMT1b
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) December 6, 2020


conservativehome--2020-12-07--No Deal. The spectre of Suez or the power of patriotism?

That Britain will be in neither the Single Market nor the Customs Union from January 1 is “ the price the rest of us in the pro-EU camp will pay for trying , in the years following 2016 , to reverse the referendum decision rather than achieve the least damaging form of Brexit ” .
Peter Mandelson ’ s recent claim provoked anguished reprisals from other Remainers who , like him at the time , wanted Nick Boles ’ Norway-type option smothered at birth so that their cherished second referendum might flourish .
The first part of the scheme succeeded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perished – leaving Brexit alive and accomplished , perhaps now on No Deal terms .
Is there a moral for the near future in this tale from the recent past ?
For the event of No Deal , those Remainers will target their affrontedness , rage and frustration on the Leave campaigners once again .
The sum of their case will that the latter promised Brexit would come with a trade deal , and that it hasn ’ t .
Fair enough ( in most though not all cases ) .
They will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deal will shipwreck the British economy .
In the short-term , it would be surprising if it didn ’ t cause a lot of disruption .
Furthermore , there is no guarantee that a trade agreement would then be reached swiftly , because both sides of the table come quickly to believe that a deal is better than disruption .
Neither might be willing to be seen to back down .
Anyway , the Remainers will go further still , arguing that the EU ’ s trade offer was a reasonable one and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not .
Some will call for Britain to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union after all – perhaps including Keir Starmer , one of the main movers in the bid to asphixiate that option only a few years ago .
Others will go the whole hog and call for rejoining .
Joe Biden is sure to make his views known , by the way .
That will unleash a wave of claims that the UK is now “ isolated ” , “ friendless ” , “ without influence ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” – and so on .
Those Remainers will draw parallels with Suez , when American economic pressure was followed by Eden ’ s Government reversing its policy , and in due course by the then Prime Minister ’ s resignation .
In the meantime , the Government will be busy telling its own side of the story .
George Eustice gave it a trial canter yesterday , when he said that “ we can not be the only country in the world that doesn ’ t control its own waters ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be that the EU wanted to subjugate the UK , uniquely among independent countries negotiating a trade deal , to its own rules , standards and laws .
What would be the point of Brexit , endorsed first at a referendum and then at an election , if Britain was bound in this way ?
If it is to happen at all , we must be free to set our own standards , decide our own choices and make our own laws .
Blame the EU , not us , Ministers will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ports and shortages in shops .
Furthermore , the argument will run , Brexit has always been about the longer-term , not just the short – whether the ride in the next few months is bumpy or much smoother than expected .
And that future does not simply equal new trade deals , welcome though these would be .
Rather , it has always suggested a restructuring from our recent model of an overvalued pound , finance based on the City of London , high migration and a prosperous southern hinterland to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services and manufacturing tilted back towards the latter , lower migration , a more even spread of wealth – and technology-driven escape from a low-growth EU zone .
Whatever view you take , life will go on .
The UK will still be a UN Security Council member , one of the G7 , one of only two western European countries with substantial armed forces , at the centre of the Commonwealth , a major provider of aid ( though no longer at 0.7 per cent of GNI ) – and , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner on the ground in the French-led mission in Mali .
Eden had a majority of 60 when the Suez crisis took place , not far off Boris Johnson ’ s larger majority of 80 .
The passions it aroused have been paralleled in our post-war history only by Brexit itself ( and class divisions over the two seem to have been much the same , with strong working-class support both for leaving the EU and for Eden ’ s throw of the military dice over the canal ) .
But are Brexit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sparked by an unexpected event : Nasser ’ s seizure of the canal .
The former was legitimised first by the 2016 referendum and later by last year ’ s election .
Boris Johnson ’ s mandate rests on his call to the nation to “ get Brexit done ” ” .
Furthermore , the Conservative Parliamentary Party has lost some of Brexit ’ s most determined critics .
They have stood down ( Philip Hammond ) , lost the whip , not regained it and stood down ( Rory Stewart ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and lost at the polls ( Dominic Grieve ) , joined other political parties ( Sam Gymiah ) or tried to found a new one ( Anna Soubry ) .
It is true that no Cabinet member is enthusiastic about No Deal .
Michael Gove is worried about the effects it would have in Scotland .
The institutional interests of the departments are against it , including the Treasury – with the possible exception of that most pro-Leave of them , International Trade .
And although a smallish minority of the Parliamentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and indeed on tearing up the Withdrawal Agreement , that is not the position of the majority , which includes a number of former Remainers and anti-No Deal Leavers .
But being reflexively hostile to No Deal is one thing ; siding with the EU in a trade row would be quite another .
Not that it will necessarily come to this ; our view throughout has been that there will be a deal .
It seems to have been shared by just about everyone else , including the unions , the institutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , voters…and cynics , who suspect that a late crisis is invariably contrived , in EU talks , to smooth the way for a deal – and claims of victory on both sides , with Government sources confiding in this case that “ Boris has played a blinder ” .
So No Deal , if it happens , will come as a profound shock .
And will pit the spectre of Suez against the power of patriotism – in England and Wales , at least .
Whose side are you on ?
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Macron ’ s ?
You may object that this would be a shocking distortion of patriotism , and that Remainers are patriots , too .
But that is how it is , or at least may be , in a country in which patriotism , Parliamentary government and sovereignty are combined in so much of the popular imagination .
The Mandelsons of this world over-reached in their opposition to Brexit , and by aiming to get everything they wanted ended up with nothing .
Suez is not the only way in which history @ @ @ @

That Britain will be in neither the Single Market nor the Customs Union from January 1 is “the price the rest of us in the pro-EU camp will pay for trying, in the years following 2016, to reverse the referendum decision rather than achieve the least damaging form of Brexit”.
Peter Mandelson’s recent claim provoked anguished reprisals from other Remainers who, like him at the time, wanted Nick Boles’ Norway-type option smothered at birth so that their cherished second referendum might flourish. The first part of the scheme succeeded and the second failed. Both infants perished – leaving Brexit alive and accomplished, perhaps now on No Deal terms.
Is there a moral for the near future in this tale from the recent past?
For the event of No Deal, those Remainers will target their affrontedness, rage and frustration on the Leave campaigners once again. The sum of their case will that the latter promised Brexit would come with a trade deal, and that it hasn’t. Fair enough (in most though not all cases).
They will then go further, claiming that No Deal will shipwreck the British economy. In the short-term, it would be surprising if it didn’t cause a lot of disruption. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a trade agreement would then be reached swiftly, because both sides of the table come quickly to believe that a deal is better than disruption. Neither might be willing to be seen to back down.
Anyway, the Remainers will go further still, arguing that the EU’s trade offer was a reasonable one and that the Government’s negotiating position was not. Some will call for Britain to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union after all – perhaps including Keir Starmer, one of the main movers in the bid to asphixiate that option only a few years ago. Others will go the whole hog and call for rejoining.
Joe Biden is sure to make his views known, by the way. That will unleash a wave of claims that the UK is now “isolated”, “friendless”, “without influence”, “with diminished standing in the world” – and so on. Those Remainers will draw parallels with Suez, when American economic pressure was followed by Eden’s Government reversing its policy, and in due course by the then Prime Minister’s resignation.
In the meantime, the Government will be busy telling its own side of the story. George Eustice gave it a trial canter yesterday, when he said that “we cannot be the only country in the world that doesn’t control its own waters”. In a nutshell, Ministers’ case will be that the EU wanted to subjugate the UK, uniquely among independent countries negotiating a trade deal, to its own rules, standards and laws.
What would be the point of Brexit, endorsed first at a referendum and then at an election, if Britain was bound in this way? If it is to happen at all, we must be free to set our own standards, decide our own choices and make our own laws. Blame the EU, not us, Ministers will say, if there are queues outside ports and shortages in shops.
Furthermore, the argument will run, Brexit has always been about the longer-term, not just the short – whether the ride in the next few months is bumpy or much smoother than expected. And that future does not simply equal new trade deals, welcome though these would be.
Rather, it has always suggested a restructuring from our recent model of an overvalued pound, finance based on the City of London, high migration and a prosperous southern hinterland to a more competitive currency, a balance between services and manufacturing tilted back towards the latter, lower migration, a more even spread of wealth – and technology-driven escape from a low-growth EU zone.
Whatever view you take, life will go on. The UK will still be a UN Security Council member, one of the G7, one of only two western European countries with substantial armed forces, at the centre of the Commonwealth, a major provider of aid (though no longer at 0.7 per cent of GNI) – and, as we keep pointing out, a new partner on the ground in the French-led mission in Mali.
Eden had a majority of 60 when the Suez crisis took place, not far off Boris Johnson’s larger majority of 80. The passions it aroused have been paralleled in our post-war history only by Brexit itself (and class divisions over the two seem to have been much the same, with strong working-class support both for leaving the EU and for Eden’s throw of the military dice over the canal).
But are Brexit and Suez really comparable? The latter was sparked by an unexpected event: Nasser’s seizure of the canal. The former was legitimised first by the 2016 referendum and later by last year’s election. Boris Johnson’s mandate rests on his call to the nation to “get Brexit done””.
Furthermore, the Conservative Parliamentary Party has lost some of Brexit’s most determined critics. They have stood down (Philip Hammond), lost the whip, not regained it and stood down (Rory Stewart), lost the whip, not regained it and lost at the polls (Dominic Grieve), joined other political parties (Sam Gymiah) or tried to found a new one (Anna Soubry).
It is true that no Cabinet member is enthusiastic about No Deal. Michael Gove is worried about the effects it would have in Scotland. The institutional interests of the departments are against it, including the Treasury – with the possible exception of that most pro-Leave of them, International Trade.
And although a smallish minority of the Parliamentary Party are keen on No Deal, and indeed on tearing up the Withdrawal Agreement, that is not the position of the majority, which includes a number of former Remainers and anti-No Deal Leavers. But being reflexively hostile to No Deal is one thing; siding with the EU in a trade row would be quite another.
Not that it will necessarily come to this; our view throughout has been that there will be a deal.
It seems to have been shared by just about everyone else, including the unions, the institutional state, business, the political parties, voters…and cynics, who suspect that a late crisis is invariably contrived, in EU talks, to smooth the way for a deal – and claims of victory on both sides, with Government sources confiding in this case that “Boris has played a blinder”.
So No Deal, if it happens, will come as a profound shock. And will pit the spectre of Suez against the power of patriotism – in England and Wales, at least. Whose side are you on? Our own Prime Minister’s – or Macron’s?
You may object that this would be a shocking distortion of patriotism, and that Remainers are patriots, too. But that is how it is, or at least may be, in a country in which patriotism, Parliamentary government and sovereignty are combined in so much of the popular imagination.
The Mandelsons of this world over-reached in their opposition to Brexit, and by aiming to get everything they wanted ended up with nothing. Suez is not the only way in which history could repeat itself.


conservativehome--2020-12-07--Richard Holden: This first Johnson year demanded tough short-term decisions. The coming second will

Richard Holden: This first Johnson year demanded tough short-term decisions. The coming second will demand tough long-term ones.

A week may be a long time in politics , but a year is an eternity .
Another truth is that it is very rare that situations arise in politics that have never been encountered before .
But the best-laid plans of twelve months that were expected to be dominated by Britain getting out of the European Union , and starting to level up the country – so delivering on two of the major promises of the election – have been more than overshadowed by the borderless forces of nature .
In North West Durham , with the fells iced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other times when occurrences on the other side of the globe had dealt out a thrashing to well-laid plans .
In 1815 , a volcano in Indonesia exploded .
Mount Tambora was reduced by five thousands feet in height , as the mountain was blown into the incalculable pieces and up into the earth ’ s atmosphere in the greatest explosion in a thousand years .
1816 became known as the ‘ year without a summer.
’ Crops failed , the largest famine in the nineteenth century ripped through the world , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abounded .
While today we know more about why and how external shocks happen – facts that won ’ t stop some of those conspiracy theorists – this doesn ’ t alter the impact of such events .
No-one can doubt that the global Coronavirus pandemic has hit every aspect of our lives , and that its aftershocks will be felt for many years to come .
The disaster that we witnessed in Southern Europe of football stadiums being used as mortuaries and hospitals being overwhelmed has been averted here .
The measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario have come at a huge financial cost , as taxpayers ’ money has been used to support employees and employers , since businesses were forced to close in the interest of public health to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds .
The other costs , in terms of impacts on education , physical and mental health are not yet fully quantifiable , but will be significant , too .
In the early nineteenth century there was no understanding of what had happened among either the people or the Government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew why – and there was suspected conspiracy , which led to rioting in the cities .
In the countryside , people didn ’ t know why the sun wasn ’ t shining .
That , by contrast , we know the causes of the problem we ’ re facing is very helpful – and the recent announcement of vaccines also gives us an end point .
For the overwhelming majority of my constituents , because they have a panoply of facts on hand , the pandemic isn ’ t political .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allsides working to get out of it .
For our political opponents , their attempts at politicising it are probably the reason that , despite the economic impact , poll ratings are holding up for the Government .
Rather than a government-in-waiting , Labour are seen as an opposition that leaves people wanting .
In the last year nothing could be clearer than the seeming inability of the new Labour leader to deal decisively with Jeremy Corbyn and Labour ’ s anti-semitism problems .
It is quite clear that the opposition is hopelessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year in is compounded by what looks like the Keir v. Jeremy show .
I don ’ t believe that if I walked down the main drag in Crook , Consett or anywhere else in my constituency I could find a single person who could name a member of the Shadow Cabinet and their job title .
For a new MP , the overwhelming international issue of Coronavirus has provided some practical difficulties on the ground , but it has really bound me to the community .
Having championed our local pubs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than seeing it closed .
Seeing the excellent work of our community hospitals and their renewed purpose during Coronavirus has helped get my campaign for a new community hospital to replace it over the line as one of the new 40 that our Prime Minister promised at the election .
It has also shown what strong and wonderful people there are out there in our towns and villages , putting themselves our for others .
Remembrance in County Durham matters and , recently , I nominated two people locally for the Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ awards who had raised funds for it : Vera , who has been supporting the Royal British Legion for decades and has earned the sobriquet “ Mrs Poppy ” for raising over £1 million for the appeal , and Venita , on behalf of a team of over 50 local volunteers , who created thousands of poppies as a memorial to over 200 men of Weardale killed in the World Wars .
Nothing drives me on in campaigning for North West Durham more than meeting people who are giving their all for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year may have been overshadowed by the pandemic , we can now very much see the light at the end of the tunnel .
The ruin it has wrought will last , though .
Our communities will remember the response that we now make .
So the call to ‘ Build Back Better ’ will need to prove more than a catchphrase for the electors of North West Durham in 2024 .
The new community hospital , awaited for decades , is very welcome , as is the funding for a feasibility study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consett to the Tyne .
But underpinning all of that will be good jobs , a sound economy and public finances that can afford to pay for the levelling up agenda .
That economic development needs to be self-sustaining locally as far as possible to be sustainable .
The first year has been tough .
The second year will involve real decisions about the long-term and will cast in steel the signs for the future .
Crucially , the towns of the North East , left behind for generations by Labour , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a path to a future that enables them with good jobs , better services , a growing economy and sound public finances to support it .
The groundwork is down to the individual MPs , but the direction of the centre will be critical .

Richard Holden is MP for North West Durham.
The Sarnie Salon, Consett
A week may be a long time in politics, but a year is an eternity. Another truth is that it is very rare that situations arise in politics that have never been encountered before.
But the best-laid plans of twelve months that were expected to be dominated by Britain getting out of the European Union, and starting to level up the country – so delivering on two of the major promises of the election – have been more than overshadowed by the borderless forces of nature.
In North West Durham, with the fells iced with snow, I was thinking about other times when occurrences on the other side of the globe had dealt out a thrashing to well-laid plans.
In 1815, a volcano in Indonesia exploded. Mount Tambora was reduced by five thousands feet in height, as the mountain was blown into the incalculable pieces and up into the earth’s atmosphere in the greatest explosion in a thousand years.
1816 became known as the ‘year without a summer.’ Crops failed, the largest famine in the nineteenth century ripped through the world, and hundreds of thousands died as conspiracy theories abounded.
While today we know more about why and how external shocks happen – facts that won’t stop some of those conspiracy theorists – this doesn’t alter the impact of such events . No-one can doubt that the global Coronavirus pandemic has hit every aspect of our lives, and that its aftershocks will be felt for many years to come.
The disaster that we witnessed in Southern Europe of football stadiums being used as mortuaries and hospitals being overwhelmed has been averted here. The measures that have been taken to avoid that scenario have come at a huge financial cost, as taxpayers’ money has been used to support employees and employers, since businesses were forced to close in the interest of public health to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. The other costs, in terms of impacts on education, physical and mental health are not yet fully quantifiable, but will be significant, too.
In the early nineteenth century there was no understanding of what had happened among either the people or the Government. The price of food went, no-one knew why – and there was suspected conspiracy, which led to rioting in the cities. In the countryside, people didn’t know why the sun wasn’t shining. That, by contrast, we know the causes of the problem we’re facing is very helpful – and the recent announcement of vaccines also gives us an end point.
For the overwhelming majority of my constituents, because they have a panoply of facts on hand, the pandemic isn’t political. What they want to see if politicians of allsides working to get out of it.
For our political opponents, their attempts at politicising it are probably the reason that, despite the economic impact, poll ratings are holding up for the Government. Rather than a government-in-waiting, Labour are seen as an opposition that leaves people wanting. In the last year nothing could be clearer than the seeming inability of the new Labour leader to deal decisively with Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’s anti-semitism problems. It is quite clear that the opposition is hopelessly divided.
For Labour, their situation a year in is compounded by what looks like the Keir v. Jeremy show. I don’t believe that if I walked down the main drag in Crook, Consett or anywhere else in my constituency I could find a single person who could name a member of the Shadow Cabinet and their job title.
For a new MP, the overwhelming international issue of Coronavirus has provided some practical difficulties on the ground, but it has really bound me to the community. Having championed our local pubs and hospitality sector, there is nothing worse than seeing it closed. Seeing the excellent work of our community hospitals and their renewed purpose during Coronavirus has helped get my campaign for a new community hospital to replace it over the line as one of the new 40 that our Prime Minister promised at the election.
It has also shown what strong and wonderful people there are out there in our towns and villages, putting themselves our for others. Remembrance in County Durham matters and, recently, I nominated two people locally for the Prime Minister’s ‘Points of Light’ awards who had raised funds for it: Vera, who has been supporting the Royal British Legion for decades and has earned the sobriquet “Mrs Poppy” for raising over £1 million for the appeal, and Venita, on behalf of a team of over 50 local volunteers, who created thousands of poppies as a memorial to over 200 men of Weardale killed in the World Wars. Nothing drives me on in campaigning for North West Durham more than meeting people who are giving their all for our community every day.
While this year may have been overshadowed by the pandemic, we can now very much see the light at the end of the tunnel. The ruin it has wrought will last, though. Our communities will remember the response that we now make.
So the call to ‘Build Back Better’ will need to prove more than a catchphrase for the electors of North West Durham in 2024. The new community hospital, awaited for decades, is very welcome, as is the funding for a feasibility study into a new public transport link from Consett to the Tyne. But underpinning all of that will be good jobs, a sound economy and public finances that can afford to pay for the levelling up agenda. That economic development needs to be self-sustaining locally as far as possible to be sustainable.
The first year has been tough. The second year will involve real decisions about the long-term and will cast in steel the signs for the future. Crucially, the towns of the North East, left behind for generations by Labour, will need to see their Conservative MPs forging a path to a future that enables them with good jobs, better services, a growing economy and sound public finances to support it. The groundwork is down to the individual MPs, but the direction of the centre will be critical.


conservativehome--2020-12-07--Nicholas Boys Smith: Home alone or terraced friendship?

Nicholas Boys Smith is the Director of Create Streets and Chairman of the Government ’ s Design Body Steering Group .
As the nation prepares to emerge , blinking , from Lockdown II , it is worth asking : what consequence is lockdown having on our relationships with those around us ?
And does where we live , influence this ?
During the first lockdown , Create Streets undertook an indicative survey via social media of 438 people into the relationship between where they live and how connected they felt to their neighbours , both before and after lockdown .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only be indicative .
Nevertheless , the breakdown of home types and locations is a reasonable match for the British population with only a modest skew .
We therefore believe that , while not definitive , our findings are helpful particularly as some of them corroborate other findings in different countries and decades .
We found that : • We came together during lockdown .
Our study found that people know more of their neighbours than before lockdown , with 37 per cent of people now knowing six or more of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent before .
• Good fences make good neighbours – terraced houses were the best COVID-beaters .
Respondents living in terraced houses spoke to more neighbours than those living in other types of house or in flats .
40 per cent interacted with neighbours more than four times a week as opposed to 33 per cent of those living in semi-detached homes or 23 per cent in detached homes .
Those living in purpose-built flats were the least likely to speak to their neighbours .
45 per cent of those living in apartment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any way ( over double the rate for terraced homes ) .
• Cars appear to stifle neighbourliness .
Those who used cars as their main form of transport were less likely to interact with their neighbours in any form ( 31 per cent ) , during and after the lockdown , compared to those who walked ( 25 per cent ) or cycled ( 13 per cent ) .
Cars are also associated with reduced social cohesion at street level .
Fourteen percent fewer of those with properties facing busy streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regularly than those who lived on quieter streets .
• Denser environments do not always guarantee tighter communities .
Rural areas had greater levels of social interaction during lockdown compared to suburban and urban areas .
Despite proximity , 32 per cent of respondents from urban areas stated they had no interactions with neighbours during and after lockdown .
This was double the rate ( 16 per cent ) of those who had no neighbourly interactions in rural areas .
• Access to greenery is strongly associated with greater neighbourliness .
Our research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and access to private gardens were associated with many more neighbourly interactions compared to environments with no outdoor space .
Of the respondents with no form of outdoor space , 59 per cent did not have any social interactions with neighbours , during and after lockdown compared to 33 per cent from the rest of the sample .
2020 has brought untimely death to many and economic hardship to millions .
And worse is yet to come .
However , there is a thread of a silver lining .
Lockdown has also helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what matters in ways which should perhaps never have been forgotten .
As we ( please heaven ) re-find normality in the months to come , can we try to hold on to some of these modest but important upsides ?
It is worth it .
Knowing more of our neighbours makes us happier .
So does living in places we find attractive and safe .
The next few months and years are likely to be a period of flux in the spheres of planning , house-building , and highways design .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; • The government ’ s Gear Change Plan for walking and cycling has provided £2 billion of funding to encourage walking and cycling ; • The new Highway Code is also expected to encourage more sustainable transport with a ‘ hierarchy of road users ’ where cyclists and pedestrians are at the top ; • The new Manual for Streets 3 is expected to support street design which is less car-dominated , building on the important work of Manual for Streets ; • The Urban Tree Challenge Fund is supporting the planting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 110,00 smaller trees in English cities and towns ; • The new model National Model Design Code ( following on from last year ’ s National Design Guide ) is expected to give local planning authorities clearer guidance on the creation of new places ; • The Government has said it intends to implement most of the findings of the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission which I co-chaired alongside the late Sir Roger Scruton and which recommended creating a ‘ fast track for homes ’ that local people find attractive ; and • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s White Paper , Planning for the Future , is likely to lead to local plans which are more visual and easier for the affected population to understand .
In this context , our indicative survey has several important suggestions for future highways and planning policy in order to support health , happiness , reduced land use , and public support for new homes .
If we want to maximise public health and connectedness , highways policy and design codes should : • Create gardens .
Local plans and local design codes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gardens wherever possible ( these can be modest in size ) .
These are associated with speaking to your neighbours more which in turns is associated with personal well-being .
• Create terraced streets .
Local plans and local design codes should , wherever possible , support terraced homes .
In our COVID survey , these are associated with speaking to your neighbours more than purpose-built flats or semi-detached or detached homes , whilst also being more space efficient .
• Create quiet streets .
Local plans , master-plans , and local design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast speeds .
These are associated with cleaner air and knowing more of your neighbours .
• Support walking and cycling .
Local plans , master-plans , and local design codes should create streets on which it is easy , pleasant , and safe to walk or cycle .
Making it easy to get about by walking or cycling is associated with more neighbourly interactions .
Let ’ s escape from lockdown but let ’ s learn from it as well .

Nicholas Boys Smith is the Director of Create Streets and Chairman of the Government’s Design Body Steering Group.
As the nation prepares to emerge, blinking, from Lockdown II, it is worth asking: what consequence is lockdown having on our relationships with those around us? And does where we live, influence this?
During the first lockdown, Create Streets undertook an indicative survey via social media of 438 people into the relationship between where they live and how connected they felt to their neighbours, both before and after lockdown. It was not a controlled survey so can only be indicative. Nevertheless, the breakdown of home types and locations is a reasonable match for the British population with only a modest skew. We therefore believe that, while not definitive, our findings are helpful particularly as some of them corroborate other findings in different countries and decades. We found that:
We came together during lockdown. Our study found that people know more of their neighbours than before lockdown, with 37 per cent of people now knowing six or more of their neighbours, compared to just 29 per cent before.
Good fences make good neighbours – terraced houses were the best COVID-beaters. Respondents living in terraced houses spoke to more neighbours than those living in other types of house or in flats. 40 per cent interacted with neighbours more than four times a week as opposed to 33 per cent of those living in semi-detached homes or 23 per cent in detached homes. Those living in purpose-built flats were the least likely to speak to their neighbours. 45 per cent of those living in apartment blocks did not interact with their neighbours in any way (over double the rate for terraced homes).
Cars appear to stifle neighbourliness. Those who used cars as their main form of transport were less likely to interact with their neighbours in any form (31 per cent), during and after the lockdown, compared to those who walked (25 per cent) or cycled (13 per cent). Cars are also associated with reduced social cohesion at street level. Fourteen percent fewer of those with properties facing busy streets were likely to interact with their neighbours regularly than those who lived on quieter streets.
Denser environments do not always guarantee tighter communities. Rural areas had greater levels of social interaction during lockdown compared to suburban and urban areas. Despite proximity, 32 per cent of respondents from urban areas stated they had no interactions with neighbours during and after lockdown. This was double the rate (16 per cent) of those who had no neighbourly interactions in rural areas.
Access to greenery is strongly associated with greater neighbourliness. Our research found that both access to front gardens and access to private gardens were associated with many more neighbourly interactions compared to environments with no outdoor space. Of the respondents with no form of outdoor space, 59 per cent did not have any social interactions with neighbours, during and after lockdown compared to 33 per cent from the rest of the sample.
2020 has brought untimely death to many and economic hardship to millions. And worse is yet to come. However, there is a thread of a silver lining. Lockdown has also helped re-forge bonds of neighbourliness and reminded us of what matters in ways which should perhaps never have been forgotten. As we (please heaven) re-find normality in the months to come, can we try to hold on to some of these modest but important upsides? It is worth it. Knowing more of our neighbours makes us happier. So does living in places we find attractive and safe.
The next few months and years are likely to be a period of flux in the spheres of planning, house-building, and highways design. Amongst the certain or probable changes are;
The government’s Gear Change Plan for walking and cycling has provided £2 billion of funding to encourage walking and cycling;
The new Highway Code is also expected to encourage more sustainable transport with a ‘hierarchy of road users’ where cyclists and pedestrians are at the top;
The new Manual for Streets 3 is expected to support street design which is less car-dominated, building on the important work of Manual for Streets;
The Urban Tree Challenge Fund is supporting the planting of at least 20,000 large trees and 110,00 smaller trees in English cities and towns;
The new model National Model Design Code (following on from last year’s National Design Guide) is expected to give local planning authorities clearer guidance on the creation of new places;
The Government has said it intends to implement most of the findings of the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission which I co-chaired alongside the late Sir Roger Scruton and which recommended creating a ‘fast track for homes’ that local people find attractive; and
The vision set out in the Government’s White Paper, Planning for the Future, is likely to lead to local plans which are more visual and easier for the affected population to understand.
In this context, our indicative survey has several important suggestions for future highways and planning policy in order to support health, happiness, reduced land use, and public support for new homes. If we want to maximise public health and connectedness, highways policy and design codes should:
Create gardens. Local plans and local design codes should require front, back and communal gardens wherever possible (these can be modest in size). These are associated with speaking to your neighbours more which in turns is associated with personal well-being.
Create terraced streets. Local plans and local design codes should, wherever possible, support terraced homes. In our COVID survey, these are associated with speaking to your neighbours more than purpose-built flats or semi-detached or detached homes, whilst also being more space efficient.
Create quiet streets. Local plans, master-plans, and local design codes should create streets which design out fast speeds. These are associated with cleaner air and knowing more of your neighbours.
Support walking and cycling. Local plans, master-plans, and local design codes should create streets on which it is easy, pleasant, and safe to walk or cycle. Making it easy to get about by walking or cycling is associated with more neighbourly interactions.
Let’s escape from lockdown but let’s learn from it as well.


conservativehome--2020-12-07--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Chair of Sport England – 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 Sports Grounds Safety Authority ( SGSA ) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body , The Football Licensing Authority .
The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government ’ s independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three core functions of the SGSA are : to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and Wales to allow them to permit spectators to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification ; provide strategic support for sports grounds , governing bodies and others , both in the UK and internationally ; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance , particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds ( Green Guide ) .
” Time : Up to two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly .
The Regulator plays a key role in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework , and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper .
This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation , leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector .
All of this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new Chair of the regulator .
The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more challenging times , whilst ensuring that going forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor ( and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers ) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board .
The OPA Board Chair sets the Board ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA .
The Chair is responsible for : providing advice to the Sponsor and wider MOD on OPA ’ s strategic direction , objectives and risks , business performance and governance arrangements ; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance , delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management ; ensuring that the Board is effective , including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically through an annual board effectiveness review ; and when considering re-appointments… ” “ The Pensions Regulator ( TPR ) is the public body that protects workplace pensions in the UK .
TPR works with employers and those running pension schemes so that people can save safely for their retirement .
TPR aims to be a strong , visible regulator that builds people ’ s confidence in pensions .
TPR is a public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP ) .
It has around 750 staff and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Financial Conduct Authority , which regulates personal pension schemes , and with other public bodies .
TPR is responsible for : protecting people ’ s savings in workplace pensions ; improving the way that workplace pension schemes are run ; reducing the risk of pension schemes ending up in the Pension Protection Fund ( PPF ) ; making sure employers balance the needs of their defined benefit pension scheme with growing their business ; making sure employers enrol their staff into a pension scheme and pay money into it ( known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Applications are encouraged from all sections of the community to help ensure that the Sport England board is representative of the diverse society it serves .
Sport England is a government-funded Non-Departmental Public Body and National Lottery distributor .
It is responsible for supporting , growing and advocating for grassroots sport and physical activity in England in line with its statutory objectives as set out in its Royal Charter .
Its vision is to ensure that everyone , regardless of their age , background or level of ability feels able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it takes its strategic lead from the government ’ s sport and physical activity strategy Sporting Future : A New Strategy for an Active Nation .
The Chair will be responsible for overseeing the final stages of implementation of Sport England ’ s current Towards an Active Nation strategy ( 2017-2021 ) , and the final stages of development and roll-out of its new strategy for 2021-2025 , in close collaboration with the Deputy Chair , Chief Executive , and Executive Team.
” Time : Up to 2 days per week .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( FRC ) is to promote transparency and integrity in business .
These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs , create prosperity and generate economic growth .
The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries .
The FRC also sets standards for accounting , auditing and actuarial work .
As the UK ’ s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promote the quality of corporate reporting and audit .
It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.
” “ UK Shared Business Services Ltd ( UK SBS ) is a non-profit making company limited by shares .
It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money .
The Company provides HR & Payroll , Finance , Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business , Energy & Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) , UK Research and Innovation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clients .
It is recognised by the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting , interesting and challenging time for UK SBS ; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation , delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age.
” “ With rapid progress in the development of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transforming the strategic road network .
They need to demonstrate that they can meet the government ’ s commitment to zero carbon and within its committed timescales .
They also need to exploit the full potential of the digital revolution , both in their delivery , and in communications with road users and stakeholders .
That is why HE are now delivering £27.4 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025 to improve the road network ( RIS2 ) .
This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Highways England at an exciting time , with the opportunity to help shape the future of the organisation and ensure its continued success .
This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for the immediate supply chain , technology and workplace transformation Highways England faces.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ Schools Adjudicators are office holders appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to make decisions about a range of matters relating to publicly funded schools in England .
They are statutory office holders appointed under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 .
The main function of the Schools Adjudicators is to rule on objections to and referrals about determined school admission arrangements of all state funded schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions and if they do not conform , in what respect they do not conform… There are currently ten Schools Adjudicators , including the Chief Schools Adjudicator .
They are appointed for their ability to act impartially , independently and objectively .
Their role is to look afresh at all cases referred to them and consider each case on its merits in the light of the legislation , the Statutory Guidance for Decision Makers on Statutory Proposals and the School Admissions Code .
”

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.
– – – – – – – – – –
Sports Grounds Safety Authority – Chair
“The Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body, The Football Licensing Authority. The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government’s independent advisor on sports grounds safety. The three core functions of the SGSA are: to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and Wales to allow them to permit spectators to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification; provide strategic support for sports grounds, governing bodies and others, both in the UK and internationally; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance, particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (Green Guide).”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £36,260 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 08 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulator of Social Housing – Chair
“This Government is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly. The Regulator plays a key role in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework, and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper. This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation, leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector. All of this is likely to provide a challenging task for a new Chair of the regulator. The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more challenging times, whilst ensuring that going forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £65,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 13 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Oil & Pipeline Agency – Chair
“The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor (and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board. The OPA Board Chair sets the Board’s agenda and has a personal role in advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA. The Chair is responsible for: providing advice to the Sponsor and wider MOD on OPA’s strategic direction, objectives and risks, business performance and governance arrangements; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance, delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management; ensuring that the Board is effective, including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs, and making recommendations on areas of development, typically through an annual board effectiveness review; and when considering re-appointments…”
Time: 30 days per week.
Remuneration: £27,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
The Pension Agency – Chair
“The Pensions Regulator (TPR) is the public body that protects workplace pensions in the UK. TPR works with employers and those running pension schemes so that people can save safely for their retirement. TPR aims to be a strong, visible regulator that builds people’s confidence in pensions. TPR is a public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It has around 750 staff and is based in Brighton. TPR works closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates personal pension schemes, and with other public bodies. TPR is responsible for: protecting people’s savings in workplace pensions; improving the way that workplace pension schemes are run; reducing the risk of pension schemes ending up in the Pension Protection Fund (PPF); making sure employers balance the needs of their defined benefit pension scheme with growing their business; making sure employers enrol their staff into a pension scheme and pay money into it (known as ‘automatic enrolment’).”
Time: Two days per week.
Remuneration: £73,840 per annum.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Sport England – Chair
“Applications are encouraged from all sections of the community to help ensure that the Sport England board is representative of the diverse society it serves. Sport England is a government-funded Non-Departmental Public Body and National Lottery distributor. It is responsible for supporting, growing and advocating for grassroots sport and physical activity in England in line with its statutory objectives as set out in its Royal Charter. Its vision is to ensure that everyone, regardless of their age, background or level of ability feels able to engage in sport and physical activity and it takes its strategic lead from the government’s sport and physical activity strategy Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation. The Chair will be responsible for overseeing the final stages of implementation of Sport England’s current Towards an Active Nation strategy (2017-2021), and the final stages of development and roll-out of its new strategy for 2021-2025, in close collaboration with the Deputy Chair, Chief Executive, and Executive Team.”
Time: Up to 2 days per week.
Remuneration: £40,000 per annum.
Closes: 21 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Reporting Council – Chair
“The mission of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is to promote transparency and integrity in business. These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs, create prosperity and generate economic growth. The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries. The FRC also sets standards for accounting, auditing and actuarial work. As the UK’s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors, and takes action where necessary, to promote the quality of corporate reporting and audit. It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.”
Time: 1.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Shared Business Services Ltd – Chair
“UK Shared Business Services Ltd (UK SBS) is a non-profit making company limited by shares. It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money. The Company provides HR & Payroll, Finance, Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and other public sector clients. It is recognised by the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting, interesting and challenging time for UK SBS; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation, delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age.”
Time: Max 36 days per annum.
Remuneration: £575 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Highways England – Chair
“With rapid progress in the development of new technologies, Highways England are modernising and transforming the strategic road network. They need to demonstrate that they can meet the government’s commitment to zero carbon and within its committed timescales. They also need to exploit the full potential of the digital revolution, both in their delivery, and in communications with road users and stakeholders. That is why HE are now delivering £27.4 billion of investment between 2020 and 2025 to improve the road network (RIS2). This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps England moving. You would be joining Highways England at an exciting time, with the opportunity to help shape the future of the organisation and ensure its continued success. This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for the immediate supply chain, technology and workplace transformation Highways England faces.”
Time: 24/27 days per annum
Remuneration: £25,000 per annum/plus £3,000 for chairing.
Closes: 08 January
– – – – – – – – – –
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: 11 January
– – – – – – – – – –
Department for Education – Schools Adjudicator
“Schools Adjudicators are office holders appointed by the Secretary of State for Education to make decisions about a range of matters relating to publicly funded schools in England. They are statutory office holders appointed under section 25 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The main function of the Schools Adjudicators is to rule on objections to and referrals about determined school admission arrangements of all state funded schools; this involves establishing whether or not arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions and if they do not conform, in what respect they do not conform… There are currently ten Schools Adjudicators, including the Chief Schools Adjudicator. They are appointed for their ability to act impartially, independently and objectively. Their role is to look afresh at all cases referred to them and consider each case on its merits in the light of the legislation, the Statutory Guidance for Decision Makers on Statutory Proposals and the School Admissions Code.”
Time: Part-time.
Remuneration: £355 per diem/£58 per hour.
Closes: 29 January


conservativehome--2020-12-07--The Government must ensure vaccine ID cards don’t become a “freedom passport”

It seems only yesterday that ministers were discussing the possibility of a Coronavirus vaccine , so there is much to be happy about this week , as health practitioners gear themselves up to administer millions of the Pfizer/ BioNTech jab across the UK .
But one thing that ’ s causing concern is Covid-19 vaccination ID cards , which will be given to anyone who ’ s been inoculated .
Although these are fairly primitive and mainly designed to help people record , and then remember , the dates of their first and second dose , civil liberty campaigners are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more far-reaching .
Could they soon become de facto immunity passports ?
These fears haven ’ t exactly been allayed by the Government , which has given mixed messages on the subject .
Nadhim Zahawi , who ’ s in charge of rolling out the vaccine , was first to encourage speculation after suggesting that “ restaurants and bars and cinemas and other venues ” would probably use an immunity passport system “ as they have done with the ( test and trace ) app.
” Michael Gove then quashed these claims by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine IDs , but today , on Sky News , James Cleverly seemed uncertain about the future of Covid immunity passports .
Given that the Government has changed its mind on similar issues before – with Gove previously saying that face masks should not be mandatory in shops only for this to happen – it ’ s not completely out of the question to believe IDs could become reality .
Proponents of vaccine passports will say they make perfect sense ; that they ’ re the easiest way for businesses to get back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Already there are signs that airlines want them , and many countries will no doubt ask for evidence of immunity at passport control , with some asking for negative Covid tests currently .
Even so , the UK must not be tempted to follow .
It must stick to its own course , and wind down the number of rules and apps now policing people ’ s lives .
Much has been written about how vaccine IDs could damage civil liberties , dividing up society by way of health status .
The idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a health card is the determinant of freedom is unpalatable , and vaccination passports would also open the door to immunity passes for other diseases .
But even on a logistical scale , they simply do not make sense .
Think of the amount that will have to be printed each year if Covid immunity doesn ’ t last and a new batch has to be sent off , as well as the black market that would need to be policed for forged IDs .
Furthermore , it ’ s not obvious that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , ID cards give venues assurances in regards to working out who has and hasn ’ t had the virus ; venue owners can prove that they are “ Covid-secure ” .
But they would also rule out huge numbers of their customers , particularly those aged under 50 , who will not be vaccinated until next year ( if at all ) .
Although the Government says there are no plans for immunity passports so far , there has been a temptation throughout this crisis to escalate Coronavirus measures , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an idea .
But these can be extremely difficult to roll back ( already Jonathan Van-Tam has said that masks could be with us for the future ) .
Even in contemplating vaccine IDs , we are opening the door to unimaginable possibilities .

It seems only yesterday that ministers were discussing the possibility of a Coronavirus vaccine, so there is much to be happy about this week, as health practitioners gear themselves up to administer millions of the Pfizer/ BioNTech jab across the UK.
But one thing that’s causing concern is Covid-19 vaccination ID cards, which will be given to anyone who’s been inoculated. Although these are fairly primitive and mainly designed to help people record, and then remember, the dates of their first and second dose, civil liberty campaigners are worried that these could evolve into something more far-reaching. Could they soon become de facto immunity passports?
These fears haven’t exactly been allayed by the Government, which has given mixed messages on the subject. Nadhim Zahawi, who’s in charge of rolling out the vaccine, was first to encourage speculation after suggesting that “restaurants and bars and cinemas and other venues” would probably use an immunity passport system “as they have done with the (test and trace) app.”
Michael Gove then quashed these claims by saying that there were no plans for vaccine IDs, but today, on Sky News, James Cleverly seemed uncertain about the future of Covid immunity passports. Given that the Government has changed its mind on similar issues before – with Gove previously saying that face masks should not be mandatory in shops only for this to happen – it’s not completely out of the question to believe IDs could become reality.
Proponents of vaccine passports will say they make perfect sense; that they’re the easiest way for businesses to get back to normality, and so forth. Already there are signs that airlines want them, and many countries will no doubt ask for evidence of immunity at passport control, with some asking for negative Covid tests currently. Even so, the UK must not be tempted to follow. It must stick to its own course, and wind down the number of rules and apps now policing people’s lives.
Much has been written about how vaccine IDs could damage civil liberties, dividing up society by way of health status. The idea of living in a country in which a health card is the determinant of freedom is unpalatable, and vaccination passports would also open the door to immunity passes for other diseases.
But even on a logistical scale, they simply do not make sense. Think of the amount that will have to be printed each year if Covid immunity doesn’t last and a new batch has to be sent off, as well as the black market that would need to be policed for forged IDs.
Furthermore, it’s not obvious that businesses would support such a move. Yes, ID cards give venues assurances in regards to working out who has and hasn’t had the virus; venue owners can prove that they are “Covid-secure”. But they would also rule out huge numbers of their customers, particularly those aged under 50, who will not be vaccinated until next year (if at all).
Although the Government says there are no plans for immunity passports so far, there has been a temptation throughout this crisis to escalate Coronavirus measures, especially when the media starts to hype up an idea. But these can be extremely difficult to roll back (already Jonathan Van-Tam has said that masks could be with us for the future). Even in contemplating vaccine IDs, we are opening the door to unimaginable possibilities.


conservativehome--2020-12-07--Labour are divided over an EU deal, but no-deal Brexit would pose its own problem for Starmer

As the denouement of the EU negotiations loom , the papers have offered a running commentary of Sir Keir Starmer ’ s struggle to unite the Labour Party behind his Brexit policy .
The Labour leader is reportedly “ leaning heavily towards whipping in favour of a deal if ministers strike one ” , according to the Times , “ but his top team is divided on the merits of such a move ” .
A substantial section of the Shadow Cabinet want the Opposition to abstain and let the Government carry the can for the consequences of whatever manner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem is that it is extremely difficult to simultaneously claim that Britain ’ s relationship with Europe ( or indeed approach to lockdown ) is an issue of paramount importance , as so many in Labour have , and then sit out of the vote on that relationship .
Voting against the deal , at this stage in the negotiations , risks not only looking inveterately hostile to Brexit to many of the ‘ Red Wall ’ voters Labour needs to win back from the Conservatives , but is also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as at this stage no alternative to whatever Boris Johnson brings back is on the table .
So Starmer is probably right , on balance , to row in behind the deal in the Commons .
Voters seldom blame the Opposition for Government policy anyway .
But what if , contra to all the weary cynicism of those watching the London-Brussels pantomime , the talks really do fall through and No Deal Brexit it is ?
The Leader of the Opposition can scarcely endorse it , especially given his personal role as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous parliament .
In a recent piece for Prospect , Peter Mandelson claims Starmer is one of the principle suspects in the mystery of what killed a soft Brexit : “ Ultimately Keir Starmer , then Labour ’ s Brexit spokesman , used the paralysis to wear Corbyn down until he accepted a People ’ s Vote as the Labour platform – hoping that the cul-de-sac would turn into an exit route from Brexit .
It was a high-stakes , winner-takes-all gamble – and they lost , with a softer Brexit being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will carry its own risks .
The Government will ( or at least , given its messaging record , ought ) to come straight out of the traps with an exculpatory version of events , pinning the blame for the collapse of the negotiations on unreasonable EU demands to prevent it protecting the fishing industry and setting up a state aid policy to help regenerate regional industries .
If it wants to win back the territory lost to the Tories at the last election , Labour probably can ’ t look like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But if it doesn ’ t , that invites the obvious question : what would you have done in Johnson ’ s place ?
Accepted the terms he rejected ?
Or walk away , as he did ?

As the denouement of the EU negotiations loom, the papers have offered a running commentary of Sir Keir Starmer’s struggle to unite the Labour Party behind his Brexit policy.
The Labour leader is reportedly “leaning heavily towards whipping in favour of a deal if ministers strike one”, according to the Times, “but his top team is divided on the merits of such a move”.
A substantial section of the Shadow Cabinet want the Opposition to abstain and let the Government carry the can for the consequences of whatever manner of Brexit the Prime Minister eventually delivers. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to simultaneously claim that Britain’s relationship with Europe (or indeed approach to lockdown) is an issue of paramount importance, as so many in Labour have, and then sit out of the vote on that relationship.
Voting against the deal, at this stage in the negotiations, risks not only looking inveterately hostile to Brexit to many of the ‘Red Wall’ voters Labour needs to win back from the Conservatives, but is also a tacit endorsement of ‘No Deal’, as at this stage no alternative to whatever Boris Johnson brings back is on the table.
So Starmer is probably right, on balance, to row in behind the deal in the Commons. Voters seldom blame the Opposition for Government policy anyway. But what if, contra to all the weary cynicism of those watching the London-Brussels pantomime, the talks really do fall through and No Deal Brexit it is?
The Leader of the Opposition can scarcely endorse it, especially given his personal role as the champion of the Europhile rearguard during the previous parliament. In a recent piece for Prospect, Peter Mandelson claims Starmer is one of the principle suspects in the mystery of what killed a soft Brexit:
“Ultimately Keir Starmer, then Labour’s Brexit spokesman, used the paralysis to wear Corbyn down until he accepted a People’s Vote as the Labour platform – hoping that the cul-de-sac would turn into an exit route from Brexit. It was a high-stakes, winner-takes-all gamble – and they lost, with a softer Brexit being the collateral damage.”
But attacking it will carry its own risks. The Government will (or at least, given its messaging record, ought) to come straight out of the traps with an exculpatory version of events, pinning the blame for the collapse of the negotiations on unreasonable EU demands to prevent it protecting the fishing industry and setting up a state aid policy to help regenerate regional industries.
If it wants to win back the territory lost to the Tories at the last election, Labour probably can’t look like it’s endorsing Brussels’ policy. But if it doesn’t, that invites the obvious question: what would you have done in Johnson’s place? Accepted the terms he rejected? Or walk away, as he did?