Ed Vaizey hails "thriving library service in England"

Despite a report earlier this week predicting that public libraries could disappear by the end of the decade, the culture minister, Ed Vaizey, has hailed the "thriving library service that we have in England" as he announced a series of initiatives at Thursday's Future of Library Services conference.

Unveiling plans to boost cultural activities in libraries, automatically enrol primary school pupils in their local libraries and an ambition to put Wi-Fi in libraries across England by 2015, Vaizey claimed that the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals' prediction of 600 library closures "regularly quoted in the media ... is very wide of the mark".

"A truer picture of building closures would be about a tenth of that," he said. "I remain resolutely optimistic about library services. I have never, even in opposition, depicted the library service as being in crisis." He added that "even while there have been closures, sometimes services merge or move to community management, and it's important that we are able to have an intelligent debate about this. And it's also important to remember that many libraries are also opening."

Library campaigner and award-winning children's author Alan Gibbons rejected Vaizey's positivity, calling it "a masterpiece of Life of Brian optimism, the massaging of reality and evasion".

"The reason this nightmarish scenario [of 600 library closures] has not occurred has been because local communities have mounted commendable resistance, reducing councils' room to manoeuvre. This has included legal actions, pickets, protests, read-ins and a lobby of parliament. None of this agitation is reflected in this blandest of speeches."

What would Rousseau make of our selfish age?

300 years after Rousseau's birth, the great Enlightenment philosopher would surely be horrified by modern Europe, writes Terry Eagleton

Rousseau is the explorer of that dark continent, the modern self

Few thinkers have left their fingerprints on the modern age as indelibly as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the tricentenary of whose birth we celebrate on Thursday (28 June). He was a philosopher who helped shape the destiny of nations, which is more than can be said for Pythagoras or AC Grayling. He was also a political visionary of stunning originality, a potent influence on the French revolution and a source of inspiration for the Romantics. Those who like their fiction drenched in lofty moral sentiment can also claim him as a great novelist.

Much of what one might call the modern sensibility was this thinker's creation. It is in Rousseau's writing above all that history begins to turn from upper-class honour to middle-class humanitarianism. Pity, sympathy and compassion lie at the centre of his moral vision. Values associated with the feminine begin to infiltrate social existence as a whole, rather than being confined to the domestic sphere. Gentlemen begin to weep in public, while children are viewed as human beings in their own right rather than defective adults.

Above all, Rousseau is the explorer of that dark continent, the modern self. It is no surprise that he wrote one of the most magnificent autobiographies of all time, his Confessions. Personal experience starts to take on a significance it never had for Plato or Descartes. What matters now is less objective truth than truth-to-self – a passionate conviction that one's identity is uniquely precious, and that expressing it as freely and richly as possible is a sacred duty. In this belief, Rousseau is a forerunner not only of the Romantics, but of the liberals, existentialists and spiritual individualists of modern times.

It is true that he seems to have held the view that no identity was more uniquely precious than his own. For all his cult of tenderness and affection, Rousseau was not the kind of man with whom one would share one's picnic. He was the worst kind of hypochondriac – one who really is always ill – and that most dangerous of paranoiacs – one who really is persecuted. Even so, at the heart of an 18th-century Enlightenment devoted to reason and civilisation, this maverick intellectual spoke up for sentiment and nature. He was not, to be sure, as besotted by the notion of the noble savage as some have considered. But he was certainly a scourge of the idea of civilisation, which struck him for the most part as exploitative and corrupt.

In this, he was a notable precursor of Karl Marx. Private property, he wrote, brings war, poverty and class conflict in its wake. It converts "clever usurpation into inalienable right". Most social order is a fraud perpetrated by the rich on the poor to protect their privileges. The law, he considered, generally backs the strong over the weak; justice is largely a weapon of violence and domination, while culture, science, the arts and religion are harnessed to the task of preserving the status quo. The institution of the state has "bound new fetters on the poor and given new powers to the rich". For the benefit of a few ambitious men, he comments, "the human race has been subjected to labour, servitude and misery".

He was not, as it happens, opposed to private property as such. His outlook was that of the petty-bourgeois peasant, clinging to his hard-won independence in the face of power and privilege. He sometimes writes as though any form of dependence on others is despicable. Yet he was a radical egalitarian in an age when such thinkers were hard to find. Almost uniquely for his age, he also believed in the absolute sovereignty of the people. To bow to a law one did not have a hand in creating was a recipe for tyranny. Self-determination lay at the root of all ethics and politics. Human beings might misuse their freedom, but they were not truly human without it.

What would this giant of Geneva have thought of Europe 300 years on from his birth? He would no doubt have been appalled by the drastic shrinking of the public sphere. His greatest work, The Social Contract, speaks up for the rights of the citizenry in the teeth of private interests. He would also be struck by the way the democracy he cherished so dearly is under siege from corporate power and a manipulative media. Society, he taught, was a matter of common bonds, not just a commercial transaction. In true republican fashion, it was a place where men and women could flourish as ends in themselves, not as a set of devices for promoting their selfish interests.

The same, he thought, should be true of education. Rousseau ranks among the great educational theorists of the modern era, even if he was the last man to put in charge of a classroom. Young adults, he thought, should be allowed to develop their capabilities in their distinctive way. They should also delight in doing so as an end in itself. In the higher education systems of today's world, this outlandish idea is almost dead on its feet. It is nearly as alien as the notion that the purpose of education is to serve the empire. Universities are no longer educational in any sense of the word that Rousseau would have recognised. Instead, they have become unabashed instruments of capital. Confronted with this squalid betrayal, one imagines he would have felt sick and oppressed. As, indeed, he usually did.

Written by Terry Eagleton & published by the Guardian

Cameron's attack on the ‘feckless poor’ has a very long history

The government's planned welfare cuts are the latest attempt by authorities to root out the idle and inactive and set them to work, writes Jeremy Seabrook

David Cameron's latest attack on the poor has a longer history than he seems to know. "We" have not created a culture of dependency; the animus against the poor, and the remedies proposed, go back at least to the consolidation of the Elizabethan poor law in 1601, and even further: one of the post hoc justifications for the destruction of the monasteries was that these had offered alms and relief to the idle and undeserving, who had dissimulated themselves among the widows and orphans fed and sheltered by religious houses.

One of the principal aims of the Elizabethan poor law, apart from the relief of the "aged and impotent" was "to set the poor on work". Houses of industry, provided with supplies of hemp, flax and other materials, were to train to habits of industry the idle and inactive who were sound in body and mind.

This project has haunted the rulers of Britain ever since, despite having repeatedly proved impracticable. In the late 17th century, the idea seized the imagination of administrators of the poor laws that a profit could be made out of the labour of the poor. Commentaries on the shamelessness of valiant beggars and idle rogues were accompanied by practical schemes for using their labour for useful ends. John Locke thought the increase in numbers of the poor a consequence of "the relaxation of discipline and the corruption of manners", a diagnosis eagerly repeated down the generations ever since. Parishes combined their resources to construct "houses of industry" and, if some briefly made a profit, the impossibility of co-ordinating the highly variable skills of the poor to spin, weave and produce lace or linen for the market soon became clear.

That did not prevent a stream of ingenious devices for keeping the noses of the idle poor to the grindstone. The idea of contracting the poor out to private entities became all the rage in the 18th century, anticipating the extensive privatisations of today. The maintenance of the poor of a parish could be contracted out for a lump sum, or on a per capita basis, in the workhouse of the parish or in premises of the contractor's own choosing. Contracts were made with the owners of carts for the forcible repatriation of the poor to their legal place of settlement, with clothiers for paupers' uniforms and shrouds, and with carpenters for coffins. As a result, conditions in workhouses deteriorated. Filthy and overcrowded, they were described as "receptacles of misery". A majority of parish infants died before their sixth birthdays.

As part of the alternating process throughout our history of severity and leniency, towards the end of the 18th century, a more humanitarian spirit prevailed, and out-relief was more usual. In fact, topping up wages became the norm in the counties of the south of England, a system whereby the parish made up the wages of labourers according to the size of the family and the price of bread. This meant that, no matter how little work was done, income was assured, and however little a farmer paid his labourers, the deficit would always be made good by the parish. This gave rise to what can only be described, in Cameron's words as "a culture of entitlement"; at the same time, women were blamed for giving birth to bastards, for the maintenance of each of whom the parish rewarded her with 1s 6d a week. Observers continued to fulminate against the poor, claiming that hunger was the best goad to make them work.

The Poor Law Amendment Act was passed in 1834. This made relief available to the able-bodied only within the workhouse, in conditions "less eligible" (that is, worse) than those enjoyed by the poorest labourer who earned a living by his own efforts. Despite mitigation of its worst rigours, this system remained in place until the 1948 National Assistance Act, with its preamble, "The poor law shall cease to exist," which lifted the shadow of punitive detention, which for over a century had threatened the poor in times of sickness, incapacity, old age and bereavement.

No sooner had the welfare state come into existence than the clamour against it was heard: it sapped character, reduced independence, feather-bedded and cosseted people. And this, as they say, is where we come in. The profligate and improvident have been sheltered by the welfare state; the opportunists and idlers have used the deserving poor as human shields against the asperity designed to banish welfare cheats and raiders of the public purse.

The wasteful and wanton poor have always been in the sights of authority, because it is through them that more general campaigns against the poor can be waged. The improvident are obviously culpable: they give poverty a bad name, and are responsible for their own condition. Unfortunately, they are never removed, no matter how punishing the legislation or intensive the effort to flush them out of their hiding places. They remain, a frieze of incontinent and picaresque humanity, wenching and pilfering their way through the 18th century, standing shamelessly before the parish pay-table in the 19th, living behind closed curtains in overheated front rooms watching television from dawn to dusk in our time.

The feckless poor have been neither legislated out of existence nor drowned in prosperity. They have not been set to work, because the labour they perform profits no one. They continue their relentless march through time, unabashed and indifferent to the fury of politicians and the odium of the public. All efforts to bring them into the fold of respectable society have failed, and the only ones to suffer from the continuing efforts to set them to work are the timid and the helpless. The words of David Cameron and the rest of them are truly conservative, for they have been formulated by every generation for at least half a millennium.

Written by Jeremy Seabrook & published by The Guardian

#CarersWeek (18 -24 June) highlights how unpaid carers are being let down by a failing social care system

Eight charities, including Age UK and Carers UK, have joined together under the umbrella of #CarersWeek to highlight the plight they face – please share

The UK's ‘leading army of unpaid carers’ is being ‘let down’ by the failing social care system, campaigners warn. Feedback from 3,400 carers showed those providing the most intensive care often ended up with health problems themselves. The government said there was now extra funding to allow carers' breaks.

It is estimated that one in six carers either give up work or reduce their hours to look after elderly friends and relatives or younger adults with disabilities. The charities said it demonstrated the hidden effect of the squeeze on council-run social care support. The numbers of elderly and younger adults getting help from councils has fallen in recent years. And the coalition of charities said it was the 6.4m unpaid carers who were being left to take up the strain.

#CarersWeek asked carers what impact caring and the lack of support had on their health. Most of the responses were from those heavily involved in caring for someone, often providing support on a daily basis. Eight in 10 said their responsibilities had caused them health problems, including everything from back pain to insomnia. And two fifths said they had delayed seeking medical help with some reporting that had had serious consequences, such as delayed cancer diagnoses and damage to lungs.

#CarersWeek said carers should be offered regular health checks and there needed to be better information and support available. Manager Helen Clarke said: "It's a scandal that carers can't get the time or support they need to look after themselves which could be jeopardising their health as a result. Carers are feeling the strain of a woefully underfunded system and still we're seeing more cuts. Unpaid carers save the Government a fortune - £119 billion a year - yet they're let down in return. It is time for urgent action to tackle the crisis in social care."

Small comfort for Greece as Europe teeters on the brink

Greek supporters celebrate knocking Russia out of Euro 2012 and qualifying for the next round, against the odds. Meanwhile, their country goes to the polls for the second time in six weeks in a vote that may well affect the future of the European Union.

Greece prepares for election: 'we are going to the wall … things must change' Observer

Video: 'Cameron's Ecocide' by Pete Bearder

Who's sari now?

Butter wouldn't melt in the mouth of failed Conservative parliamentary candidate turned Baroness, Sayeeda Warsi, in this picture from September 2011 outside the Sikh Shrine Golden Temple in Amritsar, India. Warsi is currently in Indonesia to see how the country has recovered from the devastation of the Asian tsunami in December 2004. May I respectfully suggest they were doing fine until you came along, love.

The trip comes only days after it was alleged that Warsi claimed up to £2,000 in expenses while staying rent-free with a friend. She denies the claims and has referred the case to the Lords Commissioner for Standards, Paul Kernaghan, who has begun a 'parliamentary assessment' before what is expected to be a major investigation - the result of which will undoubtedly be 'no further action'. 

An Alternative to Austerity by Stephen Lee Hodgkins

Graphicking by Stephen Lee Hodgkins

http://bit.ly/KkEnE6

GPs call for work capability assessment to be scrapped

GPs have voted unanimously in favour of scrapping the controversial work capability assessment (WCA), the test that determines who is eligible for sickness benefits, to prevent harming "some of the weakest and most vulnerable in society". At the annual GPs' conference, doctors backed a motion stating that the computer-based assessments were "inadequate" and "have little regard to the nature or complexity of the needs of long-term sick and disabled persons". They called for the tests to be replaced with a more "rigorous and safe system".
 
The vote at their annual conference in Liverpool reflects rising concern within the medical profession over the government's use of the work capability assessment (WCA) to reassess recipients of the outgoing incapacity benefit to determine whether they should receive the replacement benefit, employment and support allowance (ESA). Since the test was introduced in 2008, hundreds of thousands of people have against decisions to refuse them the benefit; around 40% of appeals are successful. Large numbers of patients with terminal and incurable conditions have been found fit for work after undergoing a 30-minute assessment, carried out by a private company, Atos Healthcare.

Andrew Holden, a GP from Petersfield in Hampshire, said the system was not able to distinguish between patients who really needed help and those who did not. "Since the system was introduced in 2008, people with terminal cancer have been found fit to work, people with mental health problems have complained their condition is not taken seriously and people with complex illnesses say that the tick-box system is not able to cope with the nuances of their problems," he told the conference, proposing the motion. "The computer-based assessments are carried out by a healthcare professional but one not necessarily trained in the field of the patient's disability, which is particularly important when it comes to mental health issues."

Laurence Buckman, chair of the BMA's GPs' committee, said: "When 40% of appeals against the assessments are successful at tribunal hearings, something is clearly very wrong with the system. Being in work is good for people's overall health and wellbeing, but GPs are seeing too many patients who genuinely need to be on incapacity benefit coming in very concerned and confused by the system. The government needs to look again at the whole assessment process and replace it with one that is fit for purpose."

Dean Marshall, chair of the Scottish general practitioners' committee, which has already passed a similar motion, welcomed the vote. "These assessments can have a devastating effect on our patients' mental and physical health. There has been a dramatic increase in the numbers being assessed as fit to work and a massive number of appeals have been made against these decisions. The frequency of successful appeals seems to us to demonstrate the mechanism's shortcomings," he said. "Our patients are very concerned and confused about these assessments. Many are in fear of how they will cope with the removal of, or cuts to, their benefits. Evidence appears to suggest that people with serious health conditions are sometimes being declared fit for work."

Labour MP Tom Greatrex, who has raised a number of concerns about the WCA, said: "The government should not dismiss the strength of feeling being expressed by the medical profession in this motion – the very people the DWP are reliant on to carry out the assessment. As the motion reflects, assessing whether people are able to work is right in principle, but in so many respects the practice has been appalling. Thousands of people have suffered because of the decisions Atos get wrong time and again, costing the public purse millions."

A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said improvements were being made to the system. "We're absolutely committed to the reassessment of people on incapacity benefit and helping those who are fit to move back into work. Under the old system too many lives were written off. The work capability assessment introduced in 2008 was not fit for purpose, which is why we are implementing all the recommendations made by our independent reviewer to make this a better and fairer process. We want to keep improving the WCA," the department wrote in an emailed statement.

The vote means that calling for the WCA to be scrapped is now the policy of the BMA GPs' committee, which represents 44,000 family doctors across the UK, and the committee will attempt to make its views clear to the DWP.

Amelia Gentleman, The Guardian

The Radical Alternative to Austerity | John McDonnell

Cameron and Osborne have repeated again throughout this week that there is no alternative to their failing austerity programme. There needs to be a clear statement from the Left that there most certainly is an alternative to austerity and it goes beyond just cutting less deep and less fast. Below is a brief statement of what that alternative could contain, written by John McDonnell. It is not meant as a definitive statement but at least a broad depiction of what a radical alternative would comprise. If you are willing to put your name to the statement please do so by emailing John at mcdonnellj@parliament.uk

The Radical Alternative to Austerity

The austerity programme of the Coalition government is not just failing; it is prolonging and deepening the recession. Cuts in investment in public services, in jobs, wages, pensions and benefits are creating mass unemployment and mounting hardship. Austerity is creating a spiral of economic decline as cuts produce high levels of unemployment which in turn reduces tax income and prompts another round of cuts and job losses. The Government’s austerity measures are also unfair as the only people the Government seems intent on protecting from the recession are the rich.

There is an alternative to austerity
There is no lack of wealth and resources in our country that we can draw upon to tackle this recession. The problem is that this wealth and these resources are held in the hands of too few people and are not being used productively to create the growth and jobs we need. If we can release these resources, we can overcome the current recession and start to build a prosperous future for our country, linking with others across Europe and the United States to overcome this global economic gridlock.

Releasing the resources within our own country is not difficult. It simply requires the introduction of a limited range of redistributive measures which will raise the funds we need from those most able to pay and who have profited most out of the boom years. This redistribution can be achieved through:

• a wealth tax on the richest 10%,
• a Robin Hood tax on financial transactions,
• a Land Value tax,
• the restoration of progressive income tax of 60% on incomes above £100,000
• and a clamp down on the tax evasion and avoidance that is costing us £95 billion a year.

Investing the resources released can halt the spiral of decline
With unemployment rising month by month we urgently need to get people back to work and earning a decent living. We can do this by investing the resources we have released through taxation in modernising our economy, its infrastructure and our public services to meet the needs of our community.

Instead of cutting and privatising our health, education and local services, this means:

• investing in a mass public housing building and renovation programme, in universal childcare, in the modernisation of our public services, in the NHS, in creating a national Caring Service, in our schools and colleges, in our transport infrastructure and in the extension of broadband;
• investing in alternative energy, combined heat and power and insulation to both tackle climate change and create one million climate change jobs;
• establishing a national investment bank with the resources levied from the banks so that there is no shortage of funds to lend for manufacturing growth and research and development.

To be successful the recovery programme has to be fair
We will need the support of a significant majority of our people if we are to drive through this type of radical regeneration and redistribution programme. To gain this level of support means the Radical Alternative must be seen to be fair. This means addressing many of the inequalities of our current system. For those at the top it means ending the bonuses and limiting high salaries to no more than 20 times the lowest paid in any company or organisation.

For all others it means replacing the minimum wage with a living wage and a living pension and living welfare benefits, reducing the working week to 35 hours, closing the gender pay gap, controlling rents and energy prices, and restoring rights at work. For young people it means a guaranteed job, apprenticeship, training or college place for every young person with the burden of fees abolished.

There is no shortage of resources to implement this programme of reform. The problem is the distribution of these resources. The Radical Alternative simply releases the resources we have to regain control of our economy and invest in our future.

Never again can we let them say that there is no alternative.

John McDonnell

mcdonnellj@parliament.uk

What must they be thinking?

Theresa May gets caught out by police logo

Clegg and Cameron's cruellest day

Greece, the birthplace of democracy, has set off a voters' rebellion against the dictatorship of financiers. In the eye of the vortex, no one knows if the centre can hold or what happens next when voters say no to austerity imposed by the same financiers who caused the crash. JP Morgan's reckless derivatives gamble lands on cue to make the point. As François Hollande and Angela Merkel meet for the first time on Tuesday, Karl Marx could not have devised so perfect a crisis of capitalism.

At first the voters acquiesced, tightened their belts, obeyed the iron laws set by bankers whose grotesque pay flows from bailouts by states they impoverished. But the prospect of years of unremitting high unemployment and stagnation shows the great austerity experiment has failed, and even its north European proponents are being gingerly forced to acknowledge it.

In Britain the failure of that experiment is most telling, because no one imposed it on us except our own government. Inflation is predicted to stay obstinately high while wages lag, shrinking demand in households with ever less to spend. Industry now begs the government to kick-start the economy. Bond rates here fell even lower on Monday: our government can borrow more cheaply than for 300 years. The refusal of Cameron and Osborne to borrow and invest in housing, energy, schools and transport is the ideological fixation that will destroy them. Once a Conservative government loses the trust of industry, it's in deep trouble.

The Police Federation's letter to David Cameron following the march

PoliceOracle.com has obtained a copy of the letter given to Prime Minister David Cameron last week following the Police Federation’s march through London. The march on May 10 culminated in the Police Federation of England and Wales handing in a letter to 10 Downing Street to outline its concerns about government austerity measures and the Winsor Review. 

A federation spokesman said the letter was more than just a gesture following the march – as the government itself seemed unclear on the Fed’s position. This letter therefore provided clarity:

Dear Prime Minister,

We write to you as the statutory representatives of 135,000 police officers in England and Wales to inform you of the morale crisis amongst our membership. In recent months we have been inundated with telephone calls and correspondence from police officers who are angry, dismayed about their future, and completely demoralised. 

Through the introduction of the Winsor reviews they feel they are being treated differently and more harshly than any other public sector workers. They accept that the police service must share some of the financial burden of the economic crisis but feel they have been unfairly singled out and targeted by your Government.

For decades, successive Governments have respected the fact that police officers have restrictions on their private lives and work lives; whether that is restrictions on where an officer may live, the requirement to intervene in incidents when off-duty, or the fact that their hours of duty, rest days and annual leave can be changed or cancelled if operational reasons dictate. 

Your Government has broken this ‘covenant’; pushing ahead with the Winsor recommendations demonstrates a view that that there should be no protection of police officers’ terms and conditions or recognition of their unique employment status as holders of the office of constable.

In addition, proposed changes to privatise core policing functions will transform the British police service from one based on policing by consent, and that is the envy of the world, to a body of officers unable to develop and deliver policing skills other than the use of coercive force. 

Your ministers have given us assurances that they agree with us that the independent Office of Constable is the bedrock of policing; however, that independence is threatened with the proposed introduction of compulsory severance whilst the privatisation of policing will expose the public to an unaccountable second-tier of law enforcement.

Today thousands of police officers have taken a day’s holiday to come to London in their own time to make their voices heard. Many say they feel so under-valued that they are seriously thinking about leaving the police service.

This is an important and challenging year as we embark upon the biggest policing and security operation we have witnessed in this country: the 2012 Olympic Games. We are genuinely concerned that public safety will be jeopardised in the future if large numbers of police officers leave the service.

We would welcome an urgent meeting with you to discuss what we can do to avert this national crisis.

Yours sincerely,

PAUL MCKEEVER, CHAIRMAN

IAN RENNIE, GENERAL SECRETARY

Coalition cocks up again - not surprising considering the cocks in charge

A £1.4bn coalition scheme to boost the economy has failed to achieve value for money, according to the government's official auditors.

Why?

Because the scheme is spending as much as £200,000 generating a single job.

Needless to say, Dave and Nick praised the initiative when they visited Essex earlier this week. 

And previously, Nick has said the fund would lead to half a million jobs. But that was a lie, Nick, wasn't it? The report forecasts that it will create only up to 41,000 jobs.

Then there's Nicebutdim Nick's claim that the fund would help rebalance the economy. It hasn't, has it, Nick?

'£1.4bn regional growth fund not value for money, says finance watchdog' - http://bit.ly/IOKLnt (Guardian)

Cameron tells Mail how Lib Dems are holding him back

On the eve of the Queen’s Speech, Cameron has used an 'exclusive interview with the Daily Mail' to insist he is determined to lead a Conservative-only government after the next election

Complaining of a "growing list of things that I want to do but can’t" because of the Liberal Democrats, he admitted more candidly than ever before where his coalition partners are holding him back. Cameron singled out human rights law, reform of workplace rights and support for marriage as areas where Tory principles are being held in check but urged senior MPs growing tired of coalition not to waste the next three years. He also suggested a referendum should be considered on  Clegg’s plans for a mainly elected House of Lords, particularly if it could help avoid the Government’s legislative agenda becoming ‘bogged down’ in the issue.

Speaking on the day he made a joint appearance with Clegg at a tractor factory in Basildon, Essex, to focus on the economy, he said: ‘Look, as Prime Minister of a coalition government at a time of national difficulty, I must focus on what can be done, what must be done now. We have the programme to deal with deficit, to get the banks lending, get young people employed, boost apprenticeships, get businesses investing and growing. Whether it’s capping welfare, limiting immigration, we have a programme that needs to be delivered. Of course there are frustrations, and there is a list of things that I am looking forward to doing if I can win an election and run a Conservative-only government.’

Directly addressing senior Conservative MPs who unveiled an alternative Queen’s Speech featuring traditional Tory policies at the weekend, Cameron declared: ‘I completely understand your frustrations, but let’s be clear: We’ve taken on some areas like reforming student finance, reforming public sector pensions, freezing public sector pay. These are things that previous Conservative governments weren’t able to do. Hell, I even vetoed an EU treaty. So I would say to Conservatives, I know it’s frustrating. I share your frustration. I want a Conservative-only government. But don’t let’s waste the chance we have now to help get this country out of the mess it was left in. We have got the mandate and the policies and the team to do it.’

French precedent | John McDonnell

Letters to The Guardian

Hollande's victory (The change France needs, 7 May) and scale of votes for the left in Greece demonstrate the emergence of a potential European-wide anti-austerity alliance which Labour could be a part of.

To join this movement that is giving hope to people across Europe means Labour decisively rejecting austerity and supporting the demand to tackle tax abuse by the rich, rejecting the privatisation and cuts in our public services, and setting out clearly plans to create the jobs that will restore prosperity. Sarkozy was described as "the president of the rich".

The last Osborne budget demonstrated so clearly that we are governed by a government of the rich for the rich. The European message for Labour is seize the moment and show clearly whose side we are on.

John McDonnell MP
Lab, Hayes and Harlington

Contrary to popular belief, we can afford both welfare and housing, says Andrew Fisher of the LRC

It was Nietzsche who said that man has killed God and Christianity, “but belief in the sickness which it taught and propagated continues to exist”. He meant the belief in sin remained, but now with no belief in the cure. Listening to Iain Duncan Smith talk about welfare reveals the same scenario: “A system developed to help the most vulnerable and support people in times of need is trapping people in a cycle of dependency.” Of course it is, because it has to be accompanied by a policy of full employment.

 
As well as creating the welfare state, the 1945 Attlee government also had a policy of full employment. That policy of full employment was part of the welfare system they created. The contract was that the government would provide a stable economy that eradicated mass unemployment.

It worked: between the 1940s and 1978 unemployment in the UK never rose above a million. In 1979, unemployment had risen to just over one million - a national shame which led to the Tories famous election poster ‘Labour isn’t working’. Within a few years of that election, unemployment reached 3 million, and the commitment to full employment was buried.

Today the Tories are attacking welfare with unprecedented viciousness. Around £30bn in welfare cuts have been announced since the Tory-led government came to power. When he announced the first tranche of welfare cuts in the 2010 Budget, the Chancellor said: “Total welfare spending has increased from £132 billion ten years ago to £192 billion today. It’s one reason why there is no money left.”

“There is no money left” – the same phrase that Labour’s shadow minister Liam Byrne used in his infamous note. The problem with it is it’s not true. The best evidence to prove that is that over the same period as Osborne’s £30bn cuts to welfare, he will have cut business taxes by £30bn. So Osborne is redistributing wealth from the poorest in society to the shareholders of large companies. But there is a large deficit and welfare spending has increased by 45% in the last decade. More importantly there’s the misery of mass unemployment to tackle too.

So how could a Labour government tackle the welfare bill in a socially just way?

• Firstly invest to create jobs to reduce the £4.8bn cost of unemployment benefit – committing to full employment again;

• Secondly - and this would create jobs - build council housing to cut the massive £20bn cost of housing benefit, which mostly goes into the pockets of wealthy landlords;

• Finally, make the minimum wage a living wage to reduce the £8bn tax credit bill – which means the government is subsidising low paying employers.

Labour must promote a systematic approach again: full employment, decent wages in work, the guarantee of a secure home, and a generous welfare state that offers security to those unable to work.

Andrew Fisher will be speaking alongside Kevin Maguire, Teresa Pearce MP and Andy Winter at the LRC’s Brighton Fringe event  ‘We can afford welfare and housing’. 

Send the Tories a message they will never forget

Tony Benn writes for Labour List

“The stakes at the London election are not at all about the personality contest that the media prefer. They are much more important than that. If the Conservative Party win in London on Thursday there is a very real risk they will conclude that they can intensify their assault on working class people, trade unions, public services and the welfare state.

I have watched the Conservative Party for the whole of my life. They take every opportunity to improve the lot of the rich against everyone else. They are utterly ruthless. They need and want a victory in London and if they get it they will make lives worse for everyone.

Already the Conservative candidate in this election is making a direct appeal to his party’s core values, presenting himself as a “tax-cutting Conservative”. It indicates what would happen under a second Tory term in London. The office of the Mayor of London will be a right wing outpost, pushing the Conservative Party in ever more radical directions – opening up conflict and worsening the social divide in the capital.

Throughout this London campaign Ken Livingstone has been the subject of a ferocious character assassination attempt. For as long as I have been involved in politics the right wing media and the Conservative Party have tried to divert attention from the real issues in politics onto personal attacks and the soap opera of the Westminster bubble. That is all designed to get people to vote against their own interests.

In a few days time London voters have the chance to reject this and vote to make themselves better off, and get a Mayor who will stand up for them as a Conservative government attacks them from all sides – from student fees and the privatisation of the NHS to ripping off pensioners and cutting Education Maintenance Allowance.

Ken Livingstone’s Labour programme for London is rooted in Labour’s socialist values. It offers new and radical ideas to defend the 99%. Intervening in the private housing sector to improve standards and cut rents, or establishing an energy co-op to cut the cost of heating your home, are the sort of progressive measures our politics needs now.  Restoring EMA in London shows the total divide in values between the two parties.

By cutting fares Ken is tapping into his strongest London Labour traditions to help people facing hard economic times.

We are back with a right wing government punishing people on low and middle incomes whilst feathering the nests of the richest. If these people are let off the hook on Thursday in the single biggest election before the next general election they will not let up. They will go much further.

The real choice on Thursday is between Labour and Conservative.  Voting anything other than Labour in this election will damage the quality of life for millions.

I urge every Labour voter, every trade unionist, peace campaigner, community organiser, co-operator and campaigner for equality to turn out in massive numbers and send the Tories a message they will never forget.”

Written by Tony Benn and published on Labour List

The delusional mind of one Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg claims that his peers have changed government policy.

In fact, Liberal Democrat peers have helped defeat the government in the Lords in only SEVEN votes out of 236.

Thanks for changing the world we live in, Nick.

Tae a Tory by Jock Campbell

Wee, sleekit, brazen, pretentious Tory,

O, what a panic is thy story! 

Thou need na start awa' sae hasty, 

Wi' twitterin' twaddle!

Tho' I wad lo'e to rin an' chase thee...

Wi' murd'ring pattle! 

I'm truly sorry London's dominion, 

Has broken oor union's social cohesion,

An' justifies oor ill opinion, 

What makes thee startle at me,

Thy poor, Brit-born companion, 

And fellow-mortal! 

I doubt na whiles, but thou may thieve;

What then? Poor beastie, thou maun live! 

A few billion barrels o' oor oil, is sma' request; 

We'll need jist enough tae fill oor tanks, 

An' never miss't! 

Thy wee bit Commons housie, in ruin! 

It's silly the way the winds are strewin! 

An' naething, now, to build a new ane,

O' moneys green! An' bleak December's winds ensuin, 

Baith brisk an' keen! 

Thou saw yer power laid bare an' waste,

An' weary winter comin' fast, 

An' cozie here, beneath the blast, 

Thou thought to dwell - till crash!

The cruel referendum past clean thro' thy ego!

That ower grand heap o' stone an' spire, 

Has cost us railway, tram and fire! 

Now thou's shov'd out, for a' thy trouble,

To thole the winter's sleety dribble, 

In the queenie's castle cauld! 

But Davie, thou art no thy lane,

In proving foresight may be vain;

The best-laid schemes o' Etonian men gang aft agley,

An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, 

For promis'd joy! 

Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' me! 

The present only toucheth thee: 

But och! I backward cast my e'e, 

On past prospects drearie!

An' forward, tho' I canna see,

I nae longer guess an' fear! 

Jock Campbell 2012

Socialism for all, not just the rich

There’s plenty of socialism in Britain …

… well, if you’re rich enough that is. By Owen Jones

The banks that caused the crisis were bailed out by the taxpayer, and allowed to carry on much as before. Private companies like A4e scrounge off the state, as do private profiteers throughout our public services: the NHS is about to become an ever-more lucrative opportunity for private health firms like Care UK. Train companies enjoy three times more public subsidies than were handed out in the time of British Rail. Private landlords are able to charge extortionate rents, knowing that the state will spend billions of pounds subsidising them through housing benefit. The wealthy enjoy tax relief on their pensions worth billions. Socialism for the rich is booming in Britain; for everybody else, it is capitalism with ever fewer restraints.

Instead of socialism for the people at the top, we need socialism for everybody else. But it’s worth clarifying what I mean by ‘socialism’. Certain ardent New Labourites were happy to appropriate the word, but strip it of any real political meaning. Odd though it is now to imagine, but when Tony Blair ran for the Labour leadership in 1994, he spoke of ‘socialism’ - but tried to redefine it as ‘social-ism’, or an emphasis on community values. For most of his followers – if they ever use the term – it boils down to platitudes like ‘fairness’ (who says they believe in ‘unfairness’?), or motherhood and apple pie.

But socialism – for me – is about building a society run in the interests of working people, by working people, instead of one organised around the interests of profit. It is about extending democracy to every sphere of life – and that doesn’t just mean the world of politics: it means the economy, too.

A coherent socialist vision has been lacking for a long time. That’s because the left was battered by a series of overwhelming crises: the rise of the New Right from the late 1970s onwards; the defeats suffered by the labour movement, long the backbone of the left; the demoralisation and desperation caused by the trauma of Thatcherism; and the neo-liberal triumphalism that followed the end of the Cold War, summed up by Francis Fukuyama’s ‘The End of History’. Even leftists who vehemently opposed Stalinist totalitarianism were consumed by the tidal wave of ‘There Is No Alternative’ that swept across the globe – which saw European social democracy shift rightwards; the old Communist movements dissolve, splinter or collapse; and even African national liberation movements like the ANC abandon their previous commitments to nationalisation.

We remain in the midst of a very serious crisis of capitalism, but it was never certain that the left would automatically benefit from it – in the 1930s the Labour Party was nearly wiped out in Britain, and fascism swept across Europe; after the 1970s, we ended up with Thatcherism and Reaganism. But if we start offering a coherent alternative, we could have at the least the opportunity to tap into the growing sense of anger and frustration that exists – and, crucially, organise it and give it political direction. Back in October, ICM found that 37% thought the Occupy movement was naive because there was no alternative to capitalism; but 51% felt that ‘the protesters are right to call time on a system that puts profit before people.’

Democracy would be at the heart of such an alternative. Take the bailed-out banks: a classic example of ‘socialism for the rich’. The British people were forced to prop them up with billions of pounds, but they don’t have any control over them. Instead, they should be taken under genuine social ownership, with elected management boards. The banks would then be forced to operate in the interests of society as a whole, rather than their shareholders - for example, helping to promote those parts of the economy, like renewable energy, we should want to build.

We wouldn’t have a return to the old-style form of nationalisation developed by Peter Mandelson’s grandfather, Herbert Morrison, in post-war Britain. That created bureaucratic top-down public corporations that were not properly responsive either to their workers or to their consumers. We should call for real democratic ownership. If we reversed the disastrous privatisation of the railways, for example – a policy backed by the overwhelming majority, according to polls – we could have a management board with elected representatives of workers and passengers. It would be a public service directly accountable to those who use it. That’s a model that could be equally popular elsewhere – starting with the energy companies, perhaps.

A new socialism would build an economy run in the interests of the real wealth-creators – the workers who keep the country ticking. A society built around the interests of profit is as irrational as it is unjust. But it will never end unless we start developing a genuine coherent alternative that resonates with working people. It’s nearly four years since Lehman Brothers came crashing down – what are we waiting for?

Written by Owen Jones and published on the LRC website

Owen will be partaking ‘In Conversation with Tony Benn’ at the Brighton Fringe 2012

Labour peer Lord Ashley of Stoke dies

The Labour peer and campaigner for disabled rights Lord Ashley of Stoke has died, aged 89. Jack Ashley, the first deaf MP, died on Friday night after a short illness. His daughter and Guardian columnist, Jackie Ashley, paid tribute to him on Twitter. "My wonderful, brave and adored father, Jack Ashley, Lord Ashley of Stoke, has died after a short battle with pneumonia."

Her father's death was announced earlier by her husband, the BBC presenter Andrew Marr. He said: "Lord Ashley of Stoke, the former Labour MP Jack Ashley, died last night, April 20, after a short illness, at the age of 89. The campaigner for the rights of the disabled, who had been the first ever deaf MP, won major victories for the victims of the drug Thalidomide, for victims of army bullying, and for victims of domestic violence. He is survived by his three daughters, Jackie Ashley, Jane Ashley, and Caroline Ashley."

Ashley won the seat of Stoke-on-Trent South in 1966, but lost his hearing less than two years later after an unsuccessful ear operation. He recalled in his autobiography that the last voice he heard was that of the late rugby commentator Eddie Waring. After initially fearing he would be forced to give up politics, Ashley learned to lip-read. Other MPs, including political foes such as the former prime minister Edward Heath, turned towards him during Commons debates so he could get a clear view of their mouths.

Ashley worked hard to modulate his speaking voice, which he could no longer hear. However, his deafness never affected his combative attitude. "Early on when I first lost my hearing, I think people were a little fearful about attacking me. But as I re-established my confidence, that soon fell away," he said.

As his fame as an advocate for disabled rights grew, Ashley became president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. He played a major role in the campaign for better compensation for children disabled by the drug Thalidomide, which was given to mothers to treat morning sickness during the 1950s and 60s. In 1993, a year after he was made a life peer, Ashley's hearing was partially restored by a cochlea implant, an electronic device which stimulates the nerves in the inner ear.

Ashley worked in a factory after leaving school at 14, becoming a shop steward and a local councillor. He studied at Oxford and Cambridge universities on scholarships, and worked as a producer for the BBC before entering parliament.

The Guardian

Ed Miliband has paid tribute to Jack Ashley:

"Jack Ashley turned his own tragic experience of losing his hearing into a mission of courage and determination for deaf and disabled people. He was a pioneer as the first deaf MP to sit in Parliament, but he did much more than that. There are many millions of men and women with disabilities who will have better lives thanks to Jack Ashley. He succeeded in changing the law and in changing attitudes."

He added: "Jack Ashley will be missed by his family, his friends and his colleagues in the House of Lords. He led an amazing life and will be remembered with deep affection, profound respect and great admiration."

The Evening of the Battle of Champaubert

Nicolas Charlet, 1814

Dave Brown, 2012

UK Uncut's Great British Street Party

UK Uncut, the anti-cuts direct action group, has announced a new plan of action to start shortly before the Queen’s Jubilee celebrations and the Olympic period. The group, best known for targeting tax dodgers, will hold street parties in major towns and cities across the UK in the run up to the Jubilee and Olympics which will ‘resist the cuts and celebrate a future that is decided by us, not a handful of billionaires'.

The UK Uncut planned events will take place on the weekend before the Queen’s Jubilee. UK Uncut has dubbed these events as street parties with a ‘twist’. They plan to block major roads and high streets up and down the country to call for a ‘future uncut’ and protest the government’s cuts, austerity agenda and the closure of local public services.

In a statement on their website, UK Uncut drew heavily on parallels with British society in 1948, the year when the Olympics were last held in London. They stated that although Britain’s post-war national debt was much higher than it is today, there was a future for people to look forward to. This included free universal health care, a new welfare state - that would protect and support the most marginalised in society - and human rights. They argue that these are being axed by the present government and that people can choose to fight for a future which they decide.

UK Uncut will hold training sessions across the UK in the coming months to encourage people to organise mass street parties in their regions and block roads in major cities across the UK.

Rachel Woodhead, supporter of UK Uncut said: “We know we are paying the price for the banks’ greed and recklessness. We know that the government lets big business dodge tax and slashes tax rates for the wealthy while choosing to punish us. We know that multi-national companies rake in billions in profits but contribute next to nothing, despite sitting on massive surpluses of cash. We know it’s not right. And so we have a choice. We can let the government and corporations control our future. Or we can fight, taking our future out of the hands of a tiny group of millionaires to instead create a future which benefits everyone.”

UK Uncut has no plans to directly disrupt the Jubilee ceremonies or Olympic games. The group says it will resist the cuts and celebrate the future people want to see during the summer through The Great British Street party - because the future is not what it used to be.

Co-op's legal website 'expired'

I thought I'd have a look at the website for the Co-op's new legal services and see what they had to offer. Anyway, having googled (that is a verb, right?) the appropriate title I was confronted with  a page informing me that 'The above domain name [www.co-operative.coop] has expired.'

Not a great start although I'm sure by the time you've read this the problem will have been sorted.

UPDATE 20/4/12 - As predicted the website is now up and running.

New fuel crisis in the pipeline as tanker drivers reject deal

About 60 officials from the Unite union overwhelmingly turned down an agreement drawn up after six days of talks that ended amid optimistic signs last Friday. But the union also urged motorists not to panic-buy and said it had not yet decided whether to name any strike dates.

Independent

Tax-free charity giving threshold set to be lifted to appease furious philanthropists

The cap on tax-free charity giving is set to be lifted to appease philanthropists who are threatening to cut off funding to good causes, The Daily Telegraph can disclose. Nick Clegg made clear the Government was preparing to climb down when he met rich philanthropists at a private reception in Whitehall on Tuesday evening. The Deputy Prime Minister told them that the Government had been “beaten around the head and neck” and wanted to encourage them to start giving again.

Nick Clegg senior aide resigns

'Richard Reeves, director of strategy for Nick Clegg and one his most influential advisers, has resigned. Reeves stressed he was not deserting his boss due to disillusionment with the party's prospects after the latest national poll showed the Liberal Democrats trailing Ukip. He regards judgments about the outcome of the next general election as ridiculously premature. Reeves's departure will be a huge loss to Clegg, who had come to rely on him for strategic advice ... '.

Oh, dear.

Guardian

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.