Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 948)
Politics live blog – Tuesday 7 June

Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen 5.56pm: Here’s an afternoon summary. • David Cameron has announced a raft of changes to the health bill . The concessions have been welcomed by the Lib Dems, but some Tories will be concerned that the planned reforms are being emasculated. Cameron also announced that he is setting up “clinical senates”, which will involve groups of doctors and healthcare professionals coming together “to take an overview of the integration of care across a wide area”. This will lay him open to the charge that, having announced plans to remove one tier of bureaucracy in the NHS (by abolishing primary care trusts), he has ended up creating another in its place. (See 2.12pm.) • Oxford academics have overwhelming passed a vote of no confidence in David Willetts, the higher education minister. The motion was passed by 283 votes to 5. There is full coverage on our live blog. • Theresa May, the home secretary, has said that money from the £63m anti-radicalisation Prevent budget has been given to “the very extremist organisations that Prevent should have been confronting”. In a statement to the Commons announcing the government’s new approach, she said: “In trying to reach out to those at risk of radicalisation, funding sometimes even reached the very extremist organisations that Prevent should have been confronting. We will not make the same mistakes. In a world of scarce resources, it is clear that Prevent work must be targeted against those forms of terrorism which pose the greatest risk to our national security.” • William Hague, the foreign secretary, has mildly criticised Formula One for its decision to re-instate the Bahrain Grand Prix. When he was initially asked about this, he replied: “[Formula One] must take responsibility for their own decisions but if such an event is to take place at all then it should be a focus for improvements in Bahrain and be an incentive for all in Bahrain to work together on a national dialogue.” But later, in response to a question from Sir Menzies Campbell, he said Formula One “has not done itself any good by what has been announced”. • Paul Burstow, the health minister, has said that there could be an independent inquiry into the abuse of adults with learning disabilities at the Winterbourne View private hospital . This morning Ed Miliband said that the ongoing reviews into what happened were unsatisfactory and that an independent inquiry was necessary. Later, in the Commons, Burstow said: “For the avoidance of doubt, we have not ruled out an independent inquiry.” That’s it for today. Thanks for the comments. 5.53pm: Theresa May’s statement is now over. I’ll post a summary shortly. 5.46pm: Labour’s Denis MacShane says all government’s get some of these issues wrong. May should not have been so partisan, he says. 5.41pm: Labour’s Tristram Hunt says that for home secretaries to define what is and isn’t Britishness is “treacherous territory”. 5.33pm: Patrick Mercer, a Conservative, asks about Northern Ireland. May says Prevent doesn’t cover Northern Ireland terrorism. 5.32pm: Labour’s George Howarth asks for an assurance that the good Prevent work being carried out abroad won’t be abandoned. May says the government says this activity will continue. But the government will need to make sure that the money is properly spent. 5.27pm: The Home Office press notice about the new Prevent strategy is now available on the Central Office of Information website. 5.25pm: David Blunkett, the Labour former home secretary, says May should not be making political points with this issue. And he asks why Michael Gove is withdrawing citizenship from the curriculum? May says Gove is clear about ensuring that values are taught in schools. 5.24pm: David Davis, the Tory backbencher, says he recently received a letter from a prisoner saying his prison imam told inmates not to believe what the Western media was saying about the death of Osama bin Laden. Will the new Prevent strategy stop teaching like this? May says she wants to see this kind of activity being put to an end. 5.22pm: May is replying to Cooper. She says Cooper accepted the need to review Prevent. But she has also rejected the findings of that review, she says. On Hizb ut-Tahrir, she says the government will keep its status under review. May says it is right for the government to look at the groups being funded. The last government did not do that, she says. 5.17pm: Yvette Cooper , the shadow home secretary, says Theresa May has been engaged in “political point scoring”. She was supposed to be updating the Prevent strategy. But she has done nothing of the kind. The Prevent strategies were launched after 7/7. At the time the government was treading on new ground. It had the support of the opposition. Some of the strategies worked. Some didn’t. May should proceed on the basis of evidence, she says. Cooper says she agrees that extremist groups should not be funded. But the review found that this was not a problem. The universities and the NHS have already rejected the government’s plans. There is a “massive gap” between May’s rhetoric and the reality. Police counter-terrorism budgets are being cut, she says. And the government is watering down control orders (in a bill being debated later tonight). Cooper finishes with a final question. Will May confirm that the government will not meet its promise to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir? 5.14pm: May is still speaking. The Prevent strategy will have three objectives. 1. Tackling the ideology behind extremism. May says she has already stopped 44 individuals coming to the UK. 2. Stopping individuals being drawn into terrorism. May says Prevent is “not about spying on communities”. 3. Working with sectors and institutions where there is a risk of radicalisation. May pays tribute to the Lib Dem peer Lord Carlile of overseeing the review. He supports its findings, she says. May says her plan “will tackle the threat from home-grown terrorism”. 5.09pm: May says Osama bin Laden may be dead, but the threat from al-Qaida is severe. That means an attack on the UK is highly likely. The government must stop people being drawn into terrorist activity in the first place. And the government must have a counter-terrorism strategy to deal with terrorism at home and overseas. Labour’s Prevent strategy was “flawed”, she says. The new strategy will have a number of new principles. It should address all forms of terrorism, including the extreme rightwing. But it must focus on those forms of terrorism that pose the greatest risk. At the moment, al-Qaida poses the greatest risk. The new strategy will also tackle “non-violent extremism”, she says. Integration should go wider than counter-terrorism. The last government only promoted integration in the context of terrorism. Public funding for Prevent will be prioritised and “rigorously” audited. Public money will not be provided to organisations if they do not support the values of human rights and democracy. 5.08pm: Theresa May is starting her statement now. 4.49pm: Theresa May , the home secretary, is about to make a Commons statement about the government’s new Prevent counter-terrorism strategy. Here’s a short background reading list before she starts. • A briefing note from the House of Commons library about the Prevent review (pdf). • David Cameron’s speech on Islamist extremism at the Munich security conference. • Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome on how drawing up the Prevent strategy split the coalition. 4.41pm: William Hague , the foreign secretary, is now updating MPs on events in Libya and other countries in North Africa and the Middle East. You can read his statement in full here. He said he visited Benhazi at the weekend and found “a great sense of optimism amongst ordinary Libyans”. He was asked about Formula One’s decision to re-instate the Bahrain Grand Prix. Hague said Formula One “has not done itself any good” by the decision. 4.30pm: Miliband has attacked the government’s NHS plans as “lunacy”. That’s David Miliband , not Ed. The former foreign secetary intervened in health questions and, according to PoliticsHome, he asked Andrew Lansley to confirm that “that over £20m has been spent in the North East of England sacking PCT staff, that this money has come from funds previously earmarked for hospitals, and that there are going to be at least as many commissioning groups under his proposals as there currently are PCTs employing managers in those roles.” Miliband went on: Doesn’t this show that his plans are lunacy, not reform, and that they should be taken away and put into the dustbin, not given a simple pause? 4.14pm: Earlier, in my reading list (see 2.49pm), I posted a link to a Dan Hodges article that included an attack on Liberal Conspiracy. At Liberal Conspiracy, Dan Paskini has posted a reply. “Rubbishing our leader and behaving like the 1990s Tory Bastard Renactment Society isn’t a contribution on the route to electoral victory,” Paskini says. 4.00pm: Paul Burstow ‘s statement is now over. Here are the main points. • Burstow refused to rule out an independent inquiry into the Winterbourne View scandal. But he stressed that various reviews were already taking place. The Care Quality Commission is inspecting all services run by Castlebeck Care, the firm that runs Winterbourne View. South Gloucestershire council is holding a multi-agency safeguarding review. A criminal investigation is underway. And the Department for Health will examine the role played by all agencies involved. • Mark Goldring, the chief executive of MENCAP, will contribute to the internal Department for Health review of what happened. • Burstow did not rule out demanding resignations once the reviews being carried out are over. 3.57pm: Labour’s Dame Anne Begg asks if “telly care” would help, by allowing people to find out what was happening in homes like Winterbourne View. Burstow says he thinks that there is a role for “telly care”, but that this should not be a substitute for in-person inspections. 3.51pm: Labour’s Gisela Stuart asks if he is prepared to force people to resign if it turns out to be to blame. Burstow says in principle he is prepared to ask people to go. But he will first await the findings of the reviews being carried out into what happened. Accountability and Responsibility are at the heart of the government’s approach, he says. 3.51pm: Margot James, a Conservative, asks how many whistleblower complaints to the CQC have not been followed up? Burstow says he will look into this. 3.48pm: Labour’s Malcolm Wicks says Winterbourne is probably not an isolated example. Could local communities be involved in safeguarding people in these homes, he asks. Burstow says there will never be an inspector in every home at every moment in the day. But he would like people to become involved in the scrutiny of care in their communities. 3.43pm: Labour’s Dennis Skinner says a full inquiry would focus attention on the owners of Winterbourne View. He says that it is ironic that “billionaire Irishmen” were involved in the company owning the hospital at a time when Britain is helping to bail out the Irish economy. 3.41pm: Labour’s Michael Meacher says the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has had to reduce its inspections by 70%. Burstow says the last Labour government changed the rules govering CQC inspections. 3.39pm: Paul Burstow is replying to Thornberry. He repeats his point about the government not ruling out any further inquiry. But the government wants to make a decision based on “the full facts”, which is why it wants to see what the local inquiries throw up. 3.37pm: Emily Thornberry says the events shown on Panorama were “truly shocking”. South Gloucestershire Council is reviewing this case. But there should be an independent inquiry, she says. Did staff shortage at the Care Quality Commission have anything to do with what happened? Thornberry says she is not asking for an inquiry into individuals. She is asking for an inquiry into the failure of the system. 3.35pm: Paul Burstow is still speaking. He says responsibility for care rests with four groups: the providers, the commissioners, the regulators and the individuals involved. The individuals should have known what they were doing was totally unacceptable. 3.33pm: Paul Burstow , the health minister, is responding to the urgent question now. I thought Andrew Lansley was answering – because that’s what David Cameron said when he was asked about it earlier – but Lansley has left it to Burstow, the minister for care. Emily Thornberry, a shadow health minister, asks why the government has rejected Labour’s call for an independent investigation. Burstow says the government has not ruled out an independent investigation at some point. 3.21pm: Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, will be answering an urgent question about the Winterbourne View scandal at 3.30pm. A Panorama documentary broadcast last week showed staff at the centre grossly mistreating patients, who are adults with autism and learning difficulties. There is some footage on the BBC’s website, which also quotes an expert describing the treatment as “torture”. Here’s the statement Lansley issued about this last week. 2.49pm: Here’s an afternoon reading list. • Sturdyblog on why the IMF should not be taken too seriously. Last year, Hungary told the IMF to take its recommendations and shove them where the Strauss-Kahn don’t shine. The IMF insisted on tougher austerity measures, Hungary wanted to tax its banks and the rich. Talks between Hungary and the IMF collapsed and the IMF warned that Hungary would be punished for its folly. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research warned that the IMF’s obsession with austerity was dangerous. A year on, the IMF had to eat its words and commend Hungary for its ongoing recovery, which is going very well – thank you. • Sam Macrory at ePolitix on what John Bercow had to say when he was interviewed on stage by the Independent’s Steve Richards last night. And when offering his views on one particular paper, Mr Speaker was anything but [silent]. The Daily Mail, Bercow-baiters in chief, was dismissed as a “sexist, racist, bigoted, comic cartoon strip”, with Bercow apologising for breaking the trade descriptions act for describing the Mail as a “newspaper.” A red rag to its parliamentary sketch writer Quentin Letts, but honesty-points for the Speaker. • Dan Hodges at LabourUncut says Labour’s “flat earthers” need to get real. I’ve said it before, and I make no apologies for saying it again. The Labour movement is losing its marbles. At the moment, the cult of the flat earther is everywhere. “It’s not true we have a huge funding problem”, said Harriet Harman to Andrew Marr. The local election results were great. There is a progressive majority in this country. Ed’s problem is that not enough people have got to know him. This is not simple denial. Denial is an inability to face the truth. We’re not just ignoring the truth, we are constructing an entire alternate universe. In politics people will always have different perspectives, even those on the same side of the political fence. But for debate to be meaningful, there have to be some basic areas of agreement to act as points of reference, and anchor the dialogue. At the moment, within the Labour party, those points of reference simply do not exist. • Nicholas Watt on his Guardian blog on why Lady Thatcher will not be meeting Sarah Palin. It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher’s frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me: “Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.” • Sarah Hayward at ProgLoc says that at the moment Labour does not have an answer to the challenges thrown up by localism. 2.45pm: Andrew Lansley is taking questions in the Commons now. At 3.30pm he will be answering an urgent question about the Winterbourne View private hospital scandal. And he’s also issued a press release, accusing Ed Miliband of “misleading the public”. At his news conference this morning Miliband said that at the election Labour said it would “maintain NHS spending in real terms”. But its manifesto only promised to protect “frontline investment” in the NHS. Ed Miliband is misleading the public. The manifesto he wrote does not protect NHS funding in real terms at all – and he knows it. A quick look at their cuts to the NHS in Wales tells you all you need to know: where Labour run the NHS, they run it into the ground. 2.12pm: David Cameron is delivering his NHS speech now. Here are the key points. • Cameron says that he will change the section of the health bill saying that Monitor, the health regulator, should have a duty to “promote competition”. This could be misinterpreted and we don’t want any doubt in anyone’s mind. Monitor will be tasked with creating “a genuine level playing field” between NHS and private providers, he says. Private companies will have to meet the highest standards and they will have to contribute to the costs of training NHS staff. Monitor will also have a new duty to support the integration of services, he says. • GP-led consortia will only take charge of commissioning when they are “good and ready”, he says. • Hospital doctors and nurses will be involved in the commissioning consortia. In fact, Cameron is now describing it as “clinically-led commissioning, not just GP commissioning.” • Clinical senates will be set up. These involve groups of doctors and healthcare professionals coming together “to take an overview of the integration of care across a wide area”. (Cameron did not go into details, but it sounds as if these could end up looking like the primary care trusts that the government is abolishing.) There’s more coverage of the speech, and of the reaction to it, on our NHS reforms live blog. 1.53pm: Labour’s Mary Creagh , the shadow environment secretary, isn’t impressed with the government’s white paper on the natural environment. (See 1pm.) She has put out this response. Today’s natural environment white paper provides few clues about the Conservative-led government’s plans for nature. The white paper fails to set out a clear plan for major challenges such as reforestation or biodiversity loss; nor does it deal with concerns about planning policy. 1.00pm: Here’s a lunchtime summary. • David Cameron has claimed that the government has now persuaded voters to support NHS reform in principle. “Before the pause [in the health bill}, many were claiming the NHS is fine, and telling us not to touch it,” he is saying in a speech he will be making shortly. “Now – whatever their views about how to do it, most agree change is needed. What’s more, a significant number are now more clearly on board with the thrust of what we are proposing.” The speech starts at 1.30pm and we’ll be covering it in detail on the NHS reforms live blog. (See 9.07am.) • Ed Miliband has called for an independent investigation into the treatment of adults with autism and learning difficulties at the Winterbourne View private hospital. A minister will be answering an urgent question on this topic at 3.30pm. (See 11.10am.) • Miliband has also called for a review of the way care homes are regulated. (See 11.10am.) • Lady Neville-Jones, the government’s former security minister, has said that “plenty of Muslim groups” deserve to lose state funding because they support anti-democratic values. As Alan Travis reports, she was speaking ahead of this afternoon’s publication of the government’s revised Prevent counter-terrorism strategy. • The Queen has opened the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff. Referring to the way the assembly has now acquired powers to pass primary legislation, she told the AMs (assembly members): “During the various evolutionary stages of devolution in Wales, the Assembly has earned itself a well-deserved reputation for diligence and competence. You are now entrusted with the authority to make laws in all matters contained within the 20 subjects devolved to the Assembly and, for the first time, you will be passing Assembly Acts.” • Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, has unveiled plans to spend £7.5m creating 12 large-scale nature improvement areas. The plan is set out in “The Natural Choice”, described by her department as the first white paper on the natural environment in 20 years. • The Department for Health has said that it welcomes “constructive engagement” from other parties on the future of care. It was responding to Ed Miliband’s offer to work with the government to find a cross-party solution to the problem of social care following the publication of Andrew Dilnot’s report on this issue later this year. (See 12.58pm: There will be an urgent question at 3.30pm about the Winterbourne View scandal, according to Sky’s Sophy Ridge. 12.42pm: Downing Street have responded to my question about the polling evidence that supports David Cameron’s claim that public opinion has now come around in favour of NHS reform. (See 9.07am.) An aide referred me to the YouGov@Cambridge (a YouGov division staffed by academics) report out today about public attitudes to health reform (pdf). This does show huge support – 71% in favour, 6% opposed – for the idea that “the way in which the NHS spends its money needs to be reformed, as increased life expectancy and new drugs mean it is becoming more expensive to run”. But there are no figures showing whether support for this proposition has gone up or down since Cameron launched his “listening exercise”. For all I know, YouGov would have got the same response six months ago. The report is worth reading. It shows that when people are asked broadly if they support the government’s reform plans, most say no. Some 41% are opposed, and only 20% are in favour. But when people are asked about specific aspects of the reforms, like GP commissioning, they tend to support them. There is even narrow support – 33% in favour, 29% against – for having a regulator “to ensure that there is competition for provision of NHS services”. 11.42am: Here are the main points from Ed Miliband ‘s press conference. • Miliband called for an independent investigation into the treatment of adults with autism and learning difficulties at the Winterbourne View care home. He said he was “sickened” by last week’s Panorama revelations about the behaviour of staff at the home. Miliband suggested that the government’s response to the programme was inadequate, although, given that the police have arrested some members of staff, it is not clear how Labour’s proposed inquiry would relate to the police investigation. • He said the government should consider changes to the way care homes for the elderly are regulated. In the light of the Southern Cross crisis, there is a case for saying that regulators should consider the financial stability of private firms providing care, not just the quality of the care itself. Miliband said that he wasn’t opposed to the private sector providing care in principle. • He played down concerns about his poor personal ratings in the polls . “I’m not a poll commentator,” he said. He would talk to the voters about what mattered. “I think it’s always true for leaders of the opposition early in their time in office that the public are getting to know them. But I’m very confident,” he said. “In the end you let the people decide.” • He said voters had forgotten how much the NHS had improved under Labour. In 1997 Virginia Bottomley, the Conservative health secretary, wanted to promise a maximum 18-month waiting time. She never achieved that, he said. Labour got the maximum down to 18 weeks, he said. When pressed for further details of how Labour would reform the NHS, Miliband referred to the speech he gave on this subject to the RSA. (There’s more about that speech here, at 12.12pm.) 11.34am: BBC News and Sky have given up on their coverage of the Labour press conference. And Labour’s live feed still isn’t working. It looks as if I should have made the trip to the Royal Festival Hall. I’ll sum up what we’ve learnt shortly. 11.25am: The Q&A is still going on. Q: Are there any circumstances in which you could vote for the health bill? Miliband says the government would be better to “go back to the drawing board”. But he will wait to see what the government proposes. Q: What do you say to people who think you’re a bad opposition? Miliband says he thinks Labour has won back the voters it lost at the last election. But it has got to win back more people, by showing them he has “a compelling view of the future”. There is further to go, he says. Q: Your personal poll ratings are way behind Cameron’s? Are you a drag on Labour’s chances? Miliband says he is “not a poll commentator”. He talks about what matters to the country. Voters have to make up their mind. There is always a phase for new opposition leaders when voters get to know them. In the end voters have to make up their own mind. 11.19am: The Q&A is still going on. Q: What can you do to stop private equity firms “creaming off millions” from firms like Southern Cross? Miliband says Labour allowed independent treatment centres to provide NHS care. But they had to show that they were financially viable. He is “open-minded” about how this issue is addressed. But the government cannot leave this to one side. The government’s response has not been nearly “muscular enough”, he says. Q: What do you have to say about knife crime? Do you think the government is soft on crime? Miliband says he does take this seriously as an issue. Cameron made a series of promises on knife crime. “As far as I can tell, he’s not keeping them.” He says he will support tough community punishments. But he does not support Kenneth Clarke’s plan to halve sentences for offenders who plead guilty early. Q: What do you think about Nick Clegg’s stance on the health bill? Miliband says Clegg is a “Johnny come lately” convert to changing the health bill. Q: Has getting married changed your view of marriage? (This is from the Daily Mail.) Miliband congratulates the Mail on its coverage of the care homes issue. On marriage, he says he will not tell other couples how what they should do. 11.16am: Miliband is taking questions now. Q: How do you respond to the claims that the Labour policy review is chaotic? (Some of these claims were made in this Total Politics article.) Miliband says he is “very proud” of the policy review. Liam Byrne is leading a review reporting to Miliband. And shadow cabinet ministers are conducting their own reviews. A party that loses an election needs to consider its policies, he says. Q: How can you work with David Cameron on care when you have been so critical of him? Miliband says Labour has worked with the government on some issues. Social care is an area where the parties should work together. 11.10am: Here are the key points from Ed Milband ‘s opening speech. • Miliband demanded an independent investigation into the Winterbourne View care home scandal. I was shocked by the scenes from the Winterborne View care home. They sickened me. They shame our country. The Government appears to believe that reviews by the Care Quality Commission and by South Gloucestershire Council are enough. It is not because these bodies were involved in the failure itself. There must be an independent investigation into what happened and what lessons need to be learned and the Government should announce it straight away. • He said the Southern Cross care home crisis suggested that regulators should investigate not just the quality of care, but also the financial stability of private firms providing that care. At Southern Cross, it is plain wrong that financiers creamed off millions, while as we now know the care of tens of thousands of elderly people was being put at risk. They seem to have been treated merely as commodities. As we have seen previously with the banks, there are industries – and health and social care services are one such example – where corporate failure can have consequences far beyond the loss to shareholders and investors. Just as with the banks, in the end the government would have to step in and pick up the tab. We should not jump to the conclusion that all private homes are bad. They are not. But for these industries, effective regulation is critical. Currently regulation looks at the quality of care provided. The Government must now also look at whether the regulation of this sector should be extended to cover the financial stability of organisations which provide these vital services for hundreds of thousands of elderly people. • He offered to hold cross-party talks with the government on the findings of the Dilnot review into the future of care for the elderly being published later this year. We all know that there have been lots of reports into social care over the years. Every serious attempt to solve this pressing challenge has foundered, often on the failure to find a political consensus. The most recent example was the break-up of cross-party talks by the Conservatives when they were in opposition so they could scaremonger about death taxes and benefit changes. I want to make a serious offer to David Cameron today. Let’s engage in cross-party talks around the Dilnot Commission’s recommendations to deliver the care system we need. We will come to those talks with an open mind about the best way forward, not simply advocating what we have proposed in the past. 11.08am: Oh dear. The Labour party’s live feed seems to have crashed. Luckily Sky and BBC News are showing Ed Miliband’s speech. 11.01am: The live feed does seem to be working. According to a number at the bottom of the screen, I’m one of 127 people watching at the moment. 10.51am: 10.51am: Ed Miliband’s press conference will be starting shortly. It’s at the Royal Festival Hall. I normally attend these events in person, but Labour say they will be showing a live feed on their Facebook site and so I’ll take their chances with that. Jim Pickard at the FT’s Westminster blog has more on how Miliband will be calling for cross-party talks on social care. 10.32am: Ed Miliband is going to call for an independent investigation into the Winterbourne View home for disabled adults scandal , according to the BBC’s Norman Smith. 10.25am: You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today’s paper, are here. As for the rest of the papers, here are some articles and stories that are particularly interesting. • Sean O’Neill in the Times (paywall) says the government will reveal that Labour spent millions of pounds overseas on anti-extremism projects that produced no security benefits. The new Prevent strategy for fighting the al-Qaeda ideology, a copy of which has been seen by The Times, promises to “significantly scale up” work in prisons and with recently released terrorist prisoners. The document, to be published in Parliament this afternoon, says that anti-extremism programmes reached only “a small proportion of the target prison population” and some convicted terrorists have been released without their beliefs being challenged. By contrast, in an echo of the debate over international aid spending, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been spending Prevent money abroad on English classes for imams and courses to empower Muslim women that have had little or no security value. • Jeremy Laurance in the Independent says that more than 70 per cent of primary care trusts are ignoring guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) to offer infertile couples three free cycles of IVF. Women unable to conceive naturally are being denied IVF on the NHS because they are too young, too old, too fat, smoke or live in Wales – in flagrant breaches of the guidelines. (That suggests David Cameron’s “universal coverage” pledge isn’t quite as far-reaching as it sounds. See 9.07am.) • Rachel Sylvester in the Times (paywall) says David Cameron is going back on his commitment to localism. Now that he realises that he will be held responsible for the decisions made by local people and institutions, Mr Cameron is slowly but surely seizing back control. Although the coalition agreement declared that “the time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today”, in reality, a year on, power is being concentrated ever more narrowly at the centre. Even as the Localism Bill goes through Parliament, promising new rights and powers for local communities, the Government in Whitehall is asserting itself with increasing vigour. Yesterday Mr Cameron backed national guidelines for retailers, broadcasters and councils to prevent the sexualisation of children. Today the Home Office publishes plans to tackle extremism that will include controls on universities and Muslim groups. The Department for Environment and Rural Affairs will set out plans to protect designated wildlife sites. Meanwhile, ministers are about to force through a huge housebuilding programme on public sector land. “All political parties are decentralisers in opposition and centralisers in government,” one strategist says. “Once you have power it’s very hard to give it up.” • Jason Groves in the Daily Mail says Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, has described Britain as a “development superpower”. Addressing a foreign policy conference in London, Mr Mitchell said: ‘Just as the Americans are a military superpower, we are a development superpower – we are in the lead. ‘My ambition is that over the next four years people will come to think across our country – in all parts of it – of Britain’s fantastic development work around the poorest parts of the world with the same pride and satisfaction that they see in some of our great institutions like the Armed Forces and the monarchy. This is brilliant work that Britain is doing.’ (The Daily Mail isn’t very chuffed about Britain’s new superpower status. “Why on Earth do the Tories think they have the right to squander taxpayers’ money in their misguided zeal to detoxify their brand,” it asks in a leader.) • Andy McSmith in the Independent says that Sarah Palin wants to come to London to meet Margaret Thatcher, but that she is likely to be disappointed. Baroness Thatcher had to stop making public appearances years ago because of ill health and is seldom at home for guests. A reception hosted by David Cameron in Downing Street to celebrate her 85th birthday had to go ahead without her. An aide said: “Nowadays, the Lady rarely meets people at all. If a meeting went ahead it would be very much low-key, and would very much depend on how things were on the day. We don’t make firm appointments for this sort of meeting.” • Roland Watson and Robert Lea in the Times (paywall) say ministers are considering plans that would force unions to minimise disruption to the public during strikes. Ministers are now looking at measures that would require unions to sign up to minimum service agreements of the kind used in Spain. That would require unions to maintain a level of service of about 40 per cent of the normal level, even when they were on strike. One Government source said: “We are looking at how you minimise the impact on the economy and on public services.” • Philip Stephens in the Financial Times (subscription) says George Osborne and Ed Balls are both right about the deficit. How can the chancellor and his shadow both be right? It’s simple. Mr Osborne was correct to judge that the UK needed a tough and credible programme to eliminate the deficit within a reasonable time frame. Mr Balls has been right in arguing it was dangerous to do too much too soon. To put it another way, Mr Osborne has been too intractable and Mr Balls too reluctant to spell out a convincing alternative. The sensible thing for the chancellor to do now would be to dust off the contingency plans drawn up some months ago by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary. To save face, Mr Osborne can call them something other than plan B. Strange to say, Mr Balls is in no better shape. Much as they may think the government is overdoing it, voters are unlikely to give much credence to Labour as long as Mr Balls implies the deficit can be wished away. The opposition will get a serious hearing only when it admits that it was not an entirely innocent bystander at the scene of this particular economic accident and when it produces its own plan to restore the public finances. 10.12am: Chris Ham, the director of the King’s Fund health thinktank, was on the Today programme this morning talking about David Cameron’s promise to keep NHS waiting times low – a promise that Ed Miliband claims is already being broken. (See 9.07am and 9.33am.) According to PoliticsHome, Ham said that “there is pressure on the NHS and we know that is having some effect on waiting times but there hasn’t been a great deal of change since the election”. The key thing, Ham said, was to establish what Cameron actually meant by his promise. If the prime minister is going to make a commitment to keep waiting times low, the key is what exactly does that mean? The previous government actually quantified its objectives, it said no more than four hours in A&E, a maximum of two days and you should get your operation done within a maximum of 18 weeks. So the question we and others will be asking about the prime minister’s commitment today on that point is: is he committing to the same targets or something else? If you want to know who’s right about waiting times, do read this analysis on the Channel 4 FactCheck blog. It concludes that there has been a “slight upward trend” in waiting times since the election. 9.33am: And here are some extracts from what Ed Miliband is going to say about the NHS at his press conference later this morning. David Cameron is the first PM in history to set out five pledges to protect the NHS from his own policies, yet he has already broken two of them. The number of people waiting 18 weeks for treatment has gone up. He has not protected the health service budget. He has spent a year mismanaging the NHS. The consequence is chaos, confusion and damage to patient care. Hundreds of millions of pounds which should have been used for patient care are being wasted on handing out redundancy notices to staff from PCTs – staff who may now have to be rehired. 9.29am: For the record, here are the latest YouGov GB polling figures. Labour: 43% (up 13 points since the general election) Conservatives: 37% (no change) Lib Dems: 9% (down 15) Labour lead: 6 points Government approval: -24 9.07am: Downing Street have already released some extracts from David Cameron ‘s NHS speech. Yesterday we learnt that Cameron would be making five personal pledges on the issue and here they are in full. We will not endanger universal coverage – we will make sure it remains a National Health Service. We will not break up or hinder efficient and integrated care – we will improve it. We will not lose control of waiting times– we will ensure they are kept low. We will not cut spending on the NHS – we will increase it. And if you’re worried that we are going to sell-off the NHS and create some American-style private system – we will not. We will ensure competition benefits patients. These are my five guarantees. There are some other interesting remarks in the speech too. Cameron acknowledges that “in many ways the NHS is providing some of the best service it ever has”. He says that the listening exercise has produced “an important debate around our country”, including “searching analysis that some newspapers have carried out”. (I presume that means he’s been reading the Guardian’s excellent NHS reforms live blog.) Crucially, he also claims that, as a result of the listening exercise, the government is winning the argument over the need to reform the NHS. Before the pause, many were claiming the NHS is fine, and telling us not to touch it. Now – whatever their views about how to do it, most agree change is needed. What’s more, a significant number are now more clearly on board with the thrust of what we are proposing. In recent weeks, GPs representing 1,100 practices across England, the Association of Surgeons from Great Britain and Ireland and the Royal College of Surgeons have all written letters to national newspapers expressing support for the basis of our plans. Patients groups like Saga and Age UK have also backed key parts of our plans. But is this actually true? Does anyone know of any polling that confirms that “a significant number [of people] are now more clearly on board with the thrust of what we are proposing”? The only evidence I can find to support this is the YouGov tracker poll (pdf) that shows that the Labour lead on the NHS is now only 12 points, compared with 15 points at the beginning of May and 15 points at the end of March. But this is only a very modest improvement. In January the Labour lead on the “which party would handle the NHS best” question was just 10 points. 8.50am: MPs are back today and health is dominating the agenda. Ed Miliband is giving a press conference on health this morning, David Cameron is delivering a speech on the subject this afternoon and Andrew Lansley is taking questions on the Commons. But there are plenty of other things going on too. Here’s the diary for the day. 9am: The cabinet meets. 10.15am: Energy companies give evidence to a Commons committee about the UK’s energy supply, 11am: Ed Miliband gives a press conference about the NHS. I’ll be covering it here minute by minute, and you can can watch it live on Labour’s Facebook page . 11am: Andrew Dilnot, who is chairing the government’s commission on care funding, speaks at a Saga care crisis seminar. 1.30pm: David Cameron delivers a speech on the NHS. My colleague Randeep Ramesh and Rowenna Davis will be covering it in detail on the NHS reforms live blog . 2pm: Oxford academics debate a motion of no confidence in David Willetts , the higher education minister. 2.30pm: Andrew Lansley , the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons. 2.30pm: Liam Fox , the defence secretary, gives evidence to the Commons Scottish affairs committee about the implications of the defence review for Scotland. 3.30pm: William Hague , the foreign secretary, makes a statement in the Commons about Libya. Around 4.30pm: Theresa May , the home secretary, is expected to make a statement about Prevent, the government’s counter-terrorism strategy. As Alan Travis reports , it will say that doctors should to identify people who are “vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism”. Later MPs will debate the terrorism prevention and investigation measures bill. We’re also getting an unusually large number of written ministerial statements today, including ones about the crisis at Southern Cross care homes, the revelations about the way adults with learning disabilities were treated at the Winterbourne View private hospital , the German E coli outbreak, money laundering and a medal for civilians who have been involved in the Afghan war. As usual, I’ll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm, and an afternoon one after 4pm. House of Commons Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Iran’s president admits rift with ayatollah and senior Islamic figures

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces he is on ‘opposite side’ to those who accuse him of revolutionary deviancy Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has admitted for the first time that a rift has developed between him and some of the most senior figures of the Islamic regime. In a press conference in Tehran on Tuesday, the first since news emerged of his power struggle with the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the president said: “It is very clear now that we are 180 degrees away from them – we are actually on opposite sides.” He pointed the finger at ruling conservatives, who have accused the government of “revolutionary deviancy”, while playing down suggestions that he has been at odds with Ali Khamenei. In recent months, conservatives close to the supreme leader have launched an extensive campaign against the president and his allies, who they believe is undermining the supremacy of the leader. Senior figures in the powerful revolutionary guards and some of the most prominent clerics in the country who have supported Ahmadinejad in the past are now distancing themselves from him. Those who remain in his camp have faced accusations of “sorcery”, “deviancy” and even espionage, and some presidential aides have been arrested. “They arrested those people. Good for them,” Ahmadinejad said. “Now they should let us continue our job. The government is seeking for nothing rather than serving the people and fulfilling the revolutionary aims.” He refused to answer further questions about the power struggle and said: “Our position at the moment is to stay silent. An inspiring unity silence.” Ali Khamenei’s supporters believe Ahmadinejad has not publicly given his full backing to the supreme leader after they clashed over cabinet appointments in April. Asked about Iran’s nuclear programme, the president denied recent allegations made by the chief executive of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, that the country may be working on developing weapons. “With America’s orders, the IAEA has written some things in a report that are against the law and against the agency’s regulations. These have no legal value and aside from harming the agency’s reputation it will have no other effect,” Ahmadinejad told reporters. He also said no offer from world leaders could stop Iran enriching uranium and accused the US and its allies of meddling in Syria and Bahrain. Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Nuclear weapons International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Middle East Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

The mainstream media have largely ignored or casually dismissed businessman and radio host Herman Cain's bid for the 2012 Republican nomination. Not so Time's Alex Altman, who has a generally decent piece today on the magazine's Swampland blog:

Continue reading …

The terrible wrongness of the Ryan budget plan combined with the strangest, craziest Republican presidential candidate field ever makes it rather obvious how important it is to get President Obama re-elected. To have extreme right Republicans (that seems to be pretty much all of them these days) control every branch of government would do even more damage now, as weakened economically as we are, than the 2003-2006 run they had with Bush and Congressional Republicans running everything — and think how ugly that was for the country. The good news is that Republicans are doing a very good job right now showing how bad they are, with this weak field of presidential hopefuls in all-out pander mode to the far right of their party, and the lockstep support for the Ryan budget showing how extreme they are — not just on Medicare but on a wide range of other major issues. And I feel good about many of the Obama team’s moves so far this cycle, especially creating Democratic unity around opposition to Ryan’s budget. However, as is obvious to pretty much everyone who follows politics at all (and probably a fair share of people who don’t), the continued problems with our economic trajectory is going to remain a serious problem dragging down the President’s re-election chances. Conventional economists and D.C. politicos, who generally focus on fiscal policy to the exclusion of just about everything else, feel stymied because they feel like the economy needs another fiscal stimulus package, and they know that is the exact opposite direction that House Republicans want to go. As a result, most people in Washington have pretty much given up on improving the economy between now and the 2012 election, and are devising strategies for Obama around running without the background of an improving economy. It is a very bad thing that Republicans, for all their lip service about jobs, don’t want to do anything to actually promote, and that their budget policies will force many more people to lose their jobs as well. But the ironic thing is that President Obama does not have to depend on Republicans to provide a major boost to the economy right now. What the President can do to boost the economy is to put his energies into restructuring and rebuilding the housing market. The fact is that the single biggest thing dragging the economy down right now is the housing sector, which is in terrible shape right now and continues to get worse. Home prices, already at lower levels than at the worst point in the housing crash of 2008-9, are dropping like a stone. Almost 30 percent of mortgage holders are underwater (what they owe on the house is more than what it is worth). Foreclosures are sky high for the foreseeable future. With middle-class families’ biggest financial asset by far being their house, and home prices low, while foreclosures are high, it means middle-class assets are being decimated. And with no one buying homes, it means no one is building homes either. With the housing sector as huge a part of the economy as it is, as long as these kinds of trends prevail, we are not going to make the economy work well for the broad middle class. But look at what could happen if we address this issue head on. SEIU did a report a few months back on the economic impact of shoring up the housing market, and it showed some pretty remarkable things. Here’s what I wrote when their report came out: … this report does a great job of laying out the numbers in stark detail. Bank robber Wee Willie Sutton famously said that the reason he robbed banks was because that was where the money was, and if we are looking to get our economy moving again, we should be looking to get the money to do it where the money is. Right now, more than ever, the Big Banks are where the money is concentrated. The most important fact by far in Big Banks Bonus Bonanza is this one: Right now, 11,000,000 American homeowners owe $766 billion more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, but if the banks were to write down those mortgage principals to market value and refinance them into 30-year, fixed-rate loans, you would get $73 billion pumped directly back into the economy — every year for the next 30 years. Now unlike extending tax cuts for the rich or reducing the estate tax, which tends to be saved and invested in long term bonds, this money would go directly into stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Think about who those 11,000,000 underwater homeowners are: They are almost entirely middle- and working-class families who have spent the last couple of years sweating bullets to save their main life investment after its value plummeted by 20 percent, 30 percent, or more. They haven’t been spending money on new products, they haven’t been taking any vacation trips with their families, if they own a little mom-and-pop business they sure haven’t been taking any risks to expand it: They have just been desperately scrimping and saving and trying to hang on by the skin of their teeth. But if their mortgage is reduced to what their house is actually worth in today’s market, that means their overall financial situation is far more stabilized, and it means their monthly mortgage payment will go down as well. With a stabilized debt and lower monthly mortgage payments, with the psychological weight of probable foreclosure off their shoulders, these middle-class homeowners (at least the ones with jobs, which is most of the folks who still have homes) are exactly the kind of people who will be likely to start spending a little money in this economy. Maybe they will finally buy the car they have been holding off on now for years. Maybe they will do a little home improvement now that they know they will be able to stay in their home. Maybe they will feel able to finally make the investment in their small business they have been wanting to make, and hire a few extra folks as a result. The economic multiplier effect of this $73 billion would be as good as any money injected into the economy right now. You want to know what the second most important fact in this report is? The $73 billion it would cost to write down those mortgages would be only half what the top six banks alone are getting ready to write in bonuses and compensation for 2010. If forced to write down these mortgages, the banks will scream bloody murder, even claiming it would endanger them and the entire economy. But all they have to do is cut their bonus and compensation packages, the vast majority of which go to top executives and traders, by 50 percent. Given all the cash these banks are sitting on, all the profits made and bonuses distributed in recent years, I have no doubt they can afford the hit. The ironic thing is that if they wrote down these mortgages, they would be getting monthly mortgage checks from all these homeowners, plus avoid the costs of all those foreclosure proceedings, but they don’t want to write down the property because of their own phony accounting that claims the properties are worth far more than they actually are. So here’s the other little nugget the report alludes to: If you injected $73 billion into the economy through these write downs, the multiplier effects I was referencing earlier — homeowners being able to free up cash to buy things and invest in small businesses and do home improvements — would mean 1.8 million new jobs. That is a lot of jobs, folks: enough to drop the unemployment rate from the almost 10 percent it has been sitting at for a very long time down to the mid 8s. And it would finally begin to stabilize the housing market, which would do a lot for the economy all by itself. The problem is this: you have to take on the biggest banks on Wall Street to clean up this mess. And let’s be clear: Congress would not be on the side of the administration if they did take on those banks. Even when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress by wide margins, Sen. Dick Durbin famously commented that that banks “own the place,” and now of course it is far worse: the Republican chair of the banking committee told bankers that his mission was to serve them, and the entire party is doing everything it possibly can to slow Elizabeth Warren down in her efforts to help consumers. But with all their sound and fury on behalf of Wall Street, let’s be clear on one other thing: the Obama administration does not need the Congress to do anything on this issue. The executive branch proved conclusively during the financial crisis that when something is important enough to them, they can do what they need to do and get the bankers to play along. If the regulatory agencies, the Department of Justice, and the Treasury Department, along with state AGs like Eric Schneiderman who already are putting the heat on — these bankers would have to go along with writing down a very big number of underwater mortgages, and cleaning up their foreclosure servicing operations in general. With fiscal stimulus out of the question, nothing the Obama administration could do right now would do more to help this economy. This makes economic sense and political sense, but Tim Geithner continues to stand firmly in the way. He continues to tell members of Congress and consumer and labor advocates he privately meets with that his hands are tied, there is nothing he can do, but in fact there is plenty he could do, he just doesn’t want to. Geithner is convinced that if you harm the banks, you harm the American economy — and if you help the banks, you help it. And the banks, whose balance sheets look so much better because the Mark-To-Model accounting system they use allows them to value the housing assets they hold at some inflated rate they project in the future when they assume the housing market will suddenly be better than it was in 2006, are telling Geithner that if they are forced to write down these mortgages, their accounting will show they have lost money. God forbid their books show their assets at what they actually are worth, because then they won’t be able to pay executive bonuses at such a high level. Given the makeup of Congress, Obama has just one chance to dramatically improve the American economy before the 2012 election, and that is to move aggressively to revitalize the housing market. He’ll have to take on Wall Street to do it, and he’ll have to pick a fight with them and their Republican allies in Congress. It’s a political fight worth having, and most importantly it would put our economy on the right path by giving it the jumpstart it needs.

Continue reading …
IMF leadership contest intensifies as Carstens puts case against Europe

Mexican candidate urges emerging markets not to treat European monopoly as ‘business as usual’ The battle for the leadership of the International Monetary Fund intensified on Tuesday when Mexico’s Agustín Carstens criticised Europe’s leaders for attempting to impose their favoured candidate. Carstens, one candidate from an emerging economy , said the next IMF managing director must be appointed through a fair and open process. The Bank of Mexico governor argued that the developing world must not meekly allow Europe to maintain its monopoly on the IMF leadership. “If emerging markets don’t act in line with our aspirations, we will never get to where we want to be,” Carstens told the Financial Times . “If we give in to the European church and treat it as business as usual, things will never change.” Carstens’ intervention came as Christine Lagarde, the frontrunner to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn , continued to seek support for her own bid. Lagarde met Indian officials on Tuesday in the latest stage of her global tour. Speaking after the meeting, Lagarde said the discussions had been fruitful. “I have demonstrated my merits and it is for them to decide whether I am good enough or not for the post of IMF,” Lagarde told CNBC. The Indian authorities, though, declined to say whether or not they would offer the French finance minister their support. The finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee, told journalists in New Delhi that India felt the selection should be based on “merit, competence, and [be made] in a transparent manner”. Lagarde is now heading to China to try to drum up support. Nominations for the top position at the IMF close on 10 June, with the victor expected to be announced on 30 June. Other potential candidates include South Africa’s former finance minister Trevor Manuel. Traditionally, the head of the IMF has always been European, but this status quo has been criticised by many nations outside the EU since Strauss-Kahn’s arrest in New York and subsequent resignation left the post vacant. Lagarde, though, has the support of several countries. A Russian official said on Tuesday that her knowledge, education and experience made her “second to none”. IMF Economics Global economy Mexico Christine Lagarde Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
NHS reforms: David Cameron unveils key changes

PM abandons some key reforms and pledges changes to deadlines, competition, funding and waiting times David Cameron has tried to allay the concerns of Liberal Democrats and the medical profession over the NHS reforms by unveiling a raft of changes to the bill. As negotiations with Nick Clegg intensify, ahead of the publication of the NHS Future Forum report next week, the prime minister abandoned key elements of the health secretary Andrew Lansley’s original blueprint. In a speech to members of the medical profession at University College London Hospital, Cameron announced the junking of Lansley’s original 2013 reforms deadline. There will also be changes to the health and social care bill to make clear that the main duty of the health regulator, Monitor, will be to promote the interests of patients rather than promoting competition. The prime minister announced four key changes designed to ensure Clegg can whip Lib Dem MPs and peers to back the amended health and social care bill. Cameron’s main points to the Clinical Neurological Centre at UCLH involved: Competition The health and social care bill will be amended to make clear that the primary role of the health regulator, Monitor, is not to promote competition but to promote the interests of patients and will “use competition as a means to that end”. Cameron said: “Now, as our legislation stands, Monitor, the health regulator, has a duty to promote competition. This could be misinterpreted and we don’t want any doubt in anyone’s mind. “Monitor’s main duty is to protect and promote the interests of people who use healthcare services and it will use competition as a means to that end. Not simply tasked to promote it or prevent it, but to secure the service patients need. It will be tasked with creating a genuine level playing field, so the best providers flourish and patients get a real choice.” The prime minister stressed that competition was an important way to improve services as he praised Tony Blair for opening up the NHS to private providers. But he added: “Let me be clear: no, we will not be selling off the NHS, we will not be moving towards an insurance scheme, we will not introduce an American-style private system.” Deadline Lansley’s original 2013 deadline for the creation of new GP-led commissioning consortiums, due to take charge of 65% of the NHS budget, will be junked. “We will make sure local commissioning only goes ahead when groups of GPs are good and ready, and we will give them the help they need to get there.” Commissioning Clinical commissioning will be opened up, with hospital doctors and nurses involved. New clinical senates will be introduced to allow groups of doctors and healthcare professionals to “take an overview of the integration of care” across a wide area. Cameron said: “We will not break up or hinder efficient and integrated care, we will improve it. And that means making changes to our current proposals. Hospital doctors and nurses will be involved in clinical commissioning. “We will also introduce clinical senates where groups of doctors and healthcare professionals come together to take an overview of the integration of care across a wide area.” In a key declaration, Cameron added: “Our changes will now secure clinically led commissioning, not just GP-led commissioning.” Waiting times The 18-week limit on waiting times, enshrined in the NHS constitution, will be kept. “Waiting times really matter … we’re keeping the 18-week limit. That’s in the NHS contract and constitution. And it’s staying.” Spending The prime minister also offered assurances that his pre-election pledge to increase NHS spending in real terms would be kept. “This year, and the year after, and the year after that, the money going into the NHS will actually increase in real terms with £11.5bn more in cash for the NHS in 2015 than in 2010.” Need for reforms While the prime minister said he was amending the original Lansley blueprint, he insisted real reforms would still be introduced. “We have to change the NHS to avoid a crisis tomorrow. That is what will happen if we don’t. More overstretch, more over-crowding, the NHS buckling under the pressure of an ageing population and the rising costs of treatments.” Cameron had two audiences in mind, both of which have the power to destroy the health and social care bill: members of the medical profession and the Lib Dems. His four-point plan is designed to meet the “requirements” for change outlined by Dr Evan Harris, the former Lib Dem MP who has led his party’s rebellion against the plans. Harris is to be consulted by Clegg later this week as the deputy prime minister finalises negotiations with Cameron ahead of a planned joint response shortly after Dr Steve Field, the chairman of the Future Forum, publishes his report next week. NHS Health David Cameron Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats Conservatives Andrew Lansley Health policy Public services policy GPs Doctors Healthcare industry Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

The Media Research Center’s Dan Gainor has been digging up the dirt on the deep-pocketed lefty media mogul George Soros’ funding of media operations, and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly invited him on to discuss Gainor's latest piece in which he says there are ‘nearly 30 Soros-funded media operations that are part of the ‘War on Fox’.”

Continue reading …
Pain at the Gas Pump? Blame the Kochs.

enlarge Lee Fang has been on a roll lately with his expose´ of the Koch empire and the various tentacles of the Kochtopus. But his latest may be the one with the most pain attached. It seems that not only does Koch Industries avail itself of the profit-taking available by speculating on oil prices, but they were the authors of the whole damn scam. Writing on his political blog, an attorney working for Koch’s law firm angrily replied to our initial investigation by claiming that Koch is solely a bonafide hedger, meaning that it only participates in speculative markets to reduce risk for the oil the company refines (he also bizarrely argued that speculation has no relation to the price of oil). The spin obscures reality: much of Koch’s oil trading business is actually akin to a hedge fund, buying and selling financial products based on oil with little interest in the actual delivery of the product. In fact, Koch pioneered the risky speculation industry that dominates the world’s oil markets today, first by inventing oil derivatives back in the ’80s, then by working to kill off regulations. ThinkProgress has delved into the history of Koch’s oil speculation business and the following timeline spells out Koch’s leading role: Read the rest The timeline is particularly interesting. In a nutshell, the very first oil derivatives were born in 1986, during the Reagan presidency. With the help of Phil Gramm in the Senate, and his wife Wendy Gramm, oil speculation was deregulated and the Kochs were laughing all the way to the bank. Wendy deregulated oil derivatives on the very last day of the George HW Bush administration, just before Bill Clinton took the oath of office. This is so representative of how Republicans and their corporate masters conduct themselves. In public, they cry out about how rotten government is while in private they work hard to create proof for their claim, with voters’ help. Rick Perlstein wrote a great article recently about the corrupt media and how it has evolved into one that not only overlooks right wing lies; it actually perpetuates them. As I considered that article against the revelation that the Kochs were the architects and authors of oil speculation, I heard all the various “pain at the pump” stories echo through my head. They didn’t come only from Fox News. They were on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN. Not one of them paid more than a casual nod to speculators’ dirty business and the effect on gas prices. Not one. Instead we get garbage like this Washington Post headline , “wondering” whether President Obama is intentionally driving up gas prices (the author answers the question with a big “no”, but the link bait was enough). Or we get Rick Santorum whining that it’s all that mean Democrat’s fault that we’re paying more at the pump, and the media just nods and drools while writing it all down on their little notepads. While I give Lee Fang a ton of credit for the outstanding work he’s doing unmasking the Kochs’ malfeasance, where is our media in this? When do they start to do even a modicum of investigative reporting. For that matter, why the heck isn’t Andrew Breitbart all over it, now that he thinks he has been forever inducted into the “legitimate media” category? And what are we going to do about it? That’s really the question.

Continue reading …
University tuition fees controversy – live blog

Government plans for £9,000 maximum tuition fees under attack from public accounts committee and Oxford dons 3.28pm: In related news, three London schoolchildren are taking the Metropolitan police to the high court over their “kettling” of protesters during the tuition fees protests in the capital in November. Sam Eaton and Adam Castle, both in year 11, and Adam’s younger sister claim the police action infringed their human rights and the Children Act 2004 … In April the high court, ruling in a case brought by two activists relating to the G20 London protests in 2009, said there was “no reasonable” justification for kettling … The children will tell the high court that kettling broke the laws of the European convention on human rights, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Children Act 2004, “mainly the right to protest and the safety of children”. _ 3.25pm: The BBC is reporting on a row between the Department for Business and AC Grayling’s New College for the Humanities over whether or not the institution can call itself a “university college”. “New College for the Humanities is not currently a university college. The college has not yet applied to use this title,” said a Bis spokesman. But the college said it was able to describe itself as a university college. “We have been advised that we may legally describe ourselves as a new independent university college, and will be working with the department to ensure that we comply with their particular guidelines on this before next autumn,” said a statement from the college … The University of London also issued a clarification about the links with NCH. “To avoid any confusion, it should be made clear that NCH is not, and will not be, a part of the University of London.” 3.16pm: In Oxford, Susan Cooper, a physicist and fellow of St Catherine’s college, has made her speech saying the government should “see through” this experiment in variable fees ( see 1.48pm ). 3.12pm: Jeevan Vasagar reports from Oxford, where lecturers are debating a motion of no confidence in higher education minister David Willetts, on a potentially incendiary speech (in the world outside the Sheldonian Theatre) from Donald Fraser, an academic at Worcester College: He calls for a return to higher education before 1992, and the creation of the new universities, and refers sceptically to a new university in the Midlands that offers courses in “cake decoration, wines and spirits appreciation” – adding, to laughter from the dons, that he knows students who already do this in their spare time. He says there are too many universities and calls for a cull. “What [the UK] does need are 40 or 50 well-funded universities and 100 or more polytechnics and technical colleges that provide a different product. Let us turn 100 universities back into polytechnics.” Universities like Oxford could offer opportunities for the “brightest students” to transfer from these new polys, Fraser adds. 2.53pm: Jeevan Vasgar has sent more from Oxford, where lecturers are debating a motion of no confidence in David Willetts, the universities minister: Robert Gildea, proposing the motion, accepted that some of his colleagues might be uncomfortable with the personal nature of the motion. But he said that Willetts had been outspoken in defending the government’s reforms and was responsible for delivering them. “That is why we are calling him to account”. He said that a higher education system based on three principles is under threat. These are: 1. Higher education is a public good. 2. Academic scholarship is pursued with a spirit of enquiry rather than a view to commercial gain. 3. Access to teaching and learning at university is based on intellectual potential. He said the government’s proposals were incoherent, promising to increase social mobility while “doing everything possible” to increase social inequality. Karma Nabulsi, seconding the motion, said: “Oxford is committed above all to the pursuit of academic excellence in all its forms, a defence of academic disciplines without regard for market values, and the idea of education as a comprehensive, publicly funded activity accessible to the widest number of young people.” She urged the academics not to consider the motion as a negative statement, “but as an affirmation of who we are and the traditions we wish to observe.” 2.32pm: Jessica Shepherd has been speaking to Matthew Robb, senior principal at global strategy consultancy firm the Parthenon Group. Robb says: More people want a degree than there are degree places so universities can charge quite high prices for places. In the short-term, that is fine, but the key question is whether the white paper will create a mechanism by which unmet demand can be supplied on a competitive basis. If the white paper manages this, then the government can reduce its costs and there will be competition, he says. He reminds us that we shouldn’t forget that “the private sector can be a real force for good”. 2.19pm: Jeevan Vasagar writes from Oxford, where lecturers are preparing for a vote of no confidence in David Willetts, the higher education minister. Jeevan writes: Journalists have been given a list of speakers. Robert Gildea, professor of modern history at Worcester College, will move the motion. It will be seconded by Karma Nabulsi, a lecturer in international relations. The academics will also be addressed by David Barclay, president of the students’ union, although students have no voting rights here. None of the speakers are expected to oppose the motion, except one, who regrets the personalised nature of the attack. Gildea has now begun speaking,with students chanting outside. Gildea has referred to AC Grayling’s £18,000 a year college as heralding the arrival of “twin track admissions – a red carpet for the rich and even more competition for everyone else. We will be back to Brideshead.” 2.16pm: On the New Statesman website, David Allen Green calls AC Grayling’s New College of the Humanities “a sham”. Careful attention reveals it to be just a branding exercise with purchased celebrity endorsements and a PR-driven website. The college has no degree giving powers, nor any influence over any syllabus for any of its degrees. The degrees which its students will study for are normal University of London degrees, which for external students can undertake at a fraction of the proposed £18,000. The college will seek access to University of London facilities, which it will presumably have to pay for at a commercial rate. So what will the student get for their £18,000? It will hardly be “face time” with the celebrity “professoriate”. Almost all of them are attached to foreign universities and have numerous other responsibilities and appointments. Indeed, in respect of the two listed law academics, neither of them are authorities in any of the seven core subjects of a standard law degree. And here is Rachel Williams’s report on this year’s league table ranking universities according to their impact on the environment. Rachel reports: A sector-wide target calls for a 43% decrease in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, but at 63% of universities in the tables they’ve actually gone up. The average increase per university is 7.4%, and total emissions from the institutions giving figures have risen by 3.9%. All this is despite the fact that their capital funding, in England at least, is now linked to the reductions they can achieve against sector targets. 1.48pm: Jessica Shepherd has seen the speech that Susan Cooper, professor of experimental physics at Oxford, is going to give to Congregation – the dons’ parliament – this afternoon. Academics at Oxford are going to debate whether they have confidence in David Willetts, the universities minister. Cooper thinks the government should stop turning in panic “at every storm” and urges it to act decisively: Five years of trying to improve the finances of a deficit department has taught me the importance of staying calm. Some things work out worse than you had hoped and others better. Some changes initially make things worse before getting better. If you turn in panic at every storm you will only get dizzy and fall over, squashing things that would have been good. I would not have recommended a second experiment at introducing truly variable fees by raising the cap to £9,000, but we should either do the experiment or not. A market in fees would need at least a few years to reach equilibrium, given its once-a-year timescale. Issuing threats after only a few months spoils the experiment by pushing universities to £9,000 to protect themselves from further cuts. If the government really thinks it needs to abort the experiment, it should have reacted decisively by reducing the cap. But I doubt the difference between £7,500 and £9,000 is a financial disaster on the scale of the banking crisis – having embarked on the experiment, I would rather see it through. 1.44pm: Jeevan Vasagar has just sent this picture from Oxford of students protesting against David Willetts outside the Sheldonian Theatre, where their lecturers are preparing to take a vote of no confidence in the higher education minister. _ 1.37pm: David Cameron’s official spokesman has responded to the public accounts committee report ( see 11.39am ). He described the committee’s findings as “speculative”, claiming it was not yet known what fees individual universities will charge. The Guardian has confirmed with 105 of 133 higher education institutions in the UK how much they will charge, and so far the average is £8,765 a year. But the prime minister’s spokesman said: I don’t think they [the public accounts committee] have any evidence and I don’t think they have presented any evidence of a funding gap. We have set out some proposals and they will not actually be implemented until next year. Offa [the Office for Fair Access] is still waiting to hear the details from individual universities on what they are intending to charge. The reality is we do not know the detail of what they are going to charge. Some universities have declared that they want to charge up to £9,000 but I think we have to wait until they have given us information to offer. The point we do know is that the system we had before was not sustainable and there was a problem with the funding of universities and we have therefore had to take the difficult decision to increase tuition fees so that students take on a greater share of that financial burden, rather than the taxpayer. I would argue that we are in a better place as a result of these reforms than we were in the past. 1.27pm: Jessica Shepherd has just been speaking to Stewart Ward, head of the education sector at the Royal Bank of Scotland’s corporate and institutional banking arm. He says the majority of universities “didn’t have much choice” about what level to set their fees at. £9,000 was “a reasonable choice given the funding landscape they find themselves in,” he says. If student demand does fall in 2012, that will signal to some institutions that they may need to revise their pricing to ensure that their demand for places remains at a stable point to ensure an ongoing healthy financial position. The Russell Group are not likely to have any difficulty in maintaining demand at the higher fee point; however, others may have to pull back from £9,000 in future years. However, starting at £9,000 and then decreasing in line with demand is much easier than starting lower and increasing if demand is not impacted. The next 12 to 18 months will be a very significant period of time for the higher education sector. 1.20pm: At the London Review of Books website, Howard Hotson, professor of history at Oxford, has been asking whether what has happened in the US to the Apollo Group and its flagship institution, the University of Phoenix – aggressive expansion plans and “high-pressure sales culture” – are about to be replicated over here. As he says, the Obama administration is now reversing the regulatory changes of the Bush years. The UK, on the other hand, is going in the opposite direction. “Is it possible that [David] Willetts [the higher education minister] just doesn’t know what the Apollo Group was up to at the University of Phoenix? Or does he imagine that for some reason the same thing couldn’t happen here? “By removing the privileged inner circle that gets the teaching grant,” he argues, the shift from grants to tuition fees “opens up higher education to a wider range of providers doing things differently”. The explosive growth of for-profit universities was touched off by the decision of the Bush administration to give them equal access to the billions of dollars coursing through the federal student loans system. Now, the conditions are being put in place for something similar to happen here. In April, Willetts announced that, from 2012, students starting courses at private institutions will be able to take out government loans of £6,000 per year. Worse still, in September public funding for teaching in the humanities and social sciences will cease in England. The fear is that the most lucrative courses will be cherry-picked by profit-driven institutions. In the words of one strategic consultant, “England and Wales have just become Treasure Island to for-profit companies … UK students are in the business plans and sales targets of both domestic and international for-profits.” Those lucrative courses are popular, relatively cheap ones in law, arts and the humanities. 1.18pm: On the New Statesman’s Staggers blog, Samira Shackle says it’s little surprise that the government has landed itself in trouble over fees; the legislation was rushed through too quickly. Given the speed with which the legislation was rushed through, it is unsurprising that serious problems have surfaced. With Oxford University considering a vote of no confidence in the government’s higher education policy today, waiting ’til freshers’ week [to find out the impact of increased fees and loans on university finance] does not seem like an adequate solution. 12.55pm: Many in higher education are hearing that several US companies offering degrees across the pond are looking to come over here once the white paper gives them the go-ahead, Jessica Shepherd reports, although we have yet to confirm this. Universities would want to know what quality controls would be imposed on these new companies though, Jessica writes. Earlier this year, Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK – the umbrella group for vice-chancellors – said: “The government has long signalled its desire to introduce a wider range of providers of higher education in England, including the private sector. Our universities already have extensive and productive links and partnerships with private providers. “However, we are concerned about what controls for quality there will be, and in particular we are mindful of the recent experience in the United States of opening up the market to for-profit providers. Many believe that the quality of provision among the for-profit providers in the United States has been poor, and the costs have been high, particularly in terms of the costs to students and to the state. This has particularly impacted on poorer students. “In the UK, if students at private institutions are to be able to access loans from the government on the same basis as those attending publicly-funded universities, there should be a level playing field in terms of quality assurance and regulation. “We would also be concerned if private providers cherry-picked the more lucrative courses, making it unsustainable for universities to run the less lucrative but often more socially valuable courses. “Any increase in the scope of private higher education in the UK will have to be managed carefully by government. The priority must be to protect the quality of UK degrees and make sure that our national and international reputation for higher education is not damaged. Most important of all, we must ensure that students in the UK receive the student experience they expect and deserve.” 12.42pm: On the Datablog, the Guardian’s has compiled the most comprehensive guide to what universities intend to charge in tuition fees from 2012 . So far 105 universities have declared how much they plan to charge. There are 133 higher education institutions in the UK, although Scotland and Wales have different funding systems to England. Meanwhile, Jessica Shepherd , the Guardian’s education correspondent, has spoken to Roger Brown, professor of higher education policy at Liverpool Hope University and former vice-chancellor of Southampton Solent University. She reports: Government advisers have said that the higher fees introduced in 2004 did not dampen demand for university places. But Brown warns that they need to look at whether demand is going to be reduced among teenagers from the lowest income families, not just the student population as a whole. He predicts that, with a drop in the number of 18-year-olds in the next few years, demand for university places will actually drop by 10% – to 20% in 2012, compared to 2011. One big question is whether universities are going to regret their plans to charge £9,000. Roger says the Russell Group will be fine with fees at this level, but middle-ranging universities may well not be. “Those in the middle will be struggling and will have to make discounts. They will be left with empty places,” he says. 12.34pm: Polly Curtis , the Guardian’s Whitehall correspondent, has been combing through the public accounts committee’s report on higher education funding ( see 11.39am ), and has found an interesting item with a back-story that is quite close to home. The committee calls on Hefce to be more transparent about which institutions are financially at risk. Margaret Hodge, the PAC’s chair, says: “Where an institution is at higher risk, the current practice of the funding council is to disclose nothing publicly for three years in the interest of that institution. We do not accept this practice and, where students’ investment and their education are at risk, urge earlier disclosure.” The current three-year lag on disclosure came about after a lengthy FOI battle between Hefce and the Guardian in 2007. Hefce argued that to protect current students’ interests it should be able to monitor universities finances, including keeping a secret list of universities that are deemed at financial “risk”. If people found out when the crisis was happening, the institution’s situation would be made even worse, making it impossible to manage a recovery operation. We argued that, in the age of tuition fees, students as consumers had the right to know the quality of institution they were investing their futures in. First we got the list with names of institutions redacted and wrote about it here . The information commissioner eventually struck the deal with Hefce that they should publish, but only three years later. The resulting story is here . At the time we felt we had achieved something and that it was clear from the information commissioner’s judgement that they would not budge further. But the political will could change with the public accounts committee arguing that three years is too long and students have a right to know now whether a university they are applying to could collapse. David Willetts, the higher education minister, has been clear for years that students should get better information on the institutions they are applying to and there will be more details of those plans in the upcoming white paper along with the reform of Hefce. The PAC report could just tip the balance in favour of transparency for students. 11.51am: AC Grayling (left), the philosopher and academic behind the controversial private New College of the Humanities ( see 11.24am ) is to speak tonight at an event entitled “The arts in Britain” at Foyles bookshop in central London . The protest group UK Uncut has tweeted : In london? Get down to Foyles tonight to tell Grayling what you think of his new, for-profit university idea. 11.45am: Jeevan Vasagar writes that the vote by Oxford dons would be the the most high-profile snub the university has given a Tory government since 1985, when Margaret Thatcher was refused an honorary degree. That vote, which meant Thatcher was the first Oxford-educated PM since the war to be denied the honour, followed protests by academics furious at government cuts in funding for education. Today’s vote has an equally personal element for David Willetts, who studied PPE at Christ Church, Oxford. His former economics tutor, Peter Oppenheimer, has joined the fray, telling the Observer that “I have no confidence in him, absolutely. He was a highly intelligent and thoughtful person, very able – but no politician.” The author Philip Pullman (left), meanwhile, writes on his LRB blog that he would never have gone to Oxford if the current fees regime had been in place. 11.41am: Education editor Jeevan Vasagar writes from Oxford, where hundreds of academics in traditional gowns are to converge on the Sheldonian Theatre this afternoon, to debate and vote on a motion of no confidence in the policies of universities minister David Willetts. According to the president of Oxford’s student union, David Barclay, this is not just a protest about the raising of tuition fees, but also about cuts to government funding for the arts and humanities and the promotion of a “toxic consumerism” in higher education. A white paper on universities, due imminently, is expected to encourage the introduction of more private universities. The government is also seeking to expand student numbers without extra cost to the taxpayer – and have considered a controversial proposal to let students pay for extra “off-quota” places that would not be funded by the state. Oxford is the first university to launch a direct challenge to the minister, but Cambridge, Goldsmiths and Warwick have embarked on similar exercises. If the motion is passed, Oxford’s governing body, the Council, will formally transmit a message of no confidence to the government. Barclay compared the backlash from academics to opposition by nurses and doctors to the government’s NHS reforms. He said: “Whereas the coalition and the media could play up the image of immature student rabbles causing trouble for the sake of it, nobody can argue that Oxford academics lack the necessary expertise to critique the government’s market agenda. “If motions of no confidence get taken up at other universities around the country, Willetts could find it almost impossible to withstand a wave of dissatisfaction from the very professionals his reforms are set to impact.” Students were out giving flyers to academics this morning and will greet the dons as they arrive at the Sheldonian for the 2pm debate. The vote is due to take place between 4pm and 4.30pm. 11.39am: Labour MP Margaret Hodge (left), the chair of the public accounts committee, appeared on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme this morning to talk about her report. Hodge said the expected funding gap of hundreds of millions of pounds in the short term caused by the student loans figures was unlikely to be covered by the Treasury, leaving the Department for Education to fill it. This could mean cuts in student numbers, reductions in funding for science teaching or less money going towards measures to widen participation in higher education, she said. In the longer term, the total debt held by the Student Loans Company was forecast to rise from £24bn now to £70bn by 2015-16, when the new system is in place, said Mrs Hodge. She told Today: That’s a heck of a lot of money. There are bound to be defaults, and who picks up the default? You and I, the taxpayer. Hodge also discussed the prospect of universities failing, and said students should be warned earlier if their institution is in financial trouble. If demand were to go down from students at home because they don’t want to incur the debt, or fewer people do postgraduate courses or fewer foreign students come to the UK, that could mean that some universities risk falling into financial instability. At present, the Hefce [Higher Education Funding Council for England] has a list of universities at financial risk – there are about 10 of them at the moment – but it doesn’t tell the public until that university has been in financial difficulty for three years. If you are a student and you are risking your own money to go to a university, I think you have a right to know, because otherwise if a university were to fail, you would have put your money up front, you wouldn’t get your education and you wouldn’t get your degree. I don’t think the government will stand behind a university that falls into financial difficulties. I have never known a university fail, but in the future I don’t think the government would mind if some universities failed. So I think in these circumstances it is absolutely right, when you are asking individuals to put up their money, they should know the financial health of the institution they are selecting to attend. 11.24am: A busy day today for the government’s controversial plans for higher education. A report by the Commons public accounts committee has suggested student numbers might have to be reduced to avoid a spending black hole resulting from increased student loans following the raising of the tuition fees cap to £9,000 a year. The report also said that the government had “significantly” underestimated the number of universities that will charge the maximum £9,000 a year. Figures compiled by the Guardian show that 105 universities have declared what they will charge, with an average of £8,765. The government modelled its plans on an average of £7,500. Meanwhile Oxford University is this afternoon expected to take a vote of no confidence in the higher education minister, David Willetts, in the most aggressive act of the university against the government since the Thatcher era. Jeevan Vasagar, the Guardian’s education editor, will be reporting live from the debate and the vote. Sally Hunt of the University and College Union (UCU) has said that the government has “lost the plot” on higher education. Hunt said: The government has lost the plot when it comes to higher education and unless they pause, like they did with the NHS, they will do lasting damage to the sector. It is clear they have got their sums completely wrong and that their entire funding model is in disarray. By introducing a market and cutting institutions’ budgets, the government is at risk of gambling away the future of our universities and our children’s education. And the row over AC Grayling’s New College of the Humanities – a new private university planning to charge students £18,000 a year – continues, with accusations the institution has copied University of London syllabuses . We’ll follow all these issues here as they continue to unfold throughout the day. Tuition fees Higher education Education policy University funding Jeevan Vasagar Jessica Shepherd Paul Owen guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
England v Sri Lanka – day five live! | Rob Smyth

• Hit the auto-update button for the latest posts • Send your thoughts to rob.bagchi@guardian.co.uk • Sign up for our weekly cricket email, The Spin 10th over: Sri Lanka 27-1 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 8, M Jaywardene 3) Better line from Broad until the last ball that squirts way wide of off stump. This from David Ward. Not Surrey’s stickable David Ward by any chance? “There was an episode in the most recent British TV series (can’t recall the details) about the Scarlet Pimpernel in which the Pimpernel – who is practising bowling on a wicket in his ancestral home’s ball room – ‘invents’ over arm bowling after being inspired by hurling a grenade away during some kind of elaborate plot to do something or other during the French Revolution. ‘A beautiful length. . .and Robespierre is out!’” Was that Richard E Grant, or REG as Jim Shelley used to call him? 9th over: Sri Lanka 26-1 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 8, M Jaywardene 3) And here is Selve: “It is a condition of all TV fictional cricket that there is a close-up of the stumps being disturbed to cries of Owzat.” And then the umpire raises his finger. Swann comes on and gets the ball to skid on, not much turn though. More tales of rage from Andrew Jefford: “A member of Buxted Park CC (who shall remain nameless) was once so disappointed with an LBW decision that he threw his two gloves on the floor at the crease and kicked them all the way back to the pavilion. On getting close, he gave his left glove an almighty hoof, made just the right contact and sent it sailing onto the pavilion roof. It was a sheepish batsman that returned 20 minutes later with a ladder in order to retrieve his ‘lucky’ glove. Can’t imagine the opposition mentioned it at all.” 8th over: Sri Lanka 22-1 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 6, M Jaywardene 3) Near suicidal call from Jayawardene for a ridiculously sharp single to cover. He would have been run out by three yards if Morgan had hit the stumps with his throw.”Your mention of Tristan Farnon reminded me in turn of the episode of All Creatures Great and Small in which Herriot is scrubbing up in a cold dark barn, prior to bovine insertion, but the small piece of rock-hard soap he’s been given keeps shooting out of his hands and the assembled farm-hands end-up forming a tight slip-cordon around him,” writes Chris Shepherd. I bet Hoppsy can whistle the theme tune to that. Selve, can you have a whistle off, you with your Happy Ever After, Hoppsy with his Johnny Pearson classic? 7th over: Sri Lanka 20-1 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 5, M Jaywardene 2) More wide stuff to start from Tremlett all three balls arcing towards first slip and then the fourth, like Broad’s, is speared in. A gem from Neil Withers: “It’s not quite up there with Botham failing to get his leg over, but OBO readers may by interested to listen to to Aggers discussing Pietersen’s problems putting a rubber on , while Vaughan giggles away next to him. Fnar and indeed fnar. Do stop it Aggers. Thanks, Neil. 6th over: Sri Lanka 19-1 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 5, M Jaywardene 1) OBO 1 Google 0: “I believe that Tony Singh is thinking of Gentlemen and Players, starring Brian Protheroe and Nicholas Clay.” Thanks to Josh Mandel. Simon Leyland has been at the ink blot books: “Does anybody think that the hole in the dressing room window look like a silhouette of Alfred Hitchcock, erstwhile film director and occasional opening bat or do I have too much time on my hands?” Broad is too wide outside off stump with his first three balls and then gets his fourth to nip back and almost cuts Jayawardene in two. Perhaps it’s part of a ploy to square him up, thinks Nick Knight. More red mist episodes from Daniel Beckell: “This classic happened only last Saturday. Saturday league game, second team fixture. Whilst waiting for the opposition to open the pavilion, a couple of the lads are ‘perfecting’ their golf swings with a pitching wedge. Cue one of the lads to take an almighty swing, let go of the pitching wedge and watch, open-mouthed, as it arc’d over the tall hedge of a surrounding property and make a wooden-sounding ‘clunk’ on the owner’s garage…it took him so long to come back that we all thought he was getting a proper filling-in. He got some decent abuse when he came out to bat, as you’d imagine. Great stuff.” Tharanga steers the last ball for four. 5th over: Sri Lanka 14-1 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 1, M Jaywardene 1) Lucas Yelland wants to know how late play can go on. It depends on the light, though I think if they have to put the lights on they’ll take the batsmen off. Tremlett gets back in his rhythm against a right-hander, ace line outside off stump and tempting Jayawardene into a nibble but he deftly pulls his bat away. WICKET!! Sangakkara c Morgan b Tremlett 12 Poor ball from Tremlett as most have been in this opening spell, wide and short outside offstump. Sangakkara cuts, connects with the toe of his bat and spoons it to Morgan at cover point. 4th over: Sri Lanka 13-0 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 1, Sangakkara 12) “Re: Over 77,” writes Robert Brown, “one of my mates at school once threw his tennis racket high in the air to show off, but missed the catch, leading to the racket handle smacking him in the mouth on the way down and taking two of his front teeth with it. He got married at the weekend so I’m sure his new bride heard worse stories about him, but the memory of that one always makes me chuckle.” Ha! More on TV, a request from Tony Singh: “As I’m sure hundreds of others are frantically telling you, was Peter Davison who wore the cable-knits in Dr Who. On a (vaguely) more interesting note, there was an 80s programme (ITV I believe) about the rivalry of two bankers – one a city spiv, the other a loadsamoney trader type – who lived in the same village and came together to play for the local team. I remember it as being quite good, although not so good that I can recall the title. Grateful for assistance.” Was it Shillingbury Tales, Tony? Thanks for the Whovians aplenty pointing out the error below, pointing out it was Tristan Farnon not the other chap in the cricket mufti. Maiden from Broad. 3rd over: Sri Lanka 13-0 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 1, Sangakkara 12) Sangakkara also looks in excellent nick after his shambolic IPL-knacked start in Cardiff and picks up a pair of fours off Tremlett. John Allen makes his nomination: “Without a doubt the finest moment of cricket on the big screen comes in Carry on Follow that Camel! The end when Sheikh Abdul Abulbul bowls a juicy full toss bomb is classic Carry On. Just pips the disgrace that was the cricket game umpired by Begerac in Midsummer Racism.” Did anyone explain it to Phil Silvers? 2nd over: Sri Lanka 5-0 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 1, Sangakkara 4) And it’s Broad from the Pavilion End. Benjamin Hendy feels the Cook love-in obscures another man’s achievements: “Looking at the stats for the past 18 months shows a different England batsman should be on the receiving end of a love in from someone other than Smyth. Ian Ronald Bell, number 3 in the world and a full 10 runs ahead of Cook in the average stakes.” He’s been superb, Benjamin. Those ahead of Cook in England’s century makers list by the way are Hammond, Boycs, Cowdrey on 22; Kenny Barrington and Gooch on 20; Sir Leonard and Strauss on 19. A propos of which, Will Scott writes: “Just to point out that while Cook is on 18 centuries, his skipper is one ahead of him – and Straussy is more than capable of beating Wally Hammond’s record, too. What if our opening pair end up heading the list of England century-makers – would that make them our greatest ever opening partnership? Weird.” 1st over: Sri Lanka 4-0 (chasing 343 off 58 overs; Paranavitana 1, Sangakkara 3) The former and acting skipper opens up instead of Dilshan. Paranavitana takes the strike and gets off the mark off a ball from Tremlett that lifted a bit and clipped his glove on its way down to fine leg. More news from Glassgate. Andrew Strauss and Matt Prior have apologised to the members, a lady egg and baconer has a cut ankle having been hit by a shard. “Has anyone mentioned Morse yet?” writes Mike Barron, I thought initially to find out who done the window. Sadly, not. “There was an episode where Lewis joined a cricket team to flush out a killer. Whateley looked uncomfortable ‘acting’ sport!” England declare and set Sri Lanka 343 to win off 58 overs Did that declaration come too late? It did for TMS. Seemed a little daft to have a figure of 350 and rigidly stick to it. Lee Burman writes on that subject: “Can’t see us declaring yet, memories of Sehwag’s brutal defrocking of our bowling in Chennai and the first innings malaise will mean we probably bat until tea or we’re all out! Re. Cricket on TV, do props count? If so I’ll offer Colin Baker’s jumper during his brief and fairly disastrous tenure as Dr Who.” “Tenure” is rapidly becoming one of the great football writing cliches, as in “four-year managerial tenure” that and “earning silverware”. WICKET!! Broad c Jayawardene b Fernando 3 A waft outside off stump, Jayawardene dived forward and looked to have caught it as Aleem Dar confirmed. 78th over: England 335-6 (led by seven on first innings; Broad 3, Bell 57) That’s Bell’s fastest ever Test 50 off 40 balls and then plays a majestic reverse sweep, soft-shoeing outside leg stump, changing his hands over and gliding it down to the boundary. 77th over: England 325-6 (led by seven on first innings; Broad 3, Bell 47) One of my mates once threw his tennis racket during a match, it bounced on the court and flew up and over the fence. He had to go and retrieve it and it took him about a minute. The umpire didn’t even dock him a point. 76th over: England 318-5 (led by seven on first innings; Broad 0, Bell 45) A window has been broken in teh home dressing room and the fingers are pointing at Prior having a Husseinesque strop and chucking his bat. I’ve played with a few bat chuckers in my time. Wicket!! Prior run out 4 Bell swung and missed, the ball cannoned off the wicketkeeper’s pads, Prior was backing up too far or possibly trying to nick a single even though Bell was on his knees, and Jayawardene picked up the ball and threw the stumps down at the bowler’s end. 75th over: England 313-5 (led by seven on first innings; Prior 0, Bell 41) So, as my colleague Matthew Hancock points out, Cook is four centuries short of Wally Hammond’s record of 22 for England. Morgan hooks the first ball he faces off his chin for four then gets out to mid off rather than extra cover as I said below. “Cook,” writes Avery Kode, “may very well break the English century record by the end of the summer and will probably amass 10,000 runs. Will he be considered an England great, do you think?” Yes. I think tehre’s a prejudice against him, or there was, in that he tends not to excite with a classical technique but if you consider Gooch great, then his protege will have to be great, too if he surpasses him. Unless he falls apart, of course. WICKET!! Morgan c sub (Randiv) b Fernando 4 he sacrificed himself after hooking his first ballk off his chin for four then tried a slog off a slower ball, got through the shot too quickly, took his bottom hand off the bat and skyed (skied??) the ball to extra cover. 74th over: England 305-4 (led by seven on first innings; Morgan 0, Bell 37) More arcane cricket references on TV from Chris Brown. Perhaps this video of Vincent Price explaining cricket would be of use to those trying to learn more about the game. It’s one of my favourite moments where the game makes a surprise appearance on television. May 27th would have been the great man’s 100th birthday.” Is that Charters and Caldicott he’s talking about?” Two of literature’s great cricket fans. Wicket!! Cook st Jayawardene b Herath 106 It took 17 replays for Aleem Dar to give it after Cook went down the wicket and had a reverse hoick. He grounded his bat just short of the crease and it bounced up just as Jayawardene whipped off the bails, A tight decision but the impeccable Aleem Dar got it spot on. 73rd over: England 303-3 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 105, Bell 37) And that’s Cook’s century, walking down the wicket, stepping outside off and clipping a four off his thigh to fine leg. “Is it just me or is Cook failing to get the credit he deserves? There can seldom have been a more rich vein of form from an England batsman. Just because he’s got a sensible haircut and he’s not married to a flipping popstar.” That’s Sam Blackledge’s view, and one I concur with. Since the start of the Ashes he’s averaging something like 140. Eighteen Test hundreds in 67 matches. Remarkable. 72nd over: England 296-3 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 98, Bell 37) Mike Cheeseman writes in with some welcome praise for Smyth and says this: “I have not felt this good about English cricket for a long long time. And to continue the debate from past OBO’s, there aint nofing wrong with beige trousers !! Just believe me :o)” I didn’t get that memo, Mike. Bell is in sumptuous nick, moving gracefully down the pitch then whacking it crisply with a devilishly fast swing of the bat. He biffs a four through extra cover that is as good as any shot I’ve seen from him. “Up on Maharoof,” writes Andrew Bagchi, “the Lankans are wobbling already.” 71st over: England 288-3 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 98, Bell 29) The Tap, of course, from Gary Naylor, as England give it some. “That cricket was referenced in that film gives a fan of the grand old game perspective, though possibly too much f****** perspective.” Now, here’s a strange one. Billy Doctrove turns down a half-hearted appeal for a run out when the sub hits the stumps at the non-striker’s end and Bell is short of his ground. He doesn’t go upstairs but the replay shows he was out. 70th over: England 283-3 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 96, Bell 27) More positive movement from Cook, striding down the wicket to clip a single off Herath. “What about this festival of inaccuracies ?” writes Leo Watkins. Bell advances again and slices it somewhat to wide mid off where Lancashire’s Roof dives, pouches it then grasses it seconds before he hits the turf. He runs three to give Cook the strike who gets his reverse sweep working again for an ungainly four. “There’s a delightful passage of faux cricket in Jeeves and Wooster, with the rotund bowler making Jacques Kallis look positively anorexic.” Pip, pip, Chris Stephens. Ta for that. 69th over: England 275-3 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 90, Bell 24) Here’s Rob Moody, to whom we owe so much: “Hi there, had a pleasant surprise when I woke up this morning when I found my youtube upload of Robin Smith vs Merv Hughes had 1,800 more views than when I went to bed. I thought youtube fans had all of a sudden gotten some good taste finally, but then I found it linked on your ball by ball commentary page! Glad you enjoyed it! No better sight than a glorious Smith cut shot, and I’m an Aussie!” Ah, the Judge. Cook creams Lakmal through point for a single after running two off the first ball. Their footwork is far more aggressive after lunch, trying to knock Sri Lanka off their length. Was that Goochie’s lunch break input I wonder. 68th over: England 272-3 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 88, Bell 24) Herath resumes and Bell gets on top of his second ball and flicks it to wide third man for two, then dances down the wicket and slightly toes it over deep mid on for a four that would have been a massive six if he’d middled it. Cook reverse swats the fifth ball for a single and Bell then steps back to force the last ball through the covers for another four. Game on. “Surely the greatest collision between fictional TV and cricket is this ? writes Ryan Dunne. After all, the great man doesn’t appear on any old TV show (aside from his own).” Is that Lou Carpenter, Ryan? Does anyone watch Neighbours since it moved to Five? Lunch: Memo from the above squeaky dog’s best friend via Sky’s Nasser Hussain, Nick Knight and David Gower for Alastair Cook: “Izzy wizzy, let’s get busy.” The early lunch analysis had all three criticising Cook’s inability to get a shift on this morning and judged that Sri Lanka won that session by keeping the run rate so low. There was even a suggestion that the quest for personal milestones had provoked Cook into his overly cautious approach. I think he has lulls during an innings and sometimes gets stuck in a rut. Is it really the honours board that is motivating him or Sri Lanka not feeding his strengths? Ian Bell brought some impetus in that last over and Richard Clarke has some advice: “Bosh a quick hundred after lunch, ball turning square, only nine wickets to get – how many left handers do they have again?” Three, I think, Richard. And back on Rob’s riff on great fictional cricket matches on TV, here’s Victor Ward’s contribution . “TV cricket at its finest here with a delightful offside cut from Pa Larkin in The Darling Buds of May. The entire series was filmed in and around my village in Kent, with this scene being shot at Little Chart Cricket Club. I was only 10 at the time but still fondly remember meeting the cast and getting my first kiss from a young Catherine Zeta Jones. Ah what could have been…” You could have been Grady Tripp, Victor. Forest Whitaker’s bowling action in The Crying Game has to be the most inauthentic piece of fictional cricket – he ran in like Tessa Sanderson. There was also the Don Bradman character in Bodyline who raised his bat to salute the standing crowd as he walked to the wicket. 67th over: England 260-3 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 86, Bell 13) You want impetus? Ian Ronald Bell can do impetus. Ian Ronald Bell can do anything . He steers consecutive deliveries from Fernando to the vacant third-man boundary, and then makes it three fours in four balls with a beautiful back-foot force through the covers. Lovely stuff. At this moment in time, batting is frighteningly easy for him. Sixteen from Fernando’s over, and that’s lunch. England scored 111 in 26 overs, which isn’t bad, but they slowed down towards lunch. They lead by 267. Join Rob Bagchi for the afternoon session. 66th over: England 244-3 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 86, Bell 0) A wicket maiden from Herath. The last eight overs have produced 12 runs and a wicket. Declaration batting, England-style. “Surely the other consideration is entertainment?” says Ross Bennett. “A reasonably ‘sporting’ declaration that led Sir Lanka to try and chase the game has to be better than leaving them to just bat out time? We’re constantly told that Test cricket has to work hard to survive – a positive attitude to declarations, and a (highly unlikely) more understanding attitude when it backfires would be better for the game as a whole. Or am I just a wide-eyed innocent?” I’m afraid you are. And you really can’t leave your back door unlocked in the 21st century. You should see what they’re doing to your favourite rug! WICKET! England 244-3 (Pietersen LBW b Herath 72) KP falls again to the left-arm spinner, but there is no real shame in this dismissal. Herath switched to over the wicket and bowled Pietersen third ball with a jaffa that pitched well outside leg and then turned a mile to hit the top of off stump. Shades of Ashley Giles to Damien Martyn in 2005. I suppose Pietersen should have covered his stumps with his right leg, but it was still a fantastic delivery. He looks quizzically at the pitch for a couple of seconds and then walks off to a nice ovation. He will feel a lot better about himself. 65th over: England 244-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 86, Pietersen 72) A maiden from Fernando. Am I missing something obvious, or is this all a bit peculiar? Cook in particular is just batting time rather than forcing the issue. He has now scored five runs from his last 35 balls. “You know, not all of the OBO’s readers are in the UK and familiar with all references,” says Erik Petersen. “As this is at least nominally a family OBO, it might be worthwhile to explain the perfectly legitimate nature of the Screwfix Catalogue.” 64th over: England 244-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 86, Pietersen 72) Three singles from Herath’s over. I don’t really understand why England aren’t giving it some humpty. “I like to read out loud the synopses that Sky writes for episodes of Star Trek Voyager,” says Robert Hogg. “I don’t like to watch the episodes themselves as I have already seen most of them quite a few times, but the synopsis reading has if anything grown from strength to strength. On a sidenote I don’t recall Star Trek ever covering cricket although they did have an episode in Deep Space Nine where they played baseball against a team of Vulcans (who were very good!).” 63rd over: England 241-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 84, Pietersen 71) Pietersen drags an inswinger from Fernando through midwicket for a couple. That’s all for the over, which it makes 17 runs from the last seven. It’s hard to explain. “The saddest thing about me?” says Alex Collins. “When I was at school I realised I could recite the alphabet backwards significantly more quickly than my peers but never had the opportunity to demonstrate my prowess in public. I nurtured my talent for years, practising on my own. Last year, 24 years later, I was given it as a challenge in a drinking game. I mixed up d and c and had to take the forfeit.” That’s such a b 62nd over: England 239-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 84, Pietersen 69) Make that three from the last 24 deliveries for Cook. It’s hard to understand that rate of scoring in the circumstances, but I’m sure he has his reasons. ” How about this match as a guide for when England declare?” says Garreth Rule. “Parallels are spooky: near parity on first innings, Strauss getting an early duck second up and opposition captain injured and batting down the order. If only we still had Hoggy at his prime…” What a day that was. I remembering OBO it with Booth. We were so joyous that I think there might even have been eye contact. 61st over: England 238-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 84, Pietersen 68) Fernando, who is a few mph quicker than the other Sri Lankan seamers, is getting some unpleasant bounce at times. Pietersen just about gets on top of one such delivery and deflects it to fine leg for two. At the other end, Cook has scored three from his last 20 deliveries. “The saddest thing about me?” asks Nick Williamson. “Where to start, obviously, but a good indication of my sadness levels would be the genuine excitement I got when a came home the other week to find the latest Screwfix Direct catalogue had been delivered, my wife and kids were not yet home, and I’d have an hour or so to peruse it undisturbed.” Breaking news on the health reforms 59th over: England 233-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 84, Pietersen 64) A single from Fernando’s over. England haven’t scored an authentic boundary for ten overs – Cook and Pietersen got one each off the edge – and now might be the time to start playing silly buggers, or at least to move up a gear. “If it is quick runs that England need,” says Ian Burch, “then they could promote Competitive Dad up the order .” 58th over: England 232-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 84, Pietersen 63) “Outside Edge was brilliant,” says Mike Selvey. “A confession: of all the sad things about me, one of the saddest is that I can whistle the theme tune to ‘Terry and June’. Where does that rate on a sad scale of one to ten?” The riff the OBO has been waiting for all these years: what is the saddest thing about you? 57th over: England 226-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 82, Pietersen 62) Cook misses a cut stroke at Fernando. I think he was beaten for pace. Not sure what happened after that. I’m all over the place this morning, sorry. 56th over: England 224-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 81, Pietersen 61) Cook inside edges a big-spinning delivery from Herath wide of the keeper and away for four. Actually, it hit Prasanna Jayawardene on the right leg, but that wasn’t really a chance: his reaction time was 0.0000000000000000000000001 seconds. England have scored at a really good rate this morning without needing to play silly buggers. That’s 76 in 16 overs now. “While I’m all for Strauss being positive and setting up a game, I think we’d be better suited leaving them something they can’t chase,” says James Smith. “360 in 55 overs. That way we can keep attacking fields all the time, whereas if the Sri Lankans shoot to 100-0 chasing 250/300 we’d have to change fields accordingly and reduce wicket taking potential. Sounds defensive, but I think it means we can attack for longer, If that makes sense!” It does indeed, although field placing has changed a bit in that respect. Even if runs are irrelevant in terms of the match, captains like to deny modern batsmen the oxygen of runs. That is extremely important. It’s not just a case of getting a lead of 12 million and having eight slips. 55th over: England 217-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 76, Pietersen 59) Pietersen has a flick at the new bowler Fernando and is dropped by the keeper Jayawardene, a very difficult diving chance down the leg side. He could only fingertip it for four. Eight from the over. Here, by the way, are the Tests in which England have run out of time , with the opposition seven or more down in the fourth innings. “Steve Waugh?” says Lord Selvey. “No he wouldn’t, not in the situation or stage of development that England are in. It is about winning series. they will leave themselves a chance but not Sri Lanka.” Waugh did set New Zealand 284 in 57 overs in 2001-02 , although obviously he had better bowlers and Australia had developed further. I still think that, with this team and in this match situation, he would make a much more aggressive declaration than this England team will. The absence of Dilshan changes the situation completely. 54th over: England 209-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 74, Pietersen 52) “Surely this gentle Sunday-evening classic is too brilliant not to mention,” says Nik Huggins. “On this form Timothy Spall would be the perfect choice to play Robert Key in the Hollywood movie version of his illustrious career.” 53rd over: England 208-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 74, Pietersen 52) There is a resounding clunk every time the ball hits Pietersen’s bat, particularly when he drives. Two singles from Lakmal’s over, which makes it 60 from 13 this morning. That’s a decent rate of scoring. 52nd over: England 206-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 73, Pietersen 51) “Realistically, a Test captain one up in a series is never going to run any serious risk of defeat by declaring, if he can secure a draw by batting on, is he?” says Justin Horton. “I’d be astonished if Strauss set 300 in 70. 300+ in 60, just conceivably.” I’d be astonished, too, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t. Steve Waugh would have done. And 300 in 70 is not a “serious risk” of defeat. A Sri Lankan line up without Dilshan will chase that, I reckon, once every 30 or 40 innings. Conversely, the extra few overs might be the difference between a draw and a victory once every 10 innings – how many times have England drawn a Test the opposition seven, eight or nine down – not to mention the fact that the sniff of victory will make Sri Lanka play more positively and increase the chance of wickets. The odds are all in England’s favour. If you took away the stigma of losing after a declaration, captains would be much more positive. And ultimately the stigma doesn’t mean anything. It’s like with football substitutions: contrast the likes of Sir Alex Ferguson and Jose Mourinho, who will take huge risks to win a game even though they realise they will occasionally lose one, with Rafa Benitez, who won’t. Ferguson and Mourinho might win eight, draw one and lose one; Benitez might win six, draw four and lose none. Benitez avoids the stigma of defeat after making risky substitutions, but who gets the most points? That said, it’s all just opinions, and mine are invariably wrong. 51st over: England 201-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 72, Pietersen 50) Cook is beaten by a peach from Lakmal that jags away off the seam, and he edges the next ball on the bounce to gully. A single to midwicket brings up the 200, and then a quick single from Pietersen brings up a much needed half century. He lifts his bat modestly, almost shyly, for just a couple of seconds. England’s lead is 208 . “If we’re doing ‘cricket in fictional telly’,” says Andy Smith, “then you can’t beat this surely .” I am inordinately excited about the prospect of getting home tonight and watching all these links. I’m serious. I don’t care if people think it’s sad. That lot need to get out less. 50th over: England 198-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 71, Pietersen 48) There is a bit of turn for Herath, and it’s likely that Swann will be England’s main bowler this afternoon. Just a single from the over. “The 44th over’s Josh Robinson shouldn’t worry, since he is not alone. On the other hand, he has me for company. I often follow just the OBO, and frequently miss wickets as I rubberneck the Smyth car crash am entranced by Rob’s prose.” 49th over: England 197-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 71, Pietersen 47) Pietersen drives Lakmal for consecutive boundaries, the first through mid off and the second gunbarrel straight. A cathartic fifty is just three runs away. ” Another one ,” says Alan White. “Featuring Sergeant Lewis caressing the ball off the back foot like Stewart in his prime, selflessly running himself out, showboating in the field and finally moving it both ways with a smooth, open-chested action. What a legend.” 48th over: England 187-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 70, Pietersen 38) Herath is on, 35 minutes too late. Pietersen charges his second ball, with the ball deflecting to slip as Pietersen runs desperately back into his crease. Two from the over. “Is this going to be one of those where Strauss is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t?” says Robin Hazlehurst. “Whenever (if) he declares he’ll be criticised for being too early and taking an unnecessary risk or for being too late and not leaving enough time, and even if England win then this will be deemed beside the point. He could quite sensibly play for 1-0 and be condemned for cowardice, he could try for 2-0 and be condemned for foolhardiness, especially given England’s attack. Under what circumstances will he not be criticised?” If England win. That is how things generally work in this country. Personally I would set them about 300 in 70 overs. If Sri Lanka win from there, we should praise them rather than criticise Strauss and Flower. This isn’t the 1980s, we’re not all using weird hairspray and England don’t need to be hanging on to a 1-0 lead. They should be looking to win this series 3-0. 47th over: England 185-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 69, Pietersen 37) Lakmal gets one to rear nastily and smack into the glove and forearm of Pietersen, who wrings his hand in pain. He’ll need a bit of treatment. That will interest England’s tall seamers. Pietersen then takes a Red Bull single to mid off; he’d have been home even if the throw had hit the stumps. Then there’s another no-ball, the sixth of the morning. What are the odds? “When I clicked on that link from the Sooty Show, YouTube said ’668 viewings’, “says Richard Naylor. “Could be interesting to see how many it’s on by the end of the OBO today.” 667? 46th over: England 180-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 68, Pietersen 35) Still no sign of Rangana Herath, the left-arm spinner, to bowl at Pietersen. Sri Lanka might have let the tortoise get away from them, because Pietersen is starting to look more confident and has just flashed a full delivery from Welegedera thrillingly through extra cover for four. “Shot!” exclaims Mike Atherton in the Sky box. Two balls later, Pietersen drives four more straight down the ground. That was delightful, maker’s-name stuff. England have scored 30 from the last four overs. In other news, here are two fantastic clips from Alan White. “My mate says he saw a Doctor Who documentary which said this was the first ball Peter Davidson bowled and the batsman hadn’t been told to miss it. Lovely action. Also, this Dad’s Army episode is brilliant and features a cameo from Fred Trueman .” 45th over: England 168-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 67, Pietersen 25) It’s pretty quiet at Lord’s at the moment, a case of Before the Lord Mayor’s Show, or before the Lord’s Mare Show if England’s seamers have another minor shocker. A no-ball from Lakmal brings up the fifty partnership. “Rob, I’ve been trying to organise a meeting in London after lunch today to give me an excuse to pop into Lord’s after tea and watch a procession of Sri Lankans walk back to the pavilion,” says Luke Richardson. “Of course, if I’d been successful, no potentially exciting finish would be on the cards. Having drawn a blank with several London-based customers, I will be forced to follow the OBO. Just saying. Mind you, what’s stopping England just shutting up shop at 1-0 up? Perhaps I should be grateful.” 44th over: England 166-2 (led by seven on first innings; Cook 67, Pietersen 24) Pietersen walks into one from Welegedera and slices a drive to third man for four, all along the ground. Cook survives a muted LBW shout from a ball that was angling down the leg side before crashing a short ball through the covers for four. Twelve from the over. “Morning Smyth, morning everybody,” says Josh Robinson. “After spending the best part of a decade following cricket primarily on the OBO, I’m beginning to get worried about the effects its having on me. A case in point: about half an hour after I returned from a two-hour lunch break yesterday, it occurred to me that I’d checked to see if the email I’d fired off just before going had been used (it hadn’t), but had no idea as to the score. Has any of your other reader noticed similarly troubling patterns?” The trouble with your emails, Robinson, is that they are utter rubbish half of them are quarantined. I have no idea why. Our quarantine system is a bit random, and you don’t see the emails until the next day. 43rd over: England 154-2 (Cook 63, Pietersen 17) This is a tricky little innings for Pietersen, who must balance his own desperate need for any runs with the team’s need for quick runs. He works a single to midwicket, and then Cook pushes a couple through extra cover. No rush yet from these two, who will take around 15 minutes to get their eyes in again. “Nice preamble,” lies Luke Dealtry. “OR you could say that we as humans like to see patterns all around us, we’re prone to foistering narratives onto events before events are given a chance to unravel. This game is going to turn out like Adelaide… it’s a perfect time for KP to come back to form… if Alistair Cook scores 141*, his average will climb above 50… Things rarely turn out like that, though, just like what happened last week in Cardiff. Yes, exactly like Cardiff.” 42nd over: England 150-2 (Cook 61, Pietersen 16) Richie Benaud was always an advocate of a declaration that gave the opposition a sniff of victory, but the Andrews tend to prefer batting on until they cannot lose. The timing of the declaration will partly depend on how long the likes of Pietersen and Morgan bat. It’s a slow start to the day, with one from Welegedara’s over. Meanwhile, my colleague James Dart has just sent this magnificent link . I’m almost in tears of joy. Tillakaratne Dilshan has a hairline fracture of the thumb that was scrunched by Chris Tremlett on days two and three. I imagine he’ll bat right down the order if necessary, as he is a tough bugger, but that news significantly increases England’s chances of victory. Preamble Pop isn’t the only thing that eats itself. Most things in life are a copy of a copy of a copy – and we’re not just talking about that special ensemble of yours; you know, the one you thought was unique and subtly marked you out as being more distinctive, more modish, more erotic than your peers. Erm, yes. Anyway, it’s also true that Test cricket eats itself: almost every match has a precedent that first gives us a sense of how things might progress, and then helps us to comprehend what does eventually happen. Those precedents inevitably change as the match develops. Earlier in this Test we were tentatively citing The Oval 1998, then Adelaide 2006 (it’s okay, we can say that word now). This morning, however, we are reminded of a more recent contest, at Cardiff eight days ago. That match had a slight variation, in that Sri Lanka were batting in the third innings and there was a theoretical time/runs equation, but the essential theme is the same: to win the match, England’s bowlers need to take ten Sri Lankan wickets in approximately the same amount of time it takes the average Englishman to say ‘Tharanga Paranavitana’. First, their batsmen must set up a declaration. England will resume on 149 for two, a lead of 156, with 98 overs to be bowled today if, as expected, the weather stays good. They should attempt to bat for an absolute maximum of 40 overs – if they score at close to a run a ball they could even declare at lunch – and then let Graeme Swann go to work. It’s an easy game, this. Sri Lanka in England 2011 England cricket team Sri Lanka cricket team Cricket Over by over reports Rob Smyth Rob Bagchi guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …