NHS redundancy costs force government to 'sacrifice a core principle of its health service reform'

The following article was written by Sally Gainsbury and published on the Financial Times website on 15th April 2012

The government has been forced to sacrifice a core principle of its health service reform to avoid a potential multimillion-pound increase in the redundancy bill for NHS administrative staff. The health white paper originally stated that groups of GPs – who will be handed responsibility for up to £65bn of NHS spending from next April – would have the flexibility to run their organisations as they saw fit. But the government is now preparing to tie the groups to a pre-existing agreement with trade unions, committing them to collective bargaining and fixed terms and conditions for their staff.

The move – described by one GP leader as leaving “a yoke around our heads” – is the latest compromise the government has had to make to its health reforms to make them politically acceptable and affordable at a time when the NHS faces the most sustained period of spending restrictions in its 63-year history. The compromise has been forced because of a technicality in the employment contracts of some 35,000 administrative and managerial staff who work for the 151 NHS primary care trusts that are scheduled to be abolished next April and replaced by the GP groups as the main purchasers of NHS care for patients.

At least a third of those staff are forecast to lose their jobs. But around 10,000 are expected to be offered new posts with GP groups, which would keep the redundancy bill at about £800m. GP groups are not currently party to the national NHS pay and conditions deal with unions, and the government has been advised they therefore do not formally constitute “NHS organisations” for the purpose of staff employment contracts. If that is not changed, existing NHS staff would be able to turn down posts in the new organisations without invalidating their ability to claim redundancy – which averages £63,000 a head.

If half of those expected to be offered jobs in the new GP organisations refused the posts and instead claimed redundancy, the lay-off bill would soar by £300m, tipping it over £1bn. The advice sent a ripple of panic around NHS organisations late last month. The director of one large organisation told the Financial Times: “We’ve got to find more to spend on redundancy costs because the [health] department has messed this up”.

But the department has now told the Financial Times it would try to avoid the extra costs by adding the new GP groups to the list of organisations subject to the agreement with NHS trade unions, known as Agenda for Change. The 275-page agreement dates from 2004 and sets national pay and conditions for NHS staff. It includes a contractual right to automatic annual pay increments, in addition to cost of living increases, and national job evaluation criteria for setting pay rates for posts.

The health department denied that using NHS employment contracts contradicted the government’s original vision, saying the Health and Social Care Act “isn’t about employment terms”. “It’s about more control for patients, more power to doctors and nurses and less bureaucracy in the NHS,” it said. However, Michael Dixon, chair of the NHS Alliance, which represents GP commissioning groups in the NHS, said that would leave the new organisations “between a rock and a hard place”. “We want to avoid the restraints of the terms and conditions, but in order to stop people claiming redundancy we have this yoke around our heads of Agenda for Change which is contrary to [GP groups] being fleet of foot and able to decide their own destiny.”

Charles Alessi, chair of the National Association of Primary Care, which similarly represents GPs, added: “It’s certainly not part of what [GP commissioning groups] were originally meant to be”. “If all they are is part of the original establishment, then one questions as to why one bothered to do this in the first place.”

Sally Gainsbury, Financial Times

Memo to Health Minister: Keep your mean, dreary views out of my life

by David Hockney

“I don't suppose Andrew Lansley has noticed, but the last by-election was won by a smoker – one George Galloway – who was perfectly happy lighting up in front of the cameras. That is something a Tory or Labour politician or Nick Clegg would never have the courage to do. Or, perhaps, be allowed to do.

The anti-tobacco professionals have gone far too far in a country that prides itself on freedoms. Denying cigarette companies the right  to decorate their cigarette packets is a draconian measure of which Stalin’s censorship police would have been proud. It suggests that the Government thinks it can control our thoughts and our desires.

Well, it can’t. I admit there are many people who don’t like smoking, and things should be made convenient for them, but there are ten million people (myself included) in the UK who do. According to Lansley, they are all fools, slowly killing themselves (who isn’t?) and, according to him, others around them.

I don’t believe the second-hand smoke stuff. How can you know? It is all highly exaggerated. I speak as someone who has smoked for 58 years and I’m still here (and I’m fine, thank you). I’ve no doubt Mr Lansley’s friends in the pharmaceutical industry are pushing this to increase the supply of their ghastly antidepressants on us but I prefer the calming effects of tobacco.

As you might have noticed, the consumption of antidepressants is on a steep rise as smoking declines, and we have no idea of the long-term effects of that. Why is it that not all smokers die younger, as it says on the packets in that ugly typography? Could some people have weaker lungs? I don’t know. Neither does he.

I see his chum David Cameron was selling arms in the Middle East lately. It was the armament manufacturers who were called the ‘merchants of death’ in the last century. Now, according to Mr Lansley, it’s the tobacco trade, which has given enormous pleasure to millions. I say to the Health Secretary: we all die. It’s what you do in between birth and death that’s the concern of most people.

It is a very natural thing to seek out pleasure, and this will never end with human beings, hence the popularity of mood-changing substances. The Americans say no taxation without representation. Well, as a buyer of cigarettes, I pay £7 for a packet and about £5.50 of that goes in tax. You take the money, Mr Lansley, but do not think you can take our freedom to think. And be warned: it is a dangerous thing to try to diminish the right of expression.

You should remember also that you are not running a school, I am not a schoolboy and I prefer to prescribe for myself some medications. I smoke for my mental health as I’m much too hyper normally. I thought I lived in a ‘free’ country but see now I have little say in how it is run, or even what debates there are.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin, a pipe-smoker, used to say Britain is not a wounded country because we have not been conquered for many centuries. What is happening now is that, thanks to people like Mr Lansley, we are wounding ourselves. There are now a lot of very angry people in this country, and I am one of them. Very, very fed up with arrogant politicians who treat us like children. We seem to be governed by very naive people who are not keeping abreast of technological developments.

Restricting advertising is not going to be as easy in the future. I can read reviews of pipe tobaccos on the internet, as can any savvy young person, and there will be enormous difficulties stopping that.

I am sick of the constant negativity in Britain, the utter meanness of spirit (possibly not good for the health) that seems to have taken over everywhere. Let us have a proper debate about this issue. No other European country has a smuggled tobacco problem, caused here by high taxes. So we get spreading lawlessness (which is possibly not good for the health) from some ridiculous Utopian goal that depresses present laughter.

I was told by an anti-smoking fanatic (and I know about them as my father was one, although my smoking elder brother has now lived longer than he did, as I will this year) that tobacco ‘killed’ one hundred million people in the 20th Century. I pointed out one hundred million people were killed in the 20th Century for political reasons and their deaths were very unpleasant indeed. You cannot use a word such as ‘killed’ with smokers.

Who is going to stand up for the England of freedom? Baldwin, Attlee, Churchill, Macmillan and Wilson were five Prime Ministers who smoked. They wouldn’t believe what has happened to this country.

The low-grade, low-intellect people now ruling us seem to have no vision at all.

Mr Lansley, Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband, Mr Clegg: Keep out of my life. I don’t want your dreary view of life infecting me. It’s not good for my health, or others around me.”

Written by David Hockney for the Daily Mail

Original artwork by David Hockney for the Daily Mail

Cameron's NHS Betrayal

The Coalition want people with mental health issues to get working. And what work would that be then?

The following article was written by Sonia Poulton and published on the Daily Mail website on 3rd April 2012

“Every now and then I find myself shouting, uncontrollably, at the radio or television as someone is allowed to express views which perplex and dishearten me. This occasional burst of profanity is often accompanied by rapid jabs of my index finger as if the offending person is in front of me and subject to the full force of my anger.

So it was that I experienced something not dissimilar to this while listening to a radio interview with the Employment Minister, Chris Grayling. Mr Grayling had joined the mid-morning show on BBC Radio Five Live - via telephone - to tell the millions of listeners about the importance of work when it comes to the well-being of our mental health. He talked about how we must justify the use of questionable testing methods for those with mental health issues because, after all, we are helping these poor unfortunates in the long run.

Just when I thought I couldn’t listen to any more of the conversation - if for no other reason than the good of my own personal health - Mr Grayling issued the Coalition’s favourite trick: the single person anecdote. Just like David Cameron who dug up that one doctor who supported NHS Reforms - and then turned out not to after all - Mr Grayling proceeded to relay to the radio audience the story of the woman he had met who had been unemployed for over a decade as a result of long-term depression.

He talked about how she lacked confidence in returning to work. Fair enough. I can see the sense in that. Long-term unemployment can certainly take its toll on people. So, no disagreement there. Anyway, eventually she was given a job - donating her free time to a charity shop, presumably like one of those lovely Workfare arrangements - and she couldn't thank Chris Grayling enough for helping her overcome her lack of self-esteem and the mental health problems that accompanied it. 

Where to now with the NHS?

The Health and Social Care Act is now law.

This Act of Parliament outlines the basic policy that will underpin the NHS, but it does not give the detail. The detail of the policy will be determined through secondary legislation and how these regulations will be carried out will be determined locally.

This is where you can get involved: join the organisations that are being set up and volunteer your time to make the NHS work for our benefit and not for the benefit of big business.

Richard Blogger has written an article for False Economy, listing these organisations and how you can become involved.

Over 25s 'could sue companies given taxpayer cash for employing the young'

The Deputy Prime Minister yesterday launched a flagship “youth contract” programme to help 18 to 24 year-olds into work, as he said unemployment is having a “scarring effect” on young people. Under the scheme, the taxpayer will give companies such as Morrisons and Barclays more than £2,200 for every new young person they employ. However, lawyers immediately warned that people over the age of 25 may have a legal case against employers who use the scheme, because they are more likely to lose out on jobs to younger applicants.

“Wait a minute. Did you say ‘sue’?”

The Government’s official guidance advises employers to seek their own legal advice about taking part in the scheme. It also admits that older workers could sue the Government itself. “It is possible that a legal challenge could be brought against DWP,” it says. “If this happened, we would strongly argue that the Youth Contract, including the wage incentive scheme, was justified. “It is also possible that employers could face a legal challenge. If this happened, an employment tribunal would wish to consider the employer’s reasons for participating in the scheme. Each case will turn on its merits.”

Camilla Palmer, an age discrimination lawyer at Leigh Day, said older workers may well have a good case against the Government or employers. “A 25-year-old is not going to be able to take advantage of this scheme, even though they may be in exactly the same position as someone who is 24,” said Ms Palmer. “I would be the first to agree that youth unemployment is a big issue. But in my view it should not just be open to young people. It’s up to the courts ultimately to say whether it’s justified.”

Joseph Shelston, an employment law expert from Brabners Chaffe Street, said age discrimination cases were possible, but tribunal judges might also simply accept that the scheme was justified as a matter of public policy. “Theoretically, I can see potential claims, if there is a certain number of jobs at an organisation earmarked for younger workers and it limits the number of jobs in the open market,” he said.

Andreas White, employment partner at Kingsley Napley, said the scheme was "prima facie age discrimination" but it would be possible for governments and employers to argue that it is "objectively justified in the circumstances". "My own view is that this scheme should be capable of objective justification because it's addressing the very serious issue of growing youth unemployment," he said. "The scheme could face legal challenges directed at the Government, or employers directly, but ultimately I would be surprised if they succeeded."

Michelle Mitchell, charity director general at Age UK, called for a similar scheme to help older people find jobs, since they are the worst affected by long-term unemployment. “The Government is absolutely right to take measures to help reduce youth unemployment," she said. "However the statistics show that long term unemployment is higher in the over 50s than any other age group, and the Government needs to take similar measures to get older people back to work.”

The Telegraph

Gove and the law

Financial Times Comment

When the coalition came to power, David Cameron, prime minister, said he wanted it to be the “most open and transparent government in the world”. Such pledges of see-through politics are hard to square with the conduct of his education secretary, Michael Gove.

Having been caught by a Financial Times investigation repeatedly failing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, Mr Gove has just mounted a legal challenge against a ruling from the Information Commissioner’s Office calling for the release of government data from a private email account.

For an administration publicly committed to openness such a step is puzzling. The aim of such a challenge can only be to weaken the act by creating new exemptions that could be used to block disclosure. The precise basis of Mr Gove’s appeal cannot be divined as he has not disclosed it.

The current legal position, however, is very clear. Mr Gove conducted official business using a private email address registered in his wife’s name. He declined to disclose data from it to FoI requesters because it was a “political discussion”. He also cited Cabinet Office advice that private email accounts were outside FoI law.

This advice has since been confirmed by the ICO to be erroneous. Government business, which is subject to the law, remains government business whether conducted over official or private emails. The ICO also rejected his claim that the discussion was political, saying that the email in question clearly related to “the business of the public authority”.

That appears to leave Mr Gove with no choice but to ensure he has complied with all past requests, releasing any pertinent data from his private accounts and those of his staff. True, this might involve disclosing private emails to officials, so they can release the public data. But that is the price that Mr Gove’s team pay for storing official data among the private.

What Mr Gove seems to be after is a blanket exemption for any official email touching on political business. But this is neither necessary nor a good idea. The act already contains sufficient exemptions, for instance shielding the policy process and cabinet discussions from public disclosure. In any case, if the law needed to be changed, the correct place for that to happen would be in parliament.

Compliance with the law is non-negotiable, and Mr Gove should stop resisting. The longer he prevaricates, the more he raises questions about his motives.

Financial Times

Hague, Lansley and Jones on Marr

Speaking on Andrew Marr's Sunday morning show on the BBC, William Hague declared that: "The country is in a better state of preparedness now then it was a week ago for the eventuality of a tanker strike. I think they've handled that correctly." He did, however, say that Francis Maude's comments - which prompted safety warnings by the Fire Brigades Union - were a "technical error".

A technical error?!

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley told Sky News it was a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" over warnings about a fuel strike, adding that the government was "building resilience in the system".

What?!

And then there was the Green Party candidate for London mayor, Jenny Jones, who said the situation was "a shocking indictment" of the government's environmental policy, and ministers should have been "moving us towards a less oil-dependant economy" for the last two years.

Whatever, love.

Cherie Blair moves into private healthcare

By Anousha Sakoui, Andrea Felsted and Sarah Neville for the Financial Times

Cherie Blair will venture into the health market on Saturday with the launch of a private healthcare centre in a branch of J Sainsbury – the supermarket chain.  This is part of a debut venture by the private equity fund she co-founded, which plans to open 100 private health centres across the UK, at a time when government reforms are triggering enormous upheavals in the cash-strapped National Health Service.

But in her first interview on the topic, Mrs Blair, who is married to former prime minister Tony Blair, rebuffed any suggestion that the venture sought to take advantage of difficulties in the NHS.  “While this venture is a commercial one, it is not about replacing the NHS or profiteering, but complementing the services it already offers,” Mrs Blair told the Financial Times.

“Our aim is to simplify access to basic healthcare and improve medical outcomes through earlier detection and more timely referrals to GPs.”  The venture highlights a trend in the retail sector for putting extra customer services into superstores – from health centres to hairdressers – to put excess space to use.

Sainsbury’s will receive a percentage of the turnover from the service, which is being launched in Leeds, as well as rent and the health centres will run on a partnership model similar to that operated by John Lewis, the UK retailer.  They will provide health, optical, hearing and dental care, and are expected to employ GPs and dentists. 

However, the role of the private sector in healthcare delivery has come under scrutiny as the government’s NHS reform legislation endured a difficult passage through parliament.  Critics, including some within the ruling Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, argued that plans to promote competition in the provision of NHS-funded services paved the way for privatisation.  The reform blueprint was watered down to secure the support of Lib Dem dissenters.

Some in the private healthcare industry fear its share of the NHS-funded market could fall below levels it reached under Mr Blair’s premiership.  Mrs Blair founded the Allele Fund in 2008 with Gail Lese, a doctor and fund manager, with the aim of investing in healthcare and technology companies internationally.  They have lined up Cavendish, an advisory firm, to help raise $100m to finance the venture, called Mee Healthcare and which is expected to become profitable within the next five years.

“The outlook for the [health] sector couldn’t be stronger; driven by an ageing demographic in the UK, greater demand from consumers towards convenience and accessibility, combined with an increasing emphasis on health and wellbeing,” said Dr Lese. There is also growing demand for pre-screening and preventative care, she added.

Financial Times 

ARCHIVE
'Yes, I am a socialist.'  Martin Kettle interviews Cherie Blair
The Guardian, May 2008 - http://bit.ly/H0gtZi

Channel 4 News launches ‘No Go Britain’

Channel 4 News has launched an investigation into how easy it is for disabled people, and those with reduced mobility and visual impairment, to use the UK's public transport system. With the help of a new Facebook page, No Go Britain will ask disabled viewers and users for their experiences of public transport across the UK. The project will engage with public transport users, charities, transport companies and policymakers.

No Go Britain will bring disabled travellers together with transport bosses, and show a series of reports that investigate the state of the network through the stories of its disabled users.

For the full report, watch Channel 4 News tonight, Monday, at 7pm.

The Coalition of Twisted Minds

Drawing by Bob for the Telegraph

High streets plagued by more empty shops than ever

"At the height of the banking crisis we were told that it was almost our patriotic duty to shop for the recovery. Now, even if we wanted to, the opportunities are becoming fewer, with 14% of high street premises standing empty." Andrew Simms, The Guardian, 1 July 2011

The number of empty shops in the UK hit an all-time high last month amid a post-Christmas series of retail failures, according to a new survey. Town centre vacancy rates rose to an average of 14.6% in February, from 14.5% in January, the Local Data Company (LDC) said, the highest figures since the index started four years ago. This equates to nearly one in seven shops being shut across the country.

The LDC previously said some high streets are still thriving, particularly in the south of England, but many in cities and towns such as Stockport, Nottingham and Wolverhampton are struggling. Matthew Hopkinson, director at the LDC, said: "The latest increase is not unexpected as post Christmas occupancy levels drop and retailer failures continue." The trend has continued with the announcement that Game Group intends to appoint an administrator putting some 600 UK shops at risk.

The LDC, which visits more than 2,700 towns, cities, retail parks and shopping centres for its study, expects a further fall in consumer confidence, rising unemployment, the continued growth of supermarkets and the internet to lift the vacancy rate further.

In its bi-annual regional breakdown, LDC said the best performing centres were mainly in the south and west. These included Exeter, Kingston, Camden, Cambridge, Taunton, Salisbury and St Albans, which was the best performer with an 8.2% vacancy rate.

The Government is later this month due to respond to the Portas Review, delivered by celebrity retail expert Mary Portas, which recommends cutting regulations for high street traders and the launch of a national market day.

A gloomier-than-expected picture of the retail sector emerged on Thursday and fuelled fears over the strength of the wider recovery in the first quarter of the year. Retail sales volumes fell by a larger-than-expected 0.8% last month, the Office for National Statistics said, while January's growth was revised down to 0.3% from an earlier estimate of 0.9%. The City had been expecting a 0.4% decline in February.

Photo by Mich38

Did Osborne tip off GlaxoSmithKline about his plans?

Less than 24 hours after George Osborne confirmed in the Budget that the Government would bring in new tax measures to encourage investment in research and development in the UK, the pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline announced it would be building its first new manufacturing facility in the UK for almost 40 years and investing £500m to create 1,000 UK jobs.

Yesterday, Glaxo said its plans had been in the pipeline for some time and pointed out the tax changes had first been mooted back in 2009. But others pointed out that Glaxo's CEO, Sir Andrew Witty, is in David Cameron's Business Advisory Group – and has regular meetings with the Government. The move, they suggested, was very well choreographed with comments from Sir Andrew, Mr Cameron and Scottish Secretary Michael Moore all approved to go on Glaxo's press release yesterday morning.

The Independent

George Osborne and the GlaxoSmithKline lie

George Osborne told the Today programme this morning that GlaxoSmithKline was creating 1,000 jobs in Britain because of decisions taken in his budget. But the statement from GSK's chief executive, Sir Andrew Witty, makes it clear that the patent box reform was the one that made all the difference.

“The introduction of the patent box has transformed the way in which we view the UK as a location for new investments, ensuring that the medicines of the future will not only be discovered, but can also continue to be made here in Britain. Consequently, we can confirm that we will build GSK's first new UK factory for almost 40 years and that we will make other substantial capital investments in our British manufacturing base.”

As Labour figures have been pointing out on Twitter this morning, the patent box was first proposed in Alistair Darling's budget in 2009.

The Guardian

Budget 2012: ‘An outrageous assault on pensioners’

The Chancellor was accused of an “outrageous assault” on the over-65s after he used his Budget to announce that he would end a century-old tax break introduced by Winston Churchill. The “age-related allowance”, which means pensioners start paying tax at a higher income level than workers, is to be phased out, Osborne said.


The move will mean prudent savers retiring in future will miss out on a tax break worth, on average, £285 a year, despite the Chancellor’s claims that the move would not leave pensioners poorer “in cash terms”. The move, instantly labelled a “granny tax”, will hit up to five million older people who will pay an extra £3.3billion in income tax over the next four years, according to Treasury figures. Those who have already retired will see their tax-free allowance frozen at £10,500, or £10,650 for the over-75s, while workers retiring in future will only benefit from the same tax-free allowance as everyone else.

Osborne described the removal of the tax break as a “simplification” that would be welcomed by pensioners who would not have to fill out tax forms. Many pensioners do not claim the extra relief. The tax-free allowance is to increase for all taxpayers next year to £9,205, and ministers were thought to have concluded that an additional allowance for pensioners was no longer justifiable. Treasury aides admitted, however, that the decision was “controversial”.

The tax changes for pensioners will be followed by a “simplification” in the state pension system. This will see every pensioner receiving a flat-rate payment of about £140 a week. Although this is higher than the current basic state pension, better-off pensioners could lose their second state pension, leaving them hundreds of pounds a year worse off.

Ros Altmann, the director-general of Saga, said: “This is an outrageous assault on decent middle-class pensioners. This Budget contains an enormous stealth tax for older people. There is nothing in this Budget for savers, there is nothing to improve the annuity market, nothing to appease the damage of quantitative easing and nothing to support ISA changes and shelter older people’s cash. This Budget is terrible news for pensioners.”

The elderly have previously emerged relatively unscathed from the Government’s austerity drive. The Chancellor is understood to have decided that now was the time to remove some tax breaks from better-off pensioners, to help fund a give-away for “working families”.

The Telegraph (amended)

Budget 2012 - This morning's front pages

Give us back our NHS – Events this weekend

Saturday 17th March 2012

London - SaveOurNHS - Picket the Department of Health
Our NHS should put patients before profit.  The new Bill will undermine this core principle of our National Health Service. We must stop this bill from passing and protect our free health care.
When: Saturday 17 March 2012, 2:30pm
Where: Department of Health, opposite the Cenotaph, London SW1A 2NS

Leicester  - Defend the NHS public meeting
If it goes it goes for good. It’s our Health Service, not Cameron’s and Lansley’s. Speakers Jon Ashworth, MP Leicester South; John Lister, London Health Emergency; (other speakers to be confirmed)
When: Saturday 17 March 2012, 3:00pm
Where: Adult Education Centre, Wellington Street, Leicester

Brighton - Protest against the privatisation of the NHS and lobby of Brighton and Hove MPs
This is a public protest and lobby of MPs before the Health and Social Bill becomes law. We have only a few days left to protect the NHS from this devastating piece of legislation which has no mandate.
When: Saturday 17 March 2012, 3:30pm
Where: Hove Town Hall, Norton Road, Hove, Brighton BN3 4AH

Sunday 18th March 2012

London - Mothers’ Day NHS Protest
Show the mother of all health services some motherly love on Mothers’ Day.
When: Sunday 18 March 2012, 1:00pm
Where: Parliament Square, Westminster SW1

38 degrees petition to save the NHS – over half a million signatures!

Listings courtesy of False Economy

Private housing needs rent regulation now

The government must introduce private sector rent controls to stop social cleansing on a grand scale, writes Jeremy Corbyn
 
On Monday I asked housing minister Grant Shapps what he was planning to do about the problems that many private sector tenants face in respect of energy-inefficient homes, poor conditions and insecurity; and also if he would introduce rent controls. I raised this, as nationally the level of private renting is rising fast, fuelled by buy-to-let mortgages and the encouragement of everyone to have their own property portfolio.

The never-never world of property portfolios and huge incomes has its downside. Almost a third of my constituents are living in private rented accommodation with no security of tenure, often very high energy costs and sometimes landlords who are very reluctant to repair or improve the properties.

Rent levels are astronomical, with lows of £1,000 per month for a one-bed, rising to well over £2,000 for a two- or three-bed flat. With profits like these to be made it is not surprising that the market is growing very fast, and as with all markets, the vulnerable get pushed aside.

Local authorities face huge housing issues with demands outstripping supply many times over; the only way those in housing need can be housed is in the private sector. The modest building programmes now underway go nowhere near meeting the need for council housing.

The last and present governments have been concerned at the growth of the housing benefit bill to well over £18bn and is paid to almost 5 million people. A large proportion of this pays excessive private sector rents. To deal with this Iain Duncan Smith has chosen the worst of all options by capping housing benefit payments and including housing benefit in an overall benefit, limit thus leaving a shortfall.

A constituent of mine living with her children in a private rented flat was paying rent of £650 per week from the end of 2010 and received housing benefit of £575. Last August her local housing allowance was reduced to £400 and her transitional arrangements end in April. Thus she must find £250 per week, from her other benefits, to remain in the community and for her children continue attending local schools.

The maths are impossible. She is being forced to move somewhere else, well away from the area she has made her home in. She is not alone as 133,000 similar families are being forced to move out of their homes in many London boroughs. It is social cleansing on a grand scale.

Ultimately the housing crisis can only be dealt with by new provision. Yet we are nowhere near meeting demand; each year over 200,000 households are formed, in the last year for which figures are available, 102,000 homes were provided. Homelessness is rising and local authorities discharge their responsibilities to house the vulnerable homeless by locating them in the private sector, and all the insecurities that brings.

The issue that has to be faced is the insecurity of many people's lives and the need for wholesale reform of the private rented sector, including rent registration and control. Other counties and cities (notably New York) do control private rents and provide security of tenure.

Obsession with the market seem to prevent ministers looking at the huge problem and all its ramifications in health, education and employment that come from the housing insecurity that too many face.

Jeremy Corbyn is MP for Islington North

Time is short to save our NHS

The NHS as we know it faces full-scale privatisation unless MPs and peers see sense and respect the wishes of the British public by throwing out the pro-privatisation Health and Social Care Bill, writes Len McCluskey in today’s Morning Star

The NHS was created in 1948 by Aneurin Bevan and since then has provided unbelievable advances in public health and medical treatment for working people and their families, free at the point of delivery to all those in need, regardless of income - or lack of it. Millions of people have seen their quality of life and longevity dramatically improve because of this state-funded health service.

Today the NHS, the envy of many developed countries, faces comprehensive dismemberment at the hands of the Tories and their Liberal Democrat ministerial allies, in favour of private health-care companies. It is very possible that within the next decade you will have to pay to visit to your GP. That's why this Bill should be scrapped immediately and a period of stability reintroduced into the health service.

Many commentators and pundits expect this shameful exercise to become law some time in the next six weeks. So time is very short for a final surge of public opinion to force MPs to examine their consciences and - more practicably - examine what may happen to their seats at the next election.

If this Bill passes it would be crystal clear by election time that the NHS had been sacrificed on the altar of the interests of the private health-care companies. And MPs would have to face the anger of the grandmother unable to obtain a hip operation when she needs it and the former miner unable to access adequate social care.

Waiting lists are already rising in the run-up to these "reforms" and the so-called £20 billion of "efficiency savings" demanded by Andrew Lansley to soften the NHS up for privatisation. That's why today’s Unite Save Our NHS lobby of MPs is so important, as is the TUC-sponsored NHS rally in the evening.

Unions plan NHS demo outside Parliament on Wednesday

Unions representing hundreds of thousands of NHS workers will step up their opposition to the Government's controversial health reforms this week by holding a protest outside Parliament. Nurses, midwives, doctors, physiotherapists, cleaners, porters and other employees will join the demonstration in Westminster on Wednesday as the Health and Social Care Bill enters its final parliamentary stages.
Campaigners said that while the Bill was still in the House of Lords, it was the best chance they have of changing the proposals before it returned to the Commons. Unions and other campaign groups involved in the protest said the Bill was "hugely unpopular" with workers and patients alike, warning of increased involvement of private firms in the health service. The All Together for the NHS campaign is organising the protest, including a rally at Westminster Central Hall, close to the Houses of Parliament.

TUC deputy general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "Some changes have been made to the Bill, but not nearly enough. Peers must listen to the concerns of the people that know the NHS best - the staff who work in it. Health workers fear the increased competition and the extension of markets will have a devastating impact on patient care, especially poorer people who will find themselves pushed to the back of ever-growing waiting lists."

Several thousand are expected to attend the rally and will listen to speeches from speakers including comedian Jo Brand - who once worked as a psychiatric nurse - as well as politicians, fellow health workers, union leaders and health service users. Dr Clive Peedell, an oncologist from Middlesbrough who ran 160 miles in six days from Aneurin Bevan's Statue in Cardiff to the Department of Health in Whitehall in January to protest against the Bill, will also be speaking and Artists for the NHS will be displaying some of their work in the hall.

Twenty-thousand members of 38 Degrees, the online campaigning community, have donated £280,000 in three days to pay for more than 180 billboards across London calling on the Prime Minister to reconsider the reforms, the group said.

David Babbs, 38 Degrees' executive director, said: "It's not too late for David Cameron to change his mind on the NHS. But worryingly at the moment he seems more concerned about the political consequences than admitting he's made a mistake. 38 Degrees members believe the NHS is too important to be risked for the sake of party political calculations. So we're trying to remind David Cameron that most voters and health experts want him to change course."

journal live north-east

Clegg lives in a different part of the country to the rest of us

Nick Clegg yesterday told the Welsh Lib Dem conference in Cardiff that Welsh communities had been let down twice: first by Margaret Thatcher, then by Labour which "kept communities afloat by replacing industrial jobs with public sector jobs".

"And now it falls to us, acting in the national interest, to start to rebuild," Mr Clegg said.

He added: "That's why we have taken the difficult decisions that we have. And it's why we must show the courage to see them through." The UK government was "laying the foundations of a fairer, greener more liberal Wales in a fairer, greener more liberal United Kingdom".

Even if it were, Nick, it would have been no thanks to you.

The privatisation of the police force

by Alan Travis and Zoe Williams, the Guardian

Private companies could take responsibility for investigating crimes, patrolling neighbourhoods and even detaining suspects under a radical privatisation plan being put forward by two of the largest police forces in the country. West Midlands and Surrey have invited bids from G4S and other major security companies on behalf of all forces across England and Wales to take over the delivery of a wide range of services previously carried out by the police.

The contract is the largest on police privatisation so far, with a potential value of £1.5bn over seven years, rising to a possible £3.5bn depending on how many other forces get involved. This scale dwarfs the recent £200m contract between Lincolnshire police and G4S, under which half the force's civilian staff are to join the private security company, which will also build and run a police station for the first time.

The home secretary, Theresa May, who has imposed a 20% cut in Whitehall grants on forces, has said frontline policing can be protected by using the private sector to transform services provided to the public, but this is the first clear indication of what that will mean in practice. May said on Thursday that she hoped the "business partnership" programme would be in place next spring. A 26-page "commercial in confidence" contract note seen by the Guardian has been sent to potential bidders to run all services that "can be legally delegated to the private sector". They do not include those that involve the power of arrest and the other duties of a sworn constable.

Companies who have applied through the Bluelight emergency services e-tendering website have been invited to a "bidders' conference" on 14 March, with an anticipated contract start date of next February. The timetable for the programme means it will be subject to final sign-off by the first police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands after their election in November. The existing police authority only gave the go-ahead for the tendering stage last month after a "robust and forthright discussion" which ended with a rare 11-5 split vote.

Welfare Reform

“Your mummy spoils you. So I’m going to take away all of her benefits.”

Cameron hails 'historic step' as Parliament clears the way for controversial welfare reforms

Cameron has hailed "an historic step in the biggest welfare revolution in over 60 years" after the Government's controversial reforms cleared Parliament. Peers ended their stand-off with the House of Commons, paving the way for the Welfare Reform Bill to reach the statute book. The legislation brings in a £26,000-a-year household benefits cap and sets up the universal credit.


Cameron said: "These reforms will change lives for the better, giving people the help they need, while backing individual responsibility so that they can escape poverty, not be trapped in it. Past governments have talked about reform, while watching the benefits bill sky-rocket and generations languish on the dole and dependency.

“This Government is delivering it. Our new law will mark the end of the culture that said a life on benefits was an acceptable alternative to work. Today marks an historic step in the biggest welfare revolution in over 60 years. My Government has taken bold action to make work pay, while protecting the vulnerable."

The Bill had a stormy passage through the Lords, with peers inflicting seven defeats on the Government when the legislation was first considered and a further one after MPs had overturned all the setbacks. However, independent crossbencher Lord Best withdrew, without a vote, an amendment on the final point of dispute between the Houses, the so-called bedroom tax which penalises council tenants for under-occupancy, and the Bill will now be sent for Royal Assent.

Cameron said: "While we've been putting in place a sensible, modern welfare system that protects the vulnerable, our opponents have shown they are on the side of Britain's something-for-nothing culture. We've stood up against the abuse that left taxpayers footing the bills for people on £30,000 or even £50,000 a year in benefits. It's a fair principle: a family out of work on benefits shouldn't be paid more than the average family in work."

Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne, responding to Mr Cameron's comments, said: "Everyone in Britain believes in sensible welfare reform - and there are ideas in this Bill, like Universal Credit, that build on Labour's tax credits which, for the first time, helped make sure work paid. But, sadly, this new law will hurt millions of families trying to do the right thing and work and save and it crosses a line of basic British decency."

Press Association

Funeral for a friend

Photoshop Politics by Dylan Jeavons

The LRC at Brighton Fringe 2012

The Labour Representation Committee (LRC) will be making the headlines at the Brighton Fringe this year with a series of events on a range of topics during May 2012.

 
IN CONVERSATION WITH TONY BENN

And what a way to start the series. Over three weeks, around 675 events will take place during the Fringe but only one of these will bring together Tony Benn, John McDonnell MP and Owen Jones for an afternoon of discussion and questions and answers with the audience.

Tony Benn is a former Cabinet Minister and the longest-ever serving Labour MP. After 50 years in Parliament, he stepped down in 2001 to "spend more time on politics". As well as writing and publishing his diaries, Tony is currently President of the Stop the War Coalition.

John McDonnell is MP for Hayes & Harlington in north-west London and Chair of the LRC. Amongst other posts, John is also Parliamentary Convenor of the Trade Union Co-ordinating Group of ten left-wing trades unions, representing over half a million workers.

Owen Jones is the author of “Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class”. He regularly writes for The Guardian, The Independent and The New Statesman and recently appeared on the BBC’s ‘Question Time’.  In September 2011, Owen was voted the most influential left-wing thinker of the year by readers of the Left Foot Forward blog.

This is an unprecedented opportunity to hear from three of Britain’s most prominent socialists on today’s key issues, with only limited tickets available.

2 – 4.30pm  Saturday 12 May 2012
Brighthelm Church & Community Centre
North Road  Brighton BN1 1YD
£10 waged  £5 concessions

Buy online
____

(Details of the other two events will follow shortly)

Andrew Lansley promises 'significant' changes to NHS bill

Andrew Lansley has declared that the latest amendments to his controversial NHS reform bill would be "significant". The health secretary was responding to an emergency question from his Labour shadow, Andy Burnham, after the coalition government's apparent confusion over the changes announced on Monday by the Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. 

In an effort to head off a backlash against the health and social care bill from within his party at its spring conference in March, Clegg wrote to his MPs and peers promising important changes to "rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US-style market in the NHS". However the promise of five new amendments through the House of Lords was undermined by his Conservative coalition partners after Downing Street said that the changes would be "not significant". 

On Friday, and at lunchtime on Monday, government ministers had also said there would be no further changes to the bill. Burnham challenged Lansley to tell MPs whether the latest changes were "substantial or cosmetic", and whether they had been agreed by the prime minister and health secretary in advance. "The government appears in complete disarray, or maybe it was … coalition choreography to save face for the deputy prime minister," said Burnham. "The NHS matters too much to leave it to be carved up in cosy coalition deals."

Lansley avoided at least three times answering questions about whether he had been consulted about Clegg's letter. "The point of the letter was to reflect the discussions we have been having," he said in reply to Labour MP Gisela Stuart, apparently referring to the government and the House of Lords, which has discussed amendments in the committee and now report stages. "The amendments to the report would, by their nature, be significant," he added later.

Labour MP Rushanara Ali challenged Lansley on the decision by Tower Hamlets clinical commissioning group, in her constituency, to ask the health secretary to drop the bill. "When the very structures he's establishing to advise him are telling him they don't want to have part to do with this nightmare he's creating, isn't it time to look again and drop the bill?" she asked. Lansley replied: "They will use the powers in this bill and they will use them effectively."

Later Burnham also criticised the decision of the backbench business committee of MPs, which decided not to hold a debate on the e-petition signed by 162,000 people asking for the health bill to be dropped. E-petitions hosted by the government website are eligible to be debated when they are signed by more than 100,000 people.

The Guardian

Cameron avoids French Socialist candidate

David Cameron has refused to meet François Hollande, the French presidential hopeful, when the Socialist candidate visits London on Wednesday on a campaigning visit to the hundreds of thousands of ex-pats who have made their home in the British capital. The British prime minister has given his full backing to Nicolas Sarkozy in the presidential contest, describing him in an interview with Le Figaro this month as being “a brave politician” with “great leadership qualities”.

Mr Cameron let it be known through the British embassy in Paris that he would not be available to meet Mr Hollande, when he travels to London for a full day of meeting and campaign stops. Downing Street said that the decision was down to protocol, since Mr Cameron does not want to meet candidates during an election period; privately the prime minister's aides admitted he did not want to give any help to Mr Sarkozy’s opponent.

Although Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy have had a tempestuous public relationship, relations are better in private and were forged during the joint Anglo-French military operation in Libya. Meanwhile Mr Hollande has said his “real enemy” is the world of finance, a comment that antagonised Mr Cameron and is unlikely to play well with many of the premier’s potential electors who earn their living in the City of London.

Financial Times

Glasman’s far right views are best kept to himself

Prize tit, Maurice Glasman, has pulled back from plans to write a lucrative column for Rupert Murdoch's new Sunday Sun newspaper after talking to Ed Miliband. Miliband's very public stand against Murdoch and his media empire early on in the phone-hacking scandal has been one of his stronger suits in defending his record as Labour leader during months of sniping. Last summer Miliband called for Murdoch's News International, which also owns the Times, Sunday Times and a stake in BSkyB, to be broken up because the owner had "too much power over British public life".

This week, the new paper's executives have been ringing Labour MPs, including Miliband's office, asking for messages of support ahead of its launch this weekend, but MPs were urged by the party leadership not to be seen endorsing an attempt by Murdoch to re-impose his control of the Sunday newspaper mass market. Some Labour members have also been campaigning publicly for supporters to not co-operate with the new newspaper - announced this week as a replacement for the News of the World, which Murdoch closed last year when the extent of the phone hacking began to emerge.

On Thursday, the party issued a statement saying: "We will work and engage with all media organisations. But the Labour party does not endorse any newspaper and we don't endorse the Sunday Sun." Glasman, believed to be in talks with NI about being paid around £1,000 a week for his opinions, strained already soured relations with the party when he wrote an article for New Statesman magazine in January saying Labour appeared to have "no strategy, no narrative and little energy".

News on Wednesday of Glasman's involvement with the new paper was ridiculed by former Labour deputy leader John Prescott, who joked: "I'd be surprised if Maurice Glasman is a columnist for the Sun on Sunday. He's far too rightwing." Labour MP Tom Watson was more direct, tweeting that Glasman "should hang his head in shame". With what now looks like great prescience, Labour blogger Dan Hodges responded on Twitter: "Maurice Glasman has the black spot of Watson upon him. He will be dead by the dawn."

Glasman's decision to withdraw from his column did not emerge until the evening, but the Sunday Sun's nearly-scoop barely lasted a 24-hour news cycle.

The Guardian (with amendments)

Bercow couldn’t give a fig

A £30,000-a-year contract to rent a dozen fig trees for an MPs' office block must be ended as soon as possible, Commons speaker John Bercow has said. He said he had been horrified to find out the cost of the Portcullis House greenery and that the taxpayer was being "fleeced". The deal has been in place for 12 years and covers care and maintenance of the trees, which shade dining areas in the building's glass-topped atrium.

In an interview with The House magazine, he said: "I was horrified by it. Inevitably and understandably it will cause people out there to think these people are living in another universe. "I think the contract should absolutely be revisited. If we are going to have trees, they absolutely shouldn't be trees that cause us to fleece the taxpayer in this way, and that must change at the earliest opportunity. If there is a contract and it's going to cost us more to get out of it immediately than not, then it may well have to wait. But should the present arrangement continue beyond September? Absolutely not."

The Guardian

Syria (Don’t just sit there)

 Steve Bell, the Guardian

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