King Rat deserts the sinking Tory ship

The Sunday Times reports that Lord Ashcroft has had enough of flittering away his money on his beloved Tory party and will withhold funding for its next general election campaign.

"Lord Ashcroft, whose finances played a crucial role in Tory efforts to win marginal seats in 2010, has told friends he has given enough money and is unwilling to devote further resources to securing an overall majority in 2015. It comes amid mounting pessimism among Tory supporters about the prospects of victory. Although Ashcroft has not publicly expressed doubts over the party’s ability to win, privately he is said to fear Labour is likely to secure more seats. A source close to Ashcroft said: “He feels he has done his bit.” "

Perhaps he doesn't like the anti-tax avoidance/evasion rhetoric coming from Downing Street. 'Lay off that, boys, and I'll see what spare change I have come the election.' Watch said rhetoric disappear fairly sharpish. Oh, and look ye hear - there's a budget coming up. Convenient. Never mind using your considerable wealth and influence to reverse the inequalities in this country, you just go ahead and sponsor the Tories to widen the gap between rich and poor even further.

Bankrolling the Tories - now there's an honourable pastime. 

Guess what happens when you go round disguising dogmatic ideological vandalism as fiscal probity

George Osborne has suffered his biggest blow yet as chancellor after the UK lost its triple-A rating, which he had repeatedly promised to protect. Moody’s, the rating agency, downgraded the UK one notch to Aa1 late on Friday night in the most serious critique yet of the government’s entire economic plan.

George Winifred Osborne: hoist by his own petard

Moody’s’ decision is highly politically damaging for the chancellor, who has pinned his credibility on retaining the trust of the bond markets. Last July, he hailed the UK’s credit rating, calling it “a reminder that despite the economic problems we face, the world has confidence that we are dealing with them”. The Conservative manifesto in 2010 promised: “We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament.”

With the current structural deficit likely to remain until 2018 at the earliest, both of these promises have now been broken.

Financial Times (edit)

Back-to-work scheme breached laws, says Court of Appeal

University graduate Cait Reilly has won her Court of Appeal claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful. Three judges in London,  Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Black and Sir Stanley Burnton, ruled that the regulations under which most of the Government's back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful and quashed them. 

Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, and 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed. Their solicitors said later the ruling means "all those people who have been sanctioned by having their jobseekers' allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the back-to-work schemes affected will be entitled to reclaim their benefits".

In November 2011, Reilly had to leave her voluntary work at a local museum and work unpaid at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, under a scheme known as the "sector-based work academy". She was told that if she did not carry out the work placement she would lose her jobseeker's allowance. For two weeks she stacked shelves and cleaned floors. 

Wilson, a qualified mechanic, was told that he had to work unpaid, cleaning furniture for 30 hours a week for six months, under a scheme known as the Community Action Programme. He objected to doing unpaid work that was unrelated to his qualifications and would not help him re-enter the jobs market. He refused to participate and as a result was stripped of his jobseeker's allowance for six months.

After the ruling Public Interest Lawyers, who represent Reilly and Wilson, said the Court of Appeal's unanimous decision was a "huge setback for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), whose flagship reforms have been beset with problems since their inception". They said that "until new regulations are enacted with proper parliamentary approval, nobody can be compelled to participate on the schemes". 

Solicitor Tessa Gregory, said: "Today's judgment sends Iain Duncan Smith back to the drawing board to make fresh regulations which are fair and comply with the court's ruling. "Until that time nobody can be lawfully forced to participate in schemes affected such as the Work Programme and the Community Action Programme. All of those who have been stripped of their benefits have a right to claim the money back that has been unlawfully taken away from them."

Press Association

The House Interview with David Cameron (full transcript)

THE HOUSE: Cuts to child benefit are kicking in, and stay at home mums complain that they won't get much out of plans to help out with childcare payments. So they naturally start asking about marriage couple tax allowances ...

PRIME MINISTER: Well, you need to stand back from all the issues and sort of work out what is the, you know, coalition government trying to do here? First of all we have to deal with the deficit. We have to get the deficit down. We've made good progress. We're on the right track. But you can't ask.. you can't deal with the deficit, only by dealing with, you know, welfare issues at the bottom or high taxes at the top. You have to ask everyone to make a contribution. And that is why I think it is right to say to better off couples that, you know, if you’ve got someone earning over £60000 you don’t get your child benefit. I think it's a perfectly, you know, I thought it was proved again in the House of Commons yesterday, it’s a perfectly fair and reasonable argument. So that is why we're taking that step. I don’t want to take child benefit away from anybody but if you're trying to have a set of policies which is fair you need to do that. That obviously affects all people earning over £50000, particularly people earning over £60000, they won't have any child benefit. I accept that is a sacrifice. But we have to try and do this in a way which is fair. I think it is fair.

There's a separate question, what can we do for people who work hard, who want to do the right thing, who want to provide for their families and one of the biggest costs for people who work hard and do the right thing is the cost of childcare. Now obviously we help people with childcare through the working tax credits and we help people through the subsidised places for those two, three and four olds, but, you know, it would be good, wouldn’t it, for people who work hard, who need childcare, who see there's a very big cost, to give them some assistance, and not just those on tax credits, and that’s exactly what we're trying to do and that’s what we'll be announcing in the weeks to come, but to me the two issues are separate.

THE HOUSE: What about people who don’t qualify for childcare? What about the marriage tax breaks?

PM: We're also committed... [I] reaffirm that we are committed to recognising marriage in the tax system and we'll complete that during this parliament, but, you know, to me though it's quite a pressing issue, well there all pressing issues, but I think helping people with the cost of childcare…

THE HOUSE: Someone at No 10 suggested it would be sooner rather than later.... It won't be last minute?

PM: You'll have to wait and see. This is not an interview to give you policy exclusives…

THE HOUSE:  Boris has said child benefit helped pay for a handful of half decent skiing holidays – was that fair?

PM: Look. I'm not saying that taking away child benefit from people is easy. There are many people...I don’t think people who earn £50000, £60000 are rich. You live in an expensive part of the country, you’ve got big costs to contend with, and you're paying for the mortgage, you're paying for the season ticket to get to work, you're meeting all the costs of bringing up children, you know, life is very expensive. I don’t say people on £50000, £60000 are rich but they are clearly better off than people on £20000 or £30000. So as I say I don’t relish taking money from anyone and you know child benefit is a popular and successful benefit. It goes to the mum, you know, it’s a good slug of money, £20 for the first child, so I don’t relish taking it away from anyone and people I'm sure put it to good use, but you know to govern is to choose we have to make difficult choices about the deficit and I think this was the right choice.

THE HOUSE: What about cuts to elderly benefits. How much of an issue will that be in the Tory manifesto?

PM: We haven’t got round to writing the Conservative manifesto, it will be written in due course. I can promise you two things. It will be manifesto and it will be Conservative. You know, I’ve made a promise I’m keeping my promise and that’s all there is to it and I think that is important. I think you need to stand back from all these things and ask the bigger question. As the Parliamentary sort of season starts all over again what I think is so clear is the coalition parties and I would argue particularly my party have got a very clear view about what needs to happen this year. We’re going to go on rebalancing the economy – we’ve got a proper agenda to do that. We’ve got to go on dealing with the deficit – we’ve got a proper agenda to do that. Far from sort of running out of steam you can see from the Coalition on childcare, on road building, on paying for long term care, you know, proper crunchy policies that make a real difference to people in this country, a packed agenda, and what do you see, it struck me yesterday, what do you see on the other side of politics? What is there on offer? Absolutely  nothing, not a word to do with what to do with the deficit, how to grow the economy, how to increase the scale of the private sector, how to encourage business, what to do about education or healthcare, you know, it is extraordinary half way through a parliament, when I think of where we got to half way through the last parliament, now you might not have agreed with all our policies but we had huge policy commissions which reported, we were setting the agenda on a whole series of issues, whether it was education reform, or health reform, or welfare. Nothing. So I feel very fired up with a full agenda and a very clear mission of what the government is all about. Winning for Britain in the global race is… I think that if politics is about having a clear agenda, a clear passion, things that need  to be done, and difficult decisions that need to be taken, then we’ve got a very, very strong start to the year.

THE HOUSE: Do you have enough time to do that long-term, big, forward planning?

PM: Life is a mixture. It’s a permanent battle in this job to focus. You have to deal with short term issues you know, at any one time. You’ve got everything from what happens at the Downing Street gates to what’s happening on the other side of the world to what appeared on the news headlines. There’s always things that come up and the challenge of this job is to deal with the day to day but at the same time spend enough time on the long term strategic issues that the country faces. I think there have some sort of machinery successes. I think the National Security Council is a very good way of focusing government, politicians on long term challenges for Britain and I think it’s been effective in prioritising, you know, trade in foreign policy, a good shift for Britain. It’s good for the long term. I think on the economy we have very clear long term plan for dealing with the deficit and growing the private sector but it’s a permanent battle in Government, there’s no doubt about it, and I think we are far and away better than the last government which was absolutely short term...long term for it was about a week - but there’s always more than you can do.

THE HOUSE: What do you make of the break down of relations in the Lords?

PM: Look, I think the coalition parties have obviously got to support coalition policy and that should be the same in the Commons as in the Lords. Look, I didn’t recognise a lot of the stuff that’s been written frankly. You know, [ex Lords Leader] Tom Strathclyde did a fantastic job for 25 years on the front bench. I mean, I know when someone resigns and you’re not told in advance you think it’s somehow unfair so you have to invent some reason as to why they resigned.

THE HOUSE: That’s what Craig Oliver said…

PM: It was! I gather the Lobby were very upset they weren’t told first, like they've got a constitutional right to know. I mean, please! It may be unorthodox: cabinet minister rings Prime Minister and says I’ve served for 25 years consecutively, I’d quite like to resign and pursue another career. Prime Minister says yes, let’s announce it at the first available opportunity, oh what’s that, Monday? Let’s do it at the cabinet. How nice. You know...it’s not like he[OLIVER] sneaked on you? He did a great job. Look of course it’s difficult when you lose votes in the lords. But frankly, I mean was an adviser to a Conservative Government and we used to lose votes in the Lords. That’s what happens in the Lords. It’s a difficult environment.

THE HOUSE: So you will be rebalancing it?

PM: Yes, I will be appointing…. I will be making some further recommendations. I think it’s important to keep refreshing the talent in the House of Lords and obviously it’s important that we do so in line with what we said in the Coalition Agreement.

THE HOUSE: This year?

PM: Yes, yes, yes.

THE HOUSE: In the summer?

PM: Sooner. As I say, there’s a Coalition Agreement pledge about the House of Lords. I’m very conscious that this should be done in a reasonable and proper way… that you should have good candidates that will bring something to the House of Lords. I would say that if you look at the people that.. the nominations for Conservative peerages over the last two and half years I think we’ve got some very talented people who are now.

THE HOUSE: Like Helen Newlove?

PM: Yes, I’m delighted she’s going to be the Victims Commissioner. I think you’ve got Helen Newlove, you’ve got Tina Stowell...you’ve got a lot people who are now in the whips office or become junior ministers, you know, so you’ve got to always ask what will they bring to the House of Lords, what will they contribute, but I think we can be proud of the people we’ve got there.

THE HOUSE: And you think that that outside experience is a reason why the Lords is a great asset?

PM: I think it’s a great asset. Clearly at some stage there does need to be reform in terms of the size and you know, we need, to, at some stage... Obviously our proposals for reform did not find favour, we had to step back from that, but at some stage we have to work out, I don’t know, issues around.. to sort of normalise its size… but that’s not an agenda item right now.

THE HOUSE: You just gave your polling presentation to your MPs…

PM: Polling presentation!? It wasn’t, it was a proper discussion with MPs about, you know, what our plans are for this year, the Mid Term Review, what our campaign plans are for the next election, what our targeting strategy is, and yes, of course, very good to share a bit of polling information with them, but it was a proper discussion a political party ought to have.

THE HOUSE: It showed that Eds Balls and Miliband are still not popular. Are they your best chance of winning in 2015?

PM: No, our best chance of winning an overall majority is demonstrating the Conservatives in government have consistently delivered for people who work hard and want to get on and do the right thing. And you know we’ll be saying at the next election: It’s been tough, its s a very difficult time for our country, but you know we’ve got the deficit down, we’ve created private sector jobs, we helped you by freezing the council tax, cutting petrol duty, taking 2m people out of tax, we started to sort out the mess of Labour's education system, it’s now sharper, better, better prospects for schools, we’ve sorted out the mess of welfare, we're very sleeves rolled up, we were the people that have got Britain on the right track, don’t turn back, trust us to keep delivering, to keep providing, that’s what the message will be. I’m a great believer in the end parties make their own fortunes. You can’t sit back and rely on your opponents to make your arguments for you. Look I think it’s a real weakness Labour have that they simply refuse to accept that their over spending and over borrowing was part of the problem and until they do that I don’t think anyone will listen to them, but I’m not sitting back thinking they will never realise that. I want a positive case for a Conservative majority government and I think we’re on the way to building it.

THE HOUSE: But it helps, that people can’t see Ed Miliband as a future PM?

PM: I think the point is that... the test that Labour failed is everybody knows that the country faces difficult choices at a difficult time and people see that Labour just aren’t facing up to those choices  and in the end that I think is what it’s all about. You know, the public, I always say this but it’s totally true, I sense it as I go round the country and bump into people and have all sorts of snatched conversations in all sorts of places, the British public are intensely reasonable, they know that it’s a difficult situation, they know tough choices have to be made, they’re not going to support everything you do, there will be some things you do that they don’t like, but there’s a general sense that if you are getting on with it, if you’re making the decisions, if you’re trying to get the country on the right track, you know, we’ll let you do that and we’ll judge you at the end of five years, but if they a see a party that is not making those choices , that is not making  those decisions, that won’t take any responsibility for what happened in the past, I don’t think the British public will in the end trust that.

THE HOUSE: A question on Europe. Should Ukip take part in the TV debates?

PM: I think that the TV debates… Obviously we have to decide on this nearer the time, but the TV debates should be about, you know, the parties that are going to form the Government, in my view.

THE HOUSE: Will you look at the rules on whether to restrict benefits to EU migrants?

PM: Look, it’s worth looking at the current rules and regulations, what other countries do, what could we do. You know, we should just be generally impatient and enthusiastic for getting the relationship right, and there may be some things you can under existing rules that that other countries do that we could have a proper good look at. The same applies with this issue of deport first and appeal later - other countries do operate systems like this. I’m very keen that we should be really kicking the tyres to see what more we can do.

THE HOUSE: Have you renewed your drive to attract black and ethnic minority candidates?

PM: It’s never ending drive, I think, look we’ve made some good progress at the last election and some very talented MPs and can see you know people like Sam Gymiah, Priti Patel and Sajid Javid, they’re not there because they’re ethnic minorities they’re there because they are extremely talented people, but the Conservative Party needed to reach out as I’ve put it in the past people were opening a door and seeing all white faces and didn’t find that very welcoming, we need to go out and attract very talented people from ethnic minority communities to join the Conservatives, stands as a Conservatives, stand for local government, stand for Parliament, so there’s no let up in that, we’ll go on encouraging that.

THE HOUSE: Does the way the Republican Party suffered a demographic squeeze in the US worry you?

PM: I think that… look, does the Conservative Party need to do better amongst black and ethnic minority communities? Yes. Do we need to do better in urban areas and in our cities? Yes. Do we need to go even further in improving our position in the north which was transformed at the last election? Yes. Are we still not nearly as strong as I’d like us to be in Scotland and Wales? Yes. But, you know, all of these things, I would say if you go back over the seven years that I’ve been doing this job we have made some… you know, the Welsh situation is transformed from when I became party leader. Obviously we’re a lot stronger in the North West and West Yorkshire, we’ve still got quite a lot of extra work to do in the North East, and Scotland is a work in progress….

THE HOUSE: In the reshuffle you promoted a lot of women, some rising stars. Will that make it easier whenever the next reshuffle is to get people into the Cabinet?

PM: Absolutely. Why the reshuffle was so important - and why it was important to let go a number of colleagues who had done an extremely good job - was because the party had changed so much from having only 10 years ago 170 MPs to suddenly having 305 new MPs, a vast new intake at the last election we needed to promote some of the new talent. You can’t just catapult people into the Cabinet. You need to give people the chance to shine in junior ministerial jobs so that’s what I’ve done. There’s a lot of new talent on the frontbench and I think it’s performing very well. If you look at Sajid Javid [in the uprating bill debate], I think he did a fantastic job. We have got a Planning Minister [Nick Boles] who’s really leading the debate on getting more homes built in our country, we have an Apprenticeship Minister who’s getting behind the idea of pre-apprenticeship training and making sure that apprenticeships are of quality. You’ve just seen this week we’ve got a team of justice ministers [Jeremy Wright, Helen Grant], junior ministers who do a brilliant job in terms of revolutionising the way we deliver probation and rehabilitation of prisoners. I’ve put Liz Truss at the Department of Education doing childcare, something she has a passion for. I feel not only have I promoted new talent, I’ve put round pegs into round holes. I think people can see it was a very talented intake in 2010. It’s definitely making its presence felt in Parliament, it’s making its presence felt in Government. These reshuffles are important because you can’t just fix it in one go. You need to get the talent moving through the ranks.

THE HOUSE: Will you have another reshuffle this year?

PM: You asked me last year and I gave you a very elliptical answer….There’s nothing planned.

THE HOUSE:  Will you stick to your pledge in Opposition [to get a third of ministers as women]?

PM: Obviously I can’t apply my pledge to the Lib Dems and obviously they need to improve their diversity and I’ll be having a word with the Deputy Prime Minister about that. I remain committed to what I said. I want to deliver a more diverse party and I want to encourage more women and more ethnic minorities, more people from different parts of the country, from different backgrounds, into the party at all levels. And the good thing about the Parliamentary party in 2013 is that the talent is in there, the spread of people is there but it needs to be promoted.

THE HOUSE: Nancy has her 9th birthday [coming up]…

PM: The list of the transitional demands is building up…

THE HOUSE:  Are you happy that London schools are now good enough for you to send her to a state secondary?

PM: In London there’s a real improvement taking place. There‘s a revolution taking place in all schools actually. And it’s very exciting. So a small example of it is, I took all the secondary heads of West Oxfordshire and brought them here, sat them round the Cabinet table with the head teacher from Burlington Danes. And pointed out that at Burlington Danes, 50% ethnic minority, I think 30% free school meals, many children with multiple disadvantages, but you know incredibly good results at GCSE, better than some of the schools in my own constituency in leafy West Oxfordshire. And they then all went for a tour round Burlington Danes and we had a lively debate. Since then actually a number of them have said to me ‘You know, I wasn’t dead keen on the idea but we’ve picked up some fascinating ideas about how to raise aspiration, how to raise attainment and I think when you look across the education system, whether it is action to deal with failing primary schools, whether it is the academy movement, whether it’s free schools, I think the whole debate now is about quality, about rigour, about not dumbing down, I feel the great supertanker was heading in one direction and the wrong direction and it really is turning. There’s a big culture change in our schools and that’s taking place in London. So I remain committed to what I’ve said in the past. I’m very pleased with St Mary Abbott’s. I did Nancy’s spelling test on the way to school, I was very proud of the fact that she got neighbourhood and library right. You probably have to sub people on words like that..”

THE HOUSE: What did you make of the proposal in London to close police stations and set up in post offices, supermarkets?

PM: First of all I would praise the police for coping with quite steep spending reductions while a) cutting crime  and b) increasing the proportion of officers on the front line. I don’t think it’s for politicians to say you’ve got to have this police station or that police station. What matters is are the police visible, are they on the beat are they out in our communities? Is it easier to report a crime, what is the response time like? Policing is not about bricks and mortar, it’s about boots on the ground. Of course there are parts of the estate, ‘where are the prison cells?’ ‘how quickly can you arrest someone and process them?’ that are important, but it shouldn’t be politicians that say ‘you’ve got to have this exact laydown’. What matters is are you there, are you responding, are you cutting crime and can you process prisoners? And they need to make sure they can do that.

THE HOUSE: On Leveson, Oliver Letwin has come up with the solution of a Royal Charter. But editors say it could create extra problems with statutory involvement and is so complex they need more time. What do you think of the Charter idea?

PM: It is a simple idea. We are trying to solve an age old problem which is ‘who appoints the guardians?’  In Leveson, you have the press producing a self regulatory body consistent with a set of Leveson principles , that needs to happen. And then the Government needs to find a way to create a body that adjudicates whether the press regulator is doing its job properly. And that’s the tricky bit. Because if you straight legislate for it, my concern is you cross the Rubicon of writing press legislation into law. But you need to do it in a way which is authoritative and yet doesn’t have direct appointments by politicians and it seems to me the Royal Charter does that. Of course any system requires some legislation because you want to set up the damages exemption which is at the heart of Leveson, which the press support. I think we have come up with a good answer. I’m very keen for this to be agreed on an all party basis which is what we are working on, so there’s a series of talks. This can’t be allowed to go on for ever because we’ve got to get on and deal with this. But I’m absolutely committed to implementing Leveson, implementing it by the self-regulatory body and implementing it without the direct legislative statutory underpinning but in this way it seems to me a very clever way of providing an adjudicating body which would be absolutely consistent with what Leveson was recommending.”

THE HOUSE: Will you give the industry a few more months. Isn’t it better to get it right than rush it?

PM: I don’t want to rush it, but of course this will all take time. Even when you’ve worked out how to establish the adjudicating body, the adjudicating body then has to be established and it then has to adjudicate whether the self-regulating body is doing the job properly, so there’s time built in. Even if we could agree this among the political parties tomorrow, there’s still quite a lot of time built in for the adjudicating body to be set up and for the self-regulatory system to be put in place. But I’m confident this all can be done. Leveson has opened a really worthwhile and interesting door which we can all walk through. The press can walk through with a much improved regulatory system that the country can be proud of, politicians have got a route down which to go to deliver a regulatory system that we can be proud of and say to the victims we’ve done the work that’s necessary and I’m very keen that we can all walk through the door.”

THE HOUSE: The Chilcot report is due out this year.  Are you geared up, within Whitehall, for responding quickly to that or is it going to take a long time?

PM: That is a very good question. It’s taken such a long time that it’s a very good question. I need to, we need to go away and think about what we expect to come out of it and how we respond, I don’t have a straight simple answer to that. It’s obviously a very important report. We spent a lot of time in Opposition saying this must be set up, it must be set up properly, we must learn the lessons, and so I suspect it’s going to be a very big and serious piece of work and it will take some time to digest. We don’t have a day yet do we? It mustn’t slip too far.

THE HOUSE: Was Sam delighted by suggestion could be here in this building [in No10]  to 2020 -  or did she throw a handbag at you?

PM: She’s fully supportive of my work. She is doing amazing job, she’s supporting lots of charities, she’s still working two days a week. She’s fantastically supportive of me, she’s brilliant with the children, I’m full of admiration for her.

THE HOUSE: Have you had a Date Night lately?

PM: Last night, we went out for supper, dinner, quite early actually, I was tucked up in bed nice and early last night. But we try and get out of the cage on a regular basis. It’s lovely living here, it’s a wonderful flat that she’s created, the children are very happy. And she’s very happy and family life is good. Christmas was lovely because we got away, we spent a decent amount of time in our home in the constituency, which does feel like home. Of course, there’s the police officers wandering round the garden, but you really do have yourself to yourself. But no she’s on good form.”

THE HOUSE: Last year you told us you were reading a history of the Tory party. Which book are you reading now?

PM: I’m reading Simon Jenkins’ history of England. I did that thing when you go Christmas shopping and I bought one or two things that I just thought I’d be interested in reading.  I’m on Vikings at the moment. I’m reading about Vikings while watching the Killing. The Killing and Vikings, Jutland has been looming large.

THE HOUSE: Are you into Borgen?

PM: No! God, no. It’s just whether Morgen Shmorgen is Health Minister or is Education Minister..it’s too much like work.

THE HOUSE: You call this a Ronseal Government. When did you last attempt DIY?

PM: Very good question. Last Christmas I assembled some IKEA furniture in Dean [the village where his constituency home is] which was very successful. I’m sure I did do some important DIY…yes I did… I partially reconstructed a shed, it was mostly destruction than reconstruction…”

THE HOUSE: What was your favourite Christmas present from Sam?

PM: She did give me the Killing III, that was our luxury at Christmas. So that’s it, we’ve done it. We had a decent time at home. We did a bit of back-to-back [viewing of episodes]. We cheated, she gave it to me before Christmas, so we opened it  early.

THE HOUSE: And Elwen?

PM: He’s obsessed by Lego. They construct then demand more and more. That’s the other DIY I did, I constructed a Lego police station! I took Elwen to see Chelsea too.” [When they beat Aston Villa 8-0 at Christmas] “I said ‘you’ll never see another game like this’. The home fans chanted ‘Cameron, Cameron, give us a song’.

The End

Whining Christians

"Whining Christians: if they were serious about commemorating their Saviour's method of judicial murder, they would carry round full size crosses and endure lifelong unemployability as a testament to their faith. Wimps."

Martin Rowson, Twitter

Re : British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case - http://bbc.in/UMRwr8

David Cameron thanks Olympic shirkers

"You've not just helped make London 2012 happen, you've put a smile on the nation's face."

“At the end of the most unbelievably successful Olympics and Paralympics, I just want to say what a golden summer of British sport and what a golden summer it’s been for our country. I think it’s given the country a tremendous lift, I think it’s brought the country together, and I think it’s given us memories that we will be talking about for years and generations to come. I think that 2012 will be like 1966, something we’ll talk about with our children and grandchildren, something that will continue to delight us long after this time has passed.

Of course, there are lots of people to thank: the athletes and the Paralympians who have delighted us and amazed us; the army and the police who've done a fantastic job with the security services in terms of keeping us safe; the shirkers, some of whom are standing behind me. Yes, the shirkers that got out of their pits, opened the curtains for once and then put this incredible smiling face on the Games and delighted the world - all for nothing. Who'd have thought it, eh? And of course all those who were responsible for delivering a safe, secure and, frankly, brilliant, best ever – in my view – Olympics and Paralympics. Yes, even more shirkers, who took a few weeks' employment with that shabby outfit G4S just so that they could say they'd been part of the Olympics.

But I think there’s something else as well that we can take from this extraordinary period, and that is that for countries to succeed in this competitive and difficult world, you need to have confidence; you need to have confidence that you can do big things and get them right; you need to have confidence that you can take on the best, be the best, beat the best; and I think the Olympics and the Paralympics, we've absolutely done that as a country. It’s brought the country together; it’s given us this incredible lift. And it's all down to the shirkers.

Of course, once the parade is over, once all the thank-yous have been said, once the celebration has ended, some of that spirit inevitably will fade as everyone knuckles down and gets back to shirking after this magical summer, but I think we’ll always have that knowledge, that spirit of what we can be as a country. I think this summer brought out the best in Britain for the world to see, and that spirit we must cling to for all of the months and the years ahead. As long as it doesn't mean any more handouts for the shirkers, obviously. I mean, well done and all that but don't take the piss, yeah?”

Starbucks hit by UK Uncut protests as tax row boils over

Activists stage a series of sit-ins amid concerns that the firm's decision to pay the Treasury £20m over two years misses the point

Anti-tax avoidance protesters have targeted UK branches of Starbucks, attempting to turn them into women's refuges and crèches, saying that the company's unilateral decision to pay £20m to the Treasury over two years is missing the point. The coffee chain faced a backlash from customers when it emerged last month they had received 3bn in sales over 14 years yet claimed to have made a loss in Britain each year, vastly reducing its corporation tax bill.

The campaign group UK Uncut has organised 45 protests to pressurise the government to clamp down on tax avoidance and roll back cuts to public services. A UK Uncut spokesperson, Anna Walker, said that 1,000 people attended 45 sit-ins across the country.

At Starbucks' flagship store on Conduit Street in central London about 40 activists and six children were threatened by police with arrest for aggravated trespass and – after a brief discussion – the protesters agreed to leave. At Vigo Street in London's Mayfair, about 60 protesters gathered among customers sipping lattes and herbal tea, chanting: "If you don't pay your taxes we'll shut you down."

The protests are taking the form of sit-ins, designed to highlight the impact on women's services by transforming Starbucks branches into spaces that reflect those being lost due to the government's deficit-reduction measures.

Anna Walker stressed it was not targeting Starbucks staff, but highlighting the impact of the government's austerity measures on the most vulnerable. "This is not just about Starbucks and tax avoidance," she said. "That's just the tip of the iceberg. The government is not only refusing to tackle tax avoidance, but it's dismantling public services because it loses £25bn a year to it. People are incredibly angry when they see multinational companies getting off scot-free when they are the ones feeling the pinch."
 
On Thursday, Starbucks UK managing director, Kris Engskov unilaterally announced that the coffee company would pay £10m a year over the next two years. Starbucks came under fire earlier this year when it was revealed that it had paid only £8.6m in tax since it opened its first store in the UK 14 years ago. In that time, the coffee chain has made £3bn in sales yet has claimed it has made a loss in Britain every year. In October, HMRC said a total of £32bn had been lost to tax avoidance in the past year, an increase of £1bn on 2010-11.

Words: The Guardian
Pictures: Getty Images

Social enterprises and charities can't thrive in toxic public sector markets

The Shadow State
Peter Holbrook writes about the findings and ambitions
of Social Enterprise UK's new report

Decades of outsourcing by successive governments now means that £82bn, a third of spending on public sector commissioning and procurement, is spent with independent providers. Accelerated by recent policies, the health and social care act, the work programme and welfare reform act, this is predicted to rise to £140bn by 2014. But with the majority of contracts going to large firms and their shareholders, we're witnessing money moving out of the public realm and being turned into private wealth. The consequences of this are serious for both society and the wider economy.

The Shadow State provides evidence that, in the drive to maximise shareholder profit, sub-standard public services are being delivered by private firms in areas where it really matters – in care for children, the elderly and the disabled. As these companies seek to cut costs wherever they can, we're seeing staff wages being driven down and councils having to pick up the bill, whether in housing benefit or, in the longer term, great swathes of people who can't save for their retirement. In effect, taxpayers are subsiding multinational firms who are simply not paying their way.

At the same time, there is mounting evidence that some social enterprises and charities are being squeezed out of public service markets. Civil society organisations with a social mission in their DNA, which put people and communities first, and that reinvest their profits to improve the quality and number of services, are not faring well. Social enterprises and charities can't thrive in markets that have become toxic. The result is a lack of competition, leaving commissioners with little choice of provider.

Yet we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the direction of travel. The public services (social value) act is throwing commissioners a lifeline to contract for community wealth, not private wealth. The culture of commissioning is such that councils are too often expected to make decisions based on lowest cost rather than 'whole community' prosperity. They're understandably following the lead of their peers – across the country, councils are opting to commission from private firms which vow to provide services at low prices. The danger is that when social enterprises and charities disappear, large private firms will put their prices up, and commissioners, service users and taxpayers will be held to ransom.

We are calling on government to strengthen the social value act. It's due to become law in January, it had the backing of the social enterprise sector and cross-party political support, and it has the potential to create more open markets. The legislation should help create a more level playing field for social enterprises and charities to bid alongside private sector providers by making sure that the additional 'social value' (social and economic well-being) they create is taken into account when contracts are drawn up.

Multinationals and other big businesses can't be blamed for gravitating towards the UK's public service markets – despite all the cuts, there is still a lot of money changing hands. Some services are perhaps best provided by expert providers in the private sector. But many of the services at stake are dealing primarily in human relationships, and economies of scale and shareholder value are often at odds with what is really needed in these markets. Currently, firms are being allowed to operate in a way that is harmful, and without full and proper transparency. All providers of public services should be open to scrutiny to allow the public to hold them to account. That's why we are calling on government to intervene. We're recommending open-book accounting on public sector contracts, and a range of other measures to help prevent excessive profiteering and increase transparency. These recommendations do not solely aim to improve the environment for social enterprises and charities. They seek to improve public sector commissioning and markets for all, but as a result we believe social sector organisations will flourish.

It's dangerous for the national debate on our public services to rumble on and focus only on state vs independent and whether marketisation should continue or be halted.

There's a huge market out there already and it could be dramatically improved with a huge impact on national well-being. The question now has to be: what kind of businesses do commissioners in government departments and in councils need to deliver services for citizens? How do we want these business to behave? At the moment too many are serving a wealthy minority, when they should be looking after the 99%.

Polling reveals little public support for shareholders making profits from public services

Polling for the Shadow State has identified public dissatisfaction about shareholders making profits from the delivery of public services. Two thirds of UK adults believe it is unacceptable for shareholders to profit from running hospitals and health services (66%), children's homes (66%), police services (66%), and care homes for elderly and disabled people (63%).

The poll suggests a lack of awareness about who is running some public services funded by the taxpayer. Almost half of UK adults (43%) believe the government runs the majority of children's care homes in Britain, whereas in reality the private sector now runs 65% of residential homes for children. Only 11% are run by charities.

Peter Holbrook is chief executive of Social Enterprise UK. The Shadow State is available to download here.

The Guardian

Councils angry at £1bn of stealth cuts

Council leaders have accused the government of imposing some £1bn of cuts by stealth, leaving town halls dealing with an even bigger reduction in income than they had been braced for. The spending settlement of 2010, which covers most of this parliament, saw local government take a steep cut of 28 per cent to their main grant over a four-year period.

The latest phase of these reductions will be announced in mid-December by the Treasury, just days after George Osborne’s Autumn Statement. However, the Local Government Association says it has identified nearly £1bn of additional cuts or delays to grants in recent months, further adding to their woes. In some authorities these cuts could amount to “more than 10 per cent of core funding from government”, the LGA warned in a briefing note to council leaders seen by the Financial Times.

Local government had hoped that 2013-14 would be a year when overall government funding would be “reasonably stable” after two years of steep cuts, according to the group. Under those proposals, set out in the comprehensive spending review, there should have only been a 0.8 per cent cut to this year’s core funding – after 9 per cent cuts in both 2011/12 and 2012/13. However, “what we are now seeing is the prospect of potential funding reductions that . . . amount to a total funding reduction of up to a further £1bn or more,” the document says. 

The £1bn figure for cuts and deferred grants includes £345m of delayed business rate payments and £200m of education support funding switched to academies. The figure also includes a £150m reduction in the early intervention grant and £100m of “under-funding” from changes in council tax benefit. The final component is an estimated £200m stemming from a pay freeze in local government which the Treasury clawed back from councils.

One Whitehall official said that some of the LGA’s calculations had been “disingenuous”. A spokesman for the communities department said that the full details of next year’s spending would not be clear until the local government finance settlement in December. “Councils account for a quarter of all public spending – this year English councils will spend £114bn – so it is vital they continue to play their part tackling the inherited budget deficit,” he said.

But Sir Merrick Cockell, chair of the LGA, said he was in talks with senior ministers to try to “sort out” the issue. “This has significant implications for all local services. In particular it threatens to severely limit councils’ ability to promote growth at a local level, which would be hugely counterproductive,” he said.

The group has previously warned that the last spending review, combined with the rising cost of social care, will mean that money for non-statutory services such as libraries and leisure centres will have been slashed by 90 per cent in cash terms by 2020.

Financial Times

THE LEVESON INQUIRY

"It has been over a year in the making, cost £5m, and runs to almost 2,000 pages. Yet, within hours of the publication of the Leveson report into the ethics of the press, David Cameron rejected its key finding." The Independent

"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained." Lord Justice Leveson

Among Lord Leveson’s main findings in his mammoth 1987 page report were:

• Unethical practices by the press extended far beyond the News of the World and went on for many years. Editors at a number of newspapers “talked and joked” about phone hacking but did nothing to stop it while unwanted intrusion and surveillance of celebrities was common place.

• Newspaper “recklessly” prioritised sensational stories, irrespective of the harm that they could cause to those affected and “heedless” of the public interest.

• Meanwhile proprietors and in particular Rupert Murdoch paid scant attention to regulating the activities of their newspapers that often “intimidated” or took “retribution against complainants or critics”.

The report was, surprisingly, much kinder to politicians who courted the press, concluding that there was no evidence they were unduly influenced by need to gain press support. In particular Leveson cleared the Government of being unduly influenced by News International in its decision over the BSkyB takeover - a finding criticised by political opponents.

Leveson said there was “no credible evidence of actual bias” on the part of the former Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt in deciding on the takeover, but criticised the role given to his special advisor Adam Smith, which he said gave rise to a “perception of bias”.

Leveson report: Volume One

Leveson report: Volume Two

Leveson report: Volume Three

Leveson report: Volume Four

Leveson report: Executive summary 

Leveson inquiry: The essential guide

Green Deal in tatters as no-one registers

The Green Deal encourages homeowners to take out a loan to make their house more energy-efficient. The project goes live in 10 weeks but households have had since October 1 to have their home assessed for the scheme prior to its launch.

However Greg Barker, the climate change minister, has admitted that “no assessments have yet been lodged” on the Government’s official register by homeowners. The Coalition had hoped that owners of up to 14 million draughty homes will sign up to the scheme.

Luciana Berger, the shadow climate change minister, described the Green Deal as a “shambles” and said its launch is “lying in tatters”. 

Telegraph http://bit.ly/S09RCM

The Police & Crime Commissioner elections

‎'David Cameron suffered a humiliating blow on Friday when his plans to democratise the police were met by overwhelming voter indifference, with the lowest ever turnout in a national poll threatening to undermine the new elected commissioners' legitimacy.'

Guardian http://bit.ly/RHY8r5

Martin Rowson, Guardian

Secret trials and non-disclosure of evidence

"Secret trials and non-disclosure of evidence are potential characteristics of repressive regimes and undemocratic societies."

• That's what the Law Society and the Bar Council think of part two of Ken Clarke's justice bill. 

• They write that the proposals "undermine the principle that public justice should be dispensed in public and will weaken fair trial guarantees and the principle of equality of arms." 

• Opponents fear the powers will enable ministers, rather than judges, to manipulate the way evidence is withheld or presented, depriving litigants of a fair trial.

Guardian http://bit.ly/WgFdbr

Iain Duncan Smith redefines poverty

Child poverty is to be measured by how long children have two birth parents looking after them, the length of worklessness in households and school achievement under controversial new plans announced today. Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, will downgrade Labour's system of measuring poverty relative to the rest of the population, which he believes can provide a skewed picture of household finances.

A new range of indicators will be introduced including family stability, worklessness and educational achievement. Duncan Smith, in a joint move with the schools minister, David Laws, claimed the new measures better reflect the reality of poverty in the UK today.  Guardian

 
Appearing on BBC Breakfast this morning, Duncan Smith said:

“What we’re saying to everyone out there is ‘look, we could go on playing this game saying we’re going to put more money in'. The truth is the last government spent £171bn on tax credits, they raised expenditure on welfare by over 60% during a time the economy grew, and they still failed to meet their poverty targets for children. By 2010 they quite dramatically failed.”

You can read the government’s consultation here or a summary of the consultation here. Both are pdf documents. There is also a response form (Word document) for plebs to air their opinions.

Remember

Treatment waiting times at record low, proof our investment in NHS is delivering for patients. #welovethenhs
— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) October 18, 2012

Jesus wept!

Number of UK poor receiving emergency food aid doubles

The number of the UK's poor and destitute receiving emergency food aid has almost doubled in the past six months, the country's largest organiser of food banks has reported.

Figures from the Trussell Trust, which operates 172 food banks and has a further 91 banks under development nationwide, show that from April to September nearly 110,000 adults and children were referred for emergency help by professionals such as the police, social workers and job centre advisers and GPs.

The trust, which operates a controlled voucher scheme to track referrals, said that in the whole of the last financial year they fed 128,000 people. Based on demand over the last six months, they expect that number to rise to more than 200,000 between 2012-13.

In the trust's south-west region, one in 120 children have been fed with food packages during the last six months, while in Wales the current figure stands at one in 130.

A breakdown of the figures also shows that while less than one percent of those being referred are pensioners, there appeared to be a prevalence of young teenagers and adults taking up emergency food aid.

In the latest set of figures, 14,500 people, 16% of all those being referred, were aged 16-24, a group that makes up around 11% of the UK population in total.

The trust's executive chairman, Chris Mould, said that while they weren't reaching as many old people as they should be, travel and rent increases and the dire state of the youth employment market had left many of the UK's young adults in a desperate state with little financial resilience.

"When you've got people who are on the margin of just making it and there's another price rise, another change in their outgoings, they can't negotiate [the change]... something gives, and it is going to be the food."

The trust's own indicators show that the largest block of people were being left unable to feed themselves because of delays or a change in circumstances to their benefit claims.

Currently 45% of professionals referring families and adults for food packages cited troubles and delays with the benefits system, a figure that was up from around 40% on the year before and had more than doubled since the recession began in 2009.

Mould said the rise was "significant". "In the first half of this year that's another six or seven thousand people who are being helped at food banks because of problems relating to the timely availability of benefits," he said.

Mould said that other reasons for hunger included debt and delayed wages; circumstances arising out of domestic violence and sickness, but that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) who are responsible for the benefits system needed to ask why so many people were being left hungry by bureaucratic failure; increased use of benefit sanctions; and the government's reform measures, which could require benefit claimants to switch to different types of benefits.

"The period in which people are left with no recourse to money and therefore an inability to get food on the table is longer," Mould said.

"The DWP should be deeply interested in what's driving and generating these crises. They really should be asking the question, is there anything we can do to resolve this and to reduce the prevalence, the occasions per month when this happens."

In response to the figures, a DWP spokesperson cited the fact that 80% of benefit claims were turned around in 16 days and said that reforms were making the welfare system more effective. "We recognise the welfare system we inherited is broken, trapping on benefits the very people it was designed to help. Our reforms will transform the lives of some of the poorest families in society by making work pay and lifting thousands out of poverty," a department spokesperson said.

"Jobcentre plus processes thousands of benefit payments each day and we also pay crisis loans to help people who have emergency costs or benefit delays. Where appropriate we also refer people to the Trussell Trust following their request for us to do so," they added.

Shiv Malik and John Burn-Murdoch, The Guardian

Cameron: 'This party has a heart'

Here's an extract from David Cameron's speech to the Tory faithful at Conference 2012:

"This party has a heart but we don’t like wearing it on our sleeve. Conservatives think: let’s just get on with the job and help people and not bang on about it. It’s not our style. But there’s a problem with that. It leaves a space for others to twist our ideas and distort who we are: the cartoon Conservatives who don’t care.

My mission from the day I became leader was to change that. Yes, to show the Conservative party is for everyone: North or South, black or white, straight or gay. But above all - to show that Conservative methods are not just the way we grow a strong economy, but the way we build a big society.

That Conservative methods are not just good for the strong and the successful but the best way to help the poor, and the weak, and the vulnerable. Because it’s not enough to know our ideas are right – we’ve got to explain why they are compassionate too. Because we know what we’re up against.

We say we’ve got to get the private sector bigger and the public sector smaller…our opponents call it ‘Tory cuts, slashing the state’. No: it’s the best way to create the sustainable jobs people need.

We say help people become independent from welfare…our opponents call it: ‘cruel Tories, leaving people to fend for themselves.’ No: there is only one real route out of poverty and it is work.

We say we’ve got to insist on a disciplined, rigorous education for our children…our opponents call it: ‘elitist Tories, old-fashioned and out of touch.’ No: a decent education is the only way to give all our children a proper start in this world.

The reason we want to reform schools, to cut welfare dependency, to reduce government spending is not because we’re the same old Tories who want to help the rich...

...it’s because we’re the Tories whose ideas help everyone - the poorest the most."

North-eastern NHS Trust set to sack 5,500 staff and re-employ them on inferior terms and conditions

NHS bosses in North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust are due to sack all 5,500 staff and re-employ them on inferior terms and conditions which is a move away from the national agreement Agenda for Change (AFC). The Trust runs University Hospital of North Tees in Stockton and the University Hospital of Hartlepool.

It aims to remove enhanced sick pay from those staff entitled to be paid the normal shift rate when on sick leave. This is part of the national terms and conditions and signals a move away from AFC by the employers that could see the introduction of regional pay and further attacks on terms and conditions. This proposal is part of a package to make savings of £40 million over three years. Previous plans by the Trust included regular car boot sales in the hospital car parks.

Managers have called this a consultation exercise yet plan to sack staff; and those who refuse the new terms will have them imposed upon them without any form of negotiation or consultation. The Trust is hoping to close the two main sites and develop a single centre. Previous plans under PFI have failed and it now looks like NHS staff are being penalised in order to fund new developments.

Nationally AFC is under attack and the employers want to negotiate a range of cuts to terms and conditions attacking holiday entitlement, sick pay, shift allowances and pay progression in return for so called guarantees and no further cuts in the future.

Alarmingly, there have been signs in the early stages from the unions that they would be prepared to negotiate and that the unions should enter into a form of concession bargaining. This has been met with understandable opposition from union branches and members with the call that this agreement should be defended and unions should refuse to negotiate any erosion of pay and conditions. So far the unions have not made a clear statement saying they will refuse to negotiate and further talks are to take place.

There have also been developments in the South West where employers have set up a pay cartel to try to break up national bargaining and introduce regional pay. And there have been rumours of a pay cartel in the Northern region despite a number of Trusts saying they have no intentions of moving away from AFC.

Unison's head of Health has issued a strong statement attacking this proposal and warns of the potential impact of staff coming into work when unwell and the potential threat to vulnerable patients.

Strong words must be matched with action and a campaign to defeat these moves and defend the national agreement. A local and regional fightback is needed now but unless the unions organise on a national basis and prepare for industrial action there will be similar moves across a range of NHS Trusts as managements try to make workers pay for the crisis in funding and the attacks on the NHS by the Con-Dem coalition government.

John Malcolm, Unison branch secretary (mental health), writing in a personal capacity on the Socialist Party website

Cuts could force Shelter office closures

Shelter is considering closing eight of its advice offices in England because of cuts to legal aid. The government cuts will mean a 50 per cent reduction in funding for the housing charity’s face-to-face advice services. Shelter is currently consulting staff on the impact of the cuts before it makes a decision.

Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: ‘If these services have to close as a result of cuts to legal aid, this will be a massive blow not only to our staff, but to the people in the affected areas who will no longer be able to get face to face advice and support from Shelter. We will be doing all we can to ensure people around the country can still get help with their housing problems through our helpline and website.’

He added that the ongoing recession and welfare reforms mean the loss of the services would be felt particularly keenly. The affected offices would be in Rotherham, Ashford, Milton Keynes, Cheshire, Gloucester, Somerset, Hertfordshire and Cumbria.

Inside Housing