An Overview of the Cabinet Office using data from financial year 2023-24 - an NAO report published February 2025

 Introduction - The National Audit Office (NAO) report on the Cabinet Office for 2023-24 provides an overview of the department's role, financial performance, and key challenges.  

The Cabinet Office acts as the corporate headquarters of the government, supporting the Prime Minister and Cabinet, leading and coordinating cross-departmental initiatives, and driving civil service reform.

Key Priorities and Responsibilities
Financial Overview

Core Functions

• Supporting the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Providing the necessary infrastructure and support for government decision-making.

• National Security: Leading and coordinating the government's response to security threats and implementing the refreshed Integrated Review. This includes managing complex, multilateral work related to global conflicts.

• Modernising and reforming government: Leading Civil Service reform to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. This includes initiatives like the Civil Service People Plan and the government's location strategy, which aims to move roles outside of London.

• Cross-government leadership: Acting as the "corporate headquarters" by providing a command centre for crises and leading strategic policy areas. This involves providing direction to other departments and ensuring consistent standards.

Finances - The Cabinet Office's total expenditure is approximately £1 billion per year. The report notes that the department's financial performance is closely scrutinized due to its central role in government.  A significant part of its work involves providing oversight for cross-government spending, which includes managing and tracking efficiency savings. 

The NAO highlights the introduction of a new Government Efficiency Framework in July 2023, which aims to improve the consistency and transparency of how departments calculate and report efficiency savings.

The Cabinet Office group includes 11 arm’s-length bodies. 

Non ministerial Departments

1) UK Statistics Authority - publish their own accounts

Non-departmental public bodies (NDPB) 

2) Civil Service Commission -  publish their own accounts

3) Equality and Human Rights Commission -  publish their own accounts

Executive agencies

4) Crown Commercial Service - helps UK public sector get better value for money from its procurement of common goods and services.

5) Government Property Agency - sets & implements strategy for HMG's properties (worth £2068m).

Advisory NDPBs

6) Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

7) Committee on Standards in Public Life

8) House of Lords Appointments Commission

9) Security Vetting Appeals Panel

10) Senior Salaries Review Body

11) Social Mobility Commission 

Challenges and Recommendations

The report identifies several ongoing challenges for the Cabinet Office:

• Government Efficiency: While the new framework is a positive step, the report notes the difficulty in consistently measuring and reporting efficiency savings across all government departments. The NAO emphasizes the need for a robust and consistent process to ensure accountability.

• Civil Service Reform: The Cabinet Office is leading efforts to modernize the Civil Service, but the report acknowledges the challenge of ensuring all departments adopt a modern, digital-first approach. It highlights that a significant portion of public sector services are still under-digitized, and there is a fragmented approach to technology and data across government.

• Government Property: The report also touches on the extensive government property holdings, noting the significant maintenance backlog across various public sector buildings, including courts, jobcentres, and hospitals. This poses a challenge to service delivery and requires strategic oversight from the Cabinet Office's Office of Government Property.

Summary - the NAO report confirms the Cabinet Office's critical and wide-ranging role in central government. It acknowledges the progress made in areas such as national security and civil service reform but also highlights persistent challenges related to financial oversight, digital transformation, and the management of government assets. The report's findings are intended to support parliamentary scrutiny and encourage ongoing improvements in government efficiency and effectiveness.

Source: Edited by a human being adding one graphic and a summary of the arm's-length bodies, and editing text created from this Gemini query "summarise this document  https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2627-Cabinet-Office-Overview-2023-24-FINAL.pdf in 500 words."

An Overview of the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) using financial year 2023-24 data - an NAO report published March 2025

Introduction - The DBT was formed in February 2023, merging the business-related functions of the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy with the Department for International Trade.  Its primary mission is to promote economic growth. 

Key Priorities and Achievements - Five key priorities for the DBT in 2023-24 were: 

1) Redraw rules so businesses thrive, markets are competitive, consumers protected.

2) Securing investment from both UK and international businesses. 

3) Supporting and promoting British businesses to grow and export. 

4) Opening new markets by striking trade deals and removing barriers. 

5) Promoting free trade, economic security, and resilient supply chains. 

The DBT reported several achievements, including delivering reforms to address fraud, increasing the National Living Wage, and supporting over 5,200 businesses to achieve more than £36 billion in "Export Wins," a 7% increase from the previous year. I t also supported major international investments, such as Nissan's £2 billion investment in Sunderland. 

Specialist Units within DBT groups

• Centre for Connected & Autonomous Vehicles, joint unit DBT/DFT - to intro such to UK.

• Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate - protects the rights of agency workers.

• Export Control Joint Unit admins UK's export controls/licensing for military & dual use.

• Office for Investment, joint unit DBT/HMT/No.10 to secure significant investment into UK.

• Office for Product Safety & Standards protects people/places from product‑related harm.

• Office for Pay Review Bodies - independent secretariat to 8 public sector pay review bodies.

• Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation - strengthens enforcement of trade sanctions.

• UK Defence & Security Exports - helps companies export & overseas companies invest in.

• UK National Contact Point - promotes OECD guidelines re multinational business conduct.

Financial Overview and Challenges 

The DBT's total group operating expenditure for 2023-24 was £3.4 billion, with total assets of £11.0 billion and liabilities of £12.4 billion. 

The report highlights a significant financial challenge: the Department exceeded its Voted Resource Annually Managed Expenditure limit by £219 million, with an outturn of £1,170 million against an authorised limit of £951 million. 

A major financial commitment for the DBT is providing redress to victims of the Post Office Horizon IT System.  While more redress was committed than originally estimated, the report states the department has sufficient funding to meet its obligations. 

Challenges and Recommendations 

1) Improve engagement with industry. While the department was created to be a "front door" for businesses, many still find it confusing to know which part of the government to approach.

 

2) Clarify its account management processes for both large and small businesses and set out its general support offer more clearly. 

3) Officials don't consistently record their interactions with industry, and its digital platforms aren't accessible to all government departments. 

The report emphasizes that the upcoming Industrial Strategy, which will designate eight growth-driving sectors, will require greater collaboration and communication across government departments to be successful.

Source: Edited by a human being who added in some graphics from the report and a summary of the specialist units, and who also editing text created from this Gemini query "summarise this document https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/department-for-business-overview-2023-24.pdf in 500 words."

Infographic - if the global workforce were 100 people - by 2030

 

Source: https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/

Employer asks of government to develop talent pipeline by 2030 (wef graphic from 2025 future of jobs report)

 

Largest growing and declining jobs by 2030 (wef graphic from 2025 the future of jobs report)

 

What needs fixing with the NHS - Lord Dharzi's report summarised into 27 points

In a letter to the UK's Health Secretary of State, Lord Darzi summarises his conclusions from his rapid investigation of the state of the NHS, assessing patient access, quality of care and the overall performance of the health system.  (The Secretary of State for Health - Wes Streeting - had asked Lord Darzi to undertake such a review).

I think the report is clear in its analysis and recommendations.  Perhaps due to the brief Lord Darzi was given, his report does not address the question of how such a culture change in such a large organsation can be managed over the many years it will take. In researching such I fell upon this NHS document.

Lord Darzi's conclusions are summarised below.

1) The Health Service is in serious trouble, public satisfaction with it is at its lowest ever.

2) He's worked in the NHS for over 30 years & was shocked by what his investigation found.

3) Causes? Whats happened within the NHS plus a deterioration in the nations's health.

4) The report sets out where the NHS stands now, how we got here and some key remedies.

5) The NHS hasn't met its promises made to people since 2015 on waiting times & treatment.

6) People are struggling to see their GP, shortages are acute in deprived communities.

7) More than 1m people have long waits for community services & mental health.

8). A&E is in an awful state with longer waiting times likely causing 14k more deaths p.a.

9) Waiting times for hospital procedures have ballooned (2010 20k over a year, 2024 300k)

10) The UK has appreciably higher cancer mortality rates than other countries.

11) Care for cardiovascular conditions are going in the wrong direction.

12) Once people are in the system, they get high quality care but maternity care is a concern.

13) Productivity is low, with too much of NHS £ spent on hospitals, too little in the community.

14) NHS isn't contributing to national prosperity as it could by reducing long term sickness.

(Four heavily inter-related factors have contributed to the current dire state of the NHS. They are austerity in funding and capital starvation; the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath; lack of patient voice and staff engagement; and management structures and systems)

15) Spending is below the 2018 funding promise and the historic rate its based on.

16) The NHS has been starved of capital resulting in crumbling buildings that hit productivity.

17) On top of 16) there is a £38b shortfall of capital investment in buildings & equipment.

18) Capital starvation & COVID means the NHS backlog is bigger than other health systems.

19) A familiar theme in care failings is patients’ concerns not being heard or acted upon. 

20) Post pandemic too many staff are disengaged with high levels of sickness absence.

21) The 2012 changes to the NHS structures were a calamity without international precedent.

22) The 2012 changes meant  constant reorganisation of NHS HQ & regulatory functions.

(NHS organisations should focus on the patients and communities they serve, but the sheer number of national organisations that can ‘instruct’ the NHS encourages too many to look upwards rather than to those they are there to serve. The Care Quality Commission – which inspects the NHS – is not fit for purpose, as the recent independent review made clear. Its focus on inputs rather than outcomes has played a major role in driving up the numbers of clinicians in hospitals to unprecedented levels.)

23) The NHS is in critical condition

(It continues to struggle with the aftershocks of the pandemic. Its managerial capacity and capability have been degraded, and the trust and goodwill of many frontline staff has been lost. The service has been chronically weakened by a lack of capital investment which has lagged other similar countries by tens of billions of pounds. All of this has occurred while the demands placed upon the health service have grown as the nation’s health has deteriorated).

24) This isn't primarily due to a failure of NHS management. 

(The NHS is the essential public service and so managers have focused on “keeping the show on the road”. Some fantasise about an imaginary alternative world where heroic NHS managers were able to defy the odds and deliver great performance in a system that had been broken. Better management decisions might have been taken along the way, but I am convinced that they would have only made a marginal difference to the state that the NHS is in today.)

25) But the NHS’s vital signs remain strong - clinical talent, staff's belief in NHS values.

26) NHS Vision OK - Taxpayer funded, free at point of use, based on need not ablility to pay.

(With the exception of the United States, every advanced country has universal health coverage – and the rest of the world are striving towards it. But other health system models – those where user charges, social or private insurance play a bigger role – are more expensive, even if their funding tends to be more stable. It is not a question, therefore, of whether we can afford the NHS. Rather, we cannot afford not to have the NHS, so it is imperative that we turn the situation around)

27) Over 10 years the NHS has fallen into disrepair, improving it will take more than 5 years.

28) Major themes for the forthcoming 10-year health plan - should be ........

a) Re-engage staff and re-empower patients. 

b) Lock in the shift of care closer to home by hardwiring financial flows that encourage such. 

c) Simplify and innovate care delivery for a team work multidisciplinary neighbourhood NHS.

d) Acute care providers should bring down waiting lists by radical productivity improvement. 

e) Tilt towards technology/digital systems/AI to unlock productivity. 

f) Spending £165b the NHS's productivity is vital for national prosperity. 

g) Clarify roles, strengthen capital approval processes & balance management resources.

h)  Change will only be successful if the NHS recovers its capacity to deliver plans.

Photo by nicolasjleclercq via unsplash

  

Global Gender Gap Report

 

Iceland is the top-ranking nation for the 14th year in a row. The Global Gender Gap Report ranks countries on how large the gap is between men and women, rather than overall opportunities and resources for women in any country. #iceland #gendergap #womenempowerment #genderequality

#ThoughtfulThursday Volunteering has changed significantly over the last few years

A Theos report's recommendations are: 

- find ways of broadening volunteer demographic & lowering the average age; 

- explore more flexibility of volunteer placement & more short–term options; 

– more clearly delineate roles and responsibilities; 

- prioritise Investing in volunteer recruitment which helps retention & capacity; 

- its worthwhile to talk about the tension between volunteer & client expectations; 

- local businesses & charities should develop corporate volunteering opportunities; 

- as always, raising public awareness attracts volunteers and charitable support.

 

Who voted against or didn't vote - Common's Privileges Commitee report conclusion - Boris Johnson repeatedly misled parliament about lockdown parties at Downing Street

Source: Guardian online post "How did your MP vote on the Boris Johnson privileges committee report? MPs today voted to approve the Commons privileges committee’s report into Boris Johnson and his statements to the house on Partygate. The report found that Johnson repeatedly misled parliament about lockdown parties at Downing Street, but many Tory MPs did not vote. "

Voted Against Con Sir William Cash Stone Against Con Nick Fletcher Don Valley Against Lab Lilian Greenwood Nottingham South Against* Con Adam Holloway Gravesham Against Con Karl McCartney Lincoln Against Con Joy Morrissey Beaconsfield Against Con Heather Wheeler South Derbyshire Against 

Didn't Vote Con Adam Afriyie Windsor Didn‘t vote Con Lucy Allan Telford Didn‘t vote Lab Fleur Anderson Putney Didn‘t vote Con Lee Anderson Ashfield Didn‘t vote Con Stuart Anderson Wolverhampton South West Didn‘t vote Con Stuart Andrew Pudsey Didn‘t vote Con Caroline Ansell Eastbourne Didn‘t vote Lab Tonia Antoniazzi Gower Didn‘t vote Con Sarah Atherton Wrexham Didn‘t vote Con Victoria Atkins Louth and Horncastle Didn‘t vote Con Gareth Bacon Orpington Didn‘t vote Con Richard Bacon South Norfolk Didn‘t vote Con Kemi Badenoch Saffron Walden Didn‘t vote Con Shaun Bailey West Bromwich West Didn‘t vote Con Siobhan Baillie Stroud Didn‘t vote Con Steve Barclay North East Cambridgeshire Didn‘t vote SNP Hannah Bardell Livingston Didn‘t vote Con Simon Baynes Clwyd South Didn‘t vote Lab Margaret Beckett Derby South Didn‘t vote SF Órfhlaith Begley West Tyrone Didn‘t vote Ind Scott Benton Blackpool South Didn‘t vote Con Sir Paul Beresford Mole Valley Didn‘t vote Con Sir Jake Berry Rossendale and Darwen Didn‘t vote Con Saqib Bhatti Meriden Didn‘t vote SNP Mhairi Black Paisley and Renfrewshire South Didn‘t vote Con Bob Blackman Harrow East Didn‘t vote Con Peter Bone Wellingborough Didn‘t vote Con Ben Bradley Mansfield Didn‘t vote SF Mickey Brady Newry and Armagh Didn‘t vote Con Suella Braverman Fareham Didn‘t vote Con Jack Brereton Stoke-on-Trent South Didn‘t vote Con Paul Bristow Peterborough Didn‘t vote Con Sara Britcliffe Hyndburn Didn‘t vote Con Alex Burghart Brentwood and Ongar Didn‘t vote Con Sir Conor Burns Bournemouth West Didn‘t vote Con Rob Butler Aylesbury Didn‘t vote Con Alun Cairns Vale of Glamorgan Didn‘t vote SNP Lisa Cameron East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow Didn‘t vote DUP Gregory Campbell East Londonderry Didn‘t vote Con James Cartlidge South Suffolk Didn‘t vote Con Miriam Cates Penistone and Stocksbridge Didn‘t vote Con Maria Caulfield Lewes Didn‘t vote SNP Douglas Chapman Dunfermline and West Fife Didn‘t vote Ind Bambos Charalambous Enfield, Southgate Didn‘t vote SNP Joanna Cherry Edinburgh South West Didn‘t vote Con Rehman Chishti Gillingham and Rainham Didn‘t vote Con Sir Christopher Chope Christchurch Didn‘t vote Con Sir Simon Clarke Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland Didn‘t vote Con Brendan Clarke-Smith Bassetlaw Didn‘t vote Con Chris Clarkson Heywood and Middleton Didn‘t vote Con James Cleverly Braintree Didn‘t vote Con Thérèse Coffey Suffolk Coastal Didn‘t vote Con Damian Collins Folkestone and Hythe Didn‘t vote Ind Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Didn‘t vote Con Alberto Costa South Leicestershire Didn‘t vote Con Robert Courts Witney Didn‘t vote Con Claire Coutinho East Surrey Didn‘t vote SNP Angela Crawley Lanark and Hamilton East Didn‘t vote Con Virginia Crosbie Ynys Môn Didn‘t vote Con Tracey Crouch Chatham and Aylesford Didn‘t vote Lab Judith Cummins Bradford South Didn‘t vote Lab Alex Cunningham Stockton North Didn‘t vote Con James Daly Bury North Didn‘t vote Con Gareth Davies Grantham and Stamford Didn‘t vote Ind Geraint Davies Swansea West Didn‘t vote Con James Davies Vale of Clwyd Didn‘t vote Con Philip Davies Shipley Didn‘t vote Con Dehenna Davison Bishop Auckland Didn‘t vote Con Dame Caroline Dinenage Gosport Didn‘t vote Con Miss Sarah Dines Derbyshire Dales Didn‘t vote Con Leo Docherty Aldershot Didn‘t vote DUP Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson Lagan Valley Didn‘t vote Con Michelle Donelan Chippenham Didn‘t vote Con Nadine Dorries Mid Bedfordshire Didn‘t vote Con Steve Double St Austell and Newquay Didn‘t vote Con Oliver Dowden Hertsmere Didn‘t vote Con Richard Drax South Dorset Didn‘t vote Con Sir James Duddridge Rochford and Southend East Didn‘t vote Lab Rosie Duffield Canterbury Didn‘t vote Con Sir Iain Duncan Smith Chingford and Woodford Green Didn‘t vote Con Mark Eastwood Dewsbury Didn‘t vote Con Sir Michael Ellis Northampton North Didn‘t vote Con Natalie Elphicke Dover Didn‘t vote Con George Eustice Camborne and Redruth Didn‘t vote Con Nigel Evans Ribble Valley Didn‘t vote Con Sir David Evennett Bexleyheath and Crayford Didn‘t vote Con Ben Everitt Milton Keynes North Didn‘t vote Con Michael Fabricant Lichfield Didn‘t vote SF John Finucane Belfast North Didn‘t vote Con Anna Firth Southend West Didn‘t vote Con Katherine Fletcher South Ribble Didn‘t vote Con Kevin Foster Torbay Didn‘t vote Con Liam Fox North Somerset Didn‘t vote Con Mark Francois Rayleigh and Wickford Didn‘t vote Con Lucy Frazer South East Cambridgeshire Didn‘t vote Con Mike Freer Finchley and Golders Green Didn‘t vote Con Louie French Old Bexley and Sidcup Didn‘t vote Con Marcus Fysh Yeovil Didn‘t vote Con Sir Roger Gale North Thanet Didn‘t vote Con Mark Garnier Wyre Forest Didn‘t vote Con Nusrat Ghani Wealden Didn‘t vote SF Michelle Gildernew Fermanagh and South Tyrone Didn‘t vote Lab Preet Kaur Gill Birmingham, Edgbaston Didn‘t vote DUP Paul Girvan South Antrim Didn‘t vote Con John Glen Salisbury Didn‘t vote Con Sir Robert Goodwill Scarborough and Whitby Didn‘t vote Con Michael Gove Surrey Heath Didn‘t vote Con Helen Grant Maidstone and The Weald Didn‘t vote Con James Gray North Wiltshire Didn‘t vote Con Chris Grayling Epsom and Ewell Didn‘t vote Con Chris Green Bolton West Didn‘t vote Con Andrew Griffith Arundel and South Downs Didn‘t vote Con James Grundy Leigh Didn‘t vote Con Jonathan Gullis Stoke-on-Trent North Didn‘t vote Lab Louise Haigh Sheffield, Heeley Didn‘t vote Con Robert Halfon Harlow Didn‘t vote Con Greg Hands Chelsea and Fulham Didn‘t vote SDLP Claire Hanna Belfast South Didn‘t vote Con Mark Harper Forest of Dean Didn‘t vote Con Rebecca Harris Castle Point Didn‘t vote Con Trudy Harrison Copeland Didn‘t vote Con Sally-Ann Hart Hastings and Rye Didn‘t vote Con Sir John Hayes South Holland and The Deepings Didn‘t vote SF Chris Hazzard South Down Didn‘t vote Con Sir Oliver Heald North East Hertfordshire Didn‘t vote Con James Heappey Wells Didn‘t vote Con Chris Heaton-Harris Daventry Didn‘t vote Con Gordon Henderson Sittingbourne and Sheppey Didn‘t vote Lab Sir Mark Hendrick Preston Didn‘t vote Con Darren Henry Broxtowe Didn‘t vote Con Antony Higginbotham Burnley Didn‘t vote Con Simon Hoare North Dorset Didn‘t vote Con Richard Holden North West Durham Didn‘t vote Con Kevin Hollinrake Thirsk and Malton Didn‘t vote Con Philip Hollobone Kettering Didn‘t vote Con John Howell Henley Didn‘t vote Con Paul Howell Sedgefield Didn‘t vote Oth Sir Lindsay Hoyle Chorley Didn‘t vote Con Nigel Huddleston Mid Worcestershire Didn‘t vote Con Neil Hudson Penrith and The Border Didn‘t vote Con Eddie Hughes Walsall North Didn‘t vote Con Jane Hunt Loughborough Didn‘t vote Con Jeremy Hunt South West Surrey Didn‘t vote Con Tom Hunt Ipswich Didn‘t vote Con Alister Jack Dumfries and Galloway Didn‘t vote Con Sajid Javid Bromsgrove Didn‘t vote Con Ranil Jayawardena North East Hampshire Didn‘t vote Con Mark Jenkinson Workington Didn‘t vote Con Dame Andrea Jenkyns Morley and Outwood Didn‘t vote Con Robert Jenrick Newark Didn‘t vote Con Caroline Johnson Sleaford and North Hykeham Didn‘t vote Con Gareth Johnson Dartford Didn‘t vote Con David Johnston Wantage Didn‘t vote Con David Jones Clwyd West Didn‘t vote Con Marcus Jones Nuneaton Didn‘t vote Lab Ruth Jones Newport West Didn‘t vote Lab Afzal Khan Manchester, Gorton Didn‘t vote Con Sir Greg Knight East Yorkshire Didn‘t vote Ind Julian Knight Solihull Didn‘t vote Con Danny Kruger Devizes Didn‘t vote Con Kwasi Kwarteng Spelthorne Didn‘t vote Con Dame Eleanor Laing Epping Forest Didn‘t vote Con Pauline Latham Mid Derbyshire Didn‘t vote SNP Chris Law Dundee West Didn‘t vote Con Sir Edward Leigh Gainsborough Didn‘t vote Con Ian Levy Blyth Valley Didn‘t vote Con Sir Brandon Lewis Great Yarmouth Didn‘t vote Con Ian Liddell-Grainger Bridgwater and West Somerset Didn‘t vote DUP Carla Lockhart Upper Bann Didn‘t vote Con Chris Loder West Dorset Didn‘t vote Con Mark Logan Bolton North East Didn‘t vote Con Marco Longhi Dudley North Didn‘t vote Con Julia Lopez Hornchurch and Upminster Didn‘t vote Con Jack Lopresti Filton and Bradley Stoke Didn‘t vote Con Jonathan Lord Woking Didn‘t vote Con Jason McCartney Colne Valley Didn‘t vote SNP Stewart Malcolm McDonald Glasgow South Didn‘t vote Ind Conor McGinn St Helens North Didn‘t vote Con Craig Mackinlay South Thanet Didn‘t vote Con Cherilyn Mackrory Truro and Falmouth Didn‘t vote Con Rachel Maclean Redditch Didn‘t vote SNP Angus Brendan MacNeil Na h-Eileanan an Iar Didn‘t vote Con Stephen McPartland Stevenage Didn‘t vote Con Esther McVey Tatton Didn‘t vote Con Alan Mak Havant Didn‘t vote Con Kit Malthouse North West Hampshire Didn‘t vote Con Scott Mann North Cornwall Didn‘t vote SF Paul Maskey Belfast West Didn‘t vote Con Paul Maynard Blackpool North and Cleveleys Didn‘t vote Con Mark Menzies Fylde Didn‘t vote Con Johnny Mercer Plymouth, Moor View Didn‘t vote Con Huw Merriman Bexhill and Battle Didn‘t vote Con Stephen Metcalfe South Basildon and East Thurrock Didn‘t vote Con Robin Millar Aberconwy Didn‘t vote Con Dame Amanda Milling Cannock Chase Didn‘t vote Con Gagan Mohindra South West Hertfordshire Didn‘t vote SF Francie Molloy Mid Ulster Didn‘t vote Con Damien Moore Southport Didn‘t vote Con Anne Marie Morris Newton Abbot Didn‘t vote Con David Morris Morecambe and Lunesdale Didn‘t vote Con James Morris Halesowen and Rowley Regis Didn‘t vote Con Jill Mortimer Hartlepool Didn‘t vote Con Wendy Morton Aldridge-Brownhills Didn‘t vote Con Kieran Mullan Crewe and Nantwich Didn‘t vote Con Sheryll Murray South East Cornwall Didn‘t vote Con Lia Nici Great Grimsby Didn‘t vote Con Neil O'Brien Harborough Didn‘t vote Con Matthew Offord Hendon Didn‘t vote Lab Kate Osamor Edmonton Didn‘t vote DUP Ian Paisley North Antrim Didn‘t vote Con Priti Patel Witham Didn‘t vote Con Mark Pawsey Rugby Didn‘t vote Con Sir Mike Penning Hemel Hempstead Didn‘t vote Con Andrew Percy Brigg and Goole Didn‘t vote Ind Christopher Pincher Tamworth Didn‘t vote Con Mark Pritchard The Wrekin Didn‘t vote Con Tom Pursglove Corby Didn‘t vote Con Jeremy Quin Horsham Didn‘t vote Con Will Quince Colchester Didn‘t vote Lab Yasmin Qureshi Bolton South East Didn‘t vote Con Dominic Raab Esher and Walton Didn‘t vote Con Tom Randall Gedling Didn‘t vote Con John Redwood Wokingham Didn‘t vote Ind Christina Rees Neath Didn‘t vote Con Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg North East Somerset Didn‘t vote DUP Gavin Robinson Belfast East Didn‘t vote Con Mary Robinson Cheadle Didn‘t vote Con Andrew Rosindell Romford Didn‘t vote Con Dean Russell Watford Didn‘t vote Lab Naz Shah Bradford West Didn‘t vote DUP Jim Shannon Strangford Didn‘t vote Con Grant Shapps Welwyn Hatfield Didn‘t vote Con Sir Alok Sharma Reading West Didn‘t vote SNP Tommy Sheppard Edinburgh East Didn‘t vote Con David Simmonds Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner Didn‘t vote Con Greg Smith Buckingham Didn‘t vote Con Henry Smith Crawley Didn‘t vote Con Royston Smith Southampton, Itchen Didn‘t vote Con Amanda Solloway Derby North Didn‘t vote Con Mark Spencer Sherwood Didn‘t vote Con Alexander Stafford Rother Valley Didn‘t vote Con Andrew Stephenson Pendle Didn‘t vote Con Jane Stevenson Wolverhampton North East Didn‘t vote Con Bob Stewart Beckenham Didn‘t vote Con Iain Stewart Milton Keynes South Didn‘t vote Lab Wes Streeting Ilford North Didn‘t vote Con Mel Stride Central Devon Didn‘t vote Con Graham Stuart Beverley and Holderness Didn‘t vote Con Rishi Sunak Richmond (Yorks) Didn‘t vote Con Sir Desmond Swayne New Forest West Didn‘t vote SNP Alison Thewliss Glasgow Central Didn‘t vote Con Derek Thomas St Ives Didn‘t vote Lab Gareth Thomas Harrow West Didn‘t vote SNP Owen Thompson Midlothian Didn‘t vote Con Edward Timpson Eddisbury Didn‘t vote Con Kelly Tolhurst Rochester and Strood Didn‘t vote Con Justin Tomlinson North Swindon Didn‘t vote Con Michael Tomlinson Mid Dorset and North Poole Didn‘t vote Con Craig Tracey North Warwickshire Didn‘t vote Con Anne-Marie Trevelyan Berwick-upon-Tweed Didn‘t vote Con Laura Trott Sevenoaks Didn‘t vote Con Elizabeth Truss South West Norfolk Didn‘t vote Con Shailesh Vara North West Cambridgeshire Didn‘t vote Con Matt Vickers Stockton South Didn‘t vote Con Theresa Villiers Chipping Barnet Didn‘t vote Con Ben Wallace Wyre and Preston North Didn‘t vote Con Jamie Wallis Bridgend Didn‘t vote Con Matt Warman Boston and Skegness Didn‘t vote Con Giles Watling Clacton Didn‘t vote Con Suzanne Webb Stourbridge Didn‘t vote Con Helen Whately Faversham and Mid Kent Didn‘t vote Lab Mick Whitley Birkenhead Didn‘t vote Con Craig Whittaker Calder Valley Didn‘t vote Con Sir John Whittingdale Maldon Didn‘t vote Con Sir Bill Wiggin North Herefordshire Didn‘t vote Con James Wild North West Norfolk Didn‘t vote Con Sir Gavin Williamson South Staffordshire Didn‘t vote DUP Sammy Wilson East Antrim Didn‘t vote Lab Beth Winter Cynon Valley Didn‘t vote Lab Dame Rosie Winterton Doncaster Central Didn‘t vote Con Mike Wood Dudley South Didn‘t vote Con Sir Jeremy Wright Kenilworth and Southam Didn‘t vote Con Jacob Young Redcar Didn‘t vote Con Nadhim Zahawi Stratford-on-Avon Didn‘t vote

Summary of investigative report by Adam Tolley KC on eight complaints about Dominic Raab bullying various people

SUMMARY

So I've just read the 48 page 20th April 2023 investigative report by Adam Tolley, (AT), KC on eight complaints about Dominic Raab, (DR), bullying various people. In the investigative process 66 interviews were held, mostly in person and some by video conference.  AT conducted all of the interviews himself. 

The report concludes that on two of the complaints DR's conduct fits the definition of bullying. As DR undertook to resign, if the investigation found bullying, then he has resigned.  However his resignation letter says the findings of bullying are flawed and set the threshold for finding bullying too low..

On DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, the report concludes that DR acted in a way which was intimidating and which involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. It goes on to state that, at the very least, DR should have been aware that this would be the effect of his conduct.

On DR's conduct as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, the report concludes that the composition and content of the two omplaints make them unsuitable as a basis for any findings about DR's conduct.  However the report does comment that DR has been able to regulate his level of ‘abrasiveness’ since the announcement of the investigation and that he should have altered his approach earlier.

The report's findings are plainly dependent on the defintion of bullying it uses which is in paragrpah 175 of the report. In summary that paragraph says bullying is "Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour; or Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."

In DR's written representations to the investigation he made various points concerning the definition of bullying, and in the report AT states that he has "made findings of fact with the DPM’s representation in mind". 

A BIT MORE DETAIL

Paragraph 175 of the report says that, "for the purpose of this investigation under the Ministerial Code, conduct would fall within the description of ‘bullying’ if it can be characterised as:

(1) Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour; or

(2) Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."

Paragraph 176 of the report summarises what AT has found as follows. 

The DExEU Complaint - DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union.  DR's conduct can't be characterised as offensive, malicious or insulting. It was experienced as intimidating but AT couldn't make a finding as to whether it was in fact intimidating.  There was no evidence to suggest any abuse or misuse of power.

The FCDO Complaint - DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.   

In DR's genuine, adverse view about the work of others DR acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. DR introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that DR was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware

On a separate occasion, DR referred to the Civil Service Code in a way which could reasonably have been understood as suggesting that those involved had acted in breach. This had a significant adverse effect on a particular individual who took it seriously. DR's conduct was a form of intimidating behaviour, in the sense of conveying a threat of unspecified disciplinary action, and was experienced as such. He ought to have realised that his reference to the Civil Service Code could well have been understood as a threat.

The MoJ Complaints - DR's conduct as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice.  The composition and content of these complaints make them unsuitable as a basis for any findings about DR's conduct.

DR's conduct during the MoJ Period was sometimes ‘abrasive’, in the sense of a personal style which is or feels intimidating or insulting to the individual, but is not intended to be so. His conduct was not, however, ‘abusive’, in the sense of behaviour which is intended and specifically targeted.  DR has been able to regulate this level of ‘abrasiveness’ since the announcement of the investigation. He should have altered his approach earlier.

15min clip - Disco Music - 60 Minutes Special Report (1978)

found via boingboing

3min 51sec clip - 2020 YouTube #Culture & #Trends Report: Introduction

text from youtube "YouTube's Culture & Trends team examines the trends and behavior defining our ever-evolving digital culture in 2020. Kevin Allocca, YouTube's Head of Culture & Trends, kicks things off. To see the full YouTube Culture & Trends Report, head to https://www.youtube.com/trends/report"

Five #PoliticalTactics to learn from #Corbyn's response to Thursday's antisemitism report

 

The 5 #PoliticalTactics are: 1) I'm the victim here; 2) It's somebody else's fault; 3) I don't accept all the points, 4) There is a conspiracy against me; 5) Simply ignore the most damaging points.

In the future will people sing "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn" ironically as a comment on a classic mishandling of a criticism?  

And I wonder whether Jeremy's friends advised him not to post what he did on Facebook last Thursday?  Those of them on the media on Friday appeared to be carefully avoiding answering the question.  

Trade Union bosses weighed in with strong criticism of what they saw as an attack on Jeremy, and warnings of Civil War within the Labour Party.  Other Jeremy supporters doubled down on how the real issue was Jeremy's unfair subsequent suspension from the Labour Party pending investigation.

So what appear to be the facts underneath all this noise?  Jeremy's Facebook post did condemn antisemitism and acknowledge it's existence in the Labour Party.  But his post also said his team had speeded up reviews of antisemitism and that "the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated". 

The report provides damning counterpoints to those arguments - a choice few are 

- "Our investigation has identified serious failings in leadership"

-  Our analysis points to a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it."

and perhaps most shocking of all "We found evidence of political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints throughout the period of the investigation. We have concluded that this practice of political interference was unlawful. The evidence shows that staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) were able to influence decisions on complaints, especially decisions on whether to suspend someone. "

Jeremy's post also says on the report "I do not accept all of its findings", whilst avoiding any detail on which findings he doesn't accept.  Given his post omits to mention one of the report's conclusions, "Our investigation found that the Labour Party has committed unlawful acts." I'm unclear whether that is one of the report's conclusion he doesn't accept.

So for those with aspirations to become one of our well rewarded MPs there are several #PoliticalTactics to study and learn here.

1) When facing criticism try to change the story to how unfairly you've been treated;

2) Say you don't agree with all of the criticism but don't be specific;

3) Blame the leadership before you came along or somebody else for the situation;

4) Suggest some sort of political/media conspiracy is going on.

5) Avoid repeating or responding to the most damaging criticisms - simply ignore them.

Time will tell how the public judge Jeremy's response to the report.  Sadly I fear it will only strengthen people's cynicism about politicians.

And if you want a bit more detail read on ...

Yesterday on Facebook Jeremy Corbyn posted his response to the EHRC report.  Basically whilst he condemns antisemitism and acknowledges it exists in the Labour Party, he also does not accept all the report's findings and argues that on handling complaints about antisemitism "My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process", and that "the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media."

On their webpage that links to the report the EHRC summarise the report by saying "Our investigation found that the Labour Party has committed unlawful acts. We have published a report about our findings, including our recommendations for change. The Labour Party is now legally obliged to draft an action plan to tackle the unlawful act findings we made. This should be based on our recommendations. Once the action plan is agreed, we will continue to monitor it. If the Labour Party fails to live up to its commitments in the legally binding action plan, then we may take enforcement action."

The report's foreword goes on to say "We found specific examples of harassment, discrimination and political interference in our evidence, but equally of concern was a lack of leadership within the Labour Party on these issues, which is hard to reconcile with its stated

commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism. "

Text from 29/10/20 Jeremy Corbyn Facebook post

My statement following the publication of the EHRC report:

“Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.

“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.

“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.

“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.

“One antisemite is one too many,  but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.

“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”

#ruralpresence blog post - Rural Church ideas from Exeter Diocese’s 1st annual report on Growing the Rural Church

(this post was 1st published on the Rural Presence Blog)

Back in February 2018 @CofEDevon tweeted about the launch of their first Growing the Rural Church Annual Report.  The 16 page document covers the first year of their 7 year project, which is funded by the Church of England’s Strategic Development Fund and their own Diocesan Synod.  With a project team of 4 the spend in 2017 was £106k (£49k in salaries) and the budget for 2018 is £287k (£144k in salaries).

Reflecting on their experiences so far they report that two things stand out: 

1. People are passionate about heritage buildings, for “their” church, a symbol of their village or community identity which should be open and available to them. 

2. For rural worshiping communities their church building often feels more of a burden than a blessing taking resource away from their passion for mission.

Through their pilot projects they are starting to see glimpses of what can happen when conversations are facilitated between people with one or both of these passions.  These develop when worshipping and non-worshipping members of communities come together to ask two questions, first, ‘What does our community need?’ and second, ‘How might our church, as people and a building, meet that need?’

As a quick heads up for you I’ve summarised below the projects and ideas the report covers.

1. St Mary’s, Walkhampton – Champing™ with The Churches Conservation Trust – the church is used regularly for worship and community events.  From spring 2018 it will also be used as accommodation for tourists.  This will provide income for the church as well as for local food businesses.
2. All Saints, North Molton – Developing a Community Enterprise with Stir to Action – the community is exploring, with Friends Provident Foundation’s Stir to Action consultancy, options for the development of a community enterprise.  Ideas include: a cinema, a business hub, a community energy company and a café.
3. Shirwell Mission Community – Stories on the Street – 7 rural parishes are partnering with Mosaic Creative and Mothers’ Union to pilot a UK version of Tearfund’s Church and Community Mobilisation initiative.  It uses bible study, workshops and initiatives to support community action addressing local challenges.
4. Two Rivers Mission Community – Exploring Community Involvement in Caring for Church Buildings – 4 of the communities’ 11 rural parishes are partnering with Devon Communities Together  and engaging over 400 people in their communities to developing a shared vision for the future of their churches.
5. Sharing learning – there are webpages with advice and guidance.  Over 40 enquiries from Mission Communities have been given guidance, signposting and case study examples.  They are also engaging in ongoing learning conversations, exchange visits and learning events with 10 other diocese.
6. Communications – With 3 explicit communications aims for 2017 they have used webpages, videos, case studies, magazine/newsletter articles and speaking engagements.  Videos are popular and Twitter @GtRCDevon has been used to build connections with potential partners at county and national level.
7. Monitoring and Evaluation –  By March 2018 they aim to develop an Impact Measurement Framework to examine their activities, the outputs, how they help meet desired outcomes, and their learning.  For example, one key outcome is that mission communities have more energy and capacity for mission and discipleship.
8. Other activities from the 8 pilot projects in 2017 (including those in 1-4 above)

• Supporting the review and implementation of Mission Action Plans
• Exploring releasing people from administrative or governance tasks into mission
• Piloting resources that support the development of mission focused initiatives
• Delivering community consultations
• Exploring alternative governance structures for the care of rural church buildings
• Developing enterprise uses of church building
• Supporting the development of community groups to share the care of rural church buildings.

9. Plans for 2018

• Increasing resources to support mission and ministry
• Developing best practice approaches – e.g. support to different ‘categories’ of rural churches, such as festival churches, rural resource churches and tourism churches.

#ruralpresence - Social Mobility #insights and ranking for each of England’s 324 Local Authority areas – from a November 2017 report

 

this post was 1st published on the Rural Presence Blog)


This Government report from November 2017 – found via a tweet from @RuSource – uses a Social Mobility Index to highlight where, (geographically), people from disadvantaged backgrounds are most and least likely to make social progress.

The index uses a range of 16 indicators for every life stage – from the early years through to adulthood – which assess the education, employability and housing prospects of people living in each of England’s 324 local authority areas.

If you want to find out how your area fares I’ve included an alphabetical listing of local authorities and their ranking on the social mobility index in this spreadsheet.  More data is available on this HMG spreadsheet.

As the report says:

“England is a small country with a large and growing gap between those places that offer good opportunities for social progress – what we have called social mobility hotspots – and those that do not – the coldspots.”

The map below shows the hotspots in shades of red and the coldspots in shades of blue.

The report’s foreword points out that:

• only one in six of 5 million low paid workers – mostly women – (in 2006) had managed to find a permanent route out of low pay a decade later;
• house owner occupation – one of the foundations for higher levels of social mobility – has fallen by 17% in the last decade among the under-44s;
• there remains an entrenched and unbroken correlation between social class and educational success: the income gap is larger than either the ethnicity gap or the gender gap in schools.

To these economic or social divides the November 2017 report identifies widening geographical divide.  Social mobility coldspots are concentrated in remote rural or coastal areas and in former industrial areas, especially in the Midlands.

Many of these places combine poor educational outcomes for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds with weak labour markets that have a greater share of low skilled, low-paid employment than elsewhere in England.

Remote rural and coastal areas also suffer from poor connectivity by transport, restricting opportunities still further.

The bottom five coldspots are Carlisle, Corby, Weymouth and Portland, Newark and Sherwood, and West Somerset, which is overall the worst part of the country for social mobility.

Some of the coldspots are among the least deprived areas in the country – for example, Cotswold and West Berkshire. Disadvantaged youngsters in these areas can be somewhat neglected, especially if they are dispersed across isolated rural schools.

Similarly, some affluent places have high levels of low pay despite high average salaries. In St Albans, for example, half the population are in well-paid professional roles, but a quarter earn below the voluntary living wage.

The report points out that local policies adopted by local authorities and employers can positively influence outcomes for disadvantaged residents.   It states that there is enough evidence that –  with the right approach – the transmission of disadvantage from one generation to the next can be broken.

The report offers a number of recommendations for local and national government around using proven techniques, pooling knowledge and experience and drawing on best practice. So for example it suggests that every local authority should:

• develop an integrated strategy for improving disadvantaged children’s outcomes and that pupil premium funds should be invested in evidence-based practice;
• support collaboration between isolated schools, subsidise transport for disadvantaged young people in isolated areas and encourage Local Enterprise Partnerships to follow the North East Local Enterprise Partnership’s approach to improving careers support for young people;
• become accredited living wage employers and encourage others in their communities to do likewise.

The report is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.  To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3