Was the Telegraph sting illegal?

Two journalists misrepresent themselves as constituents of members of parliament to gain access to appointments at their advice surgeries, and proceed secretly to record their conversations with the MPs – conversations from which their editors then quote selectively in prominent front-page stories. Is this ethical? Is it even legal? David Howarth is asking the questions.

The Press Complaints Commission's code forbids the use of subterfuge, misrepresentation and clandestine recording devices, except where the publication is in the public interest and the information cannot be obtained any other way. The public interest includes "preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation".

That might sound promising for the journalists. The trouble is, however, that they would have to point to some specific prior action or statement of the MPs concerned that had created a misleading impression. Collective cabinet responsibility, for example, does not mean that everyone in the cabinet is claiming to agree with cabinet decisions. It means only that ministers agree not to contradict them in public.

Where the journalists' subterfuge, misrepresentation and use of clandestine devices themselves create public dissension from cabinet decisions that otherwise would not exist, the journalists cannot claim that they were acting to prevent a pre-existing misleading impression. The public contradiction is entirely of the journalists' own making. One cannot claim to be a hero by attempting to rescue a person one has just pushed into a lake.

What about legality? The MPs might have civil actions in breach of confidence and breach of copyright. Breach of confidence occurs whenever someone makes information public that a reasonable person would have expected to remain private. That is undoubtedly the case here, but there is a complication – the MPs would have to show that they had suffered loss and there is a defence of disclosure in the public interest. If the MP does not in the event lose his or her ministerial job as a result of the disclosure, loss might be difficult to prove.

If we wake up to Fox News next year, it’s Vince Cable's fault

The EU yesterday cleared News Corp's £8bn bid to buy the 61% of pay-TV company BSkyB it does not already own, thus making a good day for the company even better. The media conglomerate, run by Rupert Murdoch, seized on the ruling, claiming it would increase the pressure on the British government to do the same.

A few hours later, Vince Cable, who had the power to decide whether to block the deal on public interest grounds publicly, if unwittingly, declared his opposition to the deal. His boast to two undercover reporters that he had "declared war on Mr Murdoch" fatally undermined the business secretary's independence and made it impossible for him to rule on the Sky bid.

That task will now fall to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, a man who has previously expressed admiration for BSkyB. "BSkyB revolutionised the way we watch TV," he told an audience of media executives in August.

In June, soon after News Corp's bid to take full control of BSkyB had been made public, Hunt said: "It does seem to me that News Corp do control Sky already, so it isn't clear to me that in terms of media plurality there is a substantive change, but I don't want to second-guess what regulators might decide."

News Corp said it was "shocked and dismayed" by Cable's boast, but sources close to the company privately acknowledged the chances of its bid for BSkyB proceeding had increased dramatically as a result. The stock market echoed that sentiment. Shares in BSkyB initially fell by 2% as the City absorbed the fact that Cable, the only man who had the power to block the £8bn offer, had indicated he would do so.

As for the Daily Telegraph’s revelations …

the president of the Lib Dems tweeted:

@timfarronTim Farron

congratulations to the Telegraph who've uncovered the shocking truth that Lib Dem ministers have... err...got minds of their own. good work!

7 hours ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply

Fair enough.

And then there was the one about Vince Cable going to war against Murdoch

As if. A humbled and diminished Vince Cable was tonight allowed to cling on to his cabinet post as business secretary, but was stripped of all responsibility for media policy after it emerged he had told undercover reporters that he had "declared war" on Rupert Murdoch over the media magnate's plans to take over all of BSkyB.

Cable's reckless claims, in a secretly recorded conversation, were considered a flagrant breach of his duty to take a quasi-judicial approach to the proposed takeover, and were declared "totally unacceptable and inappropriate" by Downing Street. Many had expected an angry David Cameron to sack Cable or transfer him to a lesser cabinet role.

But instead the business secretary was hauled in front of his party leader, Nick Clegg, and then Cameron. After a series of emergency meetings, which included George Osborne, the chancellor, Clegg felt he could not afford to lose the second most senior Liberal Democrat from the government.

Nearly seventy civil servants responsible for all aspects of media and telecoms policy will now be transferred from Cable's business empire to the Department of Culture Media and Sport headed by Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary and a Conservative likely to be sympathetic to Murdoch.

What Vince Cable told Daily Telegraph reporters posing as Liberal Democrat activists, as revealed by Robert Peston

Cable I am picking my fights, some of which you may have seen, some of which you may haven't seen [sic]. And I don't know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win.

(Later) Well I did not politicise it, because it is a legal question. But he [Mr Murdoch] is trying to take over BSkyB – you probably know that.

Reporter I know vaguely.

Cable With considerably enhanced …

Reporter I always thought that he had BSkyB with Sky anyway?

Cable No, he has minority shares and he wants a majority – and a majority control would give them a massive stake. I have blocked it using the powers that I have got and they are legal powers that I have got.

I can't politicise it but from the people that know what is happening this is a big, big thing. His whole empire is now under attack … so there are things like that we do in government, that we can't do … all we can do in opposition is protest.

Gove announces partial reprieve for sports scheme

Ministers had called the partnership scheme a "complete failure", arguing it had done too little to increase physical activity among young people.

Education Secretary Michael Gove has partially backed down over his decision to scrap the £162m Schools Sports Partnership in England. He promised to salvage over £47m from his department budget to ensure the scheme, aimed at increasing competitive sport, survives until the summer. Mr Gove said exercise helped a "rounded education", but Labour said he had made a "humiliating" climb-down. Teachers and athletes mounted a strong campaign against the original decision.

The Schools Sports Partnership supports joint initiatives between primary, secondary and specialist state schools designed to increase sporting opportunities for children. After the scheme goes in summer 2011, the government is promising that £65m will be available in 2011-12 and 2012-13 to ensure one PE teacher per school is released for a day a week to ensure efforts to boost competitive sports are "embedded".

In a statement, Mr Gove said: "I want competitive sport to be at the centre of a truly rounded education that all schools offer. But this must be led by schools and parents, not by top-down policies from Whitehall. It's time to ensure what was best in school sport partnerships around the country is fully embedded and move forward to a system where schools and parents are delivering on sports with competition at the heart."

Mr Gove added that he was "looking to PE teachers to embed sport and put more emphasis on competitions for more pupils in their own schools, and to continue to help the teachers in local primary schools do the same".

Fiscal squeeze will squash the poor

For all their talk of tackling the root causes of poverty, Cameron, Clegg and Osborne threaten to leave more children and their working parents slipping further into deprivation writes Larry Elliott in today’s Guardian.

“In many other countries it would be a recipe for civil unrest, perhaps even revolution. Britain, though, is a placid place and it takes quite a lot to get this country's dander up. Sure, we've had protests from students this autumn but the latest forecasts of expected trends in poverty were greeted with a resigned shrug of the shoulders. 
 
Make no mistake, the findings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) make depressing reading. Child poverty? Going up over the next three years. Poverty from working-age adults with children? Going up. Poverty for working adults without children? You guessed it. Going up also.

And these – lest you get the wrong end of the stick – are not increases in relative poverty. They are increases in absolute poverty: the number of people living on less than 60% of the national income adjusted for inflation. And they are not nugatory increases either: by 2013-14 an additional 900,000 people will have slipped below the breadline.

There is a stock response to findings of this sort. The first line of defence is to say that there is something wrong with the methodology – this has indeed been the default setting for David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Funnily enough, they found little to complain about when the IFS was using the same approach to question Labour's record on poverty.

A second line of defence is to say that even if the figures are right, an income of 60% of the national median is not real poverty in the sense that it is for someone living on less than $2 a day in sub-Saharan Africa. This, it has to be said, tends to be trotted out by those with little personal experience of rubbing along on benefits or the minimum wage topped up with tax credits.

Finally, it is argued that the UK needs a complete rethink of its approach towards poverty because the approach of the Blair-Brown governments between 1997 and 2010 failed by concentrating on state handouts rather than tackling the root causes of the problem: worklessness and dysfunctional families.

Tory MP calls for local government planning to be replaced by 'chaos'

A key member of David Cameron's inner circle was at the centre of controversy tonight after he was filmed stating that the prime minister and his deputy, Nick Clegg, want their "people power" revolution to unleash "chaotic" effects across local communities. The comments, by Nicholas Boles, Tory MP for Grantham and Stamford, were made 10 days ago during a debate in Westminster hosted by the polling organisation Ipsos MORI. During a question-and-answer session on the "big society", Boles – viewed by Cameron's circle as an "outrider" for imaginative thinking on policy – was asked why he seemed to prefer "chaos" to central planning of services.

Boles replied that he, Cameron and Clegg did not believe in central planning and that it would be a good thing to have different communities offering differing types of services, even if the appearance was chaotic.

"I mean, bluntly, there comes a question in life," he told the audience. "Do you believe planning works? That clever people sitting in a room can plan how people's communities should develop, or do you believe it can't work? I believe it can't work, David Cameron believes it can't, Nick Clegg believes it can't. Chaotic therefore in our vocabulary is a good thing. Chaotic is what our cities are when we see how people live, where restaurants spring up, where they close, where people move to. Would you like to live in a world where you could predict any of that? I certainly wouldn't. So I want there to be chaotic in the sense I want lots of organisations doing different things, in different areas."

NHS funding grenade explodes in Cameron's face

With the Christmas recess upon us, ministers are shattered but optimistic. The cabinet is proud of what it has achieved in just seven months. Difficult decisions have been made and painful cuts have started. Last week, councils, courts, schools and the local NHS were told their budgets for next year.

The spreadsheets make grim reading. Row after row of minuses. Each one represents thousands of workers starting a change process where their jobs could be lost. In January, the same thousands will compete for the remaining posts. The successful ones will be left to cope with increasing demand and fewer people to do the work. The unsuccessful will swell the ranks of the unemployed.

The NHS was supposed to be the bright hope amid the misery, a golden opportunity for the Conservatives to show they could be trusted to run the health service. Senior officials fear that the opportunity has already been squandered and the government must work fast on damage-limitation.

When Andrew Lansley took over as health secretary, the NHS was performing well, with satisfaction ratings that most companies would be proud of. The experts advised them to keep the NHS stable, maintain high standards and keep staff motivated to work harder with less money.

So Lansley published a plan to do the opposite.

After children of Thatcher comes spawn of Porter

A council has admitted it plans to move 80 per cent of homeless housing benefit claimants needing temporary accommodation out of the borough, writes Isabel Hardman for Inside Housing. Westminster Council’s finance and resources overview and scrutiny committee is considering a report which says nearly 400 families will be moved into homes outside of the borough once housing benefit cuts mean their accommodation is no longer affordable.

Often mistaken for a drag act, Dame Shirley Porter instituted the secret
‘homes for votes’ policy in 1990

The report predicts a shift in the proportion of accommodation that the council books within the borough. It currently houses 70 per cent of those presenting as homeless within the borough, but by 2016 this will shift to 80 per cent of claimants housed outside Westminster.

The report says Westminster is the worst affected borough in London, with 5,000 local housing allowance claimants expected to lose out from the cuts. The council is still waiting for its allocation of an additional £10 million which was added to the discretionary housing payment, a fund making up the shortfall between rent and housing benefit payments while a tenant finds alternative accommodation.

Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of the Labour group on the council, said: ‘These truly shocking figures show that hundreds of low-income families will be forced to uproot themselves over the coming years to parts of London with which they have no connection, no other family members and no friends. Many of them working locally in low-paid jobs will now be forced to make expensive journeys back to Westminster to get to work.’

Cabinet member for housing Philippa Roe said: ‘The number of people housed outside of the borough is really very small compared to the overall caseload of housing benefit claims that we do have. We want to use the DHP as much as possible for those who can prove that they need to stay in the borough, and for pensioners, whose circumstances obviously will not change, we are trying to work out a way of keeping them in the borough, although I don’t know where we’ll get the money for this from.’

This follows a stinging national assessment of the effect of the cuts to local housing allowance, which will start in April 2011 for new claimants. The impact assessment, published by the Department for Work and Pensions, admits that homelessness is likely to rise as a result of the cuts, and predicts an influx of claimants from expensive areas into cheaper suburbs.

The report, which was published at the same time as the government laid secondary legislation for a number of the cuts, says families requiring additional support from social services, teenage mothers and extended families will be particularly badly hit: losing contact with support networks and official services. It warns that schools in outer London boroughs may need to build temporary classrooms to cope with a rise in children whose families can no longer afford to live in the centre.

Lord chief justice attacks ministers' quango plans

Government plans to abolish a raft of quangos by ministerial decree will have to be completely redrawn after Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, attacked the plans as astonishing and a threat to the entire way in which the judiciary works. Lord Norton, a leading constitutional expert and Tory peer, acknowledged yesterday that Judge's criticisms make the government's plans unsustainable.

Judge mounted his considered attack in front of the Lords constitution committee on Wednesday. Labour sources in the Lords said they could not think of such an open criticism of government legislation by a serving lord chief justice, pointing out that it puts an onus on the lord chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, to act as he has a statutory responsibility to protect the independence of the judiciary.

Judge mounted his attack on the central clause of the public bodies bill, schedule 7 – empowering ministers to abolish a raft of named quangos without the need for primary legislation. The use of so-called Henry VIII clauses – from a 1539 statute that gave the king power to legislate by proclamation, without further parliamentary scrutiny – allows independent bodies to be shut through secondary legislation.

Judge said: "Schedule 7 of the public bodies bill includes a large number of institutions which are important in themselves, whose importance is important to the public, and whose independence is part and parcel of the independence which we attach to the entire way in which the judiciary works.

"The judicial appointments commission is set up on the basis that it will be an independent body, and so it should be. The criminal cases review commission is set up by legislation as an independent body, and so is the parole board and the sentencing council. There are a whole series of these bodies set up and the object is that they should remain independent of the government of the day that we happen to have."

Are we still interested in Wikileaks?

BBC News - most popular stories

1. 1:Arctic weather returns to the UK
2. 2:Assange tells of 'smear campaign'
3. 3:Ronnie Corbett back as One Ronnie
4. 4:US man executed using animal drug
5. 5:Apprentice star not invited back
6. 6:Troops welcome 'combat codpiece'
7. 7:Bad weather hits airport flights
8. 8:Japanese knife attack injures 13
9. 9:UK banks 'at risk from eurozone'
10. 10:PM sent gifts for baby Florence

Hmmm, according to the BBC News website, just a little bit less than the weather and a tad more than the return of Ronnie Corbett and the prime minister’s baby.

During my time in solitary confinement in the bottom of a Victorian prison LOL jk, HM awayday

 
Here's the text of Assange's full statement delivered outside the court on his release:

“It's great to smell the fresh air of London again [oh, please].

First, some thank yous. To all the people around the world who have had faith in me, who have supported my team while I have been away. To my lawyers, who have put up a brave and ultimately successful fight, to our sureties and people who have provided money in the face of great difficulty and aversion. And to members of the press who are not all taken in and considered to look deeper in their work. And I guess finally, to the British justice system itself, where if justice is not always the outcome at least it is not dead yet.

During my time in solitary confinement in the bottom of a Victorian prison [that’s the bit … ahahahaha!] I had time to reflect on the conditions of those people around the world also in solitary confinement, also on remand, in conditions that are more difficult than those faced by me [ya reckon?]. Those people also need your attention and support.

And with that I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter and to reveal, as we get it, which we have not yet, the evidence from these allegations. Thank you.”

Aaah, freedom of speech, eh?

Judi Dench voted the greatest stage actor of all time

Dame Judi Dench is not an actor who takes bad reviews lying down – "you're an absolute shit," she wrote to one critic of her stage performance last year – but she found herself dumbstruck yesterday after being awarded the ultimate accolade: readers of the Stage newspaper have named her the greatest stage actor ever. Dench beat off dauntingly impressive competition, including Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Paul Scofield and Ralph Richardson, to be named best of the best after a reader vote carried out over 10 weeks.

To be fair, live actors clearly had a distinct advantage over dead ones as the voters will have seen them on stage and this was reflected in Maggie Smith coming second, Mark Rylance third and Ian McKellen fourth. After that came Olivier, Scofield and Gielgud with Michael Gambon eighth and Vanessa Redgrave ninth. Richardson, who died in 1983, came tenth. Dench, who was last on stage playing Titania – as Elizabeth I – in Peter Hall's Rose Theatre production of A Midsummer Night's Dream, said: "I'm completely at a loss for words, but it's one hell of a thing to live up to."

The actor, 76 last Thursday, has long held "national treasure" status but she admitted in a Guardian interview last year that she was getting angrier as she got older. When the Daily Telegraph critic Charles Spencer wrote a stinging review of her performance in Madame de Sade in 2009, Dench wrote to him: "I've always rather admired you but now realise you're an absolute shit." Then, referring to a stage accident which made her miss some performances, she added: "I'm only sorry I didn't get a chance to kick you when I fell over – maybe next time …"

Alistair Smith, deputy editor of the Stage, said it was the first time it had run such a search in its 130-year history. He said it "celebrated the huge range of talent with which our stages have long been blessed". The ten actors were initially chosen by a panel of experts and Smith said: "The order of our readers' top ten quite closely reflected our experts' choices."

Dench, now firmly established in film as James Bond's boss, M, made her professional debut in 1957 with the Old Vic company in Liverpool playing Ophelia. She has won more Olivier awards – seven – than any other performer and her memorable roles have included a Juliet for Zeffirelli in 1960; the first London Sally Bowles in Cabaret in 1968; Lady Macbeth in Trevor Nunn's 1976 production; Cleopatra opposite Anthony Hopkins in 1987 and Desiree Armfeldt in Sondheim's A Little Night Music in 1995.

Gus O'Donnell urges Treasury to prepare 'Plan B' for economy

Britain's top civil servant has urged the Treasury to prepare contingency economic stimulus plans, including fresh capital spending on infrastructure, in case economic growth falters in the new year. The paper drawn up by Sir Gus O'Donnell, head of the home civil service, was prepared in the last few weeks and is circulating inside Downing Street.

It came as it was confirmed that the business secretary, Vince Cable, is concerned by the direction of Treasury policy, describing officials as "thirties fiscal fundamentalists". The Liberal Democrat's remarks suggest there may be an economic policy dispute developing inside the coalition.

The existence of O'Donnell's paper is embarrassing to a government that has repeatedly said the economy is "out of the danger zone" and on course to pull out of recession. A No 10 spokesman insisted no paper had been commissioned by ministers, suggesting the Treasury and the prime minister want to distance themselves from any hint that the coalition's public spending cuts might push the economy back towards recession.

Labour last night revealed details of a government document suggesting Britain will experience a doubling in youth unemployment among those out of work for almost a year as the public spending cuts bite next April. The expected spike is highlighted in a prospectus, issued by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), for companies and voluntary groups bidding to take part in the Work Programme to find jobs for the long-term unemployed.

An annex to the prospectus estimates that between 140,000 and 200,000 young people aged from 18 to 24 will be registered as having been unemployed for at least nine months or more between 2011-12. This is at least a doubling of the number of young long-term unemployed.

House of Lords backs higher university fees

Peers have backed government plans to raise student tuition fees in England to as much as £9,000 a year. Labour tried to throw out the proposals, which were passed by MPs last week, but the opposition amendment was defeated by 283 votes to 215. The House of Lords' decision means that the higher fees are expected to come into force from 2012. Ministers called the plans the "fairest deal" possible, but Labour accused them of "privatising" universities.

Moves to increase the maximum annual fees for students from £3,290 to £9,000 have prompted outrage among students, culminating in violent protests at Westminster last week. More than twenty Lib Dems and six Conservative MPs voted against the government's plans last Thursday, but they still passed through the Commons. Had the Labour amendment succeeded, it would have overturned the earlier MPs' vote, forcing the coalition to reintroduce the measure in the Commons if it had decided to continue with the policy.

During the Lords debate, government spokesman Lord Henley told a packed house such an outcome would be "fatal", adding: "There is absolutely no mechanism for the Commons to address or put right a defeat in these circumstances and accepting one or both of the noble Lord's amendments would therefore be, in practice, a veto." Labour spokesman Lord Triesman accused the government of attempting to drive through the "privatisation" of higher education.

He said: "This afternoon's decision will switch the concept of universities from being a public good, as they have always been through modern history, to essentially a private sector, market-driven by personal private investment." Lord Browne - the former BP chief executive who carried out a review of higher education funding in England which recommended unlimited fees - backed the government.

Despite government concessions offered in the run-up to the Commons vote, Lib Dem education spokeswoman Lady Sharp said she was uncomfortable about what the changes would mean for the cost of a degree and the deterrent it would be to students from a variety of backgrounds. "I face a dilemma," she said. "I have a lot of reservations and I am in the same position as many Liberal Democrat MPs.

Ministers insisted that, with no upfront fees and graduates only having to contribute to the cost of their degree when their salary reaches £21,000, the proposal was the "fairest deal" in the financial climate. National Union of Students president Aaron Porter said: "I am both saddened and disappointed by the outcome in the House of Lords this evening. I fear that this evening our aspiration - to create a fairer and more equitable higher education system - has been set back for a generation."

Coalition publishes first official constitution guide

The government has published a draft "Cabinet Manual" describing the workings of the UK's unwritten constitution for the first time. The eleven-chapter document, produced by civil service head Sir Gus O'Donnell, deals with the roles of the monarch, the government and Parliament. It also looks at relations with the European Union and devolved regimes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. MPs and peers are to decide on the document's final draft.

"The UK is a parliamentary democracy which has a constitutional sovereign as head of state; a sovereign Parliament, which is supreme to all other government institutions, consisting of the sovereign, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, an executive drawn from and accountable to Parliament, and an independent judiciary."

Unlike some countries, such as the United States, the UK has no written constitution, instead relying on accumulated statutes, conventions and rulings. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for this to change, with previous Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown - who commissioned the manual earlier this year - also hinting that this might be possible. But the coalition agreement between the Lib Dems and Conservatives does not commit the government to setting down the constitution on paper.

Sir Gus emphasised that the manual was not a constitution and had no legal force, but would serve instead as a guide. In his introduction to the first draft, Sir Gus wrote: "The Cabinet Manual is intended to be a source of information on the UK's laws, conventions and rules, including those of a constitutional nature, that affect the operation and procedures of government. It is written from the perspective of the executive branch of government. It is not intended to have any legal effect or set issues in stone. It is intended to guide, not to direct."

He added: "Some areas of the manual continue to be subject to public debate. The manual, however, does not seek to resolve or move forward those debates, but is instead a factual description of the situation today. In other words, it will be a record of incremental changes rather than a driver of change."

Cable axed Sheffield Forgemasters loan because it was 'easy' target, MPs say

The coalition government was today urged to think again about securing financial support for Sheffield Forgemasters after a committee of backbench MPs said the decision to scrap an £80m loan meant an opportunity to take a lead in the civil nuclear power industry could be lost.

In a report critical of the way Vince Cable, the business secretary, decided to axe the financial support agreed by his predecessor Lord Mandelson in the dying days of Gordon Brown's administration, the business innovation and skills committee said Sheffield Forgemasters had been identified as an ‘easy’ target.

The MPs said they recognised the need for Cable to save money as part of the £6bn cut in public spending demanded by the chancellor, George Osborne, for the current financial year and that the spotlight inevitably fell on those projects to which the government was not contractually committed. These included the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters to develop a 15,000-tonne press to make large components for the civil nuclear industry.

"A choice could therefore have been made by ministers on where the axe would fall," today's report said. "We do not believe that any substantial cost-benefit analysis was undertaken on those non-contractually committed projects under review.

"Rather it appears to be the case that the Sheffield Forgemasters loan was identified as an easy cost saving. While this is a legitimate way to proceed, the department should have been more transparent in articulating this process and not hidden behind the simple defence of affordability. Furthermore, we did not receive any detailed explanation of how the Sheffield Forgemasters project was chosen ahead of the other non-contractually committed projects sponsored by the department."

The report added: "The establishment of such a large press would have enabled the UK to take a significant lead in this important industry. For that reason we urge the government to continue in its efforts to secure funding for this project – whether by public or private funds – so that an opportunity take a lead in this important industry is not lost.

"Therefore, we welcome the undertaking given to us by the secretary of state [Cable] that he would 'entertain' a fresh loan application from Sheffield Forgemasters. Should the company make a further application, we would expect the secretary of state to honour that undertaking."

The Guardian

NHS savings tested to the limit, warn MPs

The government has no "credible plan" to make NHS savings of £20bn by 2014, a committee of MPs warns today. The figure would represent "unprecedented" efficiency gains if the quality of care is to be maintained.

In a report on public expenditure, the health select committee said it was concerned that health and social care budgets would be squeezed while bearing the cost of the government's radical reforms. The report claims ministers had "unfortunately neglected to provide even a broad estimate of the likely reorganisation costs".

The MPs also chided the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, for peddling a price tag for his white paper proposals that was produced for the last government: "It is unhelpful for the government to continue to cite the £1.7bn figure, as it does not relate to specific proposals."

Stephen Dorrell, the former Conservative health secretary who chairs the select committee, said the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, had warned that the 4% productivity improvements required by the £20bn cut had "never been achieved in the history of the NHS or any healthcare system in the world".

Dorrell said staff would probably face "bruising changes" as the NHS was redesigned to save money: "[It is] likely that staff will be bruised as the current structures and resources are redeveloped."

Britain 'more Thatcherite now than in the 80s'

The annual British Social Attitudes survey of more than 3,500 people, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research every year since 1983, offers a verdict on the thirteen years of Labour rule

Britain is now more Thatcherite than when Margaret Thatcher was in power, with people much less supportive of the welfare state and the redistribution of wealth than in the 1980s, according to an authoritative study of the country's mood. New Labour oversaw the biggest recorded shift to the right in public attitudes on those measures, despite a surge in concern about the scale of the wealth gap between rich and poor. Sympathy towards benefit claimants has evaporated, along with support for redistributive tax and spend policies, over the past 20 years, with Labour governing during a period of significant hardening of attitudes towards the poor, the annual results of the British Social Attitudes survey reveal.

 
Public satisfaction with health and education improved dramatically over the same period, the study shows, leaving the researchers asking why Labour did not fight the election on its social policy record – and warning that the coalition is now risking a significant backlash against its reforms and cuts to public services that people are happy with. Making profound reforms to the NHS or schools, when trust in politicians has reached an all-time low, risks considerable public resistance, the report concludes.

Penny Young, chief executive of the National Centre for Social Research, said: "The survey points to a nation at political crossroads between left and right: it is perhaps little surprise that the election resulted in a coalition. On the one hand we are seeing a hardening of attitudes towards welfare reform, whilst on the other there is strong support for investment in health and education." It finds that the public is now less sympathetic towards benefit claimants than at the end of the Thatcher era. In 1991, 58% thought the government should spend more on benefits. By 2009 that had more than halved to 27%.

Just over half (51%) backed policies to redistribute income from rich to poor in 1989, compared with 36% now. The researchers blamed the "significant change in political rhetoric" throughout the New Labour years, with the abandonment of Clause 4, the party's promise to redistribute wealth, and the emphasis in welfare policies on people going back to work. "This could be due to the reluctance of parties on the left to talk positively about redistribution, which has become synonymous with an 'Old Labour' 'tax and spend' approach," the report says.

Up Coalition Street without a paddle

Pupil-premium labelled a ‘con’, council budgets cut, coastguard stations reduced, Olympic security budget under threat and House of Lords to discuss tuition fees - they don’t make it easy for themselves

The government's promise to give schools extra money for every child they take from the poorest homes will result in some in the most deprived areas losing cash, Labour will claim as the coalition sets out the fine detail of its austerity measures for schools, councils, the police and transport.

Nick Clegg confirms for the first time in a letter to the shadow schools secretary Andy Burnham, seen by the Guardian, that the government is protecting per-pupil funding only in cash terms, not real terms, a de facto cut of millions of pounds. It also reveals that the future funding mechanism for the new £430 "pupil premium", which will be announced tomorrow, could concentrate the money on disadvantaged pupils in shire schools instead of urban ones.

Burnham labelled the plan "a con". Senior Liberal Democrats were forced to defend the scheme, which is central to the rehabilitation of the party's progressive credentials as the tuition fee row rumbles on. One poll at the weekend suggested their support for £9,000 fees had cost them half their votes, as the opposition leader, Ed Miliband, made a "clear offer" to the rebel MPs to work with Labour.

The government will tomorrow publish a localism bill, devolving power to local areas, but separately it will detail its latest austerity measures dictating where the £81bn deficit reduction plan will fall locally in the next year. For the first time people will learn where the cuts will fall in their neighbourhoods. The announcements include:

Tuition fees protest 09.12.10

Local groups get right to take over services in 'big society' project

Community groups will be given the right to take over local services and vote on new housing developments under powers to be unveiled on Monday as part of the government's "big society" project. The localism bill will give parents, council employees and residents a greater chance to compete against councils and private-sector firms to run services.

 
The bill will create:

[A bunch of local neighbourhood Conservative groups who will decide that you will like it their way or else – Ed]

• A community right to buy local buildings. If the council decides to sell, groups will be given extra time to develop their bid to compete with property companies.

• A community right to challenge, handing the public powers to question and take over a local service. This could include children's centres, social care services or transport. If a group made a challenge the council would have to give full consideration and a response in writing.

• A community right to build, allowing homeowners to add extensions or loft conversions, or new homes to be built, as long as a simple majority in the area votes in favour.

Andy Coulson will not be charged says CPS

David Cameron's director of communications will not be prosecuted over claims he knew of hacking while editor of News of the World, it has been announced

Andy Coulson, the prime minister's director of communications, will not face prosecution over allegations he knew of phone hacking while he was editor of the News of the World, it was announced today. The Crown Prosecution Service announced the decision after spending the last four weeks studying material from a renewed Scotland Yard investigation into the claims.

The Metropolitan police reopened its investigation following revelations by the Guardian about the extent of the practice at the News of the World. Police decided witnesses who claimed Coulson knew more than he admitted about the phone hacking should be interviewed as potential suspects and thus under criminal caution. They in turn refused to comment or gave short statements when detectives questioned them, Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, said today.

Starmer said a panel of prosecutors and police would now be convened to consider any new allegations. One of the most significant new witnesses to come forward was Sean Hoare, a former News of the World reporter. He was quoted in a New York Times investigation as saying Coulson was aware that phone hacking went on. It is believed that Hoare's answers to police were limited because he was interviewed under criminal caution, meaning that he was potentially suspected of committing criminal offences.

In a statement, the DPP said: "Sean Hoare, who made significant allegations in the New York Times and elsewhere, was interviewed by the police but refused to comment. A number of other witnesses were interviewed and either refused to co-operate with the police investigation, provided short statements which did not advance matters or denied any knowledge of wrongdoing.

Cameron condemns attack on Charles and Camilla

Whose bright idea was it to take the Roller?

A car containing Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, was attacked last night as a wave of protest swept through central London in the wake of a Commons vote to force through a trebling of university tuition fees for students in England. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of the royals and I wouldn't wish such a terrifying experience on anybody but talk about a red rag to a bull. And now we're told that whoever was responsible, it certainly wasn't the police.  So who was it who decided to let the heir to the throne and his wife drive through the west end of London in a ceremonial Rolls-Royce when there were still thousands of protesters on the streets, following the biggest and bloodiest demonstration the capital has seen for thirty years?  The general public?  I think not.

Did the police seriously think this enormous car could go unnoticed up Regent Street or were they hoping it would be allowed to glide respectfully through the protesters? Are Charles and Camilla so removed from reality that they thought people would just move to one side? I suspect the anarchists amongst the crowd couldn't believe their luck! 

Meanwhile, the Met unveiled its secret weapon during Operation Dogs Dinner

The Lib Dems who honoured their election pledge

Liberal Democrat MPs who voted against the plans ~
Annette Brooke (Dorset Mid & Poole North), Sir Menzies Campbell (Fife North East), Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West), Tim Farron (Westmorland & Lonsdale), Andrew George (St Ives), Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South), Julian Huppert (Cambridge), Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye & Lochaber), John Leech (Manchester Withington), Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne), Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West), John Pugh (Southport), Alan Reid (Argyll & Bute), Dan Rogerson (Cornwall North), Bob Russell (Colchester), Adrian Sanders (Torbay), Ian Swales (Redcar), Mark Williams (Ceredigion), Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire), Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central), and Simon Wright (Norwich South).

Liberal Democrat MPs who voted for the plans ~
Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey), Norman Baker (Lewes), Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed), Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley), Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington), Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane), Malcolm Bruce (Gordon), Paul Burstow (Sutton & Cheam), Vincent Cable (Twickenham), Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland), Nick Clegg (Sheffield Hallam), Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton), Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey & Wood Green), Don Foster (Bath), Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay), Duncan Hames (Chippenham), Nick Harvey (Devon North), David Heath (Somerton & Frome), John Hemming (Birmingham Yardley), Norman Lamb (Norfolk North), David Laws (Yeovil), Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk), Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove), Jo Swinson (Dunbartonshire East), Sarah Teather (Brent Central), David Ward (Bradford East), and Steve Webb (Thornbury and Yate).

Liberal Democrat MPs who did not vote ~
The energy secretary Chris Huhne and backbencher Martin Horwood, who were in Cancún for climate change talks, were among those who did not vote. Sir Robert Smith (Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine) was also out of the country.

Liberal Democrat MPs who abstained ~
Lorely Burt (Solihull), Martin Horwood (Cheltenham), Simon Hughes (Bermondsey & Old Southwark), Chris Huhne (Eastleigh), Tessa Munt (Wells), Sir Robert Smith (Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine), John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross), and Stephen Williams (Bristol West). Government whip Mark Hunter (Cheadle) acted as a teller.

Conservative MPs who voted against ~
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden), Philip Davies (Shipley), Julian Lewis (New Forest East), Jason McCartney (Colne Valley), Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole), Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood).

Conservative MPs who abstained ~
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford), Lee Scott (Ilford North).

London Calling - #demo2010

Oh yes, that Nick Clegg chant …

Nick Clegg is a wanker
he wears a wanker’s hat
and no one really likes him
cos he’s a massive twat
he’s hated by the left wing
he’s hated by the right
he’ll never be the PM
cos he’s a fucking shite

It's now officially 'unsustainable' to support disabled people

The government's targeting of the disability living allowance reveals a lack of compassion, writes Sharon Brennan in the Guardian

“Yesterday, the government finally showed its true colours. Ever since the election this year, disabled people have watched with increasing dismay as the rhetoric against us has become increasingly vitriolic; tabloid papers can barely write the word disabled without coupling it with "workshy". The waters have become so muddied with talk of fraud on one side and the government's promised support for those most ill on the other, it was hard to prove that the coalition had categorically decided to make the lives of disabled people much harder. That was until yesterday.

With the publication of their disability living allowance (DLA) reform paper, it is now written in black and white that the government believes supporting the disabled is, using their own word, "unsustainable".

In the comprehensive spending review in October, the coalition said there would be a review of DLA: these plans have now become clearer with its announcement that it intends to scrap the benefit and replace it with personal independent payment (PIP). DLA, and its proposed replacement PIP, are not an out-of-work benefit. It is a non-taxable cash payment to disabled people to help them pay for the higher costs of living, care and mobility associated with their illness. In the executive summary of its DLA consultation document, Maria Miller, minister for disabled people, claims the reason for change is that "the rising caseload and expenditure is unsustainable".

Let's be clear: this increased DLA caseload is not because of fraud. DLA has one of the lowest fraud rates of any benefits. In fact, government figures published by the House of Commons work and pensions committee suggest that benefit fraud for DLA, carer's and attendance allowance among others has reduced since 2001 from 2.2% to 0.8% between 2008-2009 (the most recent year for which statistics are available).

But in June, the government declared in its Budget 2010 policy costings document that it hopes to save 20% from its DLA budget by changing the way it is allocated: with fraudulent claims less than minimal, the only way to cut the budget by a fifth is to redraw the boundaries over who is eligible. Miller says as much in her executive summary on the consultation, stating: "We will prioritise support on those individuals who face the greatest day-to-day challenges". This question of priority is a worrying one. It effectively means that those people who have a disability that is less severe than someone else's will no longer receive help, regardless of whether that extra support is vital to them. That is like saying that only 80% of those currently receiving housing benefit will be deemed to be eligible to continue having a roof over their heads.

Unison in harmony with students to the tune of £20m

A leading union today set up a £20 million fund to fight "savage" Government cuts in public spending, including money for possible industrial action. Unison said the money will be spent on national campaigning and on regional rallies, demonstrations and other events.

General secretary Dave Prentis said the £20 million was "serious money for serious times", adding: "We are facing the biggest onslaught against our members, and the services they provide, in our history. We are determined to use this money to help our members on the ground to fight for jobs and services.

"We are sending out a clear message to the coalition Government that we will not stand by and see our public services devastated, without putting up a fight. The money will be used to step up campaigning and to help our branches and regions combat savage cuts to jobs and services in their local communities.

"Unison members are angry and frustrated that this Government has refused to look at any of many viable alternatives to cutting public services."

All Tomorrow’s Parties

Tuition fees up, social mobility down

Slashing funding while almost trebling fees is a shot in the dark, and universities have been gutless in accepting their lot, writes Sir Peter Lampl in the Guardian

“Last month I came out publicly against the government's proposals for a rise in tuition fees on the basis that they were tantamount to a privatisation of higher education. State funding for university teaching is to be cut by an eye-watering 80%, resulting in an unacceptable financial burden on low- and middle-income students.

At the weekend Nick Clegg publicly declared his intention to vote for the £9,000 tuition fees ceiling, but softened this with more details of a £150m national scholarship fund to help the most needy students, including by waiving their first two years of fees.

Ed Miliband, on the other hand, called for restraint and suggested a graduate tax. He said that no party with a deep and genuine commitment to social mobility could support the current proposals.

I have no party political axe to grind. A few months ago the Sutton Trust, which I chair, recommended exempting low-income students from paying first-year university fees as part of a range of measures to protect the most vulnerable. So the government has taken a small step in the right direction, but this pales in comparison with the negative impact of the £9,000 tuition fees bombshell – not just on the most needy, but on all but the wealthiest families.

So I hope some winter sun will thaw cold hearts on the coalition benches. Pushing forward with such speed into the unknown is unsafe, unpredictable and no basis for a policy which is central to individual opportunity and national prosperity.

So what do I think should happen given that cuts must be made? Tuition fees should be capped at £5,000 a year. Those who benefit from university study should be expected to contribute more when their earning levels permit, but it is a question of balance.

The rain in Spain

falls mainly on the plain

Disability benefit claimants face new medical checks

All 3 million disabled people, including pensioners and children, who receive allowances will be forced to undergo periodic medical tests to justify the payments under proposals outlined today. Ministers propose to end the automatic right to disability living allowance, worth up to £70 a week for care and up to £50 a week for travel needs. Claimants will have to wait for a year for the new "personal independence payment" and then submit to a series of tests focusing on "an individual's ability to carry out a range of key activities necessary to everyday life".

If only we were all fucking perfect

A similar system to judge the fitness to work of those claiming disability benefits will have to be overhauled amid mounting evidence that people with serious illnesses are being judged fit when they are not. Many claim that the costs will outweigh any benefits. Welfare support will also be conditional on disabled people acting on government instructions to "better manage or improve their situation if appropriate".

"We have fundamental concerns that the cost of the administration will mean there is no saving here. Claiming these benefits mean at the moment filling out a very long form. I don't think the answer is a whole new process of interviews, which many disabled people may find intimidating," said Guy Parckar of the Leonard Cheshire disability charity.

Charities said they were "deeply concerned" about the proposals – the government pencilled in £1bn of savings from DLA in the June budget.Sue Brown of the deafblind charity Sense said: "Some of our blind members might lose payments for using a taxi if, for example, they were given a white cane and told they could now move around."

The government said that the taxpayer this year will have to pay out "a lot more than expected" to disabled people, with DLA costs topping £12bn. It said 30% more people get the benefit than eight years ago. "There's no evidence of widespread fraud and no evidence to back up claims that the benefit acts as a barrier to work," said Richard Watts, of the Essex Coalition of Disabled People.

Disability Living Allowance reform – public consultation document

Ooops! Naughtie

Daylight Saving Bill gets initial approval from MPs

The campaign to give the UK more hours of daylight in the evenings has been boosted by MPs who have given it initial approval. The Daylight Saving Bill requires the government to conduct analysis of the costs and benefits of shifting the clocks forward by an hour for all or part of the year. If it was found to benefit the whole of the UK, a three-year trial would follow, the bill proposes. MPs voted by 92 to 10 in support. The bill now goes for more detailed scrutiny in the Commons.

At the end of more of than four hours of debate on Friday, Business Minister Ed Davey said the government opposed the bill, because the "necessary consensus across all parts of the UK does not yet exist to justify a change, or the passing of any legislation on the matter". However, he offered to publish a review of the available evidence concerning the likely effects of moving to Central European Time. He said the government would also propose talks with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the issue.

Conservative Rebecca Harris said her bill could save up to 80 lives a year, mainly among children, by giving Britain lighter evenings. Ms Harris said: "My bill does not enforce an immediate change, it does not seek to enforce the view of myself or my colleagues on anyone. I'm asking that the government should take an objective, informed decision based on the best available evidence so all these questions can be properly looked at before any decision is taken." She added: "You cannot grow time, you cannot make more of it than you have and you cannot create additional daylight. But it is up to us to utilise both as best we can."

Supporters say having lighter evenings would reduce fatal road accidents, boost tourism revenues, promote sport and exercise and reduce energy use. But critics fear a later sunrise makes the school run more dangerous and presents problems for farmers and outdoor workers, particularly in Scotland. The SNP strongly criticised the proposals, saying the rejection of a similar move after a trial between 1968 and 1971 should not be ignored as it was based on "sound reasons".

MP Angus MacNeil said: "The progress of this bill is literally a wake-up call to the prospect of dark mornings for everyone north of Manchester, and has been pushed through by MPs from the south with no regard to the impact these changes would have on the quality of life for people in the north. "This change would be acutely felt in Scotland, raising real safety and quality of life concerns, and this is now a real test for the Tory government and its claims of a respect agenda for Scotland."

Vince Cable to vote in favour of tuition fee rise

Business secretary insists rise in university fees is the right policy, but Lib Dems say Cable could still abstain in vote

Vince Cable has declared that he faced a "duty" to vote in favour of the rise in university tuition fees next week, guaranteeing a split in Liberal Democrat ranks when grandees oppose the policy. In a move which surprised senior party figures, who had thought Cable was prepared to abstain in the interests of party unity, the business secretary insisted that the rise in fees was the right policy. "Obviously I have a duty as a minister to vote for my own policy – and that is what will happen," Cable told his local newspaper, the Richmond and Twickenham Times.

Cable, who has the right under the coalition agreement as a Lib Dem MP to abstain in next week's vote, has indicated to fellow ministers that he is minded to vote in favour of the rise on the grounds that he is the responsible minister. He also believes he has introduced fairness to the system by raising the salary level at which the fees are paid back from £15,000 to £21,000.

However, there were signs that Cable and Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem chief secretary to the Treasury who was also involved in drawing up the policy, were prepared to abstain if the likes of Sir Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy joined them. Cable told his paper that he had considered abstaining as an "olive branch" to colleagues who are "finding this difficult". But Cable said: "There is a dilemma. I'm very clear I regard the policy as right and as a member of the cabinet I am collectively responsible for the policy. There is no doubt that is what I should do."

There was further confusion when the Lib Dems said Cable could still abstain. A party source said: "A final decision has not been made. It is still possible Vince could abstain." If the business secretary does back the rise, there is likely to be a three-way split in the Lib Dem vote. Cable, Alexander and other senior ministers will vote in favour, other MPs will abstain and the likes of Kennedy will oppose the rise.

Gareth Thomas, the shadow higher education minister, said: "John Cleese could not have scripted this farce better than Vince Cable. The truth is these proposals weren't necessary, they're unfair and they don't offer a long-term sustainable system of support for students or for universities. Other Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs need to join Labour on Thursday to force the government to think again."

Phil Woolas loses bid to overturn election court ban

Phil Woolas has lost his bid to overturn an election court's ruling that stripped him of his Commons seat and barred him from politics. He narrowly won his Oldham East and Saddleworth seat in May but the result was declared void by an election court over his conduct in the campaign. He argued that the election court's interpretation of the law was flawed. However, three High Court judges upheld the election court's decision. If he does not appeal there will be a by-election.

Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Tugendhat and Mrs Justice Nicola Davies said that, although Mr Woolas was entitled to have one of the findings against him set aside, there had been "illegal practice" by the former immigration minister. Mr Woolas retained his Oldham East and Saddleworth seat in May - beating his Lib Dem opponent Elwyn Watkins by just 103 votes. But the result was declared void by a specially convened election court in November, which ruled that Mr Woolas had made false statements as he sought to hang on to his seat during a closely fought campaign.

Although Mr Woolas is no longer the MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, a by-election has not yet been called while legal proceedings continue. The election court heard that Mr Woolas had stirred up racial tensions during the campaign. It found that, although made in the context of an election campaign, comments in campaign material suggesting Mr Watkins tried to "woo" the votes of Muslim extremists clearly amounted to an attack on his personal character and conduct.

The court ruled he was guilty of breaching the Representation of the People Act 1983 and barred him from standing for elected office for three years. Lawyers for Mr Woolas argued during a two-day hearing in November that the election court's interpretation of the law was flawed. They argued that the election court misdirected itself in law, when it found that Mr Woolas had made attacks on his Lib Dem rival Elwyn Watkins' "personal character or conduct" with "no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true, and did not believe them to be true".

Mr Woolas’s lawyers argued that the statements were about the "political conduct" of his Lib Dem opponent - not his personal character - and suggested the election court's interpretation was inconsistent with free speech. The case is the first time an MP has been found guilty of making false statements of fact in an election petition since 1911.

And so …

This self-serving Coalition is ripping up our constitution

Our constitution provides for the continuation and maintenance of a coalition government just as it does for the creation of one. There need be no special dispensations. For the purposes of governance, two parties become one. They agree a common programme and work to get it through. No doubt in the course of that some feathers are ruffled. If the upset becomes particularly great, then the notion of one united front becomes untenable, and the coalition has to end. That, however, is not how this coalition sees it. It seems to regard its creation as some sort of miracle, and a miracle requiring all the rules to be bent, twisted and otherwise mangled to keep it intact. This will remain a tenable position only so long as everybody else allows it to be one.

It is normally the case that when a minister has, for whatever reason, a profound disagreement with the administration of which he is a member, he resigns. Such things used to happen often; now, when the loss of the ministerial salary can bring penury, the loss of the chauffeur-driven car can bring inconvenience, and the loss of the interesting invitations can induce a form of social death, hardly anyone resigns. Therefore, the wage-slave minister puts up with having what passes for his principles violated and continues to collect the cheque. The difficulty is that he has to swallow the policy. That is the beauty of one of the customs of our unwritten constitution, namely collective responsibility. Collective responsibility may or may not be a great thing. It is certainly the only way to run any serious enterprise, including a government, for the alternative is chaos.

However, it now appears that collective responsibility – which as far as my researches can tell applied and worked well in the coalitions of 1915-22, 1940-45 and in the National Government after 1931 – is not a requirement of this coalition. This is because policy disagreements are apparently so serious within it that, to save the skins of certain ministers, they must be allowed to disagree on important policies. Perhaps it is possible to run a government and therefore a country on this basis, but I rather doubt it.