UK Politics: Recovery Postponed

Dismal growth prospects have sharply redrawn Britain’s political landscape, write George Parker and Elizabeth Rigby.











Political cover: David Cameron, right, seen with Nick Clegg, has come to realise how useful his junior coalition partner is in protecting him from his own party's ranks - not least over issues such as Europe, tax and health.

This week Britain’s cabinet was confronted with a bleak political picture. In cold and precise terms, George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, told colleagues in Downing Street on Tuesday that UK growth prospects were deteriorating and did not look like they were coming back soon. The significance of his analysis is only slowly being grasped by Britain’s political classes: everything has changed.

“The reality we face is stark,” confirmed Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister, in a speech on Wednesday that reflected the growing sense of foreboding around the coffin-shaped cabinet table. “There is now little margin for error,” he added. One minister confirmed that Britain was facing “a terrible situation”; another said it felt like 2008 when the financial crisis hit.

Much has changed during Britain’s long and dismal summer. Mr Osborne confirmed to ministerial colleagues that the eurozone crisis, shrinking export markets, the US slowdown, high inflation and rising commodity prices had all taken their toll, draining demand from an economy already sapped by the biggest fiscal consolidation of any major economy.

The riots that ravaged British cities last month may have been little more than mass copycat looting, but images of burning buildings and police struggling to regain control of the streets were reminiscent of the conflicts that scarred cities across the country during the brutal recession of the 1980s.

As Britain’s politicians prepare for the annual party conference season, the implications of economic slowdown – and the possibility of another recession – are slowly becoming clearer. The economy will dominate debate and shape strategy; a new phase in politics is opening up.

To understand the scale of the shift, consider the outlook at the start of the year. The Treasury was drawing up plans to start selling its stakes in banks, nationalised during the crisis, in 2012 in a sign of confidence returning to the City of London.

Government advisers talked confidently of next year’s Olympic Games in London as “a pivotal moment” – a shining light on the horizon – when austerity Britain would regain its verve. (Queen Elizabeth’s diamond jubilee would further lift the spirits.) All parties expected to fight the 2015 general election against a backdrop of plenty that would have followed a few years of tough-but-necessary choices.

Now the bank sales have been shelved until after the election and few in the cabinet mention shining lights. Party strategists have suddenly stopped talking about “spending the proceeds of growth” in the second half of the parliament.

Of course, the picture could change dramatically again, but for now Mr Osborne’s grand political plan – two years of pain, three years of recovery – seems in doubt. Ministers admit that come the election, the economy may still be mired in low growth and few now expect the independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts to be achieved. As recently as March, the OBR forecast growth of 1.7 per cent this year, 2.5 per cent in 2012 and 2.9 per cent in the two years before the election. Current consensus forecasts see 1.3 per cent growth this year and 2 per cent next year.

The strains were showing in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition even before the economic outlook worsened; now the two sides will have to march together through what could be almost four years of economic hardship, punctuated by public sector strikes over the cuts.

Pressure is also mounting on David Cameron, prime minister, to do something to cheer the rightwing of his Conservative party, which has applauded the government’s tough economic message but feels badly let down on other issues, including Europe, tax, schools and immigration.

Tim Montgomerie, editor of ConservativeHome, an activists’ website, says Mr Cameron has been able to contain this unrest by pointing to the coalition’s success in sticking to its central mission: “sorting out the mess” in the public finances left by his Labour predecessor Gordon Brown. “That could change if the economy goes wrong and the coalition gets the blame,” Mr Montgomerie says.

Mr Cameron is drawing up a growth strategy built around delivering big infrastructure projects, cutting red tape and reforming planning laws. But he is under growing pressure from some in his party to emulate Margaret Thatcher and administer the type of radical economic shock therapy that she delivered as prime minister in the 1980s. Suggestions include cutting the 50p top rate of tax, scrapping European Union labour laws, reintroducing selective grammar schools and engaging in ambitious supply side reforms.

Tory MPs have been scrambling to put their advice to Mr Cameron down in writing before the conference season. David Davis, who ran against the prime minister for the party leadership, has co-edited a book – The Future of Conservatism – claiming that Tory ideals have been “significantly diluted” by what he once dubbed the “Brokeback coalition”.

Priti Patel, one of five new Tory MPs to contribute to After the Coalition, another book, says: “Being in coalition should not be an excuse for holding back on many critical issues such as sentencing, immigration and Europe. David Cameron is in charge and with a Conservative majority in cabinet there is no reason why the status quo should become the default option.”

. . .

The grumpy mood on the Conservative benches is reinforced by a suspicion that Mr Cameron – who describes himself as a “liberal conservative” – is using the Liberal Democrats as cover for refusing to deliver a more rightwing agenda. Indeed one Tory official admitted the coalition had been “brilliant for us” because it allowed Mr Cameron to stick to the centre ground.

The prime minister is also blamed by some Tory MPs for a big review of parliamentary constituency boundaries – almost everyone is affected; some will lose their seats altogether – while others complain that the well-heeled Mr Cameron is remote and disconnected from the grassroots. “We’ve been taken over by a Bullingdon Club clique,” complained one senior Tory MP, referring to Mr Cameron’s past membership of a plummy-yet-boorish Oxford university drinking club. “It’s almost Edwardian.”

Mr Cameron’s team rejects this as an inaccurate caricature, pointing out that the prime minister has been dining with MPs and visiting the House of Commons tea room regularly – a classic manoeuvre to try to quell unrest in the ranks. But he knows that the ongoing economic gloom – manifested in rising unemployment and falling living standards – will only make party management harder.

Nevertheless, Mr Cameron appears unperturbed for now. That is in part because he believes he can win the 2015 election even if the economy is in the doldrums – provided he can blame external factors and claim that he had taken the tough action on the deficit to ensure things were not even worse. Clinging to the mantle of “economic competence” has become yet more essential to the prime minister.

Under Ed Miliband, the Labour opposition has so far failed to regain its reputation for economic credibility, which suffered under what Alistair Darling – the party’s last chancellor – has admitted was a period of “chaos and crisis” during the last years of Mr Brown’s government.

One coalition minister says: “All our feedback tells us that people don’t like what we are doing but they attach no credibility to the alternative. I think people have made up their mind about the Labour leadership.”

Mr Miliband must give a strong performance at his own party conference to reassure the doubters, fleshing out an alternative economic Plan B that does not simply remind voters that it was Labour which presided over the surge in borrowing in the first place.

Shaping Labour’s economic strategy is Ed Balls, a former Brown lieutenant, who has long argued that the coalition’s rapid deficit-reduction plan would hobble the economy. He talks of a “growth crisis” and told the BBC this week: “The evidence is clear that I was right and they were wrong.” But being right may not be enough.

Lord Mandelson, former Labour business secretary, says his party must recognise “the economy will not be growing quickly and real incomes will not be rising” at the next election. Writing in a new pamphlet called The Purple Book, he argues Labour must develop policies for tough times, including plans to modernise public services, to keep taxes low and to keep the economy competitive.

. . .

For Mr Clegg the economic downturn presents a major political challenge as he prepares for his Lib Dem party conference in Birmingham next week. Members of his centrist party have been prepared to go along with the coalition’s tough fiscal plan on the understanding that things would be better by 2015. Now what?

The deputy prime minister is determined to stay the course; he believes there is a big political prize in securing a record of economic competence in government. But Lib Dem strategists admit they were betting on fighting the next election in good times and are having to rethink.

“The Tories can get away with an election in bad times, because they can say they are still trying to clear up the mess left by the socialists,” says one party strategist. “It’s harder for the Lib Dems, we are a party which thrives on optimism – that may be in short supply.”

To raise morale, Mr Clegg has sharpened his party’s identity in the coalition, fighting to water down “Tory” health reforms, opposing the removal of the 50p tax rate or the introduction of private profit into the schools system. Like Mr Osborne, he needs to show that the coalition has a strategy for growth to counter the downturn.

But Mr Clegg has always warned his party not to think of itself as an “internal opposition” in government. His allies say he needed to “turn up the dial” in differentiating himself and his party from the Tories following dismal local election results – and defeat in a referendum on electoral reform, a core Lib Dem issue – in May. But, they predict, he may turn the dial down again once the conference season is out of the way. “The next year is going to be very tough,” says one ally. “We’ll have to knuckle down and get on with the job.”

Europe: Sceptical genies brood in the bottle

In Brussels every crisis is an opportunity to further European integration. But at Westminster, particularly among most MPs in the Conservative party, the eurozone crisis offers a chance to move in the other direction. For them the current euro troubles are a rare opportunity to take Britain further from the centre of a European project they detest.

For David Cameron, prime minister, turmoil in the eurozone is thus not only an economic danger, but a political one too. Once the Tories were split on Europe; now almost the whole party is eurosceptic. (This week at least 100 MPs discussed a new “moderate” agenda to reclaim powers from Brussels.)

Mr Cameron’s problem is managing this visceral dislike of Europe. “I was told never to seek a meeting with David to discuss Europe,” says one Tory minister. “He thinks that even wanting to talk about Europe is swivel-eyed.”

The prime minister – who describes himself as “a very practical eurosceptic” – fears that when the Tory party talks about Europe, it starts to sound like a strange cult, out of touch with voters’ real concerns such as health and crime.

Tory MPs see the negotiation of a possible new European Union treaty to reinforce eurozone integration as their moment. They want Britain to use its veto to take back powers from Brussels on issues such as criminal justice, employment policy or immigration. Their hopes were raised last week when George Osborne, chancellor, said such a treaty was “on the cards” to pursue the “the remorseless logic” of monetary union: closer fiscal union. He knows that the tighter the core of the EU, the less likely Britain would ever be part of it.

Mr Cameron hopes that the crisis can be addressed without treaty change – a view shared by Herman Van Rompuy, EU president.

Tory demands for the repatriation of powers would strain coalition relations with the pro-European Liberal Democrats, who say Britain should be helping to solve the eurozone crisis.

So far Mr Cameron has managed to hold his party and the coalition on Europe. But many Tory colleagues believe he is hiding behind the Lib Dems as an excuse for not delivering the European policy they demand.

UK Lags Behind In Child-Parent Wellbeing, Says Unicef

Children and parents in two contrasting European countries, Sweden and Spain, have significantly higher levels of wellbeing than those in a third, the United Kingdom, according to a survey and research by Unicef, the United Nations Children’s Fund.


















The survey examined attitudes towards materialism and inequality and found that parents and children had markedly different attitudes towards material possessions.

It was carried out among some 250 children, ranging in age from eight to 13, from all social backgrounds in the three countries. The findings were further discussed in three steering groups, one each in England, Spain and Sweden, of 14-year-olds. Twenty four families in the three countries were also observed and filmed.

“The message from them all was simple, clear and unanimous,” according to the Unicef report, “their wellbeing centres on time with a happy, stable family, having good friends and plenty of things to do, especially outdoors.”

Given the links, in terms of history, cultural and social policy thinking, between Ireland and the UK, the survey is likely to be of interest in Ireland, in particular to social workers, childcare specialists and policy analysts.

“Family life in the three countries was strikingly different,” says the report. It identified pressure on parental time in the UK, linked to long hours and both parents working outside the home, as having an impact on children, with parents trying to “make up” by buying things for their children.

“In the UK homes, we found parents struggling to give children the time they clearly want to spend with them whilst in Spain and Sweden family time appeared to be woven into the fabric of everyday life. We also noticed that the roles played by mothers, fathers and children within the family and the rules which governed family life were much more clearly defined in Spain and Sweden than in the UK.

“Moreover by the time many British children had reached secondary school, their participation in active and creative pursuits – pursuits that children said made them happy – had in fact dwindled, whilst this occurred less in other countries . . .

“Behind the statistics, we found British families struggling, pushed to find the time their children want, something exacerbated by the uncertainty about the rules and roles operating within the family household. And we found less participation in outdoor and creative activities amongst older and more deprived children.”

On materialism, the survey found that British children and parents both had problems.

For the majority of eight- to 13-year-olds in all three countries, “new toys, fashion items and gadgets were not central to their wellbeing”.

“Rather than wanting to acquire things for their own sake, material objects and consumer goods tended to fulfil a range of purposes in children’s lives: utilitarian, symbolic and social,” says the report.

“However, whilst most children agreed that family time is more important than consumer goods, we observed within UK homes a compulsion on the part of some parents to continually buy new things both for themselves and their children . . .

“We also noticed that UK parents were often buying their children status brands believing that they were protecting them from the kind of bullying they experienced in their own childhood.

“This compulsive acquisition and protective, symbolic brand purchase was largely absent in Spain and Sweden where parents were clearly under much less pressure to consume and displayed greater resilience.”

On inequality, in the UK this tended to be defined in terms of money and material possessions.

“Whilst the links between brands and inequality created tensions and anxieties for children in all three countries to some extent, these feelings were only shared by UK parents. Swedish and Spanish parents seemed not to belong to a “consumer generation” in the same way.

“Deprivation for Swedish parents was understood as living in an area where personal safety was threatened, whilst for Spanish mothers not being able to spend time with your children was seen to confer disadvantage relative to others.

“In the UK, inequality was also seen in access to outdoor, sporting and creative activities, with poorer children spending more sedentary time in front of screens whilst the more affluent had access to a wide range of sports and other pursuits.”

Children’s Well-being in the UK, Sweden and Spain: the Role of Inequality and Materialism (Unicef; June 2011) is a qualitative study and may be read online in full at unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/

David Cameron: A Professional Who Plays Like Anmateur

Who will trip David Cameron up? The most likely answer is “himself”.












The Prime Minister’s scorn for his opponent, and laughter at his own jokes, suggest a man without a care in the world.

The ease with which Mr Cameron dominates Ed Miliband is becoming a bit offensive. It is like watching a one-sided cricket match: any spectator of a sporting disposition is bound to wish for a closer game.

The Labour leader runs in to bowl six of the most awkward deliveries he can devise – this week to do with police commissioners and NHS waiting times – but is met by an impregnable defence.

Mr Miliband’s questions are not bad, but Mr Cameron’s retorts are better. The Prime Minister has a long training in this not very glorious kind of warfare: in September 1988, straight out of Oxford, he joined the Conservative Research Department, where much effort was devoted to digging out quotations which could be used to suggest that the Labour Party was mired in a set of absurd contradictions.

So when Mr Miliband said elected police commissioners are a waste of money, Mr Cameron hit him with a remark by Gordon Brown: “The Home Secretary will bring forward proposals for directly elected representatives to give local people more control over policing.”

Mr Brown said this in the Commons on 14 May 2008, but Mr Cameron cleverly implied that it had been in the Labour manifesto of May 2010, written by Mr Miliband, whom he proceeded to accuse of “a complete U-turn”.

When Mr Miliband switched to the NHS, Mr Cameron was once more ready and waiting with an inconvenient quotation, this time by John Healey, the shadow Health Secretary, who had apparently opined that “what Labour says matters less than what almost anyone else says”.

Mr Cameron’s professional technique is hidden by the swagger with which he plays his shots. The Prime Minister’s scorn for his opponent, and laughter at his own jokes, suggest a man without a care in the world. At one stage he committed the atrocious mistake of referring to “my housing minister”: the man is the Queen’s housing minister.

Confidence can easily degenerate into over-confidence, which is why Mr Cameron could one day get himself out by attempting a ludicrously risky shot. He is not averse to taking risks, as he showed in a reply to one of his backbenchers.

Nadine Dorries (C, Mid-Bedfordshire) complained that “the Liberal Democrats make up 8.7 per cent of this Parliament and yet they seem to be influencing our free school policy, health and many issues including immigration and abortion”, after which she issued a challenge: “Does the Prime Minister think it is about time he told the Deputy Prime who is the boss?”

Mr Cameron began, “I know the honourable lady is extremely frustrated,” whereupon he was interrupted by rude laughter in which he joined, after which he ended: “I’m going to give up on this one.”

The Prime Minister had not answered the question. Since it was an unanswerable question, or unanswerable without insulting Nick Clegg who was sitting next to him, perhaps that was the best way to leave it.

Tory backbenchers complain that Mr Cameron listens more to Mr Clegg than to them. Mark Reckless (C, Rochester and Strood) demanded that the Prime Minister “now listen to Conservative colleagues and take the opportunity to hold a referendum on Europe”.

Mr Cameron refused to do so. Perhaps it is his own side who will one day trip him up.

Nadine Dorries' Abortion Proposals Heavily Defeated In Commons

Abortion amendment that bids to strip termination providers of their counselling role loses by 250 votes with supporters divided












Nadine Dorries debates plans to bar abortion providers from giving advice to pregnant women.

An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons this afternoon after a split between the original supporters of the amendment.

MPs voted by 368 votes to 118 – a majority of 250 – to reject the amendment by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries after she lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field.

Dorries managed to win the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary.

Field withdrew his support for the Dorries amendment after Anne Milton, the health minister, said the government would try to implement the spirit of her proposal.

Milton told MPs: "The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve."

Dorries hailed Milton's undertaking as a victory. She told the BBC's Norman Smith: "We lost the battle but we have won the war."

Milton distanced the government from the amendment towards the end of a stratchy debate in which Dorries said that David Cameron had initially encouraged her.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent.

Dorries said: "I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister's insistence that I inserted the word 'independent'. I attended a meeting at the department of health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality."

The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and Bpas from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling.

Dorries claimed that the prime minister changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: "Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP."

A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation. The source said: "That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn't need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment."

The defeat was welcomed by Bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: "Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries' amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy."

Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. "I do not want to return to the days of back street abortionists," she said. "I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay."

The MP said that it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. "It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?"

Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: "This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question."

Shirley Williams Plunges NHS Reforms Into Fresh Turmoil

Liberal Democrat peer in new battle over health and social care bill, while secret emails fuel privatisation fears for hospitals.












Baroness Williams has raised fresh doubts over the health and social care bill following the publication of secret emails.

The future of the government's health reforms has been plunged into fresh doubt as the Liberal Democrat peer Shirley Williams raises new concerns, and secret emails reveal plans to hand over the running of up to 20 hospitals to overseas companies. The revelations come as MPs prepare to return to Westminster on Tuesday for what promises to be a crucial stage of the flagship health and social care bill.

Baroness Williams, one of the original leaders of a Lib Dem rebellion against health secretary Andrew Lansley's plans – who appeared to have been pacified after changes were made over the summer – said she had new doubts, having re-examined the proposals. "Despite the great efforts made by Nick Clegg and Paul Burstow [the Lib Dem health minister], I still have huge concerns about the bill. The battle is far from over," she said.

Writing in Sunday's Observer, Williams raises a series of issues that she says must be addressed. Chief among them is a legal doubt as to whether the secretary of state will any longer be bound to deliver "a comprehensive health service for the people of England, free at the point of need".

Some critics of Lansley believe the Tories are bent on a mission to privatise the NHS, gradually handing it to the private sector. They fear that moves to end the legal obligation on the secretary of state to deliver comprehensive services may be a deliberate part of the process.

Concerns that ministers want more private involvement will be strengthened by details of email exchanges involving senior health officials about handing the management of 10 to 20 NHS hospitals to international private companies. The emails, which were made public following a freedom of information request and were obtained by non-profit-making investigations company Spinwatch, show that officials have been planning since late last year to bring in international companies. This is despite repeated insistences by both David Cameron and Nick Clegg that there will be no privatisation of the NHS. On 16 May, Cameron said: "Let me make clear: there will be no privatisation." Clegg said: "Yes to reform of the NHS, but no to the privatisation of the NHS."

One of the emails released by the department shows that officials at the private sector firm McKinsey, which advises ministers, were in active discussion about bringing in overseas firms to take over up to 20 hospitals in return for contracts running into hundreds of millions of pounds. An email to Ian Dalton, head of provider development at the Department of Health, who is heavily involved in the reform programme, in November last year talks about "interest in new solution for 10-20 hospitals but starting from a mindset of one at a time with various political constraints".

The emails show that McKinsey is acting as a broker between the department and "international players" that are bidding to run the NHS. The documents even lay out some of the conditions required by "international hospital provider groups" for running NHS hospitals. "International players can do an initiative if 500 million revenue [is] on the table." They also need to have "a free hand on staff management". The NHS would be allowed to "keep real estate and pensions".

The Department of Health attempted to play down the significance of the emails, saying they were referring to what might be done if any one hospital trust asked for the private sector to become involved in running a failing hospital. A spokesman said: "It is not unusual for the Department of Health to hold meetings with external organisations. Any decisions to involve organisations, such as the independent sector or foundation trusts, in running the management of NHS hospitals would be led by the NHS locally and in all cases NHS staff and assets would remain wholly owned by the NHS."

But a spokesman for the public service union Unison said: "Regardless of what Cameron and Clegg say in public, it is clear that behind the scenes the government is planning to privatise the NHS. Private companies will only run hospitals if they see a profit in it. This, together with lifting the cap off the number of private patients NHS hospitals can treat, will completely change the culture of the NHS. It will be profits before patients.

"We demand that the government come clean on their plans. If this is true, patient choice is a complete sham. The move to any qualified provider is clearly about creating a market for private companies. Any MP who votes for the health and social care bill is voting for the end of the NHS."

Williams also raises worries about the extent to which the role of the private sector is being expanded. "I am not against a private element in the NHS, which may bring innovatory ideas and good practice, provided it is within the framework of a public service …" she writes. "But why have they tried to get away from the NHS as a public service, among the most efficient, least expensive and fairest anywhere in the world? Why have they been bewitched by a flawed US system that is unable to provide a universal service and is very expensive indeed?"

She adds: "The remarkable vision of the 1945 Attlee government, of a public service free at the point of need for all the people of England, should not be allowed to die."

John Healey, Labour's shadow health secretary, said: "As David Cameron's government railroads the health bill through parliament, MPs are being denied their constitutional role to properly scrutinise his plans for the NHS. The prime minister has already done a political fix with Nick Clegg on the health bill, and now he's trying to force it through with a procedural fix."

Public Reject Dorries' Abortion Proposal

Tomorrow, MPs will debate whether to prevent abortion providers from counselling women seeking an abortion. The motion – put forward by Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries as an amendment to the Health and Social Care bill – is being opposed by the government, and pro-choice groups are backing a rival amendment, which reinforces the status quo. The amendement's author, Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert says:










"The present system which allows women access to evidence-based guidance works, therefore I cannot see why we need to change it. I do not want to see us opening the door to anti choice organisations which could prevent women making their own decision on such a momentus issue."

And a YouGov poll released today shows that, were the public to be voting instead of MPs, they would be much more likely to back Huppert's amendment than Dorries'.














Fewer than one-in-four people support changing the law to prevent charities like BPAS and Marie Stopes from providing counselling, while 40 per cent oppose it. And, strikingly, Conservative voters are no more likely to support Dorries' motion than the public as a whole. In addition, a majority dismiss the notion that "it is too easy for women to obtain abortions in Britain":














These results are hardly surprising in a country that is predominantly pro-choice, as shown by a poll yesterday showing more than three-to-one support for the claim that "if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should not have to continue her pregnancy".

Moat's Brother Tells Of Plea

The brother of gunman Raoul Moat appealed to police to be allowed to talk to him in the hours before he shot himself in Rothbury in Northumberland.















Moat went on the run in July 2010 after shooting and seriously injuring his former partner Sam Stobbart, murdering her boyfriend Chris Brown, and blinding PC David Rathband.

Angus Moat told the inquest into his brother's death that he telephoned the police because he thought he might be able to "talk Raoul down".

He told the court in Newcastle: "I was completely appalled by his actions. But I didn't want him to die."

The 41-year-old tax inspector said he had not spoken to his brother for at least seven years and described their family as "very fragmented".

"Raoul thought everybody in his own family would be against him and I wanted to show him that was not the case," he told the jury.

"I thought if I could speak to him it could change the way he was feeling and the way he would act."

Police officers assessing potential helpers, or third party intermediaries, had told him by phone that his presence could put the police negotiators at risk.

Mr Moat acknowledged the police had a better idea than he did of "all the emotional triggers" affecting his brother's behaviour.

Much of the evidence on the second day of the inquest focused on who should have been involved in the negotiations to try to prevent Moat from shooting himself or others.

Why Cameron Must Stop Running Scared Of These Abortion Zealots

Many who gaze across the Atlantic have long been amazed at the way in which the toxic issue of abortion fundamentally distorts the U.S. political agenda.

With a certain amount of smugness, the British have told themselves that things are very different in the UK.

Here, such issues are settled not by divisive decisions of the courts, as in the U.S., but through the democratic and unifying route of Parliamentary debate and votes.

Yet now it appears that abortion hysteria is beginning to distort British politics, too.



















Amendment: Frank Field and Nadine Dorries have been pushed the law changed, yet it looks as though their proposals will be lost after a screeching u-turn.

Just one week ago, an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill drafted by Tory MP Nadine Dorries and Labour MP Frank Field looked set to sail through the Commons on a wave of general approval.

Their amendment — to be debated in the Commons this week — aims to break the stranglehold of abortion clinics which are the sole state-funded providers of counselling to pregnant women who are contemplating abortion.

The measure would open up to independent counsellors this optional process of advice and guidance to avoid any possible conflict of interest by abortion providers.

According to opinion polls, no fewer than 92 per cent of MPs, along with around three-quarters of the public, said they supported the amendment. For its part, the Government let it be known that it was already developing proposals to introduce independent abortion counselling for women.

Nevertheless, the amendment now seems likely to be lost because the Government has performed a screeching U-turn and urged MPs to vote against it.

In an unprecedented letter to Tory MPs, Health Minister Anne Milton said that ministers would themselves vote to block it. This has been interpreted by some Tory MPs at least as a covert attempt to whip them all into the ‘no’ lobby.

Yet abortion has always been decided by free votes rather than the imposition of party lines. So why has the Government suddenly decided to wreck both the amendment and this sacred constitutional protection for issues of conscience?

















Unprecedented: Anne Milton sent a letter to Tory MPs saying that minister would vote to block the proposals.

It has been suggested that this was yet another example of Nick Clegg forcing David Cameron to adopt a Left-wing position. Well, maybe.

What seems more plausible, however, is that with the Prime Minister’s antennae so finely tuned to the Guardian/BBC agenda, he simply took fright at the vitriol being hurled from the Left.

If so, this demonstrates once again the power of the campaigns of instantaneous demonisation and denunciation now employed to silence those who uphold a socially conservative position by tarring and feathering them as swivel-eyed bigots. It is particularly instructive that the amendment’s co-sponsor, Frank Field, has not been subjected to the abuse being hurled at Nadine Dorries.

For Field is a decent and principled man of the Left. But those seeking to characterise the measure as an import from what they portray as the knuckle-dragging, U.S. Right-wing Christian fundamentalist agenda cannot acknowledge Field’s involvement.

For this would destroy the demonisation strategy by suggesting the amendment is motivated by sound and decent principles. So, tellingly, Field has been all but airbrushed out of this venomous campaign. It is Dorries, the Tory bogeywoman, who receives the hate mail and death threats.

The impetus behind the amendment is a change in British attitudes. While only a minority would want abortion made illegal once again, thus returning to the evils of back-street butchery, there is now widespread revulsion over two aspects in particular of the current situation.

The first is the unmistakeable humanity of the foetuses subjected to late abortion. The second is the enormous abortion rate, which last year amounted to more than 200,000 terminations in England and Wales.

According to Dorries, up to half of those women who have independent counselling change their minds and decide not to abort. However, when women are referred straight to an abortion clinic for counselling, that number can be as low as 8 per cent.

It does not follow from these figures that the two abortion clinics providing most of the available counselling, Marie Stopes International and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, are subjecting vulnerable pregnant women to pro-abortion propaganda.

Maybe they do exude a more subtle ethos of pro-abortion sympathies — but that would hardly be surprising, since they are, after all, abortion clinics.

The reason for the different rates might merely be that women who seek out independent counselling have a more open mind in the first place and so are more likely to decide to have the baby.












Counselling service: Statistics appear to show Marie Stopes and other clinics to be be pro-abortion and therefore offer advice that way - but it is not surprising given that abortion is the very reason they exist.

Whatever the explanation, surely only a zealot would be complacent about the huge number of abortions — a number which was never envisaged when the procedure was legalised.

Dorries has been pilloried for declaring that she wants to bring the number down. Yet how can any decent person not want to bring down the huge rate of what should only be a procedure of last resort?

Some of the objections used in the past week — that if tens of thousands more children were born as a result this would put pressure on social services — have been spine-chillingly callous.

They are sobering evidence of the brutalisation of attitudes that abortion virtually on demand has brought in its wake.

So if independent counselling would reduce this toll, who could possibly object? Only the pro-abortion zealots, whose visceral hostility to faith-based counselling is based on the fact that this changes some women’s minds.

This is no more than opposition to thinking independently. To put it another way, to the pro-abortion lobby, if a woman decides against having an abortion after counselling, she has been brainwashed, but if she decides to go ahead with it she has reached her own decision.

Now we can see the vacuity of the pro-abortion slogan: ‘A woman’s right to choose.’ From the reaction to the Dorries-Field amendment, a woman only has the right to choose counselling that is pro-abortion.


















Compromise: Louise Mensch has put forward proposals suggesting women should be able to receive support from faith based charities and abortion clinics.

Having said that, it does seem unnecessarily divisive to prevent abortion clinics from themselves offering counselling. Surely women should be able to access counselling from both faith-based charities and abortion clinics, as another compromise amendment by the Tory MP Louise Mensch is suggesting.

This would seem to allow various folk to climb down from their respective trees. After all, Downing Street said the Prime Minister supported providing women with more counselling about their pregnancies, but didn’t want to shut down what was provided by Marie Stopes and the BPAS.

Nevertheless, the Government has refused to back even the Mensch compromise. By way of explanation, the Department of Health came up with a prize bit of obfuscatory waffle about there being no need to define independent counselling.

This makes little sense. The real reason is surely that this Conservative Prime Minister is running so scared of the ‘nasty party’ tag that no compromise with the Left is possible.

But what is nice about thinking there is nothing wrong with 200,000 abortions a year? What is nice about wanting to prevent pregnant women from accessing different types of counselling? What is nice about demonising people in order to shut down debate?

Surely this is what is really nasty. The country is crying out for leadership to stand up to this kind of bullying and intimidation. The Prime Minister should get up off his knees and support women’s genuine right to choose.

Clegg Calls For 'Probing Questions' On NHS Bill

Clegg's demands over NHS may spark Lords amendments – as Lib Dem grassroots say bill will hurt patients and party.












A demonstrator protests at Tory-Lib Dem moves to reform the NHS.

The Tories and Liberal Democrats are facing a fresh clash over the government's NHS reforms after Nick Clegg encouraged his MPs to put "probing questions" to ministers when the bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday.

In a two-hour meeting with his parliamentary party on Monday night, the deputy prime minister held out the possibility that he will accept amendments to the heath and social care bill when it moves to the House of Lords later this month.

Clegg's move means that Lady Williams could be backed by Liberal Democrat ministers if she attempts to amend the bill to guarantee that the health secretary has a legal duty to deliver a comprehensive health service free at the point of need.

But a source at the Department of Health indicated last night that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary – who has already amended the bill after the government's "listening exercise" – would not accept fresh amendments on this point.

The source said: "Our view is that the legislation is watertight on the secretary of state's obligation to ensure there is an NHS available to all. That was always our view. But we amended the legislation to reassure those who were not sure."

Clegg said earlier in the day that he accepted the view that there was no need for fresh amendments on this issue.

In a speech on schools in south-west London, he said: "Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing, nothing, nothing in any of the government's plans which in anyway threaten the basic founding principles of the NHS...There is no question, legally or politically, of the secretary of state under these new arrangements being somehow able to wash his or her hands of the NHS."

But at Monday night's meeting of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, Clegg admitted that ministers still had to work hard to clarify the bill for MPs and peers with concerns.

Paul Burstow, the Lib Dem health minister, is to offer further briefings to MPs and peers who will also be invited to meet officials at the department of health.

All sides accept that it is too late to table further amendments on the NHS reforms when the bill is debated by MPs at report stage on Tuesday and Wednesday and at third reading on Wednesday . But Lib Dem MPs have been encouraged to put "probing questions" to ministers for possible amendments that will be tabled in the House of Lords.

One Lib Dem source said: "We hope that we will not need to amend the bill further. But we may have to." Another Lib Dem source said: "There will be robust interventions in the debate."

Lib Dem whips believe that the overwhelming number of MPs will support the amended bill. But Andrew George, the Lib Dem MP for St Ives, said he would rebel.

The battle within the Lib Dem ranks was exposed last night in leaked emails, in which grassroots members of the party vented their anger at the leadership.

Jeremy Sanders of Huddersfield Liberal Democrats wrote in an email to John Pugh this week, the Lib Dem backbench health committee chairman, that "yes, we can try to get improvements to the details, but none of these changes are going to alter the basic fact that the legislation is based on the assumption that what the NHS needs is a system based on private sector involvement, free market competition and internal markets.

"Quite honestly, if our MPs are willing to go along with this, what exactly won't they be willing to support?"

In the same batch of emails obtained by the Guardian, Robert Hutchison, a Lib Dem councillor in Winchester, tells Pugh that "in my view is that if Lib Dem MPs vote for the bill this week — without further major amendments — it will damage the NHS and damage the party".

Charles West, one of the key party activists on the NHS, has written to party members to back an appeal against the the Lb Dem's conference committee decision not to debate the health bill at the forthcoming party conference. "I have therefore written a letter of appeal to the Federal Conference Committee against their narrow decision not to take the motion that I and over 100 conference reps submitted in June, and in case that appeal fails we are submitting an emergency motion which will achieve the same ends".

Last month Andrew George, the Lib Dem rebel on the health bill, emailed Lib Dem activists with a blunt message: "of course I'll try to influence colleagues but some are still basking in the synthetic afterglow of the post-pause Bill revision, perhaps having duped themselves that it's 'job done'! People need to wake up to the fact that we can say what we like at Conference, but the MPs main chance to influence would already have passed!"

Labour twisted the knife into the Lib Dems with the party's health spokesman John Healey arguing that Nick Clegg's claim that he had met 11 out of the 13 changes demanded by his party's spring conference resolution was "wrojng". "He's failed on seven and sallen short on six". Baroness Thornton, the party's spokesperson in the Lords, warned that the lack of scrutiny in the Commons — where 1,000 amenments mean just 40s of parliamentary to consider each one — could see the bill be put into a specialist committee to examine whether there is enough time to debate the bill.

Writing in the Guardian, Tory MP Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who had criticised the health bill, says now is the time to back the coalition's plans as "the structural changes to the NHS have passed the point of no return".

She argues instead that the bill needs to be amended to ensure that the choice of who is appointed to sit on and run the new NHS National Commissioning Board, a quango with £60bn to spend, is fairly and openly discussed.

Saline Deaths: Freed Nurse 'Was A Scapegoat'

A nurse who spent more than six weeks in custody after being accused of tampering with saline drips at a Stockport hospital was made a "scapegoat", according to her lawyer.











The hospital says heightened security measures will remain in place.

On Friday, police announced they were releasing Rebecca Leighton and dropping all charges in connection with deaths on two wards at Stepping Hill Hospital.

Her solicitor Carl Richmond said he felt police had "jumped the gun" in arresting Miss Leighton.

He said: "I got the feeling there had to be a scapegoat because there was absolute chaos at the hospital and it could not function because of all the speculation.

"I was imploring the police to bail her while they continued their inquiries but the decision was made to charge," Mr Richmond said.

Miss Leighton was first arrested on suspicion of murder and then formally accused of causing criminal damage with intent to endanger life.











Rebecca Leighton could sue for as much as £1m, according to newspaper reports.

The alarm was raised when a higher than normal number of patients were reported to have "unexplained" low blood sugar levels amid fears saline solution had been contaminated with insulin.

After reports in some newspapers that Miss Leighton could sue police for as much as £1m, Mr Richmond told Sky News such speculation was "premature".

He said the 27-year-old nurse would probably meet with her legal team later this week in order to discuss the options available, but had not yet decided whether legal action was appropriate.











Miss Leighton will not immediately be able to return to work.

Mr Richmond said, with her family's support, Miss Leighton was "bearing up reasonably well" after what had been a very stressful period in custody.

The nurse has said she felt she was "living in hell" since her arrest.

She will not be able to return to work as an interim order suspending her from the Nursing and Midwifery Council's register remains in place.

Meanwhile, police have vowed to leave "no stone unturned" in their investigation into the deaths of seven patients.

They have said they are planning to interview at least another 500 witnesses - including staff, patients and visitors.

It is thought more than 700 people could have had access to the area where the bags of saline were being kept.

A spokeswoman for the hospital said tight security measures remain in place and would continue for the foreseeable future.

Health Ministers Vow A United Front Against Plans To Tighten Up Abortion Laws

Health ministers promised yesterday to vote en masse against Commons moves to tighten up Britain’s abortion laws.

Backbenchers are seeking an amendment that would change the law to stop charities carrying out abortions, such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, from offering advice to women considering a termination.

In a letter to Tory MPs last night, public health minister Anne Milton said she and ministerial colleagues would not support the change.




















David Cameron said that the was sympathetic to the proposals on abortion made by Nadine Dorries and other MPs, but he would not in favour of them.

She said she had no evidence that organisations such as the BPAS were causing ‘any harm to women’, despite claims from pro-life groups that the charities are biased because they earn money from terminations.

And she said she did not want to create an extra ‘hurdle’ for women seeking an abortion.

Mrs Milton reiterated that the Government would put forward proposals this year to ensure women had access to independent counselling.

The Health Bill amendment, to be tabled by Tory Nadine Dorries and supported by Labour’s Frank Field, aroused fears that faith groups opposed to abortion on moral grounds would start to offer counselling.












Offering advice: Charity Marie Stopes, based in central London, is against the backbench proposals.

David Cameron has already signalled that he will vote against it.

Mrs Milton said in her letter: ‘We are very sympathetic to the aim of ensuring that all women requesting abortion are offered impartial, informative counselling.

‘However, on the issue of preventing abortion services from offering counselling, we disagree with the amendment.

‘What matters is the quality and independence of view of the advice given. Counsellors should stick to the facts, not promote a particular view, and most importantly help to support women to make their own decision.

‘It is important to be clear that the Government’s position neither represents a criticism of existing counselling services, nor hopes to create an extra hurdle for women to pass before successfully requesting an abortion.

‘We have no evidence that existing abortion counselling services are causing any harm to women.

‘If pressed to a vote, my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and I will vote against the amendments. This is because the amendments exclude existing abortion services from offering counselling.’

Tory backbencher Louise Mensch has said she will also put down an amendment, saying women should be offered counselling by independent organisations that are neither abortion providers nor faith groups.

A source at the Department of Health said that although ministers had not yet seen the text of this amendment, they were likely to vote against it because they did not see the need for legislation defining independent counselling.

School Dinners To Rise By 17%, Warns Consumer Watchdog

Parents will have to pay up to 25% more for their children’s school dinners, a survey has found.













Consumer watchdog Which? discovered the price is rising in two-thirds of schools across the country this year – while the quality of food could plummet.

Parents would rather give their children packed lunches as they believe them to be cheaper and their children do not like school dinners, according to the research. Schools in Poole are the most expensive in the country at an average of £2.50.

But Doncaster Council has increased prices by 17% to between £1.70 and £2 a meal while Lewisham has upped theirs by 14%, from £1.40 to £1.60.

Bolton saw the biggest increase at 25%, although its prices still remain the lowest in the country at £1.25.

It is estimated that 55% of students would need to take school meals in order to keep costs down.

But the research just 45% of pupils in England have them. Richard Lloyd of Which? said yesterday: “It will come as an unwelcome surprise to hard-pressed families to see some local authorities increasing prices well above inflation.

“Meals in most areas are still a relatively low-cost and low-hassle way to provide a decent lunch for your kids.

“But if schools cannot find ways to protect the extra funding that has gone to school meals and increase the numbers taking them, there’s a real risk of even more hikes or a drop in standards, undoing progress made in the past five years.”

David Cameron's Not Fit To Lead The Country

DAVID Cameron claims that three-quarters of those applying for Employment Support Allowance (the successor to Incapacity Benefit) can go to work immediately. He is a liar.

He bases this fake figure on a survey by the Department of Work and Pensions showing that 39 per cent who took a tough new test for ESA were deemed fit for work and moved to Jobseekers’ Allowance. A further 36 per cent gave up before completing the test.

Dodgy Dave, who’s never had a proper job in his life, assumes that all those who failed the test are scrimshankers, and all those who pulled out were trying it on.

In fact, 40 per cent of those who are turned down, successfully appeal against being denied ESA, and an unknown number walk away from a testing ordeal that disability charities say is ­“seriously flawed and not fit for purpose”.

Of course, those who can work, should work. But the ConDems simply want to save money for tax cuts for the better-off, not help those who have ­difficulty helping themselves. Cameron’s abuse of statistics to criminalise them is despicable.

PM Defends NHS Against Privatisation Claims

David Cameron has been defending his health service reforms against charges that they represent a gradual privatisation of the NHS.

But embarrassingly for the Prime Minister, he admitted a member of his own family had reservations about his plans while visiting a London hospital.











"My brother-in-law is a hospital doctor and he says 'You're giving too much power to the GPs, and hospitals will be disadvantaged'," he told a patient.

As MPs prepare to debate the Health and Social Care Bill, and as unions prepare to protest outside parliament, Mr Cameron argues that the reforms are essential.

The Prime Minister, in a letter to The Times, argues that without modernisation, the NHS will become unaffordable.

"Fail to modernise, and the NHS is heading for crisis," he writes, claiming that the Coalition government's proposals are simply about using more efficiently and effectively what already exists.

"GP-led commissioning, patient choice, payment by results and Foundation Trusts have all existed in one form or another over the past 15 years," he continued.

"The NHS has always worked with a range of social enterprises, charities and private companies. The difference is that we plan to make these changes effective right across the NHS."

Health unions, however, say the greatest threat to the NHS is the reform programme itself.

They claim most people oppose it, including many GPs, patients, clinicians, charities and MPs - who are also concerned that the Government is trying to rush through a complex Bill containing 280 clauses without sufficient scrutiny.

The public sector union UNISON conducted a survey of 2,000 adults which the union said revealed that 56% of Liberal Democrat voters oppose private firms providing NHS services, while only 46% of Conservative supporters support the move.

The Royal College of Surgeons has warned that patient care could be compromised if GPs, who would control £80bn of the NHS budget, start to focus on price rather than quality.

In the Commons, there is disquiet, once again, among Lib Dem MPs, and even some Conservatives are worried that the reforms might prove damaging.

Mr Cameron and his Health Secretary Andrew Lansley should be able to steer the Bill through parliament, but then the true test will come, with the health unions warning of dire consequences, no less than the destruction of the NHS as a universal service free at the point of delivery.

Health workers are expected to stage a protest outside Parliament during the debate.

David Cameron Accused Of Destroying NHS With Privatisation Plans

DOCTORS last night accused David Cameron of plotting to smash up the NHS as he sets out plans to rush through privatisation of the historic public service.













Critics fear the move will lead to closed hospitals, lengthy waiting lists, rationed medicines and a steep decline in the quality of care for patients.

And staff warn health reforms he will put before Parliament on Wednesday will spell the end of the NHS as we know it in a kick in the teeth for the dedicated staff who have worked ­tirelessly over the decades to provide free care for millions.

In a key speech today, the PM will say he wants more “competition” and “greater independence” for hospitals and schools. And in a worrying sign for thousands of workers, Mr Cameron is to claim he wants “one of the great legacies of this Government to be the complete modernisation of our public services”.

But experts fear the move is a cynical ploy to flog off large parts of the NHS to private medical firms who will put profit before health.

Mr Cameron was also accused of breaking his pre-election promise that there would be no more NHS “top-down” reorganisation.

Dr Clare Gerada of the Royal College of GPs said the shake up being pushed through by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley could “remove the letter N from the letters NHS”. Mr Lansley is planning to hand control of 80% of the NHS budget to groups of GPs or consortia who will be ­responsible for buying ­treatments, operations and drugs for their patients.

Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts will be axed. In his speech today Mr Cameron will boast that 140 GP consortia are already poised to start work.

But a report by the NHS Confederation which ­represents doctors, ­administrators and medical groups, said the reforms were ­“extraordinarily risky”.

Shadow Health Secretary John Healey said: “This report is a big red warning light ahead of the ­Government’s legislation. The more health experts see of the plans, the harder they find it to say something in support.

“The NHS is David Cameron’s biggest broken promise to date. He made the personal pledge to protect the NHS and his Coalition Agreement could not have been clearer in saying, ‘We will stop the top-down internal reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care.

“The policy aims of more patient involvement and clinical control of commissioning are sound but can be achieved by the evolution of Labour’s reforms, not Mr Lansley’s revolution of NHS organisation.

“The report is a comprehensive demolition job on the Conservative-led Government’s handling of the NHS. Ministers are putting unprecedented pressure on the NHS by forcing through this high-cost, high-risk internal reorganisation and breaking their promise to protect NHS funding.

“Everyone saw big improvements in the NHS with Labour, but many great gains for patients are being put at risk by this reckless reorganisation.

“The report confirms that those who run our NHS see the Government’s reorganisation plans as a cocktail of instability and uncertainty, laced with broken promises.”

Lib Dem Andrew George also attacked Mr Cameron’s planned changes. He said: “The structures the Government is putting in place put at risk the public sector ethos of the NHS.”

He claimed Mr Lansley was allowing private firms to “cream off” the best bits of the health service.

The Confederation warned that the Government’s plan to allow “any willing provider” to carry out NHS work would lead to the further privatisation of the service. It warns that the NHS will have to shrink to make space for private firms and says the “closure of existing services will be ­necessary”.

Mr Cameron will defend the changes, saying they will be carefully “worked through”.