Everything you need to know about NHS reform in five minutes

The agonisingly tortuous progress of the government's health and social care bill has made the coalition's NHS reform agenda one of its most controversial. Here's a quick overview of the proposed changes - and the bitter, protracted battle over the government's ideas.

What's all the fuss about?
Something, so the cliché goes, has got to be done. Whoever was in government in this parliament would have to shake up the NHS' structures to a certain extent, to help the health service cope with dramatically changing demands on its services. We're all getting older. So less hospital treatment, for example, is critical as the ageing population demands more care in the home.

On top of this comes financial pressure. The coalition protected NHS spending in real terms in its comprehensive spending review, but is forcing through £20 billion of efficiency measures by 2015 to redistribute the savings more effectively. Not a straightforward context, then, for the decisions made by the 2010-15 government.

That government's proposals were unveiled for the first time in August 2010. They were, to put it mildly, something of a surprise. The Conservative general election manifesto had promised no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. How surprised we all were, therefore, when the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government, with Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley at the helm, proposed exactly that.

Rather than let know-it-all managers make decisions about which resources should go where, ministers proposed handing the power to commission services to consortia of GPs. Some GPs liked the idea of this extra work. Others were appalled. What mattered, the government insisted, was the end result: the creation of a market dynamic within the NHS, reformed and shorn of its primary care trusts. At the heart of the coalition's proposals were moves to make competition the driver of more effective health services.

Contested competition
This wasn't the first time the NHS got itself worked up over the benefits and perils posed by competition. Kenneth Clarke's drive in the early 90s to introduce internal markets to the health service prompted massive anger from health organisations. It's no surprise that these are the same ones now fighting Lansley's changes. As the head of the BMA, Dr Hamish Meldrum, explained in May 2011, what's happening today is "almost part of the same argument, the same battle if you like, the same disagreement on how best to organise and make the NHS run more efficiently".

The coalition did not expect the levels of resistance which they have encountered. Their thinking was that these moves towards choice and competition were actually extensions to the piecemeal changes pushed through by the New Labour government. Yes, the coalition wanted to accelerate this shift towards the private sector - but the reforms were not coming completely out of the blue.

That did not stop them attracting huge opposition. For many, the proposal to give healthcare regulator Monitor responsibility for promoting competition at the expense of all else proved a step too far. It summed up the government's thinking, excited by the possibilities offered by innovative new providers and greater choice. Many feared that such untrammelled market factors would only lead to some losing out - and overall standards of patient care suffering.

The unprecedented 'listening pause' - and how it didn't work
It had never really been done before. But, taking advantage of the extra-long first parliamentary session, on April 6th 2011 the coalition announced a 'listening exercise' in which it would reconsider key parts of the bill. Two months later, on June 14th, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Lansley put on a brave face as they presided over massive concessions. Monitor's competition duty was scrapped. Instead choice and competition would rely on pre-existing competition panels, rather than being embedded in its day-to-day operations. The pace of the changes was also slowed - no more scrapping of PCTs by 2013 - and the role of the proposed national NHS board was expanded.

These were big adjustments - a humiliating experience for Lansley and Cameron. Less so for Nick Clegg, who was able to paint the changes as being the direct result of Lib Dem influence in the coalition. This was a painful episode for the government, but it genuinely hoped to have ended the debate. As the summer of 2011 slowly progressed, it looked like the NHS reform furore had finally subsided.

How wrong the optimists were. The listening pause was a hugely punishing hors d'oeuvre for the main event. Lib Dems, led by veteran Shirley Williams, made clear at the party's autumn conference they would not budge an inch on a vast swathe of remaining objections - including the legislation's rather vague approach to who is actually responsible for the NHS. Throughout the autumn the health and social care bill dragged its way through the Lords. The reforms remained a huge headache for the government.

An unfinished war of attrition?
As 2012 began the situation looked bad. But it was about to get worse as, in mid-January, campaigners sarcastically marked the first anniversary of the legislation's arrival in parliament. Groups like the Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of Midwives, which had previously been happy to work with the government to improve the bill, decided it was better if ministers now scrapped it completely.

The first weeks of the year were seeing a new crisis for Lansley and co. So, in another sizeable set of concessions, they tabled 137 amendments to the health and social care bill in early February. Demands to clarify the ultimate responsibility of the secretary of state for the NHS were met. So too were measures involving greater patient involvement, better arrangements for education and training, extra measures to tackle health inequalities and strengthened integration between NHS services.

Was this enough? Not really. Ed Miliband began returning to the issue again and again in prime minister's questions, effectively using the controversy to lift his struggling leadership. There was a real sense that these reforms might falter, after all.

But the stakes remained high. Following the listening pause, the Lib Dems were more closely tied into these reforms than they had been before. Such was their significance that a failure to push them through would be a hammer blow to the government. Perhaps this explains why ministers are now refusing to back down, in the teeth of huge opposition. The long, attritional fight shows no signs of ending soon. The government's resolve may be teetering, but it has not yet collapsed. Will ministers be able to hold on until the bitter end?

Alex Stevenson, politics.co.uk

Third year of pay freeze for 1.6 million council staff

Around 1.6 million council workers are to have their pay frozen for a third year in a row, local authority employers announced today. The "unprecedented" move affects workers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland and was blamed on rising costs and shrinking funding for council services. Employers said increasing pay would mean more job losses and further cuts to services, but unions said the announcement was a "disgrace".

Local authority leaders were warned they faced the threat of industrial action if they did not agree to take the pay issue to arbitration. Sarah Messenger, head of workforce at the Local Government Association, said: "This has been a very difficult decision to make but it is the right one for council taxpayers and the workforce as a whole. A combination of rising costs and shrinking local government funding means councils were left with little choice. Increasing pay would mean more job losses and cuts to the services people need.

“Today's announcement represents an unprecedented third consecutive year of pay freeze and we recognise the frustration which will be felt by the workforce. While the financial outlook for councils is bleak, we are keen to begin discussions with the unions on a package of reform of pay and conditions that may enable us to avoid a fourth year of pay freeze in 2013."

Brian Strutton, national officer of the GMB, said the union would consult its members over industrial action if employers refused to go to arbitration. He said: "The politicians who lead local councils are a disgrace to the workforces they employ for offering no pay rise for the third consecutive year while feathering their own nests. Council leaders' pay has shot up and councillors vote themselves higher allowances while the carers, dinner ladies, dustmen, social workers, school support staff and all the other council workers serving their communities will have seen their pay fall in real terms by over 15%.

“The Chancellor promised the country in the 2010 budget that low-paid public sector workers would be afforded some protection against the cuts so will he rein in the Conservative-controlled council leaders who have made a mockery of that promise? Council workers are the lowest paid in the public sector but are the only ones not to be offered even the minimum £250 the Government guaranteed.

“This three-year pay freeze is not an austerity measure, it is a deliberate political choice by local government politicians who want to win votes by keeping their workforces' pay at poverty levels to fund council tax freezes." Mr Strutton said today's announcement came as a "shock", adding: "I don't know any other workforce in the economy that has had to bear this and 150,000 job losses and cuts to terms and conditions."

Unison's head of local government, Heather Wakefield, said: "Many local government workers are in work, but in poverty. It is a disgrace that pay will be frozen for the third year running, forcing even more into the poverty trap. Many of them will be women working in vital jobs in our local communities, like caring for the elderly, or for young children, or helping the vulnerable.

"Not even the lowest paid in local government will get the £250 increase the Chancellor promised them. They didn't get it last year either. Families can no longer cope. This cannot go on - councils do have other choices such as increasing council tax, or using their considerable reserves. The employers must think again, and at the very least come through with the £250 minimum increase for the lowest paid."

Unite national officer Peter Allenson said: "Local government workers are under sustained attack. "Staff have endured a decade of below inflation pay increases and freezes. Now attacks on pensions, conditions and massive job cuts have heaped misery upon misery. It is time that local government employers face the fact that they have a crisis on their hands. Failure to act will push even more workers into poverty and damage local government services.

"Staff need a substantial pay increase this year. Unite will be meeting its activists across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and fully supports its members in any action they are prepared to take for pay justice."

The Independent

Eric Joyce arrested after attacking Tories in Commons bar

Labour MP Eric Joyce was arrested last night after allegations of an assault in a House of Commons bar.

Stuart Andrew, Tory MP for Pudsey, was reportedly head-butted and punched in the Strangers Bar, a Commons bar reserved for MPs and their guests. Joyce then started punching other Conservative members seated at the back of the bar. Drinks were also allegedly thrown over some bar patrons.

Joyce has been suspended from the Labour Party until the completion of a police investigation, however he remains MP for Falkirk.

Suspended? For lashing out at Conservatives?! Make him leader of the Labour party, for Christ’s sake!

NHS performing so well it does not need radical reform, study concludes

The NHS is performing so well that it does not need to undergo the radical transformation planned by the coalition, according to a new study published by the British Medical Journal.

While the health service in England has some weaknesses, it should be left to continue making improvements that began when Labour was in power, and not face another massive upheaval, an analysis by health researchers led by Professor David Ingleby of Utrecht University in the Netherlands concluded.

Their findings "do not support complacency about the current performance of the health system in the UK", the authors stress. "They do, however, cast serious doubt on any claim that there is widespread popular support for radical reform.

"Improvements are needed, but continuation and expansion of the measures already set in motion – more of the same – seems to be a better formula than totally rebuilding a system that, by international standards, already works remarkably well."

The researchers based their findings on two recent Commonwealth Fund reports comparing the NHS's performance across the UK, and patients' perceptions of it, with that of the health systems of 13 other countries.

"The main messages are that the NHS outperforms other high income countries on many measures, despite spending less than most of them; it enjoys the highest levels of public confidence and satisfaction of all the countries studied; [and] the effects of increased investment and policy improvements over the past decade are clearly visible," said Ingleby.

But while healthcare is more accessible, better organised, safer and more patient-centred in the NHS than elsewhere, ongoing concern about some of the clinical outcomes it achieves in patients is a worry, they say. "Three measures warrant particular concern: deaths amenable to healthcare; survival rates for breast cancer; and survival after acute myocardial infarction," they add.

The Department of Health said the NHS could not be allowed to stand still. "This analysis highlights concerns around clinical outcomes, and the fact the current system has to improve. Separately, another report from Age UK and the National Osteoporosis Society today said our reforms could improve patient care," said a spokesman.

"The independent NHS Future Forum confirmed that every health system in the developed world faces the same challenges, but that they won't be met by the NHS doing more of the same. That is why our plans will hand power to GPs, put patients at the heart of the NHS, and reduce needless bureaucracy."

The Guardian

Korean firm wins MoD contract for next generation tankers

The Royal Navy's next generation of support tankers is to be built in South Korea. Defence equipment minister Peter Luff said Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering has been chosen as the Government's preferred bidder to build the four 37,000-tonne vessels costing £452 million.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said that although a number of British companies took part in the competition, none submitted a final bid for the build contract. UK firms will however benefit from associated contracts - including the provision of key systems and equipment - worth £150 million. The winning design for the ships is by the British company BMT Defence Services.

"The Government remains committed to building complex warships in UK shipyards," Mr Luff said. The MoD's chief of defence materiel, Bernard Gray, said the competition for the contract had "sought to engage shipbuilders from across the globe. I believe the winning bidder's solution will offer the UK the best value for money."

The four Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (Mars) tankers will maintain the Navy's ability to refuel warships at sea and will provide support for amphibious, land and air forces. At more than 200 metres in length, each ship is as long as 14 double-decker buses and can pump enough fuel to fill two Olympic-size swimming pools in an hour.

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said: "This is more bad news for British industry. First we lose out to France over fast jets and now we lose out to South Korea over Royal Navy tankers."

Press Association

Cameron's top ten LIES about the NHS

1. “We will stop the top-down reorganisation of the NHS” - Election campaign

LIAR! The Tories are pushing through the biggest top-down reorganisation of the NHS in its history.

2. “We will increase health spending every year” - Conservative ­manifesto, April 2010

LIAR! A Nuffield Trust study shows a “real terms reduction of 0.5% over next four years”.

3. “We’ll ensure waiting times are kept low” - June 2011

LIAR! Patients waiting longer than 18-week ­guarantee are up by 34%.

4. “We will save the maternity and A&E units at Chase Farm Hospital, London” - 2007

LIAR! Health Secretary announced the units would be downgraded last November.

5. Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, Physicians and Nursing “all supported” his health reforms - September 2010

LIAR! All three oppose the reforms.

6. “We will increase the number of midwives by 3,000” - January 2010

LIAR! The Government has cut the training places for nurses and midwives.

7. “We will not endanger universal coverage — we will make sure it remains a National Health Service” - June 2011

LIAR! The health service has already begun breaking up into local GP commissioning groups.

8. Reforms were needed as there were 5,000-10,000 needless cancer deaths a year compared to other EU countries

LIAR! The NHS has helped achieve the biggest drop in cancer deaths among 10 leading countries.

9. “We are not reorganising the bureaucracy of the NHS, we are abolishing bureaucracy” - March 2011

LIAR! The NHS will be saddled with even MORE bureaucracy with hundreds of new bodies set up to replace sacked managers.

10. “The Government is fully behind the Health Bill” - Prime Minister’s ­official spokesman

LIAR! Three Tory ministers have come out against it.

Courtesy of the Mirror [with a few adjustments]

Quantitative

Martin Rowson, the Guardian

News of the World pays £20,000 for photo it decides not to publish. Why?

Sources who worked at the News of the World have confirmed an allegation, made at the Leveson inquiry by maverick blogger Paul Staines, that the paper paid him £20,000 to buy up a photograph of a special adviser to the foreign secretary, William Hague, which they subsequently never published. [Hmmm,who was in the background? - al]

Staines's claim is potentially explosive because the now-disgraced former News of the World editor, Andy Coulson, was acting at the time as the Cameron government's press adviser, and is likely to have been involved in what proved to be a successful battle to save Hague's job.

The photograph was bought at the height of a controversy about Hague sharing a hotel room during campaigns with a 25-year-old special adviser. Hague was forced to issue a detailed statement denying he had had a gay relationship, and the recently appointed adviser, Chris Myers, resigned.

Staines, who runs a gossip site under the name Guido Fawkes, told Lord Justice Leveson in sworn testimony: "We also had pictures of the special adviser in a gay bar … We took the photos to the News of the World. They bought them for £20,000 and never published them. I don't know very much but I know you don't pay £20,000 for photos not to publish. The News of the World was in regular contact with Downing Street, and perhaps to curry favour or for whatever reasons, they chose to buy up those pictures and take them off the market."

News International, the owners of the defunct tabloid, declined to comment on the allegations, saying they were not prepared to disclose details of payments made. However, two former executives at the paper confirmed the deal, on condition of anonymity. They said the purchase was negotiated via the paper's political staff and authorised by the editor, Colin Myler.

One source claimed Myler bought the picture in order to "keep it off the market for a week" because he was planning to expose allegations of spot-fixing at Pakistan cricket matches and wanted it to dominate the headlines that week. But, according to Staines's testimony, he sold the photograph the week after the cricket story, which ran on Sunday 29 August 2010, along with printouts of on-line chat from a website.

The following week, after a statement by Hague describing his happy marriage and denying any gay relationships, every Sunday paper bar one carried news stories about the issue, with speculation about the foreign secretary's future.

The sole exception was the News of the World.

[Funny that – al]

The Guardian [et al]

Boris Johnson given '£90m election bung' by government, says Labour

Labour has accused the government of giving London mayor Boris Johnson a £90m "bung" to help get him re-elected. The Metropolitan Police is to get the money partly to cover the cost of dealing with the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee this summer. Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the House of Commons other forces were facing cuts of up to 20%. Police minister Nick Herbert said it was a coalition government and that both parties would field candidates.

'Lovely jubbly'

Ms Cooper made the comments during a debate on plans which she said would see the loss of 16,000 police officers across England and Wales. She said: "Force after force is seeing big cuts next year except in London. So three months before the mayoral election, and three weeks after the polls show Boris Johnson falling behind, the government suddenly decides to reopen the budget for London... suddenly decides to come up with a pre-election £90m bung. The London Mayor has spent years cutting the Met, cutting the number of officers in London and suddenly the Conservative Party have panicked and are trying to bail him out."

During the debate, Mr Herbert said numbers were not the only factor in improving front line policing. He then asked Ms Cooper: "Can you tell me clearly whether or not you support the increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police this year, yes or no?" In reply, Ms Cooper said Labour did support extra funding for Scotland Yard, but also for all the other forces in England and Wales.

She continued: "You have to wonder, what do the chief constables in other parts of the country have to do in order to get a break? Put on a blond wig, jump on a bike, and become a struggling Tory candidate in order to get the money they need? The truth is, the home secretary should be concerned about public safety rather than just the safety of Boris Johnson."

Mr Herbert had earlier told MPs the changes to the police grant were necessary and good reforms as savings of £2bn a year were needed. The government won the vote on the 2012/13 Police Grant by 298 votes to 228, a majority of 70.

BBC News

Labour calls for cross-party campaign to block Andrew Lansley's health reform bill

Martin Rowson, the Guardian

Welfare bill in tatters after Lords’ savaging

Ministers have been humiliated in the House of Lords over their plans for sweeping changes to the benefit system, suffering three defeats in a single evening in a concerted rebellion that leaves the government’s bill in tatters.

Peers voted decisively to exempt people who have been disabled from a young age and people recovering from cancer from key parts of the government reforms. And in a result that had not been predicted, they also voted to extend the length of time people could continue to claim employment support allowance without being means tested. Government officials claim the move to extend the limit from one year to two would cost £1.6bn over five years.

Liam Byrne, Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary, said: “The government have been defeated tonight because, quite simply, they tried to cross the basic line of British decency. For months, Labour has been determined to stop this cruel attack on cancer patients in its tracks. And today the House of Lords agreed. The government’s proposal to cut paid-for benefits for people still in chemotherapy crosses the basic test of fairness.”

Ministers had planned to place stricter limits on who can claim employment and support allowance, which is paid to people who are too sick or disabled to work. They planned to limit the amount of time people could claim ESA without being means tested to one year, but by voting for exemptions for cancer patients, young disabled people and an overall extension of the time limit, peers have set back those plans significantly.

Lord Mackenzie, the Labour work and pensions spokesman in the Lords said: “We have accepted with some reluctance that there could be a time limit on ESA, but the time limit would have to reasonably reflect a sufficient time period for people to overcome their illness or disability, sufficient to be able to access employment.” He said the one-year time limit was an “arbitrary figure”.

David Cameron had previously been tripped up in the Commons over the government’s refusal to exempt those recovering from cancer from the reforms, measures Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, claimed would cost 7,000 cancer patients £94 per week. 

Wednesday’s rebellions mean the government has now been defeated four times on its welfare bill in the Lords, after Labour joined 13 Liberal Democrat rebels before Christmas to reject a plan to reduce housing benefit for families with spare bedrooms in their homes. Officials in the department for work and pensions will now have to come to a compromise with peers to avoid the legislation becoming bogged down or bouncing constantly between the two chambers.

The scale of the defeat particularly surprised government insiders. The exemption for young disabled people was carried with a majority of 44, that for people receiving treatment for cancer gained a majority of 56 and the overall time limit on ESA was defeated by 48 votes. A DWP spokesman said: “The time-limit of one year strikes the best balance between recognising that some people need extra help to enter the workplace and that the taxpayer cannot afford to support people indefinitely who could be in employment.”

Kiran Stacey, Financial Times

25th January is Peter Tatchell Day, announces Pink News

To mark the 60th birthday of "our most iconic human rights campaigner", Pink News has named Wednesday 25 January 'Peter Tatchell Day'. To celebrate the day, they will look back at the enormous contribution Peter Tatchell has made to the fight for equal gay rights and human rights in general across the UK and abroad with contributions from all around the globe. Late January will also mark 45 years of human rights campaigning by the naturalised Briton, and 10 years since the Peter Tatchell Foundation was originally launched.

For the day, all advertising space on the Pink News website and email newsletter will be donated to the Peter Tatchell Foundation, which promotes and protects human rights in the UK and globally. The foundation will use the estimated 300,000 spots (of varying sizes and locations) to raise awareness of its campaigns and to recruit new donors. 

More importantly, for the rest of Peter’s 60th birthday year, Pink News will donate advertising on at least one spot on every piece of content on the Pink News website to the foundation as well as space on their iPhone/iPad apps. It is hoped that in total 41 million advertisements will be shown to mark the 41 years since Mr Tatchell first joined the London Gay Liberation Front.

Born in Australia in 1952, he began his career as a campaigner at the age of 15 by opposing the death penalty. Two years later, he realised he was gay and two years after that was bound for England because he objected to Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam war and was not willing to be to drafted.

In 45 years of non-violent human rights campaigning, Mr Tatchell has been arrested hundreds of times, but only one conviction has been upheld. Convicted under the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860, he received a fine of £18.60 for interrupting the 1998 Easter Sermon of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, in protest at his support for homophobic discrimination.

Today, Mr Tatchell said: “I am immensely grateful to Benjamin Cohen and the rest of the PinkNews team for their support and generosity. This advertising blitz will increase awareness of our human rights work and raise much-needed funds.

“The Peter Tatchell Foundation has no organised funding. Donations from readers will help us continue our campaign for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty for gay sex, and assist our efforts to win same-sex marriage, football without homophobia and the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the Commonwealth.

“My message to everyone is very simple: Don’t accept the world as it is. Dream of what the world could be – and then help make it happen.” 

Pink News

Cameron orders merger of health and social care

David Cameron has ordered health and social care services to be brought together in order to benefit patients in a move which government advisers are calling the NHS's most urgent overhaul. At the moment, health and social care – the help given mainly to old or disabled patients to help them continue to live at home rather than in hospital or nursing homes – are different systems in England. Cameron made integration one of his five "personal NHS guarantees" last year.

NHS medical treatment and domiciliary support, which is provided mainly by local councils, are usually not joined-up. However, Cameron has told the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, to drive through changes that health policy experts claim will make life more convenient for patients, improve care and save the NHS money. The changes will lead to some hospitals closing, warned the pro-integration NHS Confederation, which represents hospitals and other major NHS employers.

The prime minister has been persuaded by senior doctors and Downing Street health advisers that, without integration, the NHS could become unsustainable due to rises in the number of patients with long-term health conditions such as obesity, diabetes and breathing problems. The first move towards creating joined-up services is likely to see Lansley tell the NHS that it has to give integration the same priority that keeping waiting lists under control has had for the last decade.

That new target is the key recommendation of a new report on integrating care by the King's Fund and Nuffield Trust health think-tank's, whose chief executives both advise Downing Street. They want the introduction of "a clear, ambitious and measurable goal to improve the experience of patients and service users, and to be delivered by a defined date. This goal would serve a similar purpose to the aim of delivering a maximum waiting time of 18 weeks for patients receiving hospital care."

Tories are no friends of Liverpool, says council chief

By Andrew Bounds, Financial Times

Liverpool faces “exactly the same situation” as it did under a previous Conservative government in 1981, the Labour leader of the city council said after cabinet papers from the time were revealed, condemning the Tories as “no friend of our city”. “There is a feeling of déjà vu in Liverpool because three decades on we are facing exactly the same situation as we did in the early 1980s - huge cuts in public spending which disproportionately hit big northern cities, while Conservative heartlands in the south get off relatively unscathed,” said Joe Anderson.

“Then, as now, the Tory party ideology was to let the strong survive and the weak wither away,” he said, excluding Lord Heseltine, the self-styled “minister for Merseyside”. However, he said the city was a “much stronger and much more confident place” and better able to handle the cuts. More than £4bn of public and private investment has poured into the city since the millennium, including £929m of European money alone between 2000 and 2008.

Its docks, once the source of its wealth and the trigger for its decline as trade switched from the Commonwealth to the European Union, are expanding again with a £200m investment programme to equip them to take the biggest modern ships. Owner Peel Holdings is seeking to turn the area into a logistics hub. Its economy grew 5.5 per cent on average annually between 1998-2008, the fastest of any city outside London. The £1bn Liverpool One shopping and leisure centre near the waterfront has transformed it into a top five shopping destination. The £5.5bn Liverpool Waters scheme would see a huge business district built on the northern docklands.

However, the city remains vulnerable. Some 36 per cent of its workers are in the public sector, which created much of the jobs growth of the “noughties”, against the national average of 26.9 per cent. Almost a quarter of the population receive benefits. They are expected to lose £148m annually after government welfare cuts, almost 1 per cent of the city’s annual economic output, according to the Centre for Cities think-tank. That is the largest proportion of any British city and equates to a loss of £192 per head, compared with £125 in Bristol. The unemployment rate remains 6.3 per cent, the fourth highest in the country.

In the 1970s, 100,000 people, one-sixth of its population, deserted the city. The population declined further from 510,000 in 1981 to 452,000 in 1991, before stabilising at 440,000 in the last few years. However, Tony Caldeira, a businessman and chairman of the Conservative party in the city, said the 1981 cabinet had been wrong. “You have only got to look around to see Liverpool has been transformed. Back in the 1980s people may have written Liverpool off. That is not the case in 2012.

“We have railway electrification, the new Mersey crossing, a new Royal hospital and possibly Alder Hey too. There is a lot of investment going in.” He said Francis Maude recently visited the city and was considering it for a future party conference. “The party is committed to Liverpool. There is an entrepreneurial spirit here that will pull us through.”

In March the city is hosting the Kauffman foundation’s Global Entrepreneurship Congress, the first time it has come to Europe.

Financial Times

Great Expectations

Blower, the Telegraph

In the spirit of things

"THE ONLY CHURCH THAT ILLUMINATES IS A CHURCH ON FIRE"

Buenaventura Durruti

 

'Church on Fire' by Allen n Lehman
(acrylic on canvas)

Lib Dems vote with Tories to cut disabled children’s benefits

Three days after David Cameron vetoed plans for a financial transaction tax to protect his friends in the City, the House of Lords last night voted in favour of reducing top-up payments for disabled children on lower and middle rates of disability living allowance (DLA). An amendment to maintain benefit for disabled children at the minimum of current levels was defeated by just two votes. 46 Liberal Democrats voted with the Conservatives.

These cuts, along with subsequent changes to housing benefit, will leave tens of thousands of families with disabled children up to £3,000 a year worse off. A group of charities called Every Disabled Child Matters says the Government has failed to assess  fully the impact of the proposal which, it claims, will plunge thousands of families with disabled children into poverty.

The top-up payments were designed to meet additional costs, such as transport, heating, laundry, nappies and extra clothes that families have because of a child's disability. The Department for Work and Pensions insists the introduction of a new Universal Credit payment will simplify the system and that "there will be no cash losers". Campaigners, and a growing number of MPs and peers, had hoped to trigger a second U-turn after the Government scrapped plans to cut mobility allowances for some elderly people last month.

At present, parents of children with disabilities who receive DLA are entitled to a substantial top up of their Child Tax Credit entitlement.  This addition is currently worth around £2715 (£52.21 per week) for each child in the household who has a disability. Along with this, children with the most severe disabilities (in receipt of the high rate care element of DLA) are entitled to the severe disability element, worth an extra £1095 (£21.06) – meaning they get a total addition worth £73.27 per week.

Under Universal Credit, additions for disabled children will change to align them with the level of support available for disabled adults. This means that severely disabled children will be entitled to an addition worth £74.50 per week – a very slight increase on current rates.  However, for other children with disabilities, the addition will be reduced to £25.95 per week (£1349.40 per year) – less than half the current rate.

New claimants will receive the reduced support at the point of claiming Universal Credit, while existing claimants will receive transitional cash protection while being transferred on to Universal Credit.

Sources: Family Action/The Independent
Result of vote here (go to Division 2 of 3)

What Europe is saying about Britain

"From the concept of habeas corpus to the BBC, from Elizabethan poetry to John Le Carre, from rock to the invention of the Sixties, from London springtime concerts to Wimbledon, via Liverpool FC. So many things do we hold dear from across the Channel ... But Germany, France and the majority of the other EU member states were right, at daybreak on Friday 9 December, to say No to London." Le Monde, France

Dave Brown, the Independent

"No sooner did David Cameron cross the entrance to the council, on the occasion of the 8 December summit, than the sky over the negotiations darkened. He had one aim: to protect British interests." Le Figaro, France

"What's the point of keeping this country in the EU? The British people should put pressure on their government to quit. Maybe the British would do better without the EU. Europe will definitely do better without the UK." Yvan Duvant, writing to the BBC from Olargues, in France

"The British manoeuvre [means] that London now finds itself outside, on the margins of Europe. The first European Council session in Brussels, which should have solidified and perhaps even resolved the euro crisis produced instead, after 11 hours of tense and at times dramatic talks, a deep division between member states." Il Sole 24 Ore, Italy

"All of continental Europe goes forward, leaving Britain behind - towards a common fiscal policy, rules that will govern finance, work and business. Cameron finds himself alone." Luca Gaballo, RaiNews24, Italy

"There is an obstacle to Europe and it must be overcome. It's not Germany. Right now, the main obstacle is Britain. And this dirty game that the British are playing - wanting to stay with one foot in and one foot out of Europe - risks collapsing the entire system. London must be either in, or out. But they simply cannot sabotage everything." Massimo Riva on Repubblica TV, Italy

"They're splitting Europe. Great Britain has acted in an unconstructive way. 'Unhelpful' as they say in English." Carl B Hamilton, Liberal People's Party MP, Sweden

"If you're not ready to abide by the rules, you'd do better to keep your mouth shut." Elmar Brok, Christian Democrat MEP, Germany

BBC News

EU deal not in Britain's interests, says Cameron

Mobility element of disability allowance for people in care homes is to stay following government u-turn

Campaigners have hailed a Government U-turn over the scrapping of benefit payments for disabled people living in residential care homes. Ministers will confirm today that the mobility element of disability living allowance (DLA) will be spared the welfare reform axe. Up to 80,000 people benefit from the £51-a-week allowance but it was targeted as part of efforts to slash billions from the welfare bill. Critics had warned that removing the payments would have robbed some of the most vulnerable people of their independence. 

The Turning Point health and social care provider welcomed the change.  Director of learning disability services Adam Penwarden said: "We are reassured by the fact the government has listened to those who need support the most and has decided not to remove the mobility component of the disability living allowance. This benefit is integral to the lives of some of the most vulnerable members of our society, allowing them to access and be part of their local community. The removal of this vital resource would have rendered many of them housebound, robbing them of the chance they would otherwise have to lead fulfilled and independent lives."

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said yesterday: "We have always been clear that we will not make any changes that stop disabled people in care homes from getting out and about. Our officials have spent the last few months gathering information and evidence, including visiting disabled people in care homes to find out from them and their families about their mobility needs. The Low Review also looked at some of the same issues and so we have been reflecting on the outcome of this work before we announce the final decision tomorrow."

Press Association


See here for full list of government u-turns since coming to power.

Labour, solidarity and the pensions strike

Letter to the Guardian:

"Labour MSPs in Scotland and Labour assembly members in Wales will refuse to cross picket lines on 30 November in solidarity with millions of public sector workers. As Labour MPs and councillors we will not cross picket lines at Westminster or town halls. Instead we will be joining picket lines to do what Labour politicians should do: be on the side of labour.

The government's attack on public sector pensions is totally unjustified and unsupported by any economic or actuarial case. It is a crude attack on public sector workers who are already suffering a pay freeze while many face the threat of losing their jobs. This is part of a wider attack by this government on public services and the welfare state, which Labour must resist.

We stand in full solidarity with workers on 30 November – and encourage our fellow Labour politicians to do so too."

John McDonnell MP, LRC Chair
Linda Riordan MP, Halifax
Ronnie Campbell MP, Blyth Valley
Jeremy Corbyn MP, Islington North
Paul Flynn MP, Newport West
Martin Caton MP, Gower
Cllr Charlynne Pullen, Islington
Cllr Kevin Hind, Bury St Edmunds
Cllr Andrea Oates, Broxtowe
Cllr Geoff Lumley, Isle of Wight
Cllr Andy Walker, Redbridge
Cllr Kieran Thorpe, Welwyn Hatfield
Cllr Claire Traynor, Maghull
Cllr Mike Jones, Maghull
Cllr Kingsley Abrams, Lambeth
Cllr Dave Young, Calderdale
Cllr Clive Grunshaw, Wyre/Lancashire
Cllr Mike Rowley, Oxford
Cllr Van Coulter, Oxford
Cllr Matthew Brown, Preston
Cllr Jenny Smith, Bristol
Cllr John McGhee, East Ayrshire
Cllr Jay Kramer, Hastings
Cllr Patrick Vernon, Hackney
Cllr John Tanner, Oxford
Cllr Tom Neilson, North West Leicestershire
Cllr Mick O'Sullivan, Islington
Cllr Sam Tarry, Barking & Dagenham
Cllr Tony Belton, Wandsworth
Cllr Lynne Allen, Hillingdon
Cllr Greg Marshall, Broxtowe
Cllr Barry Buitekant, Hackney

Please note that the image does not form part of the letter

Film director Ken Russell dies aged 84

"Never wear jeans. They signify a lapse of taste. 

I've never been in fashion. I'm ahead of my time, not in step with it."

1927 - 2011

Branson takes Northern Rock private

By Sharlene Goff, Elizabeth Rigby and Patrick Jenkins of the Financial Times

Sir Richard Branson is taking nationalised bank Northern Rock back into private hands four years after its collapse triggered widespread panic across financial markets. Virgin Money, backed by a consortium including US financier Wilbur Ross, has agreed to buy the bank for £900m ($1.42bn), including debt. The government has taken a loss of up to £500m on the “good” part of Northern Rock – which it propped up with £1.4bn of equity in 2010. Ed Balls, shadow chancellor, questioned whether it was the best time to sell banking assets given that markets were “in turmoil”.

Analysts said the price – which includes £747m in cash, £150m of debt and a further £130m depending on future business performance – was reasonable considering the dire state of the economy. The total return from Northern Rock will also reflect the contribution from its £45bn old loan portfolio, which has made about £600m of profit. George Osborne, chancellor, said the deal offered “value for money”, adding: “It was clear to us that this was the best deal for the British taxpayer. We were getting more money back than any other deal on the table.”

The sale marks the end for one of the most notorious names in British high street banking. Northern Rock will be rebranded as Virgin when the deal completes on January 1. People close to the deal said Mr Ross was the biggest investor, putting up £260m of cash, compared with £50m apiece from Virgin Group and Stanhope Investments, the Abu Dhabi fund. Virgin will have a stake of about 46 per cent in the newly enlarged Virgin Money, with Mr Ross holding 44 per cent and Stanhope close to 10 per cent.

Sir Richard’s ambitions for Virgin are muted despite his desire to challenge the UK’s biggest banks. It does not plan to open more branches than the 75 acquired and will not launch current accounts until 2013. Mr Ross plans to sell out in a few years when Virgin will look to float part of the bank for 1.5 times book value, compared with the 0.8-0.9 ratio paid by Virgin. Lord Myners, the former Labour city minister, said given the “respectable” price paid, he was “not sure the backers on the Virgin deal will enjoy a particularly good return”.

Virgin Money was advised by Greenhill and Virgin Group by Quayle Munro. The government was advised by Deutsche Bank.

Financial Times & Steve Bell, the Guardian

Benetton pulls advert with Pope kissing imam

The Benetton clothing company has withdrawn an advert showing Pope Benedict XVI kissing a top Egyptian imam on the lips after the Vatican denounced it as an "unacceptable" provocation. Benetton had said its "Unhate" campaign launched Wednesday is aimed at fostering tolerance and "global love."

The campaign's fake photos show six purported political nemeses in lip-locked embraces, including Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez, and Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. The photo of the Pope had been on the company's website all day but was pulled about an hour after the Vatican's protest. A Benetton spokesman confirmed to The Associated Press that the Pope advert is no longer part of the campaign.

Vatican spokesperson Father Federico Lombardi said in a statement that the advert was "an offence against the sentiments of the faithful and a clear example of how advertising can violate elementary rules of respect for people in order to attract attention through provocation."

On the company's website, executive deputy chairman Alessandro Benetton is quoted as saying that global love is an ambitious but realistic goal. "At this moment in history, so full of major upheavals and equally large hopes, we have decided, through this campaign, to give widespread visibility to an ideal notion of tolerance and invite the citizens of every country to reflect on how hatred arises particularly from fear of 'the other’ and of what is unfamiliar to us," he said.

Associated Press

Work Programme company wanted volunteers to train clients

A4e, a prime contractor for welfare-to-work training, asked a volunteer centre to provide it with volunteers to help with CV workshops for the unemployed, writes Chloë Stothart for Third Sector Online.

A4e, one of the prime providers of the Department for Work and Pensions’ Work Programme, asked Volunteer Centre Oxfordshire in an email if it could provide volunteers to help with CV workshops for unemployed people on the programme. A4e did not specify in the message how long the work would last but did require the volunteers to get Criminal Records Bureau checks.

 
The email, sent by Howard Goldby on behalf of Hannah Aubrey at A4e Oxford, said: "What we are hoping for is some volunteers to help the trainer on the workshops, as some of our customers need more one-to-one support to complete their CVs. The ideal volunteer would possess very good IT skills, a lot of patience, and be able to work alongside the trainer so that the customer will have a completed CV."

The centre did not refer any volunteers to A4e. Lindsay Watts, manager of the Volunteer Centre Oxfordshire, said Work Programme providers referring clients to volunteer centres without paying the centres "gives people the wrong impression of volunteering. It is taking advantage of people who do not know any different. They might not even know it is a profit-making company."

Nigel Lemmon, welfare director at A4e, said in a statement: "It is not A4e’s policy to expect volunteer agencies to work for free under the Work Programme and we take this accusation very seriously. It is not in our interest, or the interest of those we help, to do so. Working fairly with third sector partners is important to us and critical to the successful delivery of the Work Programme for us all. We are investigating these allegations thoroughly. We only work with volunteer agencies where they are happy to work with us to support our customers back into work – improving the lives of those individuals and benefiting their communities."

Pebble-pinching penguins

Berlusconi resigns

Silvio Berlusconi has tendered his resignation as Italian prime minister. President Giorgio Napolitano accepted his offer and is likely to appoint technocrat Mario Monti his successor. Berlusconi lost his majority amid an acute debt crisis that threatens the eurozone. He promised to go once MPs had approved new austerity measures. He is Italy's longest-serving post-World War II prime minister - having dominated political life for 17 years. His premiership has recently been marred by many scandals.

 
Berlusconi's journey to the presidential palace was an undignified one. He was booed along the way, with demonstrators calling him a "buffoon". The outgoing prime minister said he felt "embittered" after hearing the insults.

After losing his parliamentary majority on Tuesday, Berlusconi promised to resign after austerity measures, demanded by the EU and designed to restore markets' confidence in the country's economy, were passed by both houses of parliament. Members of the lower house voted 380-26 with two abstentions on Saturday, a day after the Senate approved the measures that have now been signed into law.

Berlusconi has been prime minister three times since he first took office in 1994. He has described himself as Italy's best head of government since the country was created nearly 150 years ago. However, he is currently involved in several trials for fraud, corruption and having sex with an under-age girl, and has attracted media attention for so-called "bunga-bunga" parties which young women were allegedly paid to attend.

After accepting Mr Berlusconi's resignation, Mr Napolitano is expected to formally ask Mr Monti or another candidate to form a government of technocrats.

Paris Olympics 1924

A fascinating image for the games considering what was to take place in the not too distant future.

The Frankfurt Group is turning back the democratic clock

The European Union has always had problems with democracy, a messy process that can interfere with the grand designs of people at the top who know best. When Ireland voted no to the Nice Treaty, it was told to come up with the right result in a second ballot. The European Central Bank wields immense power, but nobody knows how the unelected members of its governing council vote because no minutes of meetings are published. That said, the latest phase of Europe's sovereign debt crisis has exposed the quite flagrant contempt for voters, the people who are going to bear the full weight of the austerity programmes being cooked up by the political elites.

Here's how things work. The real decisions in Europe are now taken by the Frankfurt Group, an unelected cabal made of up eight people: Lagarde; Merkel; Sarkozy; Mario Draghi, the new president of the ECB; José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission; Jean-Claude Juncker, chairman of the Eurogroup; Herman van Rompuy, the president of the European Council; and Olli Rehn, Europe's economic and monetary affairs commissioner.

This group, which is accountable to no one, calls the shots in Europe. The cabal decides whether Greece should be allowed to hold a referendum and if and when Athens should get the next tranche of its bailout cash. What matters to this group is what the financial markets think not what voters might want. To the extent that governments had any power, it has been removed and placed in the hands of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF. It is as if the democratic clock has been turned back to the days when France was ruled by the Bourbons.

In the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that electorates have resorted to general strikes and street protests to have their say. Governments come and go but the policies remain the same, creating a glaring democratic deficit. This would be deeply troubling even if it could be shown that the Frankfurt Group's economic remedies were working, which they are not. Instead, the insistence on ever more austerity is pushing Europe's weaker countries into an economic death spiral while their voters are being bypassed. That is a dangerous mixture.

Larry Elliot, the Guardian

The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen

Our common treasury in the last thirty years has been captured by industrial psychopaths - that's why we're nearly bankrupt, writes George Monbiot

If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves – that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive – are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren't responsible. Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.

The findings of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel economics prize, are devastating to the beliefs that financial high-fliers entertain about themselves. He discovered that their apparent success is a cognitive illusion. For example, he studied the results achieved by 25 wealth advisers across eight years. He found that the consistency of their performance was zero. "The results resembled what you would expect from a dice-rolling contest, not a game of skill." Those who received the biggest bonuses had simply got lucky.

Such results have been widely replicated. They show that traders and fund managers throughout Wall Street receive their massive remuneration for doing no better than would a chimpanzee flipping a coin. When Kahneman tried to point this out, they blanked him. "The illusion of skill … is deeply ingrained in their culture."

So much for the financial sector and its super-educated analysts. As for other kinds of business, you tell me. Is your boss possessed of judgment, vision and management skills superior to those of anyone else in the firm, or did he or she get there through bluff, bullshit and bullying?

In a study published by the journal Psychology, Crime and Law, Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon tested 39 senior managers and chief executives from leading British businesses. They compared the results to the same tests on patients at Broadmoor special hospital, where people who have been convicted of serious crimes are incarcerated. On certain indicators of psychopathy, the bosses's scores either matched or exceeded those of the patients. In fact, on these criteria, they beat even the subset of patients who had been diagnosed with psychopathic personality disorders.

The psychopathic traits on which the bosses scored so highly, Board and Fritzon point out, closely resemble the characteristics that companies look for. Those who have these traits often possess great skill in flattering and manipulating powerful people. Egocentricity, a strong sense of entitlement, a readiness to exploit others and a lack of empathy and conscience are also unlikely to damage their prospects in many corporations.

In their book Snakes in Suits, Paul Babiak and Robert Hare point out that as the old corporate bureaucracies have been replaced by flexible, ever-changing structures, and as team players are deemed less valuable than competitive risk-takers, psychopathic traits are more likely to be selected and rewarded. Reading their work, it seems to me that if you have psychopathic tendencies and are born to a poor family, you're likely to go to prison. If you have psychopathic tendencies and are born to a rich family, you're likely to go to business school.

This is not to suggest that all executives are psychopaths. It is to suggest that the economy has been rewarding the wrong skills. As the bosses have shaken off the trade unions and captured both regulators and tax authorities, the distinction between the productive and rentier upper classes has broken down. Chief executives now behave like dukes, extracting from their financial estates sums out of all proportion to the work they do or the value they generate, sums that sometimes exhaust the businesses they parasitise. They are no more deserving of the share of wealth they've captured than oil sheikhs.

The rest of us are invited, by governments and by fawning interviews in the press, to subscribe to their myth of election: the belief that they are possessed of superhuman talents. The very rich are often described as wealth creators. But they have preyed on the earth's natural wealth and their workers' labour and creativity, impoverishing both people and planet. Now they have almost bankrupted us. The wealth creators of neoliberal mythology are some of the most effective wealth destroyers the world has ever seen.

What has happened over the past 30 years is the capture of the world's common treasury by a handful of people, assisted by neoliberal policies which were first imposed on rich nations by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I am now going to bombard you with figures. I'm sorry about that, but these numbers need to be tattooed on our minds. Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. But from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%.

In the UK, the money earned by the poorest tenth fell by 12% between 1999 and 2009, while the money made by the richest 10th rose by 37%. The Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, climbed in this country from 26 in 1979 to 40 in 2009.

In his book The Haves and the Have Nots, Branko Milanovic tries to discover who was the richest person who has ever lived. Beginning with the loaded Roman triumvir Marcus Crassus, he measures wealth according to the quantity of his compatriots' labour a rich man could buy. It appears that the richest man to have lived in the past 2,000 years is alive today. Carlos Slim could buy the labour of 440,000 average Mexicans. This makes him 14 times as rich as Crassus, nine times as rich as Carnegie and four times as rich as Rockefeller.

Until recently, we were mesmerised by the bosses' self-attribution. Their acolytes, in academia, the media, thinktanks and government, created an extensive infrastructure of junk economics and flattery to justify their seizure of other people's wealth. So immersed in this nonsense did we become that we seldom challenged its veracity.

This is now changing. On Sunday evening I witnessed a remarkable thing: a debate on the steps of St Paul's Cathedral between Stuart Fraser, chairman of the Corporation of the City of London, another official from the corporation, the turbulent priest Father William Taylor, John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network and the people of Occupy London. It had something of the flavour of the Putney debates of 1647. For the first time in decades – and all credit to the corporation officials for turning up – financial power was obliged to answer directly to the people.

It felt like history being made. The undeserving rich are now in the frame, and the rest of us want our money back.


George Monbiot is the author of the bestselling books 'The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order' and 'Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain'

Cameron 'delighted as union leaders walk into strike trap'

Strikes by millions of public sector workers over reform of their pensions will bolster support for the Government's austerity drive, senior cabinet sources have claimed.

 
No 10 is said to be "delighted" at the prospect of walkouts on 30th November despite a more generous offer being made to union leaders last week. Liberal Democrat and Conservative ministers privately believe their argument will be strengthened by public anger at disruption by state workers who will still have more generous retirement funds than most in the private sector.

"Militancy could be good for the coalition in the longer term," said a very senior Lib Dem minister. "It will be troublesome immediately, but the public is not with the unions. In the current economic circumstances, it will be difficult for the unions to gain public support for their case. We are confident that we can win the argument, and strikes will only damage the unions." A Conservative minister added: "It is clear No 10 is delighted that the unions have fallen into their trap."

Last week the Government unveiled a new offer as the "best we are going to get" in terms of money, which included future schemes being based on a pension to the value of 1/60th of average salary accruing for each year worked rather than 1/65th. No one less than ten years off retirement will see changes to the date they can draw their pension or the amount they receive. If a deal can be struck, no further changes would be made for twenty-five years.

The unions immediately said the offer was not good enough to call off strikes that will hit public services including schools, courts, hospitals and councils. Ministers are gambling that the public will not side with strikers. The talks have been led from the Government side by Francis Maude, the Tory Cabinet Office minister, and Danny Alexander, the Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury. "We want agreement and to be able to finalise details of the plans by the end of the year," said a source close to the talks. "The ball is now in the unions' court."

The Government insists that it is a "basic mathematical issue" that civil service pensions need reform. No 10 has vowed to do "whatever we can to ameliorate the consequences of the strike", and believes the walkouts could drive a wedge between the unions and the public. "If you are a public sector worker you will still end up in a situation where you have a defined pension at the end of it that's clear and generous," a Downing Street insider said. "If you are in the private sector, the vast majority don't know what their pension is."

Unison, which represents one million people, from school dinner ladies and bin collectors to social workers and NHS staff, defended the results of its ballot in favour of striking after just 29 per cent of those eligible took part. Ballot papers have now been sent to 200,000 members of the NASUWT teaching union. They are expected to be joined by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the National Union of Teachers, and for the first time in the dispute the National Association of Head Teachers is balloting members.

The Department for Education, which assumes the 30th November strike will be "bigger" than the one in June, is sending a two-page information bulletin to every school in England in an attempt to persuade teachers not to strike. Similar information is being distributed by the Department of Health and the Treasury.

Last month, Mr Maude told The Independent on Sunday: "At a time when the economy is not growing as strongly as everyone hoped, I think for the trade unions to be casually engaging in strike action that inflicted economic damage would imperil any goodwill that exists towards the trade union movement."

Independent on Sunday

Families 'left stranded in appalling conditions' due to government cuts to regeneration projects

People have been "left stranded in appalling conditions" as a result of government cuts to regeneration projects, a group of MPs has said. The Communities and Local Government Committee said efforts to improve deprived parts of the North and Midlands had been stopped mid-stream. It said the government had "no adequate strategy" for regeneration in England and must help those left "trapped".

Grant Shapps: Don’t blame me, blame Labour

The cross-party committee focused on the decision to wind up the controversial Pathfinder housing renewal scheme last year. The scheme was designed to revive run-down areas in the North West, the Midlands, the North East and Yorkshire by tearing down old terraces and building new homes. But critics called it "an exercise in social cleansing" and said it had resulted in perfectly good houses being demolished - and often not replaced - when they could have been renovated. The committee said the decision to end funding for Pathfinder had left a "profound impact" on people's lives.

Labour chairman Clive Betts said: "We saw and heard for ourselves what happens when the government stops investing in regeneration. "In Rochdale, we found row upon row of boarded-up houses, the direct result of the withdrawal [of funding]. We met a family trapped in a half-abandoned street after the promise of a new home was not fulfilled. We heard similar stories from other Pathfinder areas. People have been left stranded in appalling conditions: many are owner-occupiers, often vulnerable people with no other options. The government must act to help these people and to eradicate the blight that has been left in so many neighbourhoods."

The committee said the government's regeneration strategy, published in January, provides "little confidence" that ministers have a clear plan of action. "It lacks strategic direction and is unclear about the nature of the problem it is trying to solve," the MPs said. "It focuses overwhelmingly upon the achievement of economic growth, giving little emphasis to the specific issues faced by deprived communities and areas of market failure." The MPs warned that government plans were "unlikely to bring in sufficient resources" - including from private sector sources - to improve the situation, and leaving deprived areas without help risked storing up social, economic and environmental problems for the future.

In response, Grant Shapps said it had been "tough picking up the pieces" from Labour's attempts at regeneration which relied on "bulldozing buildings... whilst desperately hoping someone might come along to reorder the rubble.

"We'll shortly be announcing additional funding to help those people living in the worst-affected streets, and we'll continue to untie the hands of councils and residents so they can make the key decisions over how they would like to improve their own neighbourhoods," he said. "But we know that true regeneration can only be achieved by creating the conditions for communities and businesses to thrive in. That's why local enterprise partnerships have already replaced the failed regional development agencies, and low-tax, low-regulation enterprise zones are being planted across the country to give businesses the incentives they need to grow their local economy and create thousands of new jobs."

BBC News

MPs call for tougher sentences for hate crimes

MPs are calling for tougher sentences for hate crimes committed against disabled people amid concern that they are on the increase.  An all-party group is pressing for such offences to be put on the same footing as acts of violence motivated by race, religion or sexual orientation, which would mean stiffer penalties.  The courts would have to take account of the motive when fixing the sentence.  For example, a life sentence for the murder of a disabled person would attract a longer minimum jail term.

Kate Green, the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, has tabled amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill being debated in the Commons this week, which would ensure tougher penalties.  Her backers include Paul Maynard, a Tory MP and Simon Wright, a Liberal Democrat.

Ms Green said the aim was to "put the Government on the spot" to ensure that the issue of crimes against the disabled are taken more seriously.  She said a new approach was needed on a much wider front than sentencing.  "There is a growing problem of public hostility towards the disabled," she said.  "Public agencies sometimes appear to challenge the victims rather than the perpetrators."

The move follows the tragedy of Fiona Pilkington, who killed herself and her daughter in 2007 after being subjected to ten years of harassment and anti-social behaviour.  The family complained at least thirty-three times to Leicestershire Police.  Although an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission found that the police missed several opportunities to act, four officers were cleared of misconduct.

A study by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the case was only the "tip of the iceberg" because harassment of the disabled was "a serious problem."  It found that many disabled people were afraid to report such abuse, fearing the consequences or that they would not be believed.

The Independent

Challenging the idols of high finance

By Rowan Williams

In an article for the Financial Times, the Archbishop of Canterbury has thrown his weight behind the St Paul’s Cathedral anti-capitalist protesters, calling for a new tax on banks.

“It has sometimes been said in recent years that the Church of England is still used by British society as a sort of stage on which to conduct by proxy the arguments that society itself doesn't know how to handle. It certainly helps to explain the obsessional interest in what the Church has to say about issues of sex and gender. It may help to explain just what has been going on around St Paul's Cathedral in the last couple of weeks.

The protest at St Paul's was seen by an unexpectedly large number of people as the expression of a widespread and deep exasperation with the financial establishment that shows no sign at all of diminishing. There is still a powerful sense around – fair or not – of a whole society paying for the errors and irresponsibility of bankers; of messages not getting through; of impatience with a return to 'business as usual' – represented by still soaring bonuses and little visible change in banking practices.

So it was not surprising that initial reactions to what was happening at St Paul's and to the welcome offered by the Cathedral were quite sympathetic. Here were people – protesters and clergy too, it seemed – saying on our behalf that 'something must be done'. A marker had been put down, though, comfortingly, not in a way that made any very specific demands.

The cataract of unintended consequences that followed has been dramatic. The Cathedral found itself trapped between what must have looked like equally unpleasant alternative courses of action. Two outstandingly gifted clergy have resigned. The Chapter has now decided against legal action. Everyone has been able to be wise after the event and to pour scorn on the Cathedral in particular and the Church of England in general for failing to know how to square the circle of public interest and public protest.

Statement from St Paul’s Cathedral on suspending legal action against Occupy London

St Paul's Cathedral says it is suspending its current legal action against the anti-capitalist protest camp outside the church. Here is the full statement:

“The Chapter of St Paul's Cathedral has unanimously agreed to suspend its current legal action against the protest camp outside the church, following meetings with Dr Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, late last night and early this morning.

The resignation of the Dean, the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, has given the opportunity to reassess the situation, involving fresh input from the bishop. Members of Chapter this morning have met with representatives from the protest camp to demonstrate that St Paul's intends to engage directly and constructively with both the protesters and the moral and ethical issues they wish to address, without the threat of forcible eviction hanging over both the camp and the church.

It is being widely reported that the Corporation of London plans to ask protesters to leave imminently. The Chapter of course recognises the Corporation's right to take such action on Corporation land.

The bishop has invited investment banker Ken Costa formerly chair of UBS Europe and chairman of Lazard International, to spearhead an initiative reconnecting the financial with the ethical. Mr Costa will be supported by a number of City, Church and public figures, including Giles Fraser, who although no longer a member of Chapter, will help ensure that the diverse voices of the protest are involved in this.

The Bishop of London, Dr Richard Chartres, said: "The alarm bells are ringing all over the world. St Paul's has now heard that call. Today's decision means that the doors are most emphatically open to engage with matters concerning not only those encamped around the cathedral but millions of others in this country and around the globe. I am delighted that Ken Costa has agreed to spearhead this new initiative which has the opportunity to make a profound difference."

The Rt Rev Michael Colclough, Canon Pastor of St Paul's Cathedral and a member of Chapter, added: "This has been an enormously difficult time for the Cathedral but the Chapter is unanimous in its desire to engage constructively with the protest and the serious issues that have been raised, without the threat of legal action hanging over us. Legal concerns have been at the forefront in recent weeks but now is the time for the moral, the spiritual and the theological to come to the fore."

Amen.

Imagine – Grayson Perry: The Tomb Of The Unknown Craftsman

The new season of BBC1's Imagine begins with Grayson Perry – The Tomb Of The Unknown Craftsman. Over a two-year period, Imagine has had exclusive access to the creation of Perry's latest exhibition at the British Museum. This unique portrait of the artist at work sees editor and presenter Alan Yentob delve into Grayson Perry's childhood, join him on a motorbike pilgrimage to Germany and follow him as he explores the artefacts in the British Museum's collection which will inspire his own exhibition.

Throughout this period, Perry has been given free rein to choose items from the British Museum's extensive collection of more than eight million objects to feature in his exhibition alongside his own creations; from his trademark ceramics to sculptures, tapestries and even a working motorbike. The resulting exhibition, The Tomb Of The Unknown Craftsman, is his most ambitious show yet.

10.35-11.35pm  tonight on BBC1