Heated exchanges at prime minister’s questions as Labour leader says PM ‘can’t be trusted’ with health service David Cameron has launched a scathing attack on the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, after being put on the back foot over the NHS. Miliband continued his strategy of challenging Cameron on policy detail at prime minister’s questions, asking him to state the cost of NHS redundancies before revealing the figure of £852m. The Labour leader then asked the prime minister to guarantee that none of those pocketing redundancy payments would be rehired in one of the hundreds of new bodies set to be created as a result of the NHS reforms. But Cameron sought to steer the debate away from health and on to the union strikes due to be staged on Thursday. He accused Miliband of choosing not to ask him about the forthcoming industrial disruption because he was in the “pocket of the unions”. “That’s what we see, week after week – he has to talk about the micro because he can’t talk about the macro,” the prime minister said. “What the whole country will have noticed is, at a time when people are worrying about strikes, he can’t ask about strikes because he is in the pocket of the unions.” The heated atmosphere prompted the Speaker, John Bercow, to appeal to MPs to “calm down and reflect on what the public thinks of this sort of behaviour”. Cameron was forced on the defensive after Miliband rattled off a list of new NHS organisations which he said would see the total number of NHS bodies grow from 163 to 521, despite a promised cull of quangos by the government. These included “pathfinder consortia, health and wellbeing boards, shadow commissioning groups, authorised commissioning groups, a national commissioning board, PCT clusters, SHA clusters, clinical networks and clinical senates”, Miliband said, adding: “Is this what you meant by a bonfire of the quangos?” Cameron said £5bn was being saved through the reduction of bureaucracy, and that the government was implementing the £20bn cost savings set out by Labour. “The difference is … we are going on with putting more money into the NHS, money that the party opposite doesn’t support, so there will be more nurses, more doctors, more operations in our health service and a better NHS compared with cuts from the party opposite,” he said. Miliband again asked him whether staff made redundant would be rehired “to do their old jobs at your new quangos”. Cameron said: “I know that you have this extraordinary vision of how the NHS is run, but it’s not the prime minister who hires every person in every organisation in the NHS.” The Labour leader said people would notice that Cameron “could not be trusted with the NHS”. “Isn’t the truth [that] he promised no top-down reorganisations, he is doing it,” Miliband said. “He promised a bonfire of the quangos; he’s creating more. He promised a better deal for patients, and things are getting worse. What people are asking up and down this country is, what is he doing to our NHS?” Cameron steered the debate away from the government’s policies by launching into the Labour party’s links to the trade unions. “What the whole country will have noticed is, at a time when people are worrying about strikes, he can’t ask about strikes because he is in the pocket of the unions,” said Cameron. “What the whole country will have noticed is, at a time when Greece is facing huge problems over its deficit, he can’t talk about Greece because his plan is to make Britain like Greece. “What the whole country will have noticed is, at a time when the economy is the key issue, he can’t talk about the economy because of his ludicrous plan for tax cuts.” Ed Miliband David Cameron Health policy PMQs House of Commons NHS Health Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Independent editor-in-chief defends columnist involved in ‘politically motivated’ plagiarism furore Simon Kelner, the editor-in-chief of the Independent, described the online plagiarism row over star columnist Johann Hari as “politically motivated” and “fabricated anger” at lunchtime on Wednesday. Speaking to Radio 4′s The Media Show , Kelner said Hari’s practice of not attributing some interviewees’ quotes was wrong. But he sought to defend the award-winning columnist, saying it is not a great scandal and claiming that Hari had been unfairly vilified on Twitter. Kelner confirmed that the paper is investigating which editors knew about Hari’s interview technique and that they would review some of his past articles. Writing in the Independent on Wednesday, Hari apologised for his practice of sometimes using quotes taken from other interviews and presenting them as his own. “What Johann did was wrong. He accepts and we believe it,” Kelner told The Media Show presenter Steve Hewlett. “It was born from an honest ambition to give the clearest possible representation of what the interviewee was saying. In the grand scheme of things it is not a great scandal – it’s a naive error which we recognise.” Kelner suggested Hari would not face any disciplinary action – other than being “spoken to at great length” – and said the young columnist had suffered punishment enough with the vilification he’s had on Twitter. He added: “Johann has been vilified by the Twittersphere for what he has done. I don’t think you can discount [that an] element of it feels politically inspired [and] some of it is fabricated anger about what Johann has done.” Hari won the Orwell Prize for political journalism in 2008 for his work on American rightwingers, a report on Saudi Arabia, multiculturalism and women, and another on France’s “secret war” in the Central African Republic. A spokesman for the prize said on Wednesday that it was aware of the Johann Hari controversy and that it had a “process to follow in situations such as this and are doing so now”. Simon Kelner Independent News & Media Newspapers & magazines Blogging Digital media Twitter Internet Newspapers Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Police Federation for Northern Ireland chairman says there have been 200 gun and bomb attacks against officers since last year There are around 650 active dissident republican terrorists determined to destroy Northern Ireland’s power-sharing settlement, police officers warned on Wednesday. The numbers from the Police Federation for Northern Ireland (PFNI) are the first hard figures on the size of the anti-ceasefire republican movements to be released in recent years. Over recent months there has been an upsurge in violence from the Real IRA, Continuity IRA and Oghlaigh naEireann – the three groups opposed to the peace process. In April a faction of the Real IRA in Co Tyrone said they carried out a car bomb attack that killed Constable Ronan Kerr in Omagh. Terry Spence, the chairman of the PFNI, said governments both at Westminster and Stormont should stop underestimating the scale of the dissident threat. Spence said it was “common knowledge that they number around 650 – hardly the microscopic numbers officially suggested in official circles”. He revealed that since last year there have been 200 gun and bomb attacks against his officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Addressing the Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Paterson, Matt Baggot, the PSNI chief constable, and the Stormont justice minister, David Ford, as well as his delegates, Spence said: “Let me be absolutely clear. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland is frustrated at the seeming unwillingness of the executive and the PSNI to face up to the fact that we need to bring every resource that can be made available to us to bring the growing terrorist threat to an end.” He also singled out the Garda Síochána for praise in countering the dissident republican threat from across the border. “Thanks to their magnificent efforts over 170 people from both sides of the border have been arrested for terrorist offences over the past 12 months. Last weekend’s explosives discovery in Louth was a particular example of their good work.” Two men in their 50s were arrested last weekend after a police raid on a farm house close to the border with Northern Ireland. Detectives found parts for a mortar bomb launcher and a significant quantity of home made explosives. The Garda later said they believed they had foiled a major terrorist attack being planned for somewhere across the border. But in Northern Ireland, Spence said the authorities had been “blindsided by the growth in terrorism” both republican and loyalist. Referring to the recent attacks by a unit of the Ulster Volunteer Force on a Catholic community in east Belfast, Spence said more robust action needed to be taken against those loyalists still engaged in violence. “If being a proscribed organisation is to mean anything then action must be taken. The behaviour of the UVF demands that active members released under the Belfast Agreement on license should be recalled to prison by the secretary of state. “We cannot tolerate paramilitary groups creating public havoc because they think they have no voice in how Northern Ireland is governed. “They have exactly the same access to the ballot box and opportunity to stand for election as the rest of us.” The secretary of state retains the power to re-arrest and imprison any of the paramilitary prisoners who were freed early as part of the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement. During two nights of disturbances last week the UVF attacked police lines as well as residents’ homes in the Catholic Short Strand district of east Belfast. Dissident republicans also opened fire towards the loyalist side and wounded the Press Asociation’s photographer Niall Carson. On Friday night several thousand loyalists will march in the same area where trouble erupted last week during an Orange Order band parade around east Belfast. Security forces will be on alert in case there is any repeat of last week’s sectarian disorder. Northern Ireland Police Henry McDonald guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sen. Bernie Sanders was all over the airways today talking about the negotiations on raising the debt ceiling, and Fran already made note of Sanders’ letter to President Obama and his petition in the open thread this evening , but I wanted to share Sanders’ floor speech from today as well. As Fran already pointed out, you can sign Sen. Sanders’ petition here as well and here’s a copy of his letter to the President — Shared Sacrifice : Dear Mr. President, This is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. Decisions are being made about the national budget that will impact the lives of virtually every American for decades to come. As we address the issue of deficit reduction we must not ignore the painful economic reality of today – which is that the wealthiest people in our country and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. In fact, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth. Everyone understands that over the long-term we have got to reduce the deficit – a deficit that was caused mainly by Wall Street greed, tax breaks for the rich, two wars, and a prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies. It is absolutely imperative, however, that as we go forward with deficit reduction we completely reject the Republican approach that demands savage cuts in desperately-needed programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, our children and the poor, while not asking the wealthiest among us to contribute one penny. Mr. President, please listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice. The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions. A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending. Please do not yield to outrageous Republican demands that would greatly increase suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Now is the time to stand with the tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to survive economically, not with the millionaires and billionaires who have never had it so good. Respectfully, Sen. Bernie Sanders; and Co-signers
Continue reading …Let’s avoid one thing henceforth and forever: When discussing gay marriage, let us never let anyone get away with suggesting a lifelong bond between a man and woman is particularly “natural.” It’s true . Bonobos share 98 percent of our DNA, and they f like bunnies wish they could f when they’re having f-ing contests. Our closest living relatives are to f-ing what beavers are to building dams–specialists with a passion that looks a lot like pleasure. So, you rarely see our closest genetic relatives in zoos, their cages quickly deteriorate into a non-stop scat-enthusiast free-free-for-all f-fest that traumatizes children and seniors. That’s God’s Perfect Creature for you, untouched by culture. These so-called “hippie chimps” reap all sorts of benefits from the practice of nonstop chimp f-ery in lieu of marriage. They don’t have wars, they have strong familial bonds, and everybody gets laid. So from now on, before you point a steely finger of judgment at another person’s “naturalness,” smell those fingers. Do they smell like the inside of another person? If not, you need to be more natural.
Continue reading …“It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games , sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.” -John Adams, July 3 rd , 1776 Seems like a lot of fuss over a document written to form a political agreement between some loosely unified colonies more than 200 years ago. When Adams wrote that, a nation had been created, yes, but it had yet to win any significant victories in its war against the most powerful military in the world. Many states were nearly bankrupt and it wasn't certain they'd hang together. And for all its noble ideas about equality, the Declaration did nothing to end slavery, which Adams called “as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest of happiness.” But despite all that, John Adams understood that the founding of the United States was … exceptional. And since the founding, right down to this July 4 th weekend 2011, Americans have sensed that America is unique among the nations of the world – in its liberties, its republic, its resources and its opportunities – and in its unique role as a force for good. But for the modern left and their media allies, not so much. As the Culture and Media Institute has documented in the past , the idea of American exceptionalism at best makes liberals and the mainstream media uncomfortable. At worst they flatly deny that the United States can stake any claim to greatness, let alone being exceptional. President Obama has shown ambivalence toward the notion that America is exceptional. That, coupled with his administration's European-style government-centered philosophy, have left him open to the charge that he sees America as just another nation, and is as comfortable apologizing for its sins as touting its virtues. The conservative hopefuls looking to take on Obama in the 2012 election continue to hit him with the charge. This has prompted two often contradictory responses from the left. On one hand, NPR's Tavis Smiley dismisses American exceptionalism as “overrated,” while the Washington Post's Richard Cohen calls it a “myth” born of “smugness” and “narcissism,” and points to the country's imperfections as proof that America is no more exceptional than Belgium or Honduras. On the other, the Post's Greg Sargent believes any mention of exceptionalism is part of a plot to make President Obama into the “Other.” Times Joe Klein calls charges “subtly venomous” and a Nation columnist asserts that American exceptionalism is based on “racialized hierarchies.” In either case, American exceptionalism as its been traditionally understood, has become a taboo topic for liberal journalists. 'Smugness' So is America exceptional? According to the liberal Brookings Institution, 58 percent of Americans think so, and say “God has granted America a special role in human history.” But not the liberal media establishment. “This notion of American exceptionalism is,” in the words of NPR's Tavis Smiley , “overrated.” In his victory speech Nov. 2, Florida Senator Marco Rubio declared, “America is the single greatest nation in all of human history. A place without equal in the history of all mankind.” Perhaps liberals heard this as adding insult to injury with the Democrats' electoral rout in November, because they got angry. In the Huffington Post, Peter Beinart raved about “the lunatic notion that America is the only truly free and successful country in the world.” Michael Kinsley penned a column flatly declaring, “U.S. is not greatest county ever.” Apparently, the concept hasn't grown more attractive with age. On May 9, liberal Washington Post writer Richard Cohen penned a column on “The myth of American exceptionalism.” Cohen bemoaned a “culture of smugness. The emblem of this culture is the term 'American exceptionalism.'” “American exceptionalism once applied to the hostility that the American worker – virtually alone in the industrialized world – had toward socialism,” Cohen wrote. “Now, though, it is infused with religious meaning …” (Untrue. Many date the birth of American exceptionalism to a 1630 sermon written by Puritan John Winthrop, who declared that the Massachusetts Bay colony would be a “city upon a hill,” a Christian example to mankind. But never interrupt a liberal rewriting history.) Unsurprisingly, Cohen trotted out a litany of the nation's problems and blemishes – the murder rate, the national debt and the “dysfunctional education system – more than 14,000 school districts, lots of bad (but job-protected) teachers, oblivious parents and students who are too dumb to know they're dumb.” (Cohen never, of course, acknowledged the culpability of liberal policies in creating or exacerbating these problems.) We can't be exceptional because Japanese kids to much better in math than our kids. “Let no person think there is not a certain kind of American exceptionalism that I believe in and cherish,” Cohen asserted. 'It is our astounding capacity for tolerance.” He held America up against the “massacres, pogroms, population transfers and genocides” of European history (no mention of African or Asian history, though) and, except for blacks and American Indians, America comes out looking ok. Wow. That's like being told your blind date “loves pets” and “is great with kids.” To Cohen, religion is to blame for American exceptionalism since its adherents believe “what God has made exceptional, man must not alter.” The result is that Americans are taken with “a phrase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be American narcissism.” Poor Cohen. It must be hard to live in a nation disgusts you so. An Exceptionally Sinister Weapon Cohen also hit on a common theme for liberals, that American exceptionalism is merely a weapon conservatives use to beat liberals. “It turns out, however, that some of those most inclined to exalt American exceptionalism are simply using the imaginary past to defend their cultural tics – conventional marriage or school prayer or, for some odd reason, a furious antipathy to the notion that mankind has contributed (just a bit) to global warming.” Conventional marriage is a “cultural tic?” Since liberals will use any tool at hand to further an agenda, they're incapable of seeing a principle for what it is. They're also incapable of seeing an almost comical contradiction: American exceptionalism they say, is a “myth,” mere bigotry or narcissism, but tell them the president agrees with them and watch the fireworks. Liberal Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent gets particularly incensed at “the mindlessness and vapidity of the right's attack on Obama for allegedly not believing in 'American exceptionalism.'” It's an “ongoing attack that has become ” absurd and self-parodic. ” When in January Obama, still smarting from his November electoral defeats, seemed to strike a new tone when talking about the nation, Sargent's exceptionalism radar was working overtime. A Kathleen Parker column wondering why Obama hadn't actually used the phrase 'American Exceptionalism' in his State of the Union speech was part of “the nonstop idiocy.” The “idiocy” of the Weekly Standard's Bill Krystol's was to assert that Obama calling America “the greatest nation on earth,” and “the greatest country in the world” in a January weekly radio address was a concession to the right. Sargent pointed out prior Obama statements about the nation. But around the same time, over at MSNBC, Sargent's fellow liberals were undercutting his argument. On Jan. 30, Chris Matthews hailed “another good week for Barack Obama's move to the center. And if you need to move to the center, what better way than to talk up American exceptionalism?” Time magazine editor Rick Stengel agreed. “I think clearly what Obama's self-interest is is that he's mimicking Reagan's style, not his substance. As you say, Reagan was the great prophet of American exceptionalism.” So even Obama's cheerleaders at MSNBC and Time thought touting American exceptionalism was a new tactic for the president. On Memorial Day, when Sarah Palin criticized Obama for characterizing the U.S. military as “one of the finest fighting forces the world has ever known,” rather than the best, Sargent was ready to mock her . “If Obama doesn't say that our armed forces are the bestest, baddest, most a**-kicking-ist fighting forces in all of human history , he's subtly denigrating the troops.” Race to the Bottom After lambasting Palin, Sargent reminded readers of “what this attack line is really about … part of a much broader effort to insinuate that you should find Obama's character, story, motives, identity, cultural instincts and intentions towards our country to be alien and fundamentally suspect.”
Continue reading …
• Hit F5 to refresh or turn on the automatic widget below • Email thoughts and chat to rob.bagchi@guardian.co.uk • Follow all today’s games in our daily live blog from SW19 Second set: Federer 6-3, 2-3 Tsonga* The problem with listening to McEnroe is that any personal judgment seems redundant by comparison. He says Tsonga’s penchant for going big from the back of the court is undoing his better work near the net and he’s right. If he lets Federer move him from side to side he hasn’t got a prayer. What gives him a chance, though, is that serve and he wins the game with a whacking great ace. Second set: Federer* 6-3, 2-2 Tsonga Tom Morgan’s been on: “I’m sure I won’t be the only one to contact you, but Mr Cochrane appears to have had the wool pulled over his eyes. As an amateur ref I can assure him that teams that win the toss still choose ends according to the FA laws. Perhaps the other team was going to buy the referee a pint or two after his game?” A ref hanging around after for beers? Brave soul. Oh I say. Tsonga is pushing Federer more but Fed wins the best point of the match with another crafty volley that clips the net. A last unforced error from Tsonga seals it for Federer. Second set: Federer 6-3, 1-2 Tsonga* Tsonga is fighting back, trying to take the initiative and succeeding with a biffed double-hand backhand and volley at the net when Federer digs it out. Another double fault brings the game to 40-30, though, as if belief deserts him at the moment he’s proved himself but he rallies to win the game when Federer goes wide. Second set: Federer* 6-3, 1-1 Tsonga Federer snuffs out Tsonga’s attempts at passing shots when the Frenchman is deep in the court because Tsonga rather telegraphs his intentions, and levels it at 15-all with a beauty of a volley from wide on the left of the court. Simon Watson writes: “Are you sure Federer is playing today? Apparently he was on court on Sunday trying to settle a score …” Murray’s beard suggests the sponsors haven’t been too heavy-handed with him. Federer takes the game. Second set: Federer 6-3, 0-1 Tsonga* Oh dear. Tsonga begins with a double fault, hitting the net with his first at 137mph. He’s obviously going for it now and does level at 15 all with a booming second serve that caught Federer off guard. One step forward, one step, maybe two back, as Tsonga fails to challenge a call that was in by the baseline and levelled it at 30-30. He then moves in front with his best shot of the match and wins the game. First set: Federer* 6-3 Tsonga Tales of the toss from Alec Cochrane: “A few years ago whilst captaining a 9th XI football team, having won the toss and chosen to shoot with the wind behind our backs the ref informed me that they’d changed the rules on the toss and now the winner kicked off, whilst the loser chose ends, apparently in an attempt to simplify the rules. The opposition captain then of course chose to shoot in the direction I wanted to in the first half and sure enough by the time the second half came around the wind had changed direction. I bet they don’t do that in tennis.” Federer wins the game to love off his serve and takes the first set. Cakewalk time unless Tsonga can string together better shots off the baseline with his strong suit near the net. First set: Federer* 5-3 Tsonga Sorry to sound repetitive and I know it’s early in the game but Federer has this ability to play wonderful shots off his forehand that Tsonga is unable to cope with. Mac thinks Tsonga is lumbering around and there’s truth to that. He looks peculiarly leaden-footed but this isn’t over and he wins points when he comes to the net and wins the game with a lovely return with the ball at foot-level. First set: Federer* 5-2 Tsonga Another beautiful stop-volley for Federer’s showreel puts him 15-love up and he gets up to beat Tsonga’s attempt at a lob to backhand smash and go 30-15 ahead, winning the game when Tsonga’s backhand isn’t up to the test. First set: Federer 4-2 Tsonga* Good first point from Tsonga, forcing Federer very wide with his serve then wrongfooting him off the return. Then vintage Federer to win with a sublime lob after a long rally where Federer manoeuvred Tsonga into position with a sadist’s precision. But Tsonga recovers to take the next two points before Federer brings it deuce with a gorgeous volley. Tsonga’s first ace gives him the advantage and Federer pushes it wide of the line on the right to lose the game. First set: Federer* 4-1 Tsonga Better response from Tsonga but to this layman he seems to momentarily be sacrificing power just to make sure that he gets the ball over the net and makes Federer commit a couple of unforced errors. After losing a referral, he moves to 30-40 when Federer loosely gives him the opportunity but Federer gets back to deuce. Tsonga earns another break point by pushing Federer wide then getting close to the net to volley past him. Federer wakes up and wins the game with a pair of powerful serves that force Tsonga to overhit. First set: Federer 3-1 Tsonga* Goodness. Nerves always play a part but Tsonga is more Bert Lahr than king of the jungle out there. He moves to 30-0 with a little luck but then can’t get his feet moving when Federert pings one deep to his right and he tamely hits it into the net. He wraps up the final point with more aggression, though, to take the game. First set: Federer* 3-0 Tsonga Tsonga again finds the net. He’s not even aiming wide and overpowering his shots, simply underhitting everything as if caution has got the better of him. Federe wins to love, the final point won with a lovely sliced forehand. Mike Cassidy writes: “Interesting chicken and lion quote from Tsonga. He may already be regretting appointing Eric Cantona as his media adviser.” Seagulls and trawlers were the first thing that came to my mind, too. First set: Federer 2-0 Tsonga* Tsonga’s nerves are jangling, approaching the net to volley, nailing the first of a rally then slicing the second into the net. Federer has two break points after Tsonga again hits a routine forehand from the back right of the court into the net then does the same from the left with the first break point. Poor start from Tsonga. First set: Federer* 1-0 Tsonga Federer chose to serve after winning the toss. Do they still do the toss with a racket, probably not but they did when I went there 20 odd years ago. A jammy net cord gets Tsonga the first point off an underhit return but Federer levels then takes the lead with a beautiful forehand from the baseline to Tsonga’s right and wins the next point on his second serve as Tsonga misjudges the pace. Federer ties up the set comfortably and looks in good nick. Mac watch: I can’t get his cameo from Curb Your Enthusiasm out of my head this morning, reading the Freak Book in the back of Larry David’s limo. He reckons the biggest chance of an upset today is in this match. Interesting. Jack Nicklaus and Greg Norman are watching on. Roger’s got his tank top on for the net photo op and the knock-up. Sue Barker says Fed trains in Dubai in 110C heat by playing two players simultaneously. Masochism leads to perfection. Remarkable John Inverdale interview with Tsonga in the build-up – “you frighten a chicken by running up to it and it runs away. You do the same to a lion he eats you. You attack me, I attack you.” Preamble: Afternoon all, and welcome to coverage of the men’s quarter-final between Roger Federer and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. I wouldn’t claim that tennis was my forte but this match is one I’ve been looking forward to – any chance to watch Fed is one to look forward to. He had to crank up the gears in his last match against Mikhail Youzhny but I had few doubts that he would make his 29th slam quarter-final in succession. They’ve met five times before but not on grass with Federer winning four of them but Tsonga’s form at Queen’s shows how dangerous a booming serve can be on this most unforgiving surface. Just waiting for the Daily Politics to end before I can give you a Royal Box update. Wimbledon 2011 Roger Federer Tennis Wimbledon Rob Bagchi guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
New legislation allowing local authorities to retain business rates will encourage economic growth, says deputy prime minister Business rates are to be collected and retained locally, allowing councils to borrow against their future income from the taxation to fund local services. Speaking at the Local Government Association conference in Birmingham this week, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg announced the government would introduce legislation in the current Parliamentary session which would overhaul local government finance. Clegg said the bill would include plans to localise the retention of council tax, providing a “dramatic new incentive” for local authorities to encourage economic growth in their area. The legislation would also introduce tax increment finance, allowing local authorities to borrow against future income from the business rates to meet local priorities which could, the deputy prime minister suggested, include developing new homes. The announcement followed a Local Government Group poll, carried out by YouGov, which revealed that 66% of businesses said they would prefer it if their rates were retained by their council and distributed locally. Clegg reassured the audience that he would ensure the proposals were “fair”, so the poorest boroughs would not find themselves worse off than they are already are under the new system. He also announced the government was looking to set up a series of pilot schemes to test out local community budgeting, including two pilots to try out plans to pool the entire funding pot for local services. He describe the move to localism as a “once in a generation shift from a very centralised lopsided economy to one that’s more balanced”. Delegates roundly welcomed the announcement of new fiscal powers, for councils but a series of simple questions posed by Liberal Democrats among the audience were met with loud jeers. Speaking earlier at the conference, decentralisation minister Greg Clark said he wished to provide councils with an “entrenched right of initiative” allowing them to find their own answers to local problems. “I think we’re getting close to a new constitutional settlement between central government and local government,” he said. Fears were raised about the risk of creating a ‘postcode lottery’ in public service delivery, but Cllr Colin Barrow, leader of the London borough of Westminster, said such accusations were in fact a benchmark of success. “I praise the postcode lottery. I think the more of a postcode lottery we have the better, because we’re local and local means different.” This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the local government network for more like this direct to your inbox. Policy Finance Localism Service provision Hannah Fearn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Business secretary says he is optimistic public sector pension talks will succeed as 750,000 prepare to stage Thursday walkouts The business secretary, Vince Cable, has warned teachers, jobcentre workers and immigration officials who are preparing to take strike action on Thursday that there will be no public sympathy for walkouts. Cable – who warned recently that tougher strike laws could follow walkouts – said: “I don’t think the public will understand. “The public view would be that we are negotiating and are willing to negotiate, so why would people be out on strike until that process has run its course?” Up to 750,000 employees affiliated to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Union of Teachers, the University and College Union and the Public and Commercial Services Union are expected to stage Thursday walkouts over pension reforms. Cable said he was “optimistic” that pensions reform talks would succeed, saying: “Most trade unions are committed to negotiations. They asked for the talks and we are taking them seriously.” He added that a “relatively” small number unions would strike on Thursday, without the backing of resounding ballot turnouts. “They don’t have a very strong mandate,” he said. David Cameron confirmed during prime minister’s questions that MPs would be subject to the pension reforms and will have to increase the amount they pay every month along with most other public sector workers. At the moment, to qualify for the most generous accrual rates MPs pay 11.7% of their salaries. They are likely to have to increase this by five percentage points – the maximum increase the Treasury has indicated. On average, contributions will go up by 3.2 percentage points from next April, but those earning under £15,000 will be exempted and those earning less than £18,500 will be capped at a 1.5 percentage point increase. Higher earners, including MPs, will have to pay up to five percentage points more to offset the cost of protecting low earners. Cameron said: “In this house we are public sector workers as well, and we should be subject to exactly the same changes that we’re asking others to take on. “The increase in contributions should apply to the MPs system, even though it’s a system where we already pay in quite a lot. We’re saying [that] right across the board the increase in pension contributions is right to create a healthier long-term system.” And he added: “I don’t believe there is any case for industrial action tomorrow, not least because talks are still ongoing. It is only a minority of unions who have taken the decision to go ahead and strike. “What I want to see tomorrow is as many mums and dads as possible able to take their children to school. What I would say is this: what we are proposing is fair, it is fair to taxpayers but it is also fair to the public sector because we want to continue strong public sector pensions.” He also accused Labour of avoiding bringing up the issue of the strikes during because of the party’s financial relationship with the unions. “Twenty-six minutes into questions and not a squeak from the party opposition about strikes or pensions or the need for reform,” he said. “Because they are paid for by the unions, they can’t discuss the unions.” Vince Cable Trade unions David Cameron Liberal-Conservative coalition Public sector pensions Public services policy Public sector pay Schools Dan Milmo Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Theresa May considers emergency legislation as police complain that high court decision has left them ‘running around like headless chickens’ The home secretary, Theresa May, is considering whether emergency legislation to stem growing concern among senior police officers over their ability to hold suspects is needed in the wake of a court ruling. The ruling – made by a district judge at Salford magistrates court and backed by the high court on 19 May – could spell the end of the practice of releasing suspects on police bail and calling them back for further questioning, a common practice in most major police investigations. On Wednesday, the West Yorkshire chief constable, Sir Norman Bettison, warned that the high court ruling on the “detention clock” was close to “a disaster” for custody sergeants, who face the prospect of having to release thousands of serious criminals without charge. “We are running around like headless chickens wondering what this means to the nature of justice,” Bettison said. “It’s a mess.” At a policing conference, May told Bettison she was also greatly concerned about the decision and was working with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service on its ramifications for police forces across England and Wales. “There may be an opportunity to appeal this decision,” she said. “We are also looking at whether or not it’s necessary to introduce legislation in order to deal with this issue. We are conscious of the concerns this judgment has brought in terms of operational policing.” The ruling concerned the case of Paul Hookaway, a murder suspect who was released by the Salford district judge when police applied for an extension under section 44 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act after the original 24 hours they are allowed to hold someone for questioning. Extensions up to a total of 96 hours are allowed. The district judge broke new ground in ruling, for the first time in the history of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, that the detention clock continues to run while the suspect is out on police bail. Hookaway was first arrested at 12.40pm on 7 November last year. A superintendent granted permission for him to be detained for up to 36 hours for questioning, but he was released on bail after about 28 hours. Five months later, on 5 April, police applied to the courts to extend the period of detention from 36 hours to the maximum 96. But the district judge refused the application, saying the 96 hours had expired months before. Greater Manchester police applied to the high court for a judicial review of the case, but Mr Justice McCombe upheld the district judge’s decision on 19 May and refused leave to appeal. The force is now seeking leave to appeal to the supreme court. Bettison said that unless the ruling was overturned, police could no longer put anyone out on bail for more than 96 hours without either being in a position to charge or release. “It’s on the verge of a disaster now, because the question being asked by my custody sergeants is: ‘What do we do, boss?’” he said. “I cannot countenance turning people away from the charge office and telling them all bets are off and they are free to go.” Professor Michael Zander, of the London School of Economics, recently said the decision was unfortunate and, if it was not quickly overturned on appeal, would need to be speedily reversed by legislation. In a Criminal Justice article, he said that when the original Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed, the then home secretary, Douglas Hurd, intended to protect suspects from being held for more than 96 hours without impeding police investigations. He said it was not designed to enable a game of “cat and mouse” tactics to be played by the police. Theresa May Liberal-Conservative coalition Police Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …