gdp's Comments

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Ryan Stephenson: Have teaching unions finally lost the trust of schools and academies?

Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:58:40 +0000

A further point which will need to be grasped by DfE is about what is to happen in September. The public perception is that everything ought to be back to normal by then. Hopefully it will be. But it is quite possible that it won't. There is a significant difference between the (often) heroic efforts of schools to keep going at short notice in response to the emergency and wholescale re-engineering of the way in which, in particular, large schools, will need to operate if distancing measures are needed more long term. It is already obvious that NEU's stance will be to oppose any "normal" reopening in September unless it is demonstrated well beyond reasonable doubt that doing so would not expose its members to risk. Being charitable, that precautionary principle approach is understandable given the seriousness of the emergency and it having been agreed to be so by government, but the operational impact of that is that unless the public mood is heavily in favour of agreeing that the risk has diminished to an acceptably low level by September, it won't be possible to reopen schools by mere fiat. I hope that DfE and the Secretary of State are alive to this now rather than just putting it off as a decision to steamroller through alongside a battle with NEU. That might be fun politics but we are talking about the education of 93% of children in the country.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Ryan Stephenson: Have teaching unions finally lost the trust of schools and academies?

Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:48:39 +0000

As a governor of a Leeds secondary school I can endorse Ryan's assessment. The City Council and schools have had the difficult job of trying to appease the unions while working to reopen schools. The logistical challenges involved would even without union action have been quite astonishing - we're currently reviewing the incredibly detailed risk assessment and reopening plan which the Head Teacher and SLT have worked hard on for several weeks. The two major challenges beyond the practical which we faced were first that the Government Guidance took longer to come out than was helpful (the announcement of reopening for Y10 and Y12 came a fortnight before the Guidance on what had to be considered, which meant that the work done at the time was at risk of being wasted if the Guidance was more onerous than expected). The Secretary of State needs to learn from this. Second, and I think much less forgivably, is the stance of NEU. It was not helpful for GMB and NEU up front to start bombarding Head Teachers with detailed questionnaires and ultimatums before any planning could have been undertaken. But much worse was the NEU combination of setting out 5 rather vague tests for supporting reopening and then having their in school reps notify members that they should not provide Head Teachers with feedback on the factual and practical issues when they were consulting on the risk assessment and organisational changes needed to put together a plan to address both their tests and the Guidance from DfE. In practice this meant that the SLT spent days persuading NEU members that co-operating with the planning process was something they should do when they could instead have been devoting more time to the huge task of implementing reopening, not to mention keeping on with remote provision and managing pastoral care to the most vulnerable children.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Our survey. Almost half of Party members believe that human activity is driving global warming. Almo

Tue, 3 Mar 2020 10:08:19 +0000

Regardless of where the climate is going, what causes it and whether it is a good thing or not, moving away from being reliant on limited resources makes sense. I'm not sure how you go from that to accusing me of killing people.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Our survey. Almost half of Party members believe that human activity is driving global warming. Almo

Tue, 3 Mar 2020 09:06:57 +0000

Even if you don't think human activity is driving climate change it doesn't mean you have to think that climate change is worth ignoring or that human activity could either mitigate or intensify its ill-effects. Perhaps the debate should switch away from blame to working out whether there are things we can do which are in themselves of merit for maintaining the planet as a good place for us. Reducing waste and moving to renewable energy makes sense as a long term efficiency in use of resources, which ought to be rather compatible with the basic concepts of Conservatism. Not hair shirts for the sake of it but making the most out of the least so as to enable longer term, sustainable growth and improvement in the living standards of all.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Suella Braverman: People we elect must take back control from people we don't. Who include the judge

Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:13:54 +0000

"Traditionally, Parliament made the law and judges applied it. But today, our courts exercise a form of political power. Questions that fell hitherto exclusively within the prerogative of elected Ministers have yielded to judicial activism: foreign policy, conduct of our armed forces abroad, application of international treaties and, of course, the decision to prorogue Parliament." Traditionally, the law applied by judges was largely judge made. That is the Common Law (and Equity) which traditionalists often praise so highly and which is the foundation of our system. The proliferation of legislation is a modern phenomenon of the last 150 years. The examples given in the article are examples of areas where Parliament has been silent rather than areas where the Courts have illegitimately stepped in to usurp its powers. There may be an argument for weakening the effect of the Human Rights Act, but it has to be remembered that it isn't judicial activism which provides this role for the Courts but legislation. It is not clear why there should not be judicial control over the way in which administrative decisions are made in the absence of legislation setting out how such powers are to be exercised. It would be possible to replace Wednesbury etc with legislation. It would be possible to replace prerogative powers with legislative ones (as eg the Fixed Terms Parliament Act did). But would this really be a good thing? The encroachment of legislation like the FTPA into prerogative powers and common law is precisely what provides the Courts with the ability to make what seem like political decisions - Parliament has decided that things which once were considered unjustitiable or only to be interfered with by judges in extremis, are now commonplaces for legal challenges. I fear that, rousing though it may be to think that government and Parliament can now reverse the tide that culminated with Miller II, the reality is that every further effort in this direction gives the Courts more power and legitimacy in reviewing political acts. And if the reaction to this is to give the executive absolute discretions which it never had, the unintended consequence of this will be providing a carte blanche to PM Long-Bailey in 2025 to unleash horrors.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Neil O'Brien: There are still weeks to go, but for backbenchers like me, campaign 2019 feels much, m

Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:47:21 +0000

Perhaps our biggest hurdle is overcoming years of Conservative supporters voting tactically for the LDs to keep Labour out. We can win here if everyone who did that voted for us as the party they actually support. Even Alex Sobel, who won for Labour here in 2017 has said to me that there are probably at least 5k LD voters who would prefer to vote Tory. I you can help out in any way at all, please drop me an email at office@leedsnorthwestconservatives.org.uk

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Neil O'Brien: There are still weeks to go, but for backbenchers like me, campaign 2019 feels much, m

Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:47:47 +0000

As chair of Leeds NW, which Lab won from the LDs in 2017 and which voted 65% Remain, I endorse the impression in this article. I had a very similar experience to the one described last week when someone shouted from across the street "Did you put this through my letterbox?". I was expecting a tirade. Instead, he crossed over and told me how he'd traditionally voted Labour, had voted for the previous LD MP because he was a good bloke but had always thought of us as the toffs' party. He was going to vote Conservative for the first time in December and was telling all his colleagues, friends and family to do so because we needed to get Brexit done and we absolutely cannot have Corbyn as PM. I don't think I could have scripted him better if I'd tried and this was all volunteered on a very chilly and drizzly night while he was in shirtsleeves and could have been having a nice cup of tea in front of the telly after a day at work. I was sceptical about the polling early in the 2017 election. It just didn't align with what I was hearing on the doorstep, even accounting for the fact that we were in third place in the seat. Now, if anything, I'm thinking the polling is understating where we could get. We're starting 11k behind Labour and 7k behind the LDs. Our canvassing in areas we haven't even had the numbers to do a full delivery round to since 2010 let alone canvass, is in the mid 30s strong C, and over 50% including weaker Cs. I'm not saying we're going to win here, but if a non-target third place, Remain majority northern seat is leaving our growing group of activists ending each session with a spring in their step, I think we have a good chance of sweeping all the closer targets and converting our own marginals to solid majorities.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Meet the candidates hoping to form the 2019 Conservative Parliamentary intake

Wed, 30 Oct 2019 16:18:36 +0000

You've missed Anthony Browne in Cambrigeshre South - hopefully a hold now that Heidi Allen has said she won't after all contest it for the LDs.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Burt, Simpson, Greening: all will stand down at the next election

Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:51:59 +0000

It's almost as if attempting to mould the Parliamentary Party from CCHQ is rather harder than it might seem.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Burt, Simpson, Greening: all will stand down at the next election

Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:46:12 +0000

Every cloud has a silver lining.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Burt, Simpson, Greening: all will stand down at the next election

Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:40:32 +0000

Philip Lee just crossed the floor to sit with the Lib Dems.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : CCHQ have opened selections for 21 new seats across England and Wales

Fri, 30 Aug 2019 17:13:53 +0000

Which ones? Are they really about to burn the cost of running 100 candidates in solid Labour seats where they haven't a hope of winning whether we're running or not? No, any deal they might want would involve us stepping aside in seats which are eminently winnable for us. They're planning on putting someone up against Jacob Rees Mogg for heaven's sake!

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : CCHQ have opened selections for 21 new seats across England and Wales

Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:47:10 +0000

What might that agreement entail? Why would we stand aside in any winnable seat in which we were second? Why would we stand aside in any seat we currently hold? Is it worth ceasing to be an independent national party to give Brexit Party a clearer run at seats where we are third? I think pretty much the only seat which is not already winnable by us where standing aside would give the Brexit Party a chance of winning is Hartlepool. I doubt a deal whereby they decide not to muck up our chances of keeping out an anti-Brexit MP in return for a free run at Hartlepool will appeal. There is realistically no more pro-Brexit Tory leadership than the one we have. So if they want Brexit, the deal is they need to work out that their standing of candidates is most likely to lead to Labour and the LibDems winning seats, potentially winning the election and then, almost certainly negotiating a "softer" form of Brexit than May's deal or cancelling Brexit entirely.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Johnson won't scrap HS2, but his review could make a big offer to the North

Sat, 24 Aug 2019 10:22:52 +0000

Building railways round India is much easier (business head or no) if you can effectively ignore complaints by locals along the route that you were destroying their homes and local environments. Driving one through a load of mainly solidly Tory seats is somewhat different.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Johnson won't scrap HS2, but his review could make a big offer to the North

Sat, 24 Aug 2019 10:09:27 +0000

Thanks, Bob. The sad thing is that had we properly represented non-rural areas of the North and Midlands back in 2010 all this would quite likely be only a few years from being built and coming into service now.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : Johnson won't scrap HS2, but his review could make a big offer to the North

Sat, 24 Aug 2019 09:05:08 +0000

The idea of starting building HS2 with the sections going north from Birmingham is only intriguing if you are from London. I suggested it over 8 years ago https://botzarelli.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/i-lik... It and new investment in northern and midlands rail is long overdue. However, if we now cancel HS2 it will effectively be an admission that we have no serious interest in building any major rail infrastructure outside London. Any amount of promising Northern Powerhouse Rail or whatever will rightly be seen as complete hot air.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : The GATT XXIV plan - and why Brexiteers should pay the EU the compliment of taking its negotiating s

Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:03 +0000

I'm somewhat sceptical about relying on GATT XXIV. If, as many of those opposed to the Backstop believe, the EU would use it regardless of the merits and availability of any alternative arrangements to "trap us in the Customs Union forever", that would suggest a high degree of bad faith. The EU has said repeatedly, that it wouldn't do this.Politically, this is because it believes that the CU is a benefit rather than a burden, and in particular would be an unearned benefit for the UK if not subject to any other part of EU rules and contributions. Now, it is perfectly valid for Brexiteers to believe that the EU is lying and intends the opposite, given their general and deep mistrust of the EU and its political project. However, if you're going to take that approach, why would you then expect the GATT XXIV approach to be one which they could quickly embrace politically? The consistent approach would be for them to refuse to do so because they aren't interested in that political approach and instead have worked hard for its opposite. So hard that they've even agreed in writing things which they have no intention of honouring, if you are wont to believe that the Backstop is a cunning plan to trap us. In any case, whatever approach whichever of the two contenders takes, the reality is not just that it needs a united Cabinet, it needs every Tory MP of every stripe to vote for it. Unless after all the hoohah about May reaching out belatedly to Corbyn to try and broker a compromise, we now think it would be fine to rely just on Labour MPs in Leave areas to counteract the votes of the likes of Grieve. And even if that did get us over the immediate hurdle, how long is that a recipe for government when those MPs are unlikely to vote with us on anything else? Particularly if we've removed the whip from a whole bunch of our own MPs for voting against the latest Brexit plan.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : The identity of the new Prime Minister makes a difference to the polls. But Brexit is a far more dom

Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:31:06 +0000

It is obvious we have to be out come hell or high water by 31/10. That ought to have been obvious when that extension was sought. It ought to have been obvious that we should have left 29/3 regardless of whether some might have preferred a different way of doing it to the one negotiated. Whoever wins the leadership election they have to be ready to leave on 31/10. By all means seek whatever renegotiation they think they can get with the EU but be ready in case they find that the EU hasn't been bluffing and has no intention of reopening anything other than the Political Declaration. Then go for No Deal if they genuinely believe that they can withstand whatever the impact will be that it might have in practice. If they believe that it won't cause any problems which can't be resolved or mitigated quickly by a minority government, go for No Deal. If not, brazen out some way of presenting the WA as the best option. But for goodness sakes, don't gamble on anything more protracted requiring another extension because that way only oblivion lies. And whoever members and MPs might personally have wanted to lead us and whatever their approach to Brexit might have been in their leadership pitch, we must all get behind whatever approach is proposed by the actual winner to get us out on 31/10 even if it is not what we wanted. Unless all our MPs are completely lined up behind the new PM both we as a Party and Brexit as a thing, will be dead in the water. So keep it zipped if it is either too Brexity or not Brexity enough - it is clear that the main thing is to do it at all. Otherwise we get to do nothing both on Brexit and on everything else. For a long time.

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : If the Tories are serious about electoral fraud, they'll take action on postal votes

Mon, 17 Jun 2019 17:27:35 +0000

It is true that the checks and balances do depend to an extent on Parties having people available to provide scrutiny. I would be very disappointed if in a by election campaign which had a full time campaign manager and support provided from the professional party in addition to the many local and national volunteers if we didn't have people attending the opening of the PVs. Similarly, there should not have been any problem in getting the full complement of scrutineers at the count and them having been given training if they hadn't done the job before, as well as getting tellers and agents to go round the polling stations through the day. Personally I don't wear a rosette during the count, and I wouldn't discount individual counters occasionally accidentally on purpose putting bundles of votes in wrong piles if nobody is watching, though again, in any high profile count you ought to have enough people to be able to manage that risk (or eg in Peterborough, make sure that no table was only being scrutineered by one party's representative). That said, from personal experience as a Council candidate, the fewest votes I received was in the election where we had someone at the opening of the PVs, the PV count and the full count. After doing a sample at the verification stage (and realising it was not going to be our night there!) my team went off to help provide scrutiny at the table for a marginal ward we were looking to win (and which ended up with 2 full recounts, each slightly increasing the Labour majority until our candidate conceded 27 behind).

http://www.conservativehome.com/ : If the Tories are serious about electoral fraud, they'll take action on postal votes

Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:37:29 +0000

You can't really have it both ways. The convicted electoral fraudster who @itdoesntaddup has helpfully provided links to showing his involvement in the campaign and count, was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. Being part of a conspiracy to covertly intercept and destroy 1000s of votes would be considered at least as serious, almost certainly, far more serious.