Employment boost as new power stations announced for Yorkshire

Yorkshire has been promised an employment boost after the Government backed plans for new power stations in Ferrybridge and Doncaster. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has approved a 108mw multi-fuel incinerator in Ferrybridge near Pontefract and a 1,500mw gas plant at Thorpe Marsh, north of Doncaster.

Energy Minister Charles Hendry

The Government said building the plants will create more than 1,000 jobs, power almost two million homes and result in over £1.2bn of investment. “The energy industry can be a real driver of growth across the country,” said Energy Minister Charles Hendry. “These new plants in Yorkshire are a fantastic example of new power stations bringing new jobs.”

However, consent for the Ferrybridge plant was met with dismay by local campaigners, over fears about emissions “We’re not naive – we know we can’t carry on with landfill,” said John Clarkson, a member of Aire (against Air, Industrial, River and Environmental pollution). “We just want it done in a safe manner and we don’t consider this to be safe.”

The £250m Ferrybridge incinerator is planned by utility group SSE. It will burn biomass and waste. SSE director Rhys Stanwix said it will create about 400 jobs. “This multi-fuel CHP (combined heat and power) plant will be an innovative addition to our generating portfolio and will make an important contribution to ensuring secure energy supplies,” he said.

The Thorpe Marsh gas plant will cost Acorn Power Developments £984m. DECC said up to 800 jobs are expected to be created during its construction. The former Thorpe Marsh coal-fired power station was decommissioned in 1994 and the site sold to Able UK. Acorn Power could not be reached for comment.

DECC recently gave the green light to two biomass-fuelled power stations planned by Drax in the region – a 299mw power station in Selby and another 299mw biomass-fuelled plant for South Killingholme near Immingham.

Yorkshire Post

Banksy occupies St Paul's

Senior Lib Dem and unions condemn proposal to scrap unfair dismissal

A senior Liberal Democrat has described a proposal to scrap unfair dismissal and allow managers the right to sack unproductive staff without explanation as "madness". In a report seen by the Daily Telegraph and commissioned by Downing Street, the venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft suggests British workers should be banned from claiming unfair dismissal so companies can sack them and find more capable replacements, saying this would boost economic growth.

The document has generated a furious response from trade unions. Downing Street declined to comment on the contents of the report other than to say it was not "a final document". But Norman Lamb, the chief parliamentary and political adviser and parliamentary private secretary to the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said taking away protection from unfair dismissal would damage the economy because it would increase workers' fears that they could be arbitrarily sacked.

"I think it would be madness to throw away all employment protection in the way that's proposed, and it could be very damaging to consumer confidence," Lamb said. "What we are talking about here is every single employee in the land being in a position where their employer could arbitrarily terminate their employment – and the impact that could have on consumer confidence, fear of losing your job, would potentially be very damaging. I just think it's also not right to throw away that sort of scheme of protection."

He warned that the "law of unintended consequences" could mean staff who criticise or challenge their employers could be dismissed as a result, pointing out that existing laws already enable employers to get rid of staff where there is clear evidence of underperformance. "The existing law gives employers far more rights than many actually recognise, and it's easing the way to use those existing rights much more easily that I think is the right way forward," he added.

Cancer patients face further financial woes as welfare reforms loom

A leading cancer charity says 70% of cancer patients face financial worries as a direct result of their disease. Macmillan Cancer Support says there are increased costs and lost income to contend with - and that could get worse under government plans to reduce patient support in the Welfare Reform Bill.

In August, YouGov polled 1,495 cancer patients for Macmillan and found:

• 66% had increases costs, including travel to hospital and/or an increase in household expenses
• 43% of all cancer patients are anxious due directly to their financial situation
• 17% of those financially affected cut back on everyday essentials such as food
• 5% skip meals to save money
• 7% are scared of losing their home
• 29% of those financially affected have spent all or some of their savings
• 9% have borrowed money to cover the extra costs of cancer

Macmillan says changes to benefits under the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) will make 7,000 cancer patients up to £94 a week worse off. Other proposals mean cancer patients who need immediate financial help after a diagnosis will have to wait six months instead of three for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) which are replacing Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Macmillan worked out these figures from estimates of the number of cancer patients in the Work-Related Activity Group of ESA, or those who are currently claiming Incapacity Benefit but who will be placed in the Work-Related Activity Group following the reassessment of all Incapacity Benefit claimants.

Macmillan policy analyst Tom Cottam said many people with cancer are very concerned about the changes to benefits: "A significant number, over two fifths, felt really quite anxious [about] their financial situation and how the reforms are going to affect them. People with cancer are already feeling the pinch as a result of increased costs, such as travelling to hospital, paying parking charges when you get there, extra fuel that's required because they spend so much time at home; also having to leave work quite often to undergo treatment."

It isn't just cancer patients who are concerned at the changes to the benefits changes. At the weekend, thousands of disabled people joined anti-cuts rallies across the country. The Disability Benefits Consortium and the UK Disabled People’s Council say disabled people are already twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people and families with a disabled child are estimated to be £50 a week worse-off than those without. 

In an emailed statement, a DWP spokesperson says: "Recovering cancer patients who are assessed as still needing unconditional Government support will be placed in the support group of ESA and will see no change to their benefit entitlement after 12 months. Nor will there be any change for those on income-related ESA.

"The Government is committed to protecting those who need help the most and has asked Professor [Malcolm] Harrington [appointed by the government to carry out an independent review of the work capability assessment] and Macmillan to look at whether we can improve the support we give to cancer patients. We have already made changes to Employment and Support Allowance so that people in-between courses of certain types of chemotherapy, as well as those receiving it, automatically receive unconditional support."

Tom Cottam from Macmillan tells us: "For those people who might be in the last few months of life with a terminal illness, or people who are so severely affect by their condition that they require unconditional support, it's correct that their benefit won't be affected, but there's a significant number of people who might be able to do some work in the future, and might be able to do some small things to help them prepare for work. They are going to lose some of their support after 12 months. If their partner earns as little as £150 a week they won't be eligible for any further benefit after 12 months. It's those people who are making that journey back to work who might need longer than 12 months who are going to be affected by this change."

Macmillan has been campaigning on benefit reforms and how they affect cancer patients since the changes were first announced. "On some areas, we've had quite a constructive dialogue with government," Tom Cottam says, "but on this issue around the time limiting of the ESA they're being quite robust. Their defence is that savings have to be made, and while we understand our national finances are in a precarious position, we think that taking some really crucial support away from vulnerable cancer patients who've paid into the system and are doing all they can to get back to work, is just not the right area to be cutting."

Macmillan is hoping these areas can be addressed when the House of Lords looks at the Welfare Bill and peers, "will stand up for cancer patients and will amend the bill to make changes to ensure sure cancer patients and disabled people more widely are not penalised for not getting back to work quickly enough."

If cancer patients have financial concerns, Tom Cottam says Macmillan's support line (0808 808 0000) can help: "We can give access to benefits advisers who can look at an individual's finances, try and understand what they may be eligible for, and try and work with cancer patients to deal with debt and things like that."

Macmillan/DWP/BBC/WebMD

'Healthcare will be like a budget airline' says Gerada

The NHS shake-up risks wrecking GPs' relationship with their patients by turning them into rationers of care who deny the sick the treatment they need, warns the chair of the Royal College of GPs. Family doctors could be "compromised" by having to decide between providing sick patients with the best possible treatment or meeting financial targets, according to Dr Clare Gerada. Giving GPs control of health budgets, the cornerstone of health secretary Andrew Lansley's restructuring of the NHS in England, could diminish the trust between patients and family doctors, she will tell the college's annual conference.

Steve Bell, the Guardian

"We must not risk long-term benefits being sacrificed in favour of short-term savings," Gerada will tell the audience of 1,500 GPs in Liverpool. "How soon will it be, for example, before we stop referring for cochlear implant? An expensive intervention but one that in the long term saves enormous amounts of public money. But not a saving from our budget. How long will it be before we find ourselves injecting a patient's knee joint - at Injections-R-us PLC - instead of referring to an orthopaedic surgeon for a knee replacement?"

In a detailed critique of Lansley's health and social care bill, she will warn that: "As doctors we risk being compromised. We'll have to choose between the best interests of our patients and those of the commissioning group's purse. And, to make matters worse, we'll also be rewarded for staying in budget - and not spending the money on restoring the child's hearing. Now that's what I call a perverse incentive." 

Her warning reflects widespread concern among doctors that exercising their financial responsibilities will lead some patients to believe they have been refused treatment on grounds of cost. Lansley's reforms also threaten to create a two-tier health service where the well-off can beat queues by paying for fast treatment as private patients in NHS hospitals, because of the proposed easing of the amount which foundation trust hospitals can earn from that source.

"I worry we're heading towards a situation where healthcare will be like a budget airline. There will be two queues: one queue for those who can afford to pay, and another for those who can't. Seats will be limited to those who muscle in first, and the rest will be left stranded on the tarmac."

The British Medical Association, which represents hospital doctors as well as GPs, said it shared Gerada's concerns. "In general, we would agree with Clare Gerada's comments about the impact of the health and social care bill. The BMA has concerns about the conflicts of interest inherent in the bill as well as the effects of the market on healthcare, and her comments fit with the views of most doctors," said a spokeswoman for the BMA, which wants the bill withdrawn or substantially amended.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "The NHS is not for sale and this government is committed to a real terms increase in funding for it. We want to give GPs the power and control to make the right decisions on behalf of their patients. Talk of budget airlines is nonsense pure and simple. In the new NHS, everyone will fly first class. Quality will improve as both patients and frontline staff are able to make choices.

"We have already amended the health and social care bill to make sure that clinical commissioning groups are accountable and transparent to patients and the public, and so that each one will have a governing body that meets in public. As both the chief executive and medical director of the NHS at national level have made clear, there should be no blanket bans on treatment for reasons of cost."

Denis Campbell, the Guardian

Neil Kinnock: the speech of a lifetime

As a young shadow cabinet member in 1983, Neil Kinnock outlined his vision of what an electoral landslide victory for Margaret Thatcher would mean for the country. It is now rightly recognised as one of the greatest speeches since World War II. It is now as relevant as it was then. It is now that we must act.

•••

"If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as Prime Minister, I warn you.

I warn you that you will have pain - when healing and relief depend on payment.

I warn you that you will have ignorance - when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.

I warn you that you will have poverty - when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a Government that won't pay, in an economy that can't pay.

I warn you that you will be cold - when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.

I warn you that you must not expect work - when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies.

I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.

I warn you that you will be quiet - when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

I warn you that you will have defence of a sort - with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.

I warn you that you will be home-bound - when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.

I warn you that you will borrow less - when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

If Margaret Thatcher wins, she will be more a Leader than a Prime Minister. That power produces arrogance and when it is toughened by Tebbitry and flattered and fawned upon by spineless sycophants, the boot-licking tabloid Knights of Fleet Street and placement in the Quangos, the arrogance corrupts absolutely.

If Margaret Thatcher wins -

I warn you not to be ordinary.
I warn you not to be young.
I warn you not to fall ill.
I warn you not to get old."

Gay marriage? “We may as well legalise marriage with animals,” says Tory

A senior Tory councillor was facing suspension today for saying the party "may as well legalise marriage with animals" after David Cameron backed gay weddings. Party chiefs were set to discipline James Malliff after he posted the comment on Twitter. Labour condemned the "sick" remark and demanded Mr Cameron sack him immediately.
 
Mr Malliff, who is cabinet member for the big society and localism on Tory-controlled Wycombe district council, has deleted the tweet but not before screen grabs were taken and shown to the Evening Standard. In a post directed at former Conservative MP Paul Goodman, who had asked whether legalising gay marriage could lead to multiple sharia marriages being made lawful, Mr Malliff wrote: "There is no doubt the PM is wrong on this issue. We may as well legalise marriage with animals, crude I concede but no apology."

Labour MP Clive Betts said: "This sick comment shows once again that the Tories are out of touch and out of date. It's clear that the Tories haven't changed. If James Malliff doesn't resign immediately as a cabinet member and a councillor, David Cameron must sack him." A Conservative party spokesman said action was being taken against Mr Malliff, adding: "This language is completely unacceptable."

Another tweet on his feed reads: "Great keynote address by David Cameron, not sure about legalising gay marriage though, what happened to sanctity of marriage #odd". Cllr Malliff apologised and said he had not intended to cause offence. "I respect the rights of people to hold different views to my own. It was not an anti-gay statement, more a comment about where we draw the line." He said he had apologised locally and felt that had "put it to bed".

Evening Standard

UPDATE 13/10/11 at 10.20am:
Mr Malliff has now been suspended. Gay rights group Stonewall said:  “We warmly welcome the decision of the Conservative Party to suspend Councillor Malliff. It’s extraordinary in 2011 that he is prepared to insult so many of his council taxpayers in this way.”

Threat of boycott as Atos Healthcare named Paralympics sponsor

A company accused of smearing thousands of ­disabled Britons by declaring them fit for work is sponsoring next year’s London Paralympics. On behalf of the government, French firm Atos ­Healthcare assessed 1.3million people on incapacity benefit and came to the conclusion that 150,000 of them were capable of working. However, on appeal, the decisions have been overturned one by one and a Commons select committee said Atos Healthcare's “unacceptable” ­blunders had cost the taxpayer £30million a year.

Disabled campaigners are now threatening a boycott of the Paralympic Games insisting that the company is running a flawed process to assess disabled people's rights to benefits and is therefore an inappropriate sponsor of the games. This is denied by Atos Healthcare who said it was not just proud of the work carried out by their staff to "conduct objective assessments" but also "proud of its role as the Worldwide IT Partner for the Paralympic Games".

The last straw for campaigners was the appointment last month of former Atos chief executive - Bernard Bourigeaud - to the board of the International Paralympic Committee. The IPC said M Bourigeaud "left Atos in September 2007 and is a long-time supporter of the Paralympic movement offering some expert advice and guidance. His knowledge and experience will be of great benefit to us going forward."

Campaigner John McArdle called Atos Healthcare’s involvement an “insult”. He added: “Because of them, many disabled people will have to wait months to get their benefits back. Their ­sponsorship is unacceptable.”

MPs often 'too drunk to stand' in Commons

Dr Sarah Wollaston, the MP for Totnes, alleged that a “shocking” number of MPs have “no idea” what they are voting for in the Commons as they just follow the orders of their leaders. Dr Wollaston, 49, who won her seat at last year’s election, said the party should recruit candidates from a wider range of backgrounds to raise standards in Parliament.

“Who would go to see a surgeon who had just drunk a bottle of wine at lunchtime?” she said at a fringe meeting hosted by the Policy Exchange think tank. “But we fully accept that MPs are perfectly capable of performing as MPs despite some of them drinking really quite heavily.”

Dr Wollaston called for such behaviour to be “challenged”. She said: “It’s really shocking that so many MPs have no idea what they are voting for when they walk through the doors of the lobbies. I think we need to change the culture in Westminster.”

Daily Telegraph

Did you know that the Conservatives are now ‘the party of the poor’?

The Conservatives are now "the party of the poor," Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has said. He told a meeting at the Tories' annual conference that his party, rather than Labour, had the best policies to tackle inequality. The previous government had spent "vast sums" but made the gap between rich and poor worse, he said.

Even his wife laughed

However, Mr Duncan Smith conceded the coalition's changes would take a "little while" to bear results. Addressing a meeting arranged by the Centre for Social Justice think-tank, which he himself established, the minister said: "We are the party focused on the poor, so it follows that you might legitimately say that we are the party of the poor."

Even though Labour had tried to lift people out of poverty, "some of the people in the people in the deepest poverty went backwards" under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, he added. "Labour spent vast sums of money and left income inequality in the worst state since I have been born," said Mr Duncan Smith, who was Conservative leader from 2001 to 2003.

The coalition was "dealing with causes of social breakdown", whereas predecessors had pursued a "containment policy". This meant they had spent "a lot of money to keep people inactive and depressed about their lives".

Putting this right would be "like turning a super tanker around" and it was going to be a "little while" before the results of his policies became obvious. But he said the welfare-to-work programme and a plan for a Universal Benefit payments, due to start coming into effect in 2013, would succeed in getting more people into employment. "Things the last government talked about we have managed to do," he claimed.

Mr Duncan Smith also spoke of the difficulties of working within a coalition government, arguing: "We won't compromise on much by the end of it. The reality is it is all about timing." He took a swipe at "sneery" newspaper columnists who criticised the government's plan to favour marriage in the tax system and who claimed that people would not walk up the aisle for a few extra pounds a month.

"People who have money make stupid arguments like that," he said, adding that the focus of his department's efforts was on "couple formation" rather than marriage. If they were to stay together for an extended period of time that would be a great leap forward," he said of couples on the breadline.

BBC News

Tories face union anger over unfair dismissal

Workers with less than two years' service will be prevented from taking their employers to a tribunal for unfair dismissal under government plans to boost the economy. The proposals, to be unveiled by Chancellor George Osborne at the Conservative Party conference, will see the qualification period increased from one year to two from next April.

It is likely to open a new faultline between the coalition and trade unions. But Mr Osborne told the Sun: "We talk a lot about trade union rights - but what about the right of the unemployed person to be given a shot at a job and a career? What about the rights of people currently sitting at home with nothing to do, desperate to get work, but the business can't afford to employ them because they fear they are going to be taken to the tribunal?"

A total of 236,000 employment tribunal claims were made last year, with an average award of £8,900 for successful claimants, and the average cost of defending a claim at £4,000, according to Treasury officials. It is claimed the change in law will benefit business by around £6 million a year in reduced legal fees and payouts, while employees are expected to lose around £1 million in unfair dismissal awards. Under the proposals, employees will still retain "day one" rights, such as the right not to be discriminated against.

Writing in the Daily Mail, Prime Minister David Cameron said: "Deficit reduction is an essential step for economic growth - but it must be accompanied by a plan for jobs too." Claiming that it is businesses, not governments, which create jobs, he added: "And the role for government is not to single out good and bad industries, it's to make it easy as possible for all industries, all business, to grow, invest, take people on. And whether it's cutting corporation tax, investing in superfast broadband or getting to grips with employment regulations, that's exactly what we're doing."

Meanwhile, the possibility of tax cuts before the next general election depends on "how things develop" between now and 2015, Mr Osborne said. Ahead of this weekend's conference, the Chancellor offered a highly cautious verdict on the prospect of tax bills coming down. He indicated that his primary focus was for now on promoting private sector growth and that he would only want to introduce tax cuts that would be permanent - "not just for Christmas".

It has been thought that, having reduced the deficit by the end of the Parliament, Mr Osborne would want to offer some kind of pre-election sweeteners. But, in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he was non-committal about the likelihood of tax cuts amid continued economic turmoil around the world. "We'll see how things develop in the rest of this parliament," he said. "I'm a conservative who believes in lower taxes. They lead to a more enterprising economy. But I'm not somebody who believes you can fund lower taxes by borrowing more money because that is a deceit and the public are smart enough to see straight through it."

Insisting his first priority was on dealing with the deficit, he said he did not want to offer tax cuts that had to be reversed very quickly. "I don't want to be a Chancellor who cuts taxes one year and has to put them up the next," he said. "A country with an almost double-digit deficit cannot add to its deficit in the middle of a sovereign debt storm to cut tax, presumably on a temporary basis, because you would have to then put it back up again to deal with the deficit. Tax cuts should be for life not just for Christmas." [wanker - Ed]

He also indicated that scrapping the 50p top rate of tax, which would intensify Liberal Democrat calls for the introduction of a "mansion tax" was not an immediate priority. "This is not an issue for this autumn," Mr Osborne said. "We have plenty of economic issues to discuss - we've got the situation in the eurozone, the situation in the world economy. We are doing everything we can to get the British economy moving. That is where my energy is spent."

Independent/Press Association

This US-style gerrymandering is a terrible mistake

By John Lloyd for the Financial Times

The word “gerrymander” derives from an electoral redistricting scheme devised by Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts in 1812 for his own party’s advantage. He came up with one area which was so convoluted it looked like a salamander. Even now in the US, corruption in drawing political boundaries is, in most states, simply part of the game. So there are such charming but disgraceful confections as the 34th state senate district of New York (“the dangling lobster tail”) and the 17th congressional district of Illinois (“the rabbit on a skateboard”).

Britain got rid of rotten boroughs such as Dunwich, which had fallen into the North Sea, in 1832. After that the process of altering constituency boundaries to keep up with population changes, though inevitably contentious, became largely fair and sensible. At least until now.

The other day I saw a map of the constituency in which I am supposed to vote at the next election. It is called Ludlow and Leominster. It looks to me like a moose’s head. It will stretch from Ewyas Harold, in south-west Herefordshire, to Rowley in Shropshire, a journey – according to Google Earth - of 65.5 miles, taking an hour and 47 minutes. But I drive these country lanes more often than Google Earth and I reckon that’s optimistic. The new MP will presumably be based in Ludlow, which is an hour’s drive from my house when roads are quiet. By public transport – allow for an overnight stay. These places have totally different councils and totally different issues.

This is one extreme consequence of the latest changes but there are other examples across the country: county boundaries have been routinely forgotten so that Cornwall, a discrete political entity for 1100 years, will share an MP with Devon. Middlesbrough, which has had its own MPs throughout modern history, will now be split between three different constituencies, and Stockton-on-Tees, which is not a large place, between four.

This is not the fault of the Boundary Commissioners who have made these proposals. They are operating under absurd criteria cooked up by David Cameron in opposition. He thought it would be popular to demand fewer MPs (600 not 650), claiming it would save money. He also sought political advantage by insisting constituencies should have equal electorates. Under the rules he has pushed through, only a five per cent tolerance will be allowed on the quota for each seat (now 76,641 electors per MP) with very minor exceptions for highlands and islands. This is much too deterministic to allow sane boundaries.

Richard Desmond’s Health Lottery: ‘profiteering on the back of the British public’s goodwill’

Charity leaders have criticised a new lottery, being launched next week by Richard Desmond, for giving less to good causes than the National Lottery. The ‘Health Lottery’ will compete directly with the National Lottery. Mr Desmond plans to promote it across his (self-regulatory system exempt) publications including the right-leaning Daily Express, the EDL-supporting Daily Star and gossip photo-magazine OK! [class act! – Ed]. The draw will be shown at prime-time on ITV1 and Desmond’s own Channel 5 on Saturday nights; the maximum prize will be £100,000.

                          Richard Desmond: re-defining ‘look after yourself’

The Health Lottery will give 20.34p of each £1 ticket to good causes, just 0.34p above the legal minimum it is required to give as a “society lottery” and it will not be required to pay lottery duty. The National Lottery, which is not a society lottery, gives 28p per £1, plus another 12p in lottery duty. Camelot, which runs the National Lottery under licence, is permitted a maximum profit of 0.5p per £1 gambled. The Health Lottery, in which Mr Desmond is the sole investor, declined to say what level of profit it expected.

If the Health Lottery meets its target of selling at least £250 million of tickets in the first year, it will give £20 million less to good causes than if the same sum had been spent on National Lottery tickets. Under the Gambling Act 2005, a society lottery can sell a maximum of £10 million of tickets a year. The Health Lottery has registered 51 society lotteries, giving it potential sales of £510 million.

While lotteries cannot be run for commercial gain, the Health Lottery can profit by acting as an “external lottery manager” for the society lotteries. Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, described the Health Lottery as “a pretty disgraceful development”, adding: “The Government needs to look at lottery regulations to ensure it’s made transparent to people who play that this new lottery is giving a lot less per £1 to good causes.”

Nick Wilkie, the chief executive of London Youth, a network of 400 youth organisations, said: “It seems to me that if one runs a lottery and gives away less to good causes than the National Lottery, then one is profiteering on the back of the British public’s goodwill.” Martin Hall, the chief executive of the Health Lottery, said that he hoped to expand it into “a billion-pound business”.

Mr Desmond has signed up more than 40,000 retailers to sell tickets for his Health Lottery; that’s 12,000 more than the number of shops selling tickets for the National Lottery. The maximum prize is £100,000, which is guaranteed for all five correct numbers. Three correct numbers wins £50 and four £500. In its instructions to retailers, the Health Lottery says:

“When telling customers about the Health Lottery, remember the main features ... proceeds go to support local health-related good causes.”

Have a good day.

Labour's vision

as seen by the Financial Times:

"If the job of any opposition minister is to criticise the government, to present alternatives to its policy and to persuade voters to support your ideas, then Ed Balls has a somewhat mixed record as shadow chancellor.

On the first count, he has certainly been a success. Since taking over in January, he has been unsparing and vocal in his criticism of the coalition’s austerity policy, warning tirelessly that it was cutting the deficit too hard and too fast. At a time when the economy overshadows every other part of British politics, he has raised Labour’s profile.

But on the second and third, Mr Balls has made less headway. In spite of an anaemic recovery – one that would appear to have borne out his warnings – he has failed to come up with a persuasive alternative. In part, that is because any message would struggle to get through. Public trust in the opposition’s economic competence is low. 

Trust must be rebuilt for Labour to be listened to. Mr Balls understands this. Hence his promise to subject Labour’s future economic plans to tough fiscal rules overseen by the Office of Budget Responsibility. But he will continue to struggle so long as the opposition is perceived not to offer a real alternative to the coalition’s plans. 

Mr Balls’ speech to the Labour conference illustrated the problem. While promising a “steadier and more balanced” plan to reduce the deficit, Mr Balls admitted that Labour would not reverse the cuts and tax rises the coalition had pushed through. Voters could perhaps be forgiven for not understanding just what Labour would do differently.

A recent YouGov poll underscores the problem. While a majority believes that the coalition is managing the economy poorly, the Tories still have a lead over Labour as the party most trusted to fix the UK’s economic problems. 

Mr Balls came up with several ideas of how to pep up growth. Some of these smacked of populism, such as the proposal to apply another bonus tax to the banks and use the proceeds in some unspecified way to guarantee work for 100,000 young people.

But the most eye-catching ideas involved bringing forward investment projects and temporarily cutting National Insurance for new hires to encourage companies to invest and take on workers. These are not bad ideas. They may also be ideas that the coalition is itself considering. If the government does ultimately adopt them, at least Mr Balls will have positioned himself to score a few points."

Financial Times

Experts want to prune Labour's rose

As Labour MPs and activists gather in Liverpool for their annual conference, they face a thorny issue: experts hate the party's logo. When the red rose was adopted 25 years ago, officials hoped it would seduce middle England, showing how Labour could blossom in government. But now it seems the rose has wilted and withered on the vine, with brand specialists declaring it the worst of the main parties' logos.

Simon Bassett, managing director of marketing and communications recruiter EMR, said: "The current version of the red rose was rejected wholeheartedly by the marketing community." The hundreds of marketing professionals asked to rate the political parties' logos admitted the rose was "identifiably British", but suggested creating "a more modern and distinctive image" by rejuvenating the flower, adding colour and making it "less bland".

Mr Bassett said: "Clearly the political future of the country's three largest parties will be set by the public's reaction to their policies, their leaders, and their ability to communicate their brand promise. But logos are important, too. They're the focal point of identity for each party."

Meanwhile, the Conservatives, who ditched their flaming torch logo after 30 years when David Cameron became leader in 2005, replacing it with a scribbled oak tree, were advised to take drawing classes. Mr Bassett said: "It might have been created in an effort to represent the party's 'strength, endurance, renewal and growth', but the marketing professionals we spoke to felt the scribbled way the tree was drawn had to change."

There was better news for the Tories' coalition partners. Experts said the Lib Dems' Bird of Liberty represented the party's fundamental principle - freedom.

Press Association

SLEAZE – and the government that’s up to its neck in it

Lib Dem donor on the run forced to surrender false passport

Michael Brown, the conman who gave the Lib Dems £2.4m, has passport seized after business dispute in Dominican Republic. Guardian http://bit.ly/nAFD6a

Tory party donations by insurance firms in marked increase since 2005

According to an investigation by the Guardian, financial firms with insurance interests have given the Tories £5.4m in the last decade, £4.9m of that since David Cameron became leader in December 2005. Guardian  http://bit.ly/nJ90AE

 

Conservative MP piloting legal aid cuts may profit from the changes

 
The Conservative justice minister piloting controversial plans to cut legal aid and curb payouts that could benefit the insurance industry to the tune of a billion pounds a year will personally profit from the changes, a Guardian investigation can reveal. Guardian http://bit.ly/o95NoE

Government intent on wiping out 10 million (Labour) voters from electoral register

As many as ten million voters, predominantly poor, young or black, and more liable to vote Labour, could fall off the electoral register under government plans, the Electoral Commission, electoral administrators and psephologists warned. The changes will pave the way for a further review of constituency boundaries that will reduce the number of safe Labour seats before the 2020 election.

MPs on the political and constitutional reform select committee only realised the implications of the plans following three evidence sessions with election experts over the past week to examine the white paper which proposes to introduce individual electoral registration rather than household registration before the 2015 election.

The committee chairman, Labour MP Graham Allen, said they were "genuinely shocked". Even Tory members such as Eleanor Laing expressed surprise. The policy has been described by Jenny Russell, the chair of the electoral commission, as the biggest change to voting since the introduction of the universal franchise.

Ministers have unexpectedly proposed that it should no longer be compulsory to co-operate with electoral registration officers (EROs) when they try to compile an accurate register, in effect downgrading the civic duty to engage with politics. Russell warned: "It is logical to suggest that those that do not vote in elections will not see the point of registering to vote and it is possible that the register may therefore go from a 90%completeness that we currently have to 60-65%."

Monkey Dust - Government School Targets

Proposed boundary changes for Brighton and Hove

The following is an extract from the Boundary Commission's proposals for Brighton and Hove.

33. There are currently 25 constituencies in 
this sub-region. Of the existing constituencies, 
10 have electorates within 5% of the electoral 
quota (Bexhill and Battle; Brighton, Pavilion; 
Canterbury; Dartford; Eastbourne; Hastings 
and Rye; Rochester and Strood; Sittingbourne 
and Sheppey; Tunbridge Wells; and Wealden). 
Of the remaining constituencies, 13 have 
electorates that are below the 5% limit, and 
two are above it. We propose to reduce the 
number of constituencies to 24.

34. We considered whether we could 
leave unchanged any of the 10 existing 
constituencies that have an electorate 
within 5% of the electoral quota. However, 
in developing proposals in which all the 
proposed electorates are within the 5% 
limit, and taking account of the reduction 
in the number of constituencies in this subregion, 
we propose changing all but three 
constituencies (Eastbourne, Hastings and Rye, 
and Sittingbourne and Sheppey). We propose 
only minor changes to the constituencies 
of Ashford, Dartford, Dover, Folkestone and 
Hythe, Gillingham and Rainham, Gravesham, 
and Rochester, with two wards or fewer 
altered from the existing constituencies.

35. The existing constituencies of Hove and 
Brighton, Kemptown have electorates which 
are below the 5% limit. We therefore propose 
a reconfiguration within the City of Brighton 
and Hove.

36. We propose a constituency that 
includes three wards from the existing Hove 
constituency, four wards from the existing 
Brighton, Pavilion constituency and the 
Queen’s Park ward from the existing Brighton, 
Kemptown constituency. We consider that 
this constituency brings together the central 
elements of the city. For reasons of clarity, we 
have taken a policy decision not to include 
commas in the names of constituencies. We 
therefore propose to name this constituency 
Brighton Pavilion and Hove.

37. We propose a Brighton and Hove North 
constituency which includes six wards from 
the existing Hove constituency and three 
wards from the existing Brighton, Pavilion 
constituency, including the Patcham area.

38. Due to the small electorates of the 
neighbouring Lewes and Brighton, Kemptown 
constituencies, we propose a Lewes and 
Brighton East constituency that contains 
eight wards from the existing Brighton, 
Kemptown constituency, four of which are 
City of Brighton and Hove wards, and four of 
which are District of Lewes wards. In addition, 
our proposed constituency includes a further 
eight wards of the District of Lewes, from the 
existing Lewes constituency. It broadly follows 
the path of the River Ouse along the eastern 
boundary and both parts of the constituency 
are accessed by the A27 road.


Et voilà.

Homosexuality more dangerous than terrorism, says Republican

On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Republican member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives Sally Kern renewed her claim that homosexuality has killed more people in the United States than terrorism.

In 2008, Mrs Kern was secretly recorded giving a speech where she said that homosexuality is “deadly and it’s spreading, and it will destroy our young people. It will destroy this nation. Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades.” She became a nationally lampooned figure after lesbian chat-show host Ellen DeGeneres left her a voice mail and broadcast it on her television programme. Now promoting a book, The Stoning of Sally Kern, the politician says that as a result of HIV/ AIDS, homosexuality has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

In an interview given to Peter LaBarbera of anti-gay campaign group Americans for Truth, Mrs Kern said: “You know if you just look at it in practical terms, which has destroyed and ended the life of more people? Terrorism attack here in America or HIV/AIDS? In the last twenty years, fifteen to twenty years, we’ve had maybe three terrorist attacks on our soil with a little over 5,000 people regrettably losing their lives. In the same time frame, there have been hundreds of thousands who have died because of having AIDS. So which one’s the biggest threat?

“And you know, every day our young people, adults too, but especially our young people, are bombarded at school, in movies, in music, on TV, in the mall, in magazines, they’re bombarded with ‘homosexuality is normal and natural.’ It’s something they have to deal with every day. Fortunately we don’t have to deal with a terrorist attack every day, and that’s what I mean.

“It’s [homosexuality] more dangerous [than terrorism], and yes I think that it’s also more dangerous because it will tear down the moral fibre of this nation. We were founded as a nation upon the principles of religion and morality, if we take those out from under our society we will lose what has made us a great nation, we will no longer be a virtuous people, which we see happening already. And without virtue this nation will not survive.”

Pink News