When you wished upon a star, were gay days at Disney World an option?

Today sees the end of the annual Gay Days event at Disney World in Orlando, Florida. But just in case people hadn’t noticed thousands of gayers at the venue, a homophobic group hired an aeroplane to fly a banner over the area warning families. The Florida Family Association contracted the plane on Friday and Saturday to fly a banner that read: “Warning Gay Day At Disney 6/4.”

In a statement it said: “Thanks to the generosity of many supporters, Florida Family Association contracted this aircraft company to fly a seven foot high banner for ten hours the day before and ten hours the day of Gay Pride Day at Disney World. Florida Family Association wants to warn these families about this offensive event before they arrive at the Magic Kingdom on Saturday. This airplane banner is our best effort to accomplish that goal.”

The ‘offensive event’ that the group referred to included people wearing pro-gay T-shirts, same sex couples hugging, holding hands, “groping each other” and some punters were even “dressed in drag”. The event is in its twentieth year and brings in around $150m to Disney, hotel owners, restaurants, bars, clubs and other local businesses.

“The economy is improving because of what Gay Days bring into it,” said Gay Day President Chris Alexander-Manley. “Our crowd behaves better than most convention crowds, so come on out and see what it’s really about.

Pink News

 

UPDATE: Even better is this hate-filled page from Jesus-is-Savior.com - I mean, there were even cases of “group urination in public restrooms,” for God’s sake. Can you imagine?

God bless America!

England 2 - 2 Switzerland

 
“Some will say Wilshere's energetic display exposed the fallacy of Arsenal's protestations about his weariness but the reverse applies. This game showed him to be an automatic starter for the senior XI who has progressed beyond U21 level and should not go back.”  The Guardian

And thus the leader of global morality spake: "Don't shit on my doorstep, for Christ's sake!"

The Catholic Church is once again reeling as the latest scandal to rock its foundations unfolds in the archdiocese of the very Cardinal who was brought in by Pope Benedict XVI to oversee reforms in the wake of the sex abuse scandals. It centres on Father Riccardo Seppia, a 51-year-old parish priest in the village of Sastri Ponente, near Genoa, who was arrested on 13th May and charged with paedophilia and drug offences.

Investigators say that during tapped mobile phone conversations, Seppia asked a Moroccan drug dealer to arrange sexual encounters for him with young, vulnerable boys. "I don’t want 16-year-old boys but younger,”  Seppia is alleged to have said. “14-year-olds are OK - look for needy boys who have family issues.”

According to investigators, Seppia later told a friend - a former seminarian and barman who is also under investigation - that the town's shopping centres were the best places to entice minors. During the tapped phone conversations the two friends swore and blasphemed. The priest is charged with attempting to kiss and touch an underage altar boy as well as exchanging cocaine for sexual intercourse with boys over eighteen.

Seppia's defence lawyers are expected to argue that the conversations - monitored since 20th October 2010 - were just playful words, crude games that were played by adults. According to the defence, it was also just a game when, it is claimed, he "kissed on the mouth" a 15-year-old altar boy.

Southern Cross and Winterbourne View have tested public tolerance to the limit

The care homes scandal shows just what happens when financiers are free to make a profit out of the most vulnerable, writes Polly Toynbee in the Guardian

David Cameron's regular railing against "excessive regulation and bureaucracy" rings embarrassingly hollow in this week's care homes crisis. So does his promise that "the grip of state control will be released" from "the enemies of enterprise" as he stops the "dead hand of the state getting in the way".

Writing in the Telegraph back in February, he was two weeks away from publishing an open public services white paper which would, he promised, "create a new presumption … that public services should be open to a range of providers competing to offer a better service". Everything would be up for sale and any civil servants getting in the way would be punished. "If I have to pull those people into my office to argue this out myself and get them off the backs of business then, believe me, I'll do it."

But that oft-delayed white paper still cowers in the long grass. Now it will slip out in "mid-July", those dog days before parliament breaks when a rush of embarrassments emerge with no time for debate. Why? Because too many voters have woken up to how the "any willing provider" edict threatens the NHS, and would jeopardise every other public service too.

Cameron's privatising zeal looks even less enticing in the wake of this week's two care home scandals. The "dead hand of the state" looks rather more welcoming than the grasping hand of private equity. Southern Cross has shown how, as with the banks, privatised services that are too essential to fail make profits while relying on the state to pick up the pieces if they run into trouble, without paying the taxpayer for that hidden insurance. How will the public view predators circling many more services – especially in the NHS – now they see how Blackstone separated property value from the riskier running of the care business?

Are our most vulnerable people really safe in the care of these men?

It is a long way from Ireland's Coolmore Stud to Winterbourne View in Bristol. But the two are linked by a fat trail of cash, writes Ben Chu in the Independent

JP McManus and John Magnier (pictured below), the two Irish investors who turn out to own a stake in the Bristol care home at the centre of this week's abuse scandal, are best known for going to war with the Manchester United manager, Alex Ferguson, over the bloodstock rights to the racehorse, Rock of Gibraltar. It's a safe assumption that the pair, who made their fortunes out of racing, did not invest in the disabled care sector with philanthropy foremost in their minds.

The same is probably true of Stephen Schwarzman, head of the private equity firm Blackstone, which acquired the elderly-care-home provider Southern Cross in 2004. Such is the Blackstone founder's obsession with the bottom line that when Barack Obama mooted increasing the risibly low personal tax rate paid by private equity moguls, Schwarzman compared the suggestion to Hitler's invasion of Poland.

Private equity firms like Blackstone present themselves as managerial wizards, who add value to their companies by finding efficiencies and new revenue streams. But more often than not their skill lies in a combination of financial engineering and ruthless cost-cutting. The financial engineering that took place at Southern Cross under Blackstone's ownership is now suspected of helping to push the company to the brink of bankruptcy – a prospect that leaves its 31,000 elderly residents facing an uncertain future. There will now be an investigation into whether the management in charge of Winterbourne View was reckless. Was cost-cutting one of the reasons staff in Bristol were able to get away with behaving in such an appalling way towards residents for so long? Where was the supervision? Where was the training?

There is a bigger picture here. Research by the Financial Times this week suggests that the standard of care in homes that are run for a profit is, on average, lower than in those which are run by charities and local authorities. That certainly fits with the idea that, in private care home, profits come before people.

In fairness, not all privately owned homes are dens of abuse and neglect. Some provide excellent and compassionate care. And we have seen enough abuse scandals in the NHS over the years to know that public ownership does not always equal compassionate treatment of the vulnerable. None of this should let the official regulators off the hook either. The Coalition, which seems determined to leave the care home inspectors at the Care Quality Commission under-resourced, needs to face up to its responsibilities, too. Council cuts to care their home expenditure budgets do not help either.

But ownership does matter. There needs to be a fit and proper persons test for those who want to make money out of providing services for the vulnerable and elderly. When private investors seek to buy into the care home sector we must ask ourselves a simple question before giving the green light: would we entrust our own grandmother with these people?

Better the devil you know

Dirt Devil-The Exorcist from MrPrice2U on Vimeo.

Fatal consequences of benefit changes

An open letter to the Guardian suggests changes to the welfare system are having a 'devastating' impact, driving some to suicide attempts

“Reform of the welfare system is steaming ahead, and already we're hearing about the devastating effects this is having on the mental health of hundreds of thousands of people across Great Britain. While much is made of the impact that changes to benefits will have on people with physical disabilities, it is vital that those with "invisible" issues such as mental health problems are not forgotten. Reassessments of people on incapacity benefit (IB) via the deeply flawed work capability assessment are due to start next month, and the new personal independence payment test is being trialled over the summer – just some of the changes already alarming many people affected by mental distress.

We've found that the prospect of IB reassessment is causing huge amounts of distress, and tragically there have already been cases where people have taken their own life following problems with changes to their benefits. We are hugely worried that the benefits system is heading in a direction which will put people with mental health problems under even more pressure and scrutiny, at a time when they are already being hit in other areas such as cuts to services.

There needs to be a shift towards a more sympathetic and supportive system that genuinely takes into account the additional challenges people with mental health problems face and can make a real objective assessment of their needs rather than placing them into a situation where their wellbeing is put at risk.”

Paul Farmer Chief executive, Mind
Bill Walden-Jones Chief executive, Hafal
Paul Jenkins Chief executive, Rethink Mental Illness
Professor Bob Grove Joint chief executive, Centre for Mental Health
Billy Watson Chief executive, Scottish Association for Mental Health
Dr Jed Boardman Consultant and senior lecturer in social psychiatry,
Royal College of Psychiatrists

Can Labour win an election with an unpopular leader?

More people will blame Labour than the Tories if the economy gets worse, writes George Eaton in the New Statesman

On the surface, the latest Reuters/Ipsos MORI political monitor should gladden Labour souls. Last month's poll put the Tories level with Labour on 40 per cent but this month's gives Ed Miliband's party a seven point lead. Labour is up two points to 42 per cent and the Tories are down five points to 35 per cent.

But dig deeper and some worrying trends emerge for the red team. Net satisfaction with Miliband, which stood at +1 last month, is back down to -8 (see graph below). More worryingly, just 17 per cent of voters believe the Labour leader is ready to be Prime Minister, compared to 69 per cent who believe he is not. By contrast, 31 per cent of voters say Labour is ready to form the next government, a finding that will again give Miliband's critics cause to ask if the party could be performing better under an alternative leader.

Elsewhere, there's further evidence that voters share George Osborne's belief that the government is clearing up "Labour's mess". Asked who they will blame if the economy gets worse over the next 12 months, 22 per cent of respondents say the last Labour government but just 10 per cent say the Tories. A total of 27 per cent would blame both the Tories and the Lib Dems but that's only 5 per cent more than would blame Labour. Given that the economy was growing at an annual rate of 4 per cent under Labour but has ground to a halt under Osborne, that's some achievement by the Conservatives. As Douglas Alexander recently lamented, Labour's marathon leadership contest allowed the coalition to define the terms of debate from the start.

Miliband's troubles, however, are as nothing compared with those of Nick Clegg. Net satisfaction with the Deputy PM has plummeted from -18 last month to -32 this month. For the first time, Clegg's approval rating is below that of the coalition. By contrast, net satisfaction with Cameron remains at -3, a poor rating but not a terrible one. Miliband, who has led Cameron in every MORI poll since January, is now behind the Prime Minister. Personal approval ratings are often a better long-term indicator of the election result than voting intention. Labour often led the Tories under Neil Kinnock, for instance, but Kinnock was never rated above John Major as a potential prime minister.

Can Labour defy history and win an election with an unpopular leader? That is the question some in the party will be asking today.

Never mind the legacies, just get on with your jobs!

Speaking yesterday in Milton Keynes, Cameron insisted that the Big Society was fundamental to his determination to improve the quality of life in Britain over the next decade.

“Give some to the white kids, for Christ’s sake!”

"As our debts are paid off, this is what I want to endure as the lasting legacy of this administration – helping to build a society where families and communities are stronger, where our nation's wellbeing is higher, and where all these things are accepted as central, not peripheral aspects of what modern governments should hope to achieve," he said.

"So the Big Society is not some fluffy add-on to more gritty and more important subjects. This is about as gritty and important as it gets: giving everyone the chance to get on in life and making our country a better place to live." Yes, he really said that.

The Labour leader, meanwhile, said he wanted to be judged in office by his success in boosting the job opportunities and supply of affordable housing for young adults. Miliband, speaking in London, warned that Britain faced a "jilted generation" of young adults with fewer opportunities than their parents. He insisted: "We must reverse the sense of foreboding that people feel for their children and their future."

The Labour leader said: "David Cameron's benchmark for his government is simply deficit reduction. The benchmark I set for a future Labour government is much more than that. It is about improving the chances for the next generation." He called for a drive to find jobs for young people, improve conditions in the workplace, guarantee "genuine access" to university for aspiring students, halt the "inexorable rise in the average age of home ownership" and tackle climate change.

Mr Miliband said the overwhelming majority of young people were decent and wanted to do the best for their families and communities. "We owe it to them to paint a fairer picture of young people in our country and to celebrate what they do," he said. "But it is a two-way street. The promise of Britain is not just about the promise we make to them, but the promise they must make to themselves and our country to be good citizens."

People across the country carried on with their mundane lives, oblivious to the concerns of their elected stuntmen.

Let's put aside our sectarian differences, we have a world to win

At a special conference in July 1932 the Independent Labour Party voted to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. Aneurin Bevan described their decision as “pure but impotent”. True to form, its membership fell to less than a third of its level at the time of disaffiliation, quickly withering away into political obscurity.

This factionalism remains a persistent problem in the organised British Left.  We have a large number of small groups of activists, who shift backwards and forwards from split to fusion to split. This is extremely damaging for the Left as a whole.

This trend takes place within a wider story of the disintegration of the European Left. In Germany, social democrats split to the Left and remained organised in die Linke, future realignments within the SDP is still a possibility. In Italy, the Left has been comprehensively disarmed, institutionally and ideologically. In France, the PS has failed to recover as a national project from the disappointment of the Jospin years.

Judging from the past few decades, it’s clear that the consequences of this factionalism have been grave – societies have been plagued by all manner of preventable social ills – unemployment, stagnant wages, rising inequality, war, environmental degradation and a democratic deficit that has reached such sinister proportions that a significant proportion of the democratic world do not see the point in the vote.

I can only despair at the prospect of twenty more years under neo-liberal hegemony. There must be an alternative to this desperate state of affairs.

It has always been possible to unite the British Left for common goals such as fighting racists through Unite against Fascism, taking over the GLC and Tony Benn’s campaign for the Deputy leadership. It has been possible, and it still is possible.

Perhaps it is naïve to suggest that Left activists now put aside their various disagreements and embrace the spirit of unity and comradeship that must be the essence of any true left-winger’s aspirations. It is naïve but not quite as naïve as to think that we can stop this Con-Dem government’s destructive policies without co-ordinated action.

The terms of this unity should be based on rational principles, and I will offer some suggestions on which to premise any productive political action.

First, there will be no new mass workers' party. The arguments proclaiming the end of the Labour party as the party of the labour movement are not convincing but rather grounded on sectarian wishful thinking. See beyond the present faces. It is certainly possible that huge shifts in public opinion towards the fundamental issues could be achieved were the bulk of the Labour leadership, a large chunk of the PLP, the unions and activists moving together to campaign for radical socialist policies.

I believe this rallying point for the Left is the Labour Representation Committee, chaired by John McDonnell and affiliated to countless trade unions.

Second, the Labour Party’s almost exclusive reliance on the “white working class” is a great weakness. It’s true but trite to say that parties can only win when they represent a coalition of social forces large enough to defeat those in power. This is the reason why the trade unions set up the Labour Party in the first place. We now need a broad coalition which includes skilled and unskilled workers, the unemployed, women and ethnic minorities as well as the sexually oppressed in our society. This means us changing. I’m opposed to attempts to co-opt different movements just because we can get votes from them. The Labour Party must listen to what they are saying and then change itself.

Finally, the argument that we need to make is that we need to control the flow of capital and the control of the banks and finance houses. This means curbing the speculators in the City of London and an extension of public ownership into the financial sector. It shouldn’t be difficult to explain to people that a Labour Government intends to use the billion pounds a month that currently leaves the country to rebuild the economy and the welfare state. Indeed, everyone I have spoken to has responded overwhelmingly to such a suggestion.

This is just a brief outline of one strategy needed not only to win back those 5 million mainly working class votes that were lost as a result of New Labour’s neo-liberal policies, but also to create a radically different, more equal and humane society.

If we are to bring about this radical social change, then what we need is unity. The alternative is political impotency the price of which no-one on the Left should countenance if they are truly serious about what they believe to be right.

@cravenite

Dig trenches for Britain, Davis tells unemployed

Conservative MP David Davis has called for the government to use unemployed workers to build a nationwide fibre broadband network. Writing in the comfort zone provided by The Times paywall and not even picked up by the Daily Mail who would surely sponsor such a wheeze, Davis admits the government cannot afford to spend £25 billion on a nationwide fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) network, and says the sum is "more than the ponderous, monopolistic companies in this sector are willing to risk".

However, Davis claims that the biggest cost of installing a fibre network is the physical labour of building the infrastructure - a task he claims could be undertaken by the unemployed. "Building a superfast rural broadband network is largely low-skill - digging trenches, laying pipes, filling them in," Davis writes. "Only a small fraction of the cost is high-tech materials. Why not use use the 2.4 million people who are either jobless or on welfare to build this infrastructure?" Why not just shoot them all now?

Davis claims that the government's current plans to encourage investment in a fibre network are insufficient. "At the moment, the Government intends to direct about £530 million from the BBC licence fee to enable BT to invest £5 billion in laying cable to about 60% of the population, mainly in urban areas," he writes. "This is not enough. There is already a digital divide between rural and urban Britain. There is a real risk that superfast broadband will be an exclusively urban luxury and that rural households and businesses will be left farther behind."

And we wouldn’t want anything resembling a chasm between rich and poor in this country, would we?

Localism Bill: Concern over '142 extra powers for Pickles'

The Government's flagship Localism Bill will help free "local government from the shackles of central government", a Minister told MPs today as the Bill came under renewed pressure for handing Communities Secretary Eric Pickles "more than 100 extra powers".

Junior Communities minister Andrew Stunell said amendments and new clauses to the legislation tabled by the Government were each designed to improve the effectiveness of the Bill. The Localism Bill aims to devolve greater powers to neighbourhoods and councils and give local communities more control over housing and planning decisions.

Speaking during the Bill's report stage in the Commons, Mr Stunell introduced a new clause refining one of the central elements - the general power of competence. He said: "This Government is committed to the radical decentralisation of power and control from Whitehall and Westminster to local government, back to local communities and individuals. We are pushing power back down to the lowest possible level. This Bill is about shaking up the balance of power and revitalising democracy.

“It will give power to councils, it will give power to communities, it will give power to voluntary groups and power to the people. Giving local authorities the power to take decisions that are right for their areas and giving to local people the power to implement those decisions. This Government trusts local authorities to know what's best for their areas, we trust local councils to know what they are doing and we are freeing up local government from the shackles of central government. The Localism Bill does just what it says on the label."

Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government Barbara Keeley queried whether the proposed extra powers granted to the Secretary of State accorded with the spirit of the Bill. She said: "On new clause 12, clearly the Minister has been talking about the limits on power and we are still very concerned about the 142 extra powers for the Secretary of State in the Bill." Mr Stunell said a local authority could choose whether or not it adopted a code of conduct for its members, but it must be under a duty to publicise whether it had revised or abolished it.

Social care laws face sweeping reform

Government promises reform of laws covering support for older and disabled people and carers after Law Commission report, writes David Brindle in the Guardian

The government is promising "the most significant single reform of social care law for sixty years" after the Law Commission published its final proposals for modernisation and rationalisation of legislation governing care and support for older and disabled people, those with mental health problems and carers. Charities and user groups broadly welcomed the proposals as a singular opportunity to sort out what one called the "dog's breakfast" of statutes and guidance dating back to 1948 and appearing incomprehensible to most non-lawyers.

In addition to simplifying more than forty existing statutes and thousands of pages of guidance, the Law Commission's plans for England and Wales would entitle carers to an assessment of their support needs irrespective of how intensively they provide care, place a duty on councils to investigate abuse and neglect of adults, allow direct payments to be used to fund residential care and improve "portability" of entitlement to care and support services if people move from one council area to another.

Frances Patterson QC, the public law commissioner who led the three-year project to review existing law, said: "Our recommendations will bring much-needed clarity and accessibility to this important area of the law and have a major, beneficial impact on the lives of many of our most vulnerable citizens."

The government has indicated it will incorporate the commission's proposals in a care and support white paper, expected in December, together with the outcome of the Dilnot review of the funding of long-term care. Legislation could follow next year. Paul Burstow, the care services minister, said the Law Commission's final report provided "a strong foundation" for the most significant reform of social care law for sixty years, suggesting the government might not adopt the seventy-six recommendations in their entirety.

Incompetence without a conscience: the Coalition - one year on

It has been one year since the Tories and the Lib Dems thrashed out a 'coalition agreement' with each other, both of them so desperate for power that they would ignore the swathes of Lib Dem votes that had been accrued from people just as desperate to keep the Tories out of power. Most of those people had witnessed the Thatcher years and would do anything within the law to make sure their kids never had to go through that experience. A large amount of Lib Dem votes was gleaned from students hoping for no increase in tuition fees, as pledged by Lib Dem MPs up and down the land. How hundreds of thousands of people would live to regret that vote.

So what have the Lib Dems achieved while they've been under Cameron's over-sized, steel toe-capped jackboot? A replacement for Trident in this parliament, cutting inheritance tax for the wealthiest, re-negotiating fundamental elements of the EU's Lisbon treaty, building more prisons and replacing the Human Rights Act. No, but what have they achieved? In terms of the everyday lives of everyday people - alarm clock Britain, as Clegg calls them. Well, he's come up with a new term for them - alarm clock Britain. That's a start. And it's more marketable than 'mugs'.

By all accounts (Clegg's at least), the Lib Dems have been "punching above their weight" in terms of their contribution to the coalition's policy agenda. They're particularly proud of their support for pensioners, the low paid, nursery education and apprenticeships but they reckon they must "do a better job" of trumpeting their achievements. So, despite the arrangement with the Tories being "stable and durable", it is more a coalition of "necessity not conviction".  Apparently, the two parties are going to show their separate identities more overtly in future - the Lib Dems, for their part, are going to be more "muscular" in government [oh, how we laughed] and their influence will be more "visible", no mean feat when you're ignored more often than Fred Miliband.

Nick Clegg would even go on to say: "There is a reason neither of the two bigger parties won last May - neither of them were really trusted to deliver both a strong, dynamic economy and a fair society. We can be trusted on both counts. I am confident that showing we can combine economic soundness with social justice - competence with a conscience - will make us an even more formidable political force in the future."

I bet Fred's quaking in his slippers.

The Hardest Hit march, rally and lobby of Parliament, 11 May 2011

Thousands of disabled people and their families and supporters will converge on Westminster tomorrow to protest against government cuts and their impact on key benefits such as the disability living allowance and the employment and support allowance. Afterwards they will lobby MPs as the welfare reform bill reaches a critical stage in the House of Commons.

Wednesday's protest, dubbed the Hardest Hit march, is being coordinated by hundreds of disabled people's organisations and charities and groups including Scope, Leonard Cheshire Disability, Mencap, the RNIB and Sense. Organisers say that disabled people will be hit disproportionately hard by the cuts, which, they estimate, could result in families losing £9bn of support over the next four years.

Jaspal Dhani, chief executive of the United Kingdom Disabled People's Council, said the cuts would have an adverse effect on disabled people's rights and their ability to live independently. "We believe that disabled people stand to lose most from these cuts," he said. "We hope to show both the government and the community at large just how fearful disabled people are about the impact the cuts will have. It's about taking direct action because it seems government ministers are simply not listening."

Dhani said the cuts would result in disabled people being institutionalised and treated unfairly as local authorities try to save money by cutting funding to the bodies that support them. Rebecca Rennison, co-chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium's policy group, agreed that disabled people were likely to feel the cuts far more keenly than the rest of the population.

"They're experiencing the same cuts as everyone else and then experiencing additional ones, so it's cuts on top of cuts," she said. "The disability living allowance (DLA) is vital to people's independence. They are taking away the mobility component that pays for things like taxis and allows people to get out of their homes. The impact will be devastating and people are saying enough's enough. That's why people from all over the country are coming to London to make their views known."

The rally will begin on Victoria Embankment on Wednesday morning and move to Westminster. Protesters will then lobby MPs in Westminster Hall and Methodist Central Hall between 13.30 and 17.30.

The Guardian

They’ve only gone and voted me in again!

Greens emerge as largest party in Brighton and Hove

Party wins 23 council seats, a gain of 10, leaving Greens just short of having an overall majority, writes Ben Quinn in the Guardian

The Greens have emerged as the largest party on Brighton and Hove city council after local election gains underlined its importance as a beach-head for the Greens' broader national ambitions. Just over a year after Caroline Lucas made history by becoming the Greens' first MP, the party built on her success by winning 23 council seats in Brighton, a gain of 10, leaving it just short of an overall majority.

Lucas, who leads the party in England and Wales, said: "This is a fantastic result. I am delighted that the voters of Brighton and Hove have once again made history, by voting in the Greens as the largest party on the council. The fact that we held all our seats and gained 10 – with a total of 23 – shows more than ever the scale of Green support in the city. We have offered people a positive and progressive alternative to the older political parties, and they have welcomed it.

"Our councillors are determined to get the best possible deal for Brighton and Hove in these difficult times. And with all the results in, now is the moment for Greens to reach out to the many different groups – community organisations, businesses, unions and others – and local residents so that together, we can find the best solutions for this great city."

The Greens won 33% of the vote and displaced the Tories as the largest party on the council – the first time a local council in the UK has elected the Greens as the largest party. The Labour Party won 13 seats (32%), the Conservatives 18 (29%), and the Liberal Democrats lost their only seat after the party limped in with 5% of the vote.

David Cameron: a lucky man, a blessed career and now a mandate to wreak havoc on the country

David Cameron ordered Tory cabinet ministers to avoid signs of triumphalism after the prime minister led his party to a strong performance in local elections in England and played a decisive role in winning the AV referendum. No 10 sent a message to ministers to avoid gloating as the Conservatives sought to repair relations with the Liberal Democrats, who are enraged by the way the No to AV campaign depicted Nick Clegg as untrustworthy.

Behind the scenes, Tories were ecstatic. One ministerial source said: "Cameron is lord of all he surveys. He finally got a grip of the referendum campaign and ended all the muttering on the Tory right." The prime minister adopted a different tone as he went out of his way to congratulate the Lib Dems for their work in the coalition when he paid an early morning visit to Tory HQ before heading to Birmingham for his latest meeting in the government's NHS "listening exercise".

He said: "I am absolutely committed to make this coalition government, which I believe is good for Britain, work for the full five years of this term. It is then that I believe the coalition and its parties will be judged by the electorate. But I would pay tribute to the work that Liberal Democrats have done, and are doing, in this coalition and will go on doing, because we are absolutely committed to make sure it works hard for the people of Britain."

The Tory party was keen to point out Labour's poor performance in Scotland and a weaker than expected showing in England, but silent on the Lib Dem performance. They declined to mention 11 gains on North Norfolk council, where the Lib Dems had 12 losses. This will be a blow to Norman Lamb, Clegg's senior parliamentary adviser, who used Lib Dem success there to capture a safe parliamentary seat from the Tories in 2001.

This lot want you to say NO to AV

    For God’s sake, do the decent thing
SAY YES TO AV!

Helping more disabled people get into politics

A new scheme aims to encourage more disabled people into politics and develop a cross-party network of ambassadors, writes Mark Gould in the the Guardian

If the House of Commons were truly reflective of the people it represents, at least 65 would be disabled. But, as the country prepares to vote in the local elections tomorrow, it is unlikely that many disabled people will be among those elected. While there are 10 million people registered disabled in the UK, there are no formal figures on the number of disabled election candidates; those standing for local or national office are not obliged to disclose such information.

The little research that does exist includes work by the University of Plymouth's elections centre. It conducted random surveys in 2008 and 2009 with more than 1,000 local election candidates. In 2008, when asked what best described their situation, 2.8% of candidates stated they were permanently sick or disabled. In 2009, the figure was 1.3%.

Given the prejudice and stigma experienced by disabled people, it is easy to imagine how disability might be regarded as a vote loser, or activists might be put off supporting disabled candidates who need extra support. But the government hopes to encourage more disabled people into local and national politics, and to improve public attitudes to disability through a new training and development scheme.

The Access to Elected Office for Disabled People project includes plans for a £1m fund to help disabled politicians meet costs. Political parties will be asked to improve their internal disability policies and to work with the umbrella organisation, the Local Government Association, and disabled organisations to develop a cross-party network of disabled councillors and MPs, who would become ambassadors and role models for aspiring candidates. Consultation on the scheme ends this month and it should start later this year.

David Blunkett, blind since birth, and perhaps the UK's most well-known disabled politician, became a councillor in Sheffield 41 years ago. He says technological advances and legislation have helped to drive equality, and that he was never aware of other politicians or the public feeling that as a blind person he was not up to the job.

"Obstacles arise out of fear or ignorance of disability, people not knowing what is possible or how best to help," he says, "with occasional paternalistic blips where individuals have been disquieted by the thought that someone with a major challenge could work not just on equal terms, but succeed in the same professional sphere that they are in. Much of this is covert rather than overt."

Rosemary Gilligan, elected to Hertsmere borough council, in 2002, has severe arthritis, the chronic fatigue syndrome myalgic encephalopathy (ME), and uses crutches. She benefited from a one-year leadership programme run by the disability charity Radar. Gilligan, a former mayor at the Conservative-run council, says people with physical and learning difficulties can get involved in politics.

"On the leadership programme you meet people with learning disabilities, people who are deaf or blind," she says, "but you start talking to them and you get to know, with a bit of help and technology, they can get over them." Gilligan cites the example of a councillor in Stevenage with severe mobility problems who used telephone canvassing during the last elections.

Wheelchair-using peer Lady Jane Campbell has spinal muscular atrophy and needs help with most tasks. She wants imaginative ideas for overcoming problems. "Many disabled people would want to get out on the street and knock on doors and canvass but, for some, like me, it would be impossible. It might be that we find other ways of engaging the public."

Campbell has already successfully challenged parliament to find one solution: "I am physically unable to make long speeches so I asked if another lord could speak for me," she explains. "They initially said, 'It wouldn't be your speech.' I said that was nonsense, I wrote the speech. They finally agreed. If you can change hundreds of years of tradition you can do anything, and we do need to change to include disabled people because it's not a democracy if we don't."

Mark Gould, the Guardian

Labour loses Scottish campaign battle to SNP

Gordon Brown was hemmed in between the soft fruit and the yoghurt at a supermarket in Livingston. The former prime minister crouched down between two small children while their mother lined them all up in front of her camera phone. "C'mon Gordon," she shouted at him, "You are supposed to smile you know." Mr Brown put on a forced grin but it was clear he was finding it hard to look chirpy. He was not alone. Such has been the atmosphere of desperation and near panic in Labour ranks in Scotland that the blaming and backbiting over this election campaign has already started – and polling day is still 24 hours away.

 
The reason is simple. Labour in Scotland had a solid 10-point lead over the SNP just six months ago. Although its lead had dropped to single figures by the start of the campaign in March, the Labour leaders were still confident of winning. But over the course of the campaign that advantage has not just vanished, it has been turned into such a thumping SNP lead that the latest poll published last night by TNS-BMRB for Scottish Television forecast abject humiliation for Labour tomorrow.

That poll gave the SNP a whopping 18-point lead on the constituency vote and a 13-point lead on the list vote. This was not a one-off, though. It was merely the latest in a series of polls creating "clear tartan water" between the Nationalists and their rivals – according to Alex Salmond. The SNP's 2007 Scottish Parliament victory (by a single seat) was seen by many observers as a blip, an aberration, something which would be righted this year. But if Labour loses again tomorrow and, more importantly, if Labour loses by a substantial margin, then it will be clear that the ground has shifted in Scottish politics, perhaps forever.

Labour strategists acknowledge privately that chief among their problems has been the campaign message. Labour went into the election with a defiant anti-Tory theme: the Conservatives are back in charge at Westminster, so vote Labour to stand up for Scotland against Tory cuts. It was designed to press all those old Scottish working-class buttons about the Tories and invoke bitter memories of Thatcherism. But Labour's message was so ineffectual that the party had to switch tack with just two weeks to go. In a hasty re-launch – devised in frantic calls to concerned party bosses in London – Labour stopped attacking the Tories and turned instead on the SNP. The message became a straightforward if negative warning about the dangers of Scottish independence.

Tax property, not people, for a fairer society

Levies on land values do not depress or distort wealth creation and are easy to assess, cheap to collect and hard to avoid, says Phillip Inman in the Guardian

Amid all the talk of rebalancing the economy, there is little mention of the most powerful lever the government could pull to generate growth, which involves a switch from taxing income to taxing wealth. It is a subject that tends to get little coverage, mainly because its supporters are considered on the fringes of the political spectrum.

Ultra-lefties support wealth taxes for obvious reasons. Ultra-capitalists support them because they understand that allowing the rich to ring-fence much of the nation's assets and protect the mechanisms that allow values to increase without any serious government interference robs their children, and everyone else's, of any incentive to work harder.

And now it is not just the aristocrats who accumulate serious wealth but also increasing numbers of middle income babyboomers – senior teachers, BT engineers, BA airline pilots and local council middle managers. With their million pound homes and million pound pensions, the problem is even bigger. For an ultra-capitalist, the rapid accumulation of wealth over the last 15 years, which in property terms amounts to about £2.5 trillion, is making us fat and lazy. Only a wealth tax can sort it out.

Yet the debate has broadened in recent years with more mainstream groups taking up the cudgels. The OECD, the rich nation's thinktank, has joined the ranks of supporters. Liberal Democrats Chris Huhne and Vince Cable, in their pre-coalition careers, also voiced some sympathy. Andy Burnham adopted the scheme in his pitch for the Labour leadership. Many mainstream economists have also argued the case.

UK ranks behind Slovenia in childhood wellbeing

Six out of 1,000 British children will die before their fifth birthday and only four in five attend pre-school, says Save the Children

Children in the UK are worse off than those in Slovenia, Estonia and Greece, according to Save the Children. The charity today ranked the UK 23rd out of 43 "more developed" countries for child wellbeing in its annual State of the World's Mothers report, and said the result was a "national embarrassment".

The report ranked children's wellbeing according to three main factors: pre-primary enrolment, secondary school enrolment and under-five mortality rate. The charity said it was "particularly concerned" that just 81% of children in the UK were enrolled in pre-primary education. Justin Forsyth, chief executive of Save the Children, said: "We know that pre-school nursery or playgroup access helps all children, but especially the poorest. It is a national embarrassment that the UK lags so far behind other countries of a similar size and wealth."

Mr Forsyth criticised government plans to cut support for childcare costs, which he said would hurt the poorest children even further. "By cutting childcare support, the government is making it harder for low-income parents to return to work but, just as important, more of our poorest children are likely to miss out on pre-school education, a key to later educational achievement," he said.

The charity's report ranked Sweden as the best place for a child's wellbeing, with Italy and Japan in joint second place. Somalia is the worst place on the planet for children's wellbeing. The UK's under-five child mortality rate – at six per 1,000 live births – was the joint 23rd lowest score out of the 43 countries. The lowest rates were three per 1,000. And it found that only 81% of children under five were enrolled in pre-school education. In secondary schools, 99% of children were enrolled.

Government buries bad news on royal wedding bank holiday as NHS regulator predicts further 50% hospital cuts

Monitor says hospitals may have to make efficiency savings of up to 50% higher than previous predictions, writes Patrick Wintour in the Guardian

Labour has accused health bosses of burying bad news on royal wedding day when it emerged that the health regulator Monitor had predicted hospitals would have to make efficiency savings up to 50% higher than previously envisaged. Monitor, in a letter to NHS foundation trusts dated 27 April and released on Thursday, said the higher efficiency savings were partly due to inflation rising above predicted levels.

Monitor oversees NHS foundation trusts and assesses applications for foundation status. It is due to become the overall regulator for the whole of the NHS under the government shakeup. It suggested average savings of up to 7% a year may be required in the acute sector over the next five years, compared with the 4% called for by the Department of Health as part of efforts to slash £20bn from running costs.

Monitor's financial assumptions are used to assess trust applicants and to rate the risks of investments and transactions undertaken by existing NHS foundation trusts. It says it has revised its estimate owing to:

• A Treasury health settlement that "represents a substantial challenge to the NHS given expected demand growth".

• Significant inflationary pressures noted in projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility before the 2011 budget.

• The impact of specific tariff rules

The ministry conceded Monitor's assessment would be "challenging" for the NHS but said it was the "more pessimistic" of two scenarios set out by the regulator.

Calm down, dear - it’s only a deficit emergency

It is becoming clear that Cameron and Osborne have shattered business and consumer confidence with their heavy-handed approach to reining in the national debt, writes Heather Stewart in the Guardian

In the glorious April sunshine the union flags were fluttering outside Westminster Abbey and scores of Royal rubber-neckers with tents and deckchairs were already reserving their pitches for the big day. Just around the corner, in the characterless Church House conference centre, the bunting was noticeably absent as Britain's top statistician sombrely announced that the economy had been "on a plateau" for the past three quarters.

"It's not been declining, but it's not been growing either," said Joe Grice, number-cruncher in chief for the Office for National Statistics, with typical understatement. Strip away his scrupulous objectivity and news that GDP expanded by 0.5% in the first three months of 2011 revealed an economy that is flat-lining.

Put it this way: if your usual take-home pay is £2,000, and you find yourself unexpectedly short by £100 one month (because of an unpaid "snow day" or two, perhaps) you don't crack open the champagne if your wages are restored to normal a month later. With the snowdrifts cleared, output from the UK economy in the first three months of this year was exactly the same as in the third quarter of 2010, just after the coalition took the reins.

Grice admitted that, taken together, the figures were equivalent to two quarters of zero growth, or as Tony Dolphin of the Institute for Public Policy Research put it, "as close as it is possible to come to a recession without actually being in one". The GDP data prompted an almighty bust-up in the Commons, with the prime minister insisting it was "good news," and urging Labour's Treasury spokeswoman Angela Eagle to "calm down, dear".

Fears for NHS services if providers go bust

MPs on public accounts committee hit out at free market model, saying there is 'no contingency to ensure services continue', writes Polly Curtis in the Guardian

MPs are demanding that the government urgently put in place plans to ensure vital health services continue if a hospital or other provider goes bust under its NHS reforms. In a report published on Wednesday, the public accounts committee says the proposals for the NHS do not include details of what will happen if providers fail in the new market model of healthcare provision.

Members of the committee dismissed claims by the most senior civil servant in the Department of Health, Una O'Brien, that the government was "not planning for failure", and condemned the lack of contingency planning, suggesting that the proposals now pose an intolerable risk to value for money and quality of services.

Richard Bacon, the Conservative MP for South Norfolk, said: "In any organisation as large and complex as the NHS, things can and do go wrong, and the Department of Health has yet to establish a robust framework for dealing with failure in the system. The department must not only understand the danger of either a provider or a commissioner going 'belly up', but also toughen up its contingency plans, drawing upon strong, effective and clear chains of governance and accountability throughout the new NHS model."

It is the latest in a series of critiques of the scale and pace of NHS reforms, after opposition from doctors, healthcare specialists and even the Liberal Democrats. The programme is currently on a two-month "pause" to allow the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, to conduct a "listening exercise". No 10 has ruled out any significant changes, but there is mounting speculation in Westminster that they could be preparing to reverse that position to avoid a clash over the NHS.

The future of mental health care in austerity Britain

High-level supported-living housing is under threat as one London council calls a hostel 'surplus to requirements', writes Kate Belgrave in the Guardian

The soon-be-closed Tamworth high-level support hostel for people with mental health illnesses sits on the quiet Farm Lane in expensive central Fulham. "Location" is the word that leaps to mind here. Fulham Broadway station is just five minutes' walk from Tamworth hostel's front door and bustling Fulham Broadway is even nearer. Farm Lane itself is tranquil, though – it's tucked just far enough round the corner for refuge from the Broadway's crowds and noise. It's perfect.

Last month, Hammersmith and Fulham council's cabinet decided to close the 14-unit Tamworth hostel, make all staff redundant and sell the building. The council said alternative accommodation would be found for the hostel's eight residents. The council's rationale for closure was a Supporting People fund contribution towards a £300,000 austerity saving. Selling the building would be a nice little earner.

Things aren't looking as bright for those in the hostel, though. Inside, you find angry, soon-to-be-unemployed staff, concerned residents and a sort of muted, but palpable, sense of calamity. It's not just the job losses, or the uncertainty faced by residents. There's a feeling that with this sort of closure, we're getting a glimpse into austerity's darkest corners – corners where sufferers of severe mental illness rot in substandard B&Bs, or end up on the street. Time will tell.

High-level supported-living housing is a unique service. Experienced staff monitor residents' medication and keep and eye on drug and alcohol use. They arrange transfers, community activities and help residents organise appointments. The Tamworth hostel building is secure and always staffed. Many have worked here for years – a contribution that means little in our austerity age. Council reports dismiss their expertise and concerns: "Although there was some opposition to the proposal from the staff, the consultation did not present any strong arguments for keeping Tamworth open," stated authors of the council's March cabinet report on the closure. Spinning to reassure, the report's authors insisted that Tamworth residents would be catered for: "evidence demonstrates that there is sufficient provision for the client group in the borough's other mental health supported housing".

Why the Tories want us all to live in Downton Abbey

David Cameron hankers for a society in which everyone knows their place, writes Deborah Orr in the Guardian

George Bush Sr, while seeking re-election as US president in 1992, said: "We are going to keep on trying to strengthen the American family, to make American families a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like the Simpsons." Over here, 20 years on, David Cameron has ambitions that seem even more absurd. He appears to want Britain to be a lot more Downton Abbey and a lot less Four Lions – the former being assumed as a sound prophylactic against the latter.

Last year, when Downton Abbey became a huge Sunday-evening hit for ITV, some argued that the popularity of the series, set on a country estate early in the 20th century, might be culturally significant, signalling a nostalgia for a time when Britain had a more settled class identity. The show certainly offers a rose-tinted picture of life under the wing of the English aristocracy, as conjured up by Downton's creator, Julian Fellowes. (He was made a Conservative peer in the last New Year's Honours List, for services to coalition cabinet fantasy.) But there are few signs of a hunger to doff the cap in real life.

The coalition's rhetoric, the insistence that "we are all in this together", building a "big society", is often dismissed as meaningless, or even sinister – a mendacious cover for an ideologically driven economic rout against the people of Britain, on behalf of the wealthy elites. My suspicion, however, is that these inchoate phrases really represent a perfectly genuine ache in the Tory soul for a vision of Britain – especially of England – in which the Women's Institute runs the fete on the village green, there is honey, still, for tea, and everyone is content because everyone knows their place. Cameron is not dangerous because he is cynical. He is dangerous because he is sentimental. Politicians often are, the idiots.

The trouble with the big society is not that it is a hollow excuse, dreamed up to shift responsibility for deficit-reducing cuts from the state to the people. It's that it is a genuine and heartfelt nostalgic dream. Hopes that the big society will quickly become a reality are supplying an unfounded optimism within government about the shape of things to come. They actually think it's all going to turn out OK. Of course they do. That's why they are in such a hurry to get some results before the next election.

Kate Middleton: lesbian 'icon'

Kate Middleton will soon be considered an 'icon' to lesbians, the novelist Sarah Waters says. Waters, who wrote lesbian novel Tipping The Velvet, told the Daily Telegraph that Prince William’s fiancée appeals to lesbians in the same way Princess Diana did to gay men.

She's the one on the left

Speaking at the Man Booker Best of Beryl Prize in Soho, she said: “There is something quite earthy about her which, I think, lesbians will like.” On Miss Middleton’s appeal to gay men, she said: “Of course, they will be drawn to her glamour, so I think she will do very well for all sorts of people.”

The princess-in-waiting and Prince William have been urged to support marriage equality by gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who has organised a rally outside Buckingham Palace on Easter Monday. He said: “We plan to deliver a giant wedding card to William and Kate. As well as wishing the royal couple every happiness, we will highlight the fact that William and Kate can marry, but same-sex couples can’t.”

Oh, get a grip.

London smog

Hampstead Heath

London skyline

St Paul’s Cathedral

Birmingham City Council social care cuts ruled unlawful by High Court

Judges have ruled that Birmingham City Council's plans to limit social care for disabled people are unlawful. The families of four severely disabled people took the case to the High Court sitting in Birmingham. The test case is the first in a series of possible legal challenges to councils around the UK mounted by those facing cuts to social care.

Birmingham City Council is planning to reduce care packages to about 4,000 people over the next three years. The authority, a Conservative-Liberal coalition, says it needs to make the cuts to help slash £118m from its adult and communities directorate. In total, a spokeswoman said, it needs to save £308m from its budget.

It explained that only those whose needs had been assessed as "critical" would qualify for council-funded care. But the judges ruled that the council business plan was unlawful because it failed to comply with Section 49a of the Disability Discrimination Act. The four people, who cannot be named for legal reasons, include a 65-year-old woman with severe learning difficulties who receives 24-hour care in a home paid for by the council. They also include a 25-year-old man with a rare genetic disorder and severe learning disabilities who receives overnight respite care, also funded by the council. Both were set to lose their council-funded care.

The sister-in-law of the 65-year-old woman said: "I'm deeply concerned about what impact this will have and it's important to take a stand here. She relies on the council's support to assist her with daily living skills and to support and promote her independence, including assisting with personal care tasks, preparation of meals and safely accessing the community. The care is hugely beneficial and without it her quality of life would fall dramatically."

A co-ordinated strike is the next step

‘Time to move on from marching – will Britain's biggest unions abandon their masochistic 'new realism' and take action?’ asks Richard Seymour in the Guardian

"Imagine," said PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka, "what a difference it would make if we didn't only march together but took strike action together." The cheer that resounded from the crowd in Hyde Park spoke for itself. This was 26 March, the day that half a million workers from across Britain turned out for the most significant manifestation of trade union strength in decades – although you may remember it as the day when some windows were broken.
 
However inspiring 26 March was, though, leaving it at a march from A to B – just in time for local elections – would be a terrible waste. Some union leaders may feel that the best use of this energy is to vote Labour in the May elections. But Labour councils are also pushing through cuts, and it is obvious from local strike ballots that union members aren't putting up with this. The next logical step is, exactly as Serwotka says, co-ordinated strike action. So, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), National Union of Teachers (NUT), University and College Union (UCU) and Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) unions are moving towards balloting their members for a one-day national strike over pensions, job losses and wages.

What sticks out here is the participation of the ATL, which is a professional teaching union not given to militancy. Its last strike action was in 1979. Similarly, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) overwhelmingly passed a motion at its annual conference in Liverpool calling for an indicative ballot of members for national strike action. This is far from typical for the RCN, which, until a change in its policy in 1995, always ruled out industrial action. The "proletarianisation" of professionals in the public sector, with degraded conditions even for usually respected staff, is leading some of the traditionally conservative unions to be more militant than their larger counterparts.

If the strike ballots are approved by the members, this could result in up to 800,000 people taking strike action. If other small unions join the strike, there could be over a million people taking industrial action on that day. However, the largest unions – such as Unison, which drew by far the biggest contingent on the march – have not agreed to take part.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Paul Bignell, The Independent

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show. The papers, revealed in The Independent for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd". But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Iraq's burgeoning oil industry: Click HERE to upload graphic (160k)

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change. The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis." The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

Join Club Clegg for just £25,000 per year

The Liberal Democrats are offering lobbyists face-to-face meetings with ministers, including Nick Clegg, if they pay £25,000 a year. The cash-strapped party has launched a club offering privileged access to the Deputy Prime Minister and senior Liberal Democrats. The Leaders' Forum will be restricted to an elite of 50 individuals who will be invited to "exclusive dinners" and debates with frontbenchers in return for an annual £25,000 donation, payable into the party's Royal Bank of Scotland account. They are promised "unrivalled networking opportunities".

The Lib Dems were immediately accused of taking "cash for access", echoing funding controversies which embroiled the Conservatives and Labour. Such meetings are a favoured method for executives to quietly lobby prominent politicians about their corporate interests. Mr Clegg's Leaders' Forum was launched at a private meeting on 28 March, attended by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, and the veteran hand-shaker Peter Bingle, chairman of Bell Pottinger Public Affairs, which sponsored the event.

In documents provided to lobbyists and obtained by the magazine PR Week, Mr Clegg writes: "We are in Government for the first time in almost 70 years and are playing a central role in creating a fairer and more prosperous Britain. I'd like to invite you to join the debate ... My colleagues and I want to listen to you and to continue this dialogue." The Deputy Prime Minister reassures them: "You don't have to be a Liberal Democrat to take part. In today's politics, all are welcome." On the facing page is a price list.

One lobbyist at the launch said that it was made clear that the forum was "the one where you get to meet Nick". The disclosure is potentially damaging for Mr Clegg, who has promised a "new politics". The timing is also sensitive, with private healthcare firms circling around the NHS ahead of planned reforms. The Liberal Democrats' financial woes have mounted. The party ran up a deficit of £1.25m last year because it lost the £1.75m of "short money" funding it received from the public purse while it was in opposition. It had to lay off twenty staff.

Tamasin Cave, a spokeswoman for the campaign group SpinWatch, said: "It looks like cash for access. It's privileged access, for cash." But Mr Bingle said the forum was simply an opportunity for business people to get to know the party leaders. The Liberal Democrats denied the allegation of cash for access. A spokeswoman said: "Far from it being about access or influence it is an opportunity for us as a party to discuss and explain what we are doing in government and to stimulate conversation on various issues within group settings." The party reaffirmed its commitment to reforming lobbying regulations.

Oliver Duff and David Singleton, the Independent

George Osborne backs 61 PFI projects despite previous doubts about costing

The use of PFI peaked when Tony Blair was in power, with 67 projects being signed off, or reaching "financial completion", in 2000. Those projects were worth £4.6bn. While in opposition, Osborne described the PFI as a "discredited" model, while Cable said it was "a dishonest system of accounting, designed to hide taxpayers' liabilities".

George Osborne, the chancellor, is pressing ahead with private finance initiative (PFI) projects on a multibillion-pound scale despite having dismissed the infrastructure funding mechanism as "discredited" when he was in opposition, research has revealed. A report on Channel 4 News shows 61 PFI projects, worth a total of £6.9bn, have been taken forward since the general election. This is despite claims that private sector borrowing costs currently make PFI particularly poor value for money.

Of the 61 projects being negotiated, 39 are due to be signed off this year, against 32 in 2008 and 38 in 2009, when Gordon Brown was prime minister. Although the Treasury claims that the new PFI contracts will be better value for money than some of the old ones, the figures will reignite the long-standing controversy about the merits of paying the private sector to take charge of building and maintenance projects that used to be managed by government.

The Labour government, which massively expanded the use of PFI after it was developed by the last Tory government, defended it on the grounds that public sector procurement schemes often came in late and over budget and that, under PFI, the costs associated with these risks were transferred to the private sector. But, in opposition, Osborne and his Lib Dem counterpart, Vince Cable, complained that PFI was poor value for the taxpayer.

Mark Hellowell, a PFI specialist at the University of Edinburgh, told Channel 4 News that the large gap between the cost of private sector borrowing and the cost of public sector borrowing meant that PFI now represented particularly poor value for money. "The truth is the coalition government have made a decision that they want to expand PFI at a time when the value for money credentials of the system have never been weaker," he said. "The government is very concerned to keep the headline rates of deficit and debt down, so it's looking to use an increasingly expensive form of borrowing through an intermediary knowing the investment costs won't immediately show up on their budgets."

In response to the Channel 4 News findings, to be broadcast at 7pm tonight, the Treasury said that PFI was only one method used to finance infrastructure projects and that schemes had to be "good value for money" to get approval. "There is clear evidence of excesses in some of the older PFI contracts," a Treasury spokesman said. "We are determined to save money where we can, which is why we are running a savings pilot at Queen's hospital, Romford. The PFI contract is being examined to identify ways of reducing ongoing costs in this contract. Lessons learned will be used to drive savings across the full portfolio of PFI contracts."

Andrew Sparrow, the Guardian

BBC World Service 'should not be cut'

The BBC's World Service is too valuable to the corporation's reputation for its funding to be cut, a government watchdog has said. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee said the proposed 16% budget cuts for the service should be reversed. In January the BBC said it would close five of its language services because of the Foreign Office funding cuts. It said it welcomed the "support" of the report, and was committed to the long-term future of the World Service.

Committee chairman Richard Ottaway said going ahead with the budget cuts would be a "false economy". "The value of the World Service in promoting the UK across the globe, by providing a widely-respected and trusted news service, far outweighs its relatively small cost," he added. "The recent dramatic events in North Africa and the Middle East have shown the 'soft power' wielded through the World Service could bring even more benefits to the UK in the future than it has in the past."

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the World Service performed an "invaluable" role. "However, in line with all other publicly-funded bodies, it must play its part in reducing the deficit," he said. "The BBC has been clear that the transfer of funds from the licence fee in 2014/15 will not make the World Service's funding less secure."

Last October the government reduced the World Service's £237 million annual budget by 16% and announced the BBC would take over the cost of running it from the Foreign Office from 2014. The committee's report said "the decision was essentially financial" and "taken at very short notice, albeit with the full agreement of BBC top management".

The great debt lie & the myth of the structural deficit

The case for austerity measures rests on these two stories. Firstly, some facts which blow apart the fallacy that the present economic crisis is the result of excessive spending leading to unsustainable debt:

• Average annual spending and taxation were both lower as a proportion of GDP under the last 3 Labour Governments (38% and 35.4%) than under the 4 Conservative governments which preceded them (40% and 35.5%).

• National debt was lower as a proportion of GDP at the start of the financial crisis in 2008 (36%) than in 1997, the last year of John Major’s Conservative government (42%).

• In 2010, the UK’s national debt as a proportion of GDP (52%) was the second lowest of the G7 countries.

Secondly, the budget deficit is no more “structural” than an overdraft in your bank account when you spend more than you earn. There is either a real deficit or not, and if there is, then it is due to either excessive spending or an inadequate tax take.

Since it can easily be demonstrated that the problem is not the former, then it must be the latter – caused by the financial crisis and consequent recession and likely to be aggravated when taxes are cut later during this parliament to the benefit of high earners, corporations and banks.

As The Investors Chronicle put it (15th February 2010): “The idea of a structural deficit serves a political rather than analytical function. It's a pseudo-scientific concept which serves to legitimate what is in fact a pure judgment call - that borrowing needs cutting.”

Osborne began to revive the myth of the structural deficit in June 2010, when it was becoming clear that the deficit would be under £155 billion, well below the Treasury's £178 billion estimate made six months earlier. In other words, the deficit was narrowing after Labour increased spending in 2009.

The fact that the US, which has made no serious deficit reductions, has suffered almost the smallest recession of any major developed economy whereas Ireland and Greece have suffered the worst because of drastic spending cuts further undermines the government's claim that radical austerity measures are needed – and shows that Osborne’s main aim is not to reduce the deficit but to accelerate the transfer of wealth to the already rich.

And if anyone still wants to talk about a “structural” deficit, then they should remember that the last 3 Labour governments managed to earn enough to cover their spending for 4 of their 13 years in office, whereas Thatcher and Major only managed balance the books for 2 out of 17 years.

Nobody Likes a Tory (Facebook page)

Cameron's well-oiled winning machine is now a car crash

From NHS to schools, a catalogue of errors and incompetence is undermining confidence in a once pitch-perfect Tory party, writes Polly Toynbee in the Guardian

A year ago running up to the election, everything they did looked clever, well oiled and pitch perfect. David Cameron's electoral Rolls-Royce purred up to the winning post, his party's reputation for wrecking the public realm left far behind. Likeable, reasonable and focus group-tuned to what the British wanted, he understood Labour's legacy was a basic instinct for fairness. He knew the no-go zones – or so it seemed.

Martin Rowson, the Guardian

So why has he broken all his own rules in such a short time? Where did this appetite for random acts of revolutionary chaos come from? But above all, friend or foe, no one foresaw incompetence on such a scale. The saga of the NHS car crash is incomprehensible: his party seems at a loss, as ideology trumps political common sense. Cameron's campaign – "I'll cut the deficit not the NHS" – understood what was electorally totemic and radioactive for Tories.

No cuts? Former Tory health secretary Stephen Dorrell, powerful head of the commons health committee, warns yet again that no country ever attempted a 4% health cut in one year, let alone four years running. So what possessed Cameron to risk such cuts and lie about it, let alone to encourage Lansley's simultaneous "revolution"? To advertise the NHS for sale to "any willing provider", making Monitor open it to EU competition law, confirms every worst suspicion voters already held against his party.

Facing the immovable object of the House of Lords and the Dorrell committee's broadside, this week, he pulled the handbrake and Westminster reeks of burning rubber. But this "natural break" is just for advertising, to explain it better, he says, amid rumours of a cull of special advisers and junior ministers to bring in better salesmen. His own "enemies of enterprise" attack on the civil service misfired badly, as Whitehall fails to rescue ministers from their blunders.

The porters of Billingsgate

The same authority that hosted the banking crisis is taking away Billingsgate fish porters' livelihoods, write Jon Cruddas and Maurice Glasman in the Guardian

This week the City of London Corporation is likely to withdraw all trading licences from the porters of Billingsgate fish market. The role of the porter has been recognised by the corporation since 1632: it was to uphold the ethics of the fish market, work honestly and "act in fellowship" with other porters. Take away the porters' licences, and they become cheap casual labour – and if employed at all it will be by individual merchants rather as porters, licensed by corporation as a whole. The corporation, as the inheritor of property titles going back 1,000 years, fears that the market – and specifically the porters – stand in the way of its expansion plans around Canary Wharf.

Without the porters, the bankers, property developers and financiers will be the sole inheritors of the ancient privileges, customs, rights and assets that go back to the establishment of the City of London almost a millennium ago. It is the final act in a story where the power of money has been asserted over the status of the people. It is a disgrace that shines a light on our failure to control finance capital even after the crisis of autumn 2008, yet nobody says a word about it.

The City of London Corporation, the political authority in the Square Mile, is an ancient institution. Yet so too are the Billingsgate porters, with a status going back four centuries; as much part of the City of London as the lord mayor, the aldermen, the livery companies and the common council. The porters have always moved with the times, yet now will be robbed of their jobs and status. It is an act of dispossession and humiliation. How can this happen in the heart of our capital in 2011?

Real Madrid 4 - 0 Tottenham Hotspur

Shafted