Economic growth in the UK last year slumped to its lowest rate since 1992, official figures showed.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was just 1.8% higher in 2005 than the previous year, according to preliminary figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The growth rate was marginally better than the 1.7% forecast by many City economists but well below the 3% to 3.5% Chancellor Gordon Brown predicted in his budget early last year.
The Chancellor was forced to scale back his forecast to 1.75% in the pre-budget report to Parliament in December.
The 1.8% rate of annual growth came after a hike of 0.6% in the last three months of 2005, up from 0.4% in the third quarter.
But the fourth quarter rally was not enough to stop annual GDP growth falling to its lowest level in more than a decade, and almost half the 3.2% rate reached in 2004. In 1992 growth was just 0.3%.
The fourth quarter was boosted by a 1.3% rise in mining and quarrying and a 0.9% increase in services. The service sector represents about 73% of the UK economy and rose 2.6% over 2005 as a whole.
The ONS said a 0.8% decline in manufacturing in the fourth quarter saw industrial production fall by 0.6% at the end of the year. Industrial production accounts for 20% of the economy and fell 1.5% over the whole of 2005, compared with a 0.7% rise in 2004.
The worst hit manufacturers in the fourth quarter were in the transport equipment industries and the paper, printing and publishing industries.
ED: Trouble is that the money taps are gushing in the public sector and the money producing private sector well is drying up. If I were Tony and Gordon I would be preparing my early exit plan.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Monday, January 23, 2006
No charges on Sir Iqbal gay remarks | This is London
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, will not face charges over allegedly homophobic remarks he made in a radio interview, it has been confirmed.
Earlier this month police announced they were investigating comments Sir Iqbal made on a BBC radio programme in which he condemned civil partnerships and described homosexuality as harmful.
Officers said they would examine the remarks he made on Radio 4's PM programme to see if any offences had been committed following a complaint from the public.
But on Monday a Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "There will be no further action on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service."
Sir Iqbal told the programme on January 3 civil partnerships were "harmful" and unacceptable.
"It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society - stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in," he said.
He underlined the importance of tolerance. But asked if homosexuality itself was harmful to society, he said: "Certainly it is a practice that doesn't in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is, it is not acceptable."
Sir Iqbal continued: "What is not acceptable, there is a good reason for it.
"Each of our faiths tell us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practiced there is a greater concern in that area."
However, Sir Iqbal said everyone should be tolerant.
ED: Apparently above comments as acceptable as London Major Ken calling a Jewish reporter was a Nazi war criminal and a concentration camp guard. Well at least there is a benchmark on acceptability
Earlier this month police announced they were investigating comments Sir Iqbal made on a BBC radio programme in which he condemned civil partnerships and described homosexuality as harmful.
Officers said they would examine the remarks he made on Radio 4's PM programme to see if any offences had been committed following a complaint from the public.
But on Monday a Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "There will be no further action on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service."
Sir Iqbal told the programme on January 3 civil partnerships were "harmful" and unacceptable.
"It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society - stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in," he said.
He underlined the importance of tolerance. But asked if homosexuality itself was harmful to society, he said: "Certainly it is a practice that doesn't in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is, it is not acceptable."
Sir Iqbal continued: "What is not acceptable, there is a good reason for it.
"Each of our faiths tell us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practiced there is a greater concern in that area."
However, Sir Iqbal said everyone should be tolerant.
ED: Apparently above comments as acceptable as London Major Ken calling a Jewish reporter was a Nazi war criminal and a concentration camp guard. Well at least there is a benchmark on acceptability
Friday, January 20, 2006
New Labour loots the National Lottery
LABOUR has looted billions of Pounds from the National Lottery to plug the black hole in its spending plans, a report reveals today.
Ministers have bent the rules by using good causes cash to bail out schools and hospitals.
An inquiry found that £8.5billion has been siphoned off for government projects since Labour won power.
That is enough to buy 390 £1 lotto tickets for every home in Britain.
Labour’s jackpot win includes £2.4billion plundered from the New Opportunities Fund set up in 1998.
The cash has been spent on training teachers to use computers and set up local medical and exercise centres.
Lottery creator Sir John Major last night called for the plundering to stop.
He said: “Since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer.”
The report, by the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, says: “The original remit of good causes has been stretched beyond credibility.”
(from DAVID WOODING Whitehall Editor at The Sun)
Ministers have bent the rules by using good causes cash to bail out schools and hospitals.
An inquiry found that £8.5billion has been siphoned off for government projects since Labour won power.
That is enough to buy 390 £1 lotto tickets for every home in Britain.
Labour’s jackpot win includes £2.4billion plundered from the New Opportunities Fund set up in 1998.
The cash has been spent on training teachers to use computers and set up local medical and exercise centres.
Lottery creator Sir John Major last night called for the plundering to stop.
He said: “Since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer.”
The report, by the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, says: “The original remit of good causes has been stretched beyond credibility.”
(from DAVID WOODING Whitehall Editor at The Sun)
Thursday, January 19, 2006
New Labour New Big Brother
THE Fathers 4 Justice plot to kidnap Tony Blair's five-year-old son Leo was yesterday revealed to be "nothing more than pub chat".
Fathers extremists told the Mirror undercover police simply overheard an "off-the-cuff remark" in a pub after F4J's Christmas demo at Downing Street in December.
Four F4J sympathisers who were present during the conversation were later visited by police and warned they could be shot at future stunts.
Fathers' rights campaigners who were at the boozy encounter in the Lord Moon of the Mall pub in Whitehall named South African Martin Matthews as the ringleader.
It is claimed by witnesses Matthews, 38, an experienced F4J campaigner, made the remark to Eddie Gorecki. Matthews denies the allegation.
Graham Manson, F4J sympathiser, said: "Martin just spoke before he thought. Martin always comes out with stupid ideas like this. But it was in jest.
"He is a bit of a comedian and no one took him seriously, Eddie just laughed it off. This never went any further within the group and was never mentioned again because it was nothing more than a joke."
More than 20 fathers were drinking in the pub at the time with between four and six in the circle at the time of the remark.
It is understood undercover police who had been gathering intelligence on the group for a while were sat at a table next to them. Seasoned campaigner Jason Hatch, who once breached Buckingham Palace security dressed as Batman, said: "It was just chit-chat.
"Martin said it would be great publicity but wasn't serious. My ex called me this morning to ask if it was me. But everyone knows it was Martin."
Last night, plumber Matthews of Epsom, Surrey, told the Mirror: "I was in the pub but the conversation never happened. I'm speechless and I don't understand why everyone in the group is saying it was me.
"I did receive a phone call from a policeman and I met him at a restaurant in Epsom on December 27. He said he didn't want a situation where armed officers' safety was compromised.
"He said we could be shot at if we tried any future demos. He said he was speaking to me after a conversation in the pub after the Christmas demo but that was all. It was very weird."
Jolly Stansby, Gorecki and Fred O'Neill also received visits from the police on the same matter. Officers were concerned they would attempt to kidnap Leo to highlight the group's cause.
Stansby said last night: "I had a visit from the police along with three others. They said they felt I had information that I needed to talk about to them regarding a conversation in a London pub. They said I'd be risking my life if I attempted any demos and would be shot at. They said they were giving me a warning.
"They mentioned the night of the demo in the pub and said they were unhappy with things that were going on but did not go into detail. This is nothing more than pub talk. That's all it was, it was so insignificant."
Matthews admits he has a reputation for putting his foot in it.
He said: "I can kind of understand why some people think it might have been me. Once I suggested wedgying judges and it was immediately rejected by the group.
"Wedgying is when you pull people's pants over their heads."
In December 2004, Matthews sparked rush-hour chaos for four hours when he scaled a railway gantry in Battersea dressed as Father Christmas.
Last month, he was given a conditional discharge and had to pay £365 costs at Staines magistrates court after he threw himself on to Kempton Park racecourse in 2004 at the start of the King George VI race.
(from Greig Box at The Daily Mirror)
ED: Obviously embarrassing Tony is naughty but to use your youngster and threats to kill to make the people toe the line .......
Fathers extremists told the Mirror undercover police simply overheard an "off-the-cuff remark" in a pub after F4J's Christmas demo at Downing Street in December.
Four F4J sympathisers who were present during the conversation were later visited by police and warned they could be shot at future stunts.
Fathers' rights campaigners who were at the boozy encounter in the Lord Moon of the Mall pub in Whitehall named South African Martin Matthews as the ringleader.
It is claimed by witnesses Matthews, 38, an experienced F4J campaigner, made the remark to Eddie Gorecki. Matthews denies the allegation.
Graham Manson, F4J sympathiser, said: "Martin just spoke before he thought. Martin always comes out with stupid ideas like this. But it was in jest.
"He is a bit of a comedian and no one took him seriously, Eddie just laughed it off. This never went any further within the group and was never mentioned again because it was nothing more than a joke."
More than 20 fathers were drinking in the pub at the time with between four and six in the circle at the time of the remark.
It is understood undercover police who had been gathering intelligence on the group for a while were sat at a table next to them. Seasoned campaigner Jason Hatch, who once breached Buckingham Palace security dressed as Batman, said: "It was just chit-chat.
"Martin said it would be great publicity but wasn't serious. My ex called me this morning to ask if it was me. But everyone knows it was Martin."
Last night, plumber Matthews of Epsom, Surrey, told the Mirror: "I was in the pub but the conversation never happened. I'm speechless and I don't understand why everyone in the group is saying it was me.
"I did receive a phone call from a policeman and I met him at a restaurant in Epsom on December 27. He said he didn't want a situation where armed officers' safety was compromised.
"He said we could be shot at if we tried any future demos. He said he was speaking to me after a conversation in the pub after the Christmas demo but that was all. It was very weird."
Jolly Stansby, Gorecki and Fred O'Neill also received visits from the police on the same matter. Officers were concerned they would attempt to kidnap Leo to highlight the group's cause.
Stansby said last night: "I had a visit from the police along with three others. They said they felt I had information that I needed to talk about to them regarding a conversation in a London pub. They said I'd be risking my life if I attempted any demos and would be shot at. They said they were giving me a warning.
"They mentioned the night of the demo in the pub and said they were unhappy with things that were going on but did not go into detail. This is nothing more than pub talk. That's all it was, it was so insignificant."
Matthews admits he has a reputation for putting his foot in it.
He said: "I can kind of understand why some people think it might have been me. Once I suggested wedgying judges and it was immediately rejected by the group.
"Wedgying is when you pull people's pants over their heads."
In December 2004, Matthews sparked rush-hour chaos for four hours when he scaled a railway gantry in Battersea dressed as Father Christmas.
Last month, he was given a conditional discharge and had to pay £365 costs at Staines magistrates court after he threw himself on to Kempton Park racecourse in 2004 at the start of the King George VI race.
(from Greig Box at The Daily Mirror)
ED: Obviously embarrassing Tony is naughty but to use your youngster and threats to kill to make the people toe the line .......
DEPORTED AFTER 42 YEARS AS A BRIT
DEPORTED AFTER 42 YEARS AS A BRIT
A GRANDMOTHER who has lived in Britain since she was a baby is being deported to America.
Dawn Woodcock, 44 - born in South Carolina to an American father - was brought to England as an 18-month-old baby by her British mum in 1963.
She went to school here, got married, had four children and got a job.
But now the Home Office has given her just two weeks to pack up and leave.
Yesterday she protested: "I'm in the most ridiculous situation. If I leave here I've got nothing. I'm desperate.
All my schooling, everything has been here and I'm terrified of having to leave."
Her youngest daughter Sarah, 22, said: "I cannot believe that my mum may be thrown out of the country. She's lived here all her life, held down a job and paid her taxes like every hardworking British citizen.
"The whole thing is a farce and we're all praying that the Home Office sees sense and she's allowed to stay." Dawn will be separated from her other children Carlene, 27, Christopher, 25, Stephanie, 24, and her 11 grandchildren, the youngest of whom is just a baby.
Dawn, who has worked as a classroom assistant and school dinner lady, had never left the country until last November when she flew on a US passport to meet her dad Ron Woodcock and family in Las Vegas.
But she was picked up by immigration officials when she arrived back at Manchester Airport.
A chance remark led to her world being turned upside down. Handing back her passport, an official wished her a happy holiday and she replied that she had been living in Telford, Shrops, for the last 42 years.
She was immediately warned that she would be deported back to the country of her birth unless she successfully applied for British citizenship.
Dawn, who has been married twice, said: "The joy of my first trip abroad and meeting my half-sisters in the States for the first time has been completely ruined.
"I've worked and paid my taxes here and none of this seems right. My mum's in a hell of a state about it.
Nobody wants me to go." Dawn, whose grandparents on both sides are British, was brought to the UK after her mum Sylvia Crompton, now 67, split from her dad.
However, the Home Office insists that she should have applied for dual nationality years earlier to be recognised as a British citizen.
Without it, in the eyes of officials she is an American. A spokeswoman said they could not comment on individual cases but said people entering the UK had to satisfy officials of their right to stay.
She added: "For those seeking entry as returning residents, they must meet a number of conditions including having the right to remain in the UK."
Dawn said: "I've always known I am an American citizen. I've always answered 'American' to any nationality questions on forms. However, having lived here nearly all my life, it never occurred to me that once I had left the country I would have trouble getting back in."
(from Rod Chaytor at The Daily Mirror)
(ED: Dawn obviously does not know the rules. She has to have dinner with a chap over at the immigration office at Croyden. He will stamp her card and give the correct papers.
A GRANDMOTHER who has lived in Britain since she was a baby is being deported to America.
Dawn Woodcock, 44 - born in South Carolina to an American father - was brought to England as an 18-month-old baby by her British mum in 1963.
She went to school here, got married, had four children and got a job.
But now the Home Office has given her just two weeks to pack up and leave.
Yesterday she protested: "I'm in the most ridiculous situation. If I leave here I've got nothing. I'm desperate.
All my schooling, everything has been here and I'm terrified of having to leave."
Her youngest daughter Sarah, 22, said: "I cannot believe that my mum may be thrown out of the country. She's lived here all her life, held down a job and paid her taxes like every hardworking British citizen.
"The whole thing is a farce and we're all praying that the Home Office sees sense and she's allowed to stay." Dawn will be separated from her other children Carlene, 27, Christopher, 25, Stephanie, 24, and her 11 grandchildren, the youngest of whom is just a baby.
Dawn, who has worked as a classroom assistant and school dinner lady, had never left the country until last November when she flew on a US passport to meet her dad Ron Woodcock and family in Las Vegas.
But she was picked up by immigration officials when she arrived back at Manchester Airport.
A chance remark led to her world being turned upside down. Handing back her passport, an official wished her a happy holiday and she replied that she had been living in Telford, Shrops, for the last 42 years.
She was immediately warned that she would be deported back to the country of her birth unless she successfully applied for British citizenship.
Dawn, who has been married twice, said: "The joy of my first trip abroad and meeting my half-sisters in the States for the first time has been completely ruined.
"I've worked and paid my taxes here and none of this seems right. My mum's in a hell of a state about it.
Nobody wants me to go." Dawn, whose grandparents on both sides are British, was brought to the UK after her mum Sylvia Crompton, now 67, split from her dad.
However, the Home Office insists that she should have applied for dual nationality years earlier to be recognised as a British citizen.
Without it, in the eyes of officials she is an American. A spokeswoman said they could not comment on individual cases but said people entering the UK had to satisfy officials of their right to stay.
She added: "For those seeking entry as returning residents, they must meet a number of conditions including having the right to remain in the UK."
Dawn said: "I've always known I am an American citizen. I've always answered 'American' to any nationality questions on forms. However, having lived here nearly all my life, it never occurred to me that once I had left the country I would have trouble getting back in."
(from Rod Chaytor at The Daily Mirror)
(ED: Dawn obviously does not know the rules. She has to have dinner with a chap over at the immigration office at Croyden. He will stamp her card and give the correct papers.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Jobless total worst for three years
Jobless total worst for three years
18 January 2006
Unemployment has increased by more than 100,000 to reach the highest level in three years, a gloomy set of official jobless figures showed.
The number of people looking for work jumped by 111,000 in the three months to November to 1.53 million, the biggest total since the end of 2002.
Other stories:
Leo Blair kidnap plot foiled
Katherine: family thank Thai police
Jobless total worst for three years
MEPs reject Blair deal on EU budget
Sofa baby deaths warning to parents
Cameron makes pledge on poverty
£2m pay-off for transport chief
Tube drivers to vote on strike
Public get say on pension proposals
Kelly battles to save her career
The claimant count, which includes people receiving Jobseeker's Allowance, rose by 7,200 in December to 909,100, the 11th consecutive monthly increase.
The figure is now 95,000 more than a year ago and is at a two-year high, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.
The unemployment rate is now 5%, an increase of 0.4% compared to last summer, while the 1.53 million total, which includes people out of work but not receiving benefit, is the highest since November 2002.
The number of people in work fell by 22,000 in the latest quarter to 28.76 million.
There was also an increase in the number of people classed as economically inactive, including those looking after a relative, students or people who have given up looking for a job.
The figure rose by 25,000 on the quarter to 7.94 million, the highest total since records began in 1971.
Manufacturing jobs continued to be lost, down by 109,000 in the three months to November to a record low of 3.1 million.
Vacancies also fell at the end of last year, down by 12,700 from the autumn.
ED: Surely the dodgy story of a plot to kidnap Blair's son was not released on the same day as higher unemployment figures on purpose
18 January 2006
Unemployment has increased by more than 100,000 to reach the highest level in three years, a gloomy set of official jobless figures showed.
The number of people looking for work jumped by 111,000 in the three months to November to 1.53 million, the biggest total since the end of 2002.
Other stories:
Leo Blair kidnap plot foiled
Katherine: family thank Thai police
Jobless total worst for three years
MEPs reject Blair deal on EU budget
Sofa baby deaths warning to parents
Cameron makes pledge on poverty
£2m pay-off for transport chief
Tube drivers to vote on strike
Public get say on pension proposals
Kelly battles to save her career
The claimant count, which includes people receiving Jobseeker's Allowance, rose by 7,200 in December to 909,100, the 11th consecutive monthly increase.
The figure is now 95,000 more than a year ago and is at a two-year high, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.
The unemployment rate is now 5%, an increase of 0.4% compared to last summer, while the 1.53 million total, which includes people out of work but not receiving benefit, is the highest since November 2002.
The number of people in work fell by 22,000 in the latest quarter to 28.76 million.
There was also an increase in the number of people classed as economically inactive, including those looking after a relative, students or people who have given up looking for a job.
The figure rose by 25,000 on the quarter to 7.94 million, the highest total since records began in 1971.
Manufacturing jobs continued to be lost, down by 109,000 in the three months to November to a record low of 3.1 million.
Vacancies also fell at the end of last year, down by 12,700 from the autumn.
ED: Surely the dodgy story of a plot to kidnap Blair's son was not released on the same day as higher unemployment figures on purpose
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Blair premiership at risk
Tony Blair is ready to delay the introduction of a flagship Bill on school reform to avoid a Commons defeat that ministerial colleagues believe could end his premiership.
Mr Blair cannot afford a Commons defeat on his flagship education Bill
Senior Labour sources said last night that he would allow Ruth Kelly, the embattled Education Secretary, more time to forge a compromise with Labour rebels over his plans for a new generation of trust schools free from local authority control.
In a sign that the crisis over sex offenders working in schools is causing wider turmoil, a Government insider said the Education Bill, due to be published next month, would almost certainly be put back by several weeks.
Miss Kelly had been distracted from her efforts to secure agreement with Labour MPs over the Bill by her latest, unrelated difficulties.
The result was that far more work had to be done to make the Education Bill acceptable to at least 70 Labour backbenchers who fear it will divide communities and penalise working-class pupils.
"It is difficult, there will have to be big changes," said a minister. "We cannot afford another defeat and we cannot rely on Tory votes to get this through."
He also disclosed that Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, had joined John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, and other Cabinet ministers in opposing key elements of the education reforms.
"There has been quite wide concern about it in Cabinet."
Ministers accept that Mr Blair, who suffered his first Commons defeat over anti-terrorist legislation in November, cannot survive another loss on such a crucial Bill and survive as Prime Minister.
Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, has told him he has little chance of getting an education Bill through the Commons unless last year's White Paper is modified.
Problems with the Bill deepened yesterday when the Audit Commission backed Labour rebels in claiming that it would work against the interests of the most disadvantaged families. A hard-hitting report said the Government was wrong to focus on trying to widen "choice" for parents. "Choice is neither realistic nor an issue of primary importance for parents."
A compromise being floated by ministers is for trust status to be confined to federations of schools - a move they believe would increase co-operation rather than competition between schools.
(from Toby Helm and George Jones at Daily Telegraph)
Mr Blair cannot afford a Commons defeat on his flagship education Bill
Senior Labour sources said last night that he would allow Ruth Kelly, the embattled Education Secretary, more time to forge a compromise with Labour rebels over his plans for a new generation of trust schools free from local authority control.
In a sign that the crisis over sex offenders working in schools is causing wider turmoil, a Government insider said the Education Bill, due to be published next month, would almost certainly be put back by several weeks.
Miss Kelly had been distracted from her efforts to secure agreement with Labour MPs over the Bill by her latest, unrelated difficulties.
The result was that far more work had to be done to make the Education Bill acceptable to at least 70 Labour backbenchers who fear it will divide communities and penalise working-class pupils.
"It is difficult, there will have to be big changes," said a minister. "We cannot afford another defeat and we cannot rely on Tory votes to get this through."
He also disclosed that Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, had joined John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, and other Cabinet ministers in opposing key elements of the education reforms.
"There has been quite wide concern about it in Cabinet."
Ministers accept that Mr Blair, who suffered his first Commons defeat over anti-terrorist legislation in November, cannot survive another loss on such a crucial Bill and survive as Prime Minister.
Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, has told him he has little chance of getting an education Bill through the Commons unless last year's White Paper is modified.
Problems with the Bill deepened yesterday when the Audit Commission backed Labour rebels in claiming that it would work against the interests of the most disadvantaged families. A hard-hitting report said the Government was wrong to focus on trying to widen "choice" for parents. "Choice is neither realistic nor an issue of primary importance for parents."
A compromise being floated by ministers is for trust status to be confined to federations of schools - a move they believe would increase co-operation rather than competition between schools.
(from Toby Helm and George Jones at Daily Telegraph)
New Labour second thoughts on 1.2b hospital
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has defended her decision to order a review on whether a £1.2 billion redevelopment of London hospitals should go ahead.
Some 1,000 doctors at Bart's and the Royal London Hospital on Monday sent an open letter to Tony Blair urging him to give the go-ahead to the project, which they said was vital to the health of people in east London.
And Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has urged the Government to give the scheme the green light, warning that halting it now would waste £100 million in fees and compensation for broken contracts.
But Ms Hewitt said that the project - the largest healthcare development in Europe - had doubled in cost since it was first proposed four years ago, while waiting lists for cardiac care had plummeted.
She said she wanted to be sure that the cardiac and cancer facilities in the plan would represent value for money and would not duplicate facilities in other east London hospitals.
An independent review of the plans will be completed by the end of January, she said. The decision on whether to go ahead would be taken on both health and economic grounds.
Ms Hewitt told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "This is the largest ever Private Finance Initiative hospital building project.
"We are looking at a project which has already virtually doubled in its scale. Originally it was going to be around £600 million. We are now looking at about £1.2 billion, which means committing very large amounts of taxpayers' money for the next 30 years.
"Of course it is sensible, given that this proposal has now come to the Department of Health and the Treasury for final approval, for us just to double check that we are getting exactly what we need to meet the needs of Londoners and getting the best value for taxpayers' money.
"When Bart's and the Royal London began developing the proposal, waiting lists for heart operations in particular were very high. Since then, we have slashed the waiting times for heart operations. People can, in most cases, get their heart procedures within a couple of weeks, instead of waiting months as they used to. There has been that very significant change since this proposal started."
ED: Does Hewitt mean that the gov could not forsee that their attempts to reduce waiting lists would work? Or is the gov, once again, trying to misdirect the people. It would seem to be a case of uncontrolled spending starting to frighten even New Labour.
Some 1,000 doctors at Bart's and the Royal London Hospital on Monday sent an open letter to Tony Blair urging him to give the go-ahead to the project, which they said was vital to the health of people in east London.
And Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has urged the Government to give the scheme the green light, warning that halting it now would waste £100 million in fees and compensation for broken contracts.
But Ms Hewitt said that the project - the largest healthcare development in Europe - had doubled in cost since it was first proposed four years ago, while waiting lists for cardiac care had plummeted.
She said she wanted to be sure that the cardiac and cancer facilities in the plan would represent value for money and would not duplicate facilities in other east London hospitals.
An independent review of the plans will be completed by the end of January, she said. The decision on whether to go ahead would be taken on both health and economic grounds.
Ms Hewitt told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "This is the largest ever Private Finance Initiative hospital building project.
"We are looking at a project which has already virtually doubled in its scale. Originally it was going to be around £600 million. We are now looking at about £1.2 billion, which means committing very large amounts of taxpayers' money for the next 30 years.
"Of course it is sensible, given that this proposal has now come to the Department of Health and the Treasury for final approval, for us just to double check that we are getting exactly what we need to meet the needs of Londoners and getting the best value for taxpayers' money.
"When Bart's and the Royal London began developing the proposal, waiting lists for heart operations in particular were very high. Since then, we have slashed the waiting times for heart operations. People can, in most cases, get their heart procedures within a couple of weeks, instead of waiting months as they used to. There has been that very significant change since this proposal started."
ED: Does Hewitt mean that the gov could not forsee that their attempts to reduce waiting lists would work? Or is the gov, once again, trying to misdirect the people. It would seem to be a case of uncontrolled spending starting to frighten even New Labour.
Blair to legalise brothels
The law is to be changed to allow up to three prostitutes to work legally in brothels, the has Government confirmed.
Currently only one prostitute can offer paid sex without breaking the law.
Launching the Home Office's new prostitution strategy, minister Fiona Mactaggart said the current position meant that women were forced to work in unsafe conditions.
The Government is also creating a new penalty specifically for prostitutes so the courts can divert them towards help for drug or alcohol abuse.
The new penalty will be available for people convicting of loitering or soliciting for prostitution, which is presently dealt with by a fine in most cases, which the Government said did not deal with the underlying reasons why women went on the game.
The strategy document, which applies to England and Wales, said: "At present only one person may work as a prostitute - more than that ... and the premises are classed in case law as a brothel.
"This runs counter to advice that women should not work alone in the interest of safety. The Government will make proposals for an amendment to the definition of a brothel so that two or three individuals may work together."
Ministers have already ruled out a previous proposal to create licensed "red light" zones to deal with street prostitution.
Currently only one prostitute can offer paid sex without breaking the law.
Launching the Home Office's new prostitution strategy, minister Fiona Mactaggart said the current position meant that women were forced to work in unsafe conditions.
The Government is also creating a new penalty specifically for prostitutes so the courts can divert them towards help for drug or alcohol abuse.
The new penalty will be available for people convicting of loitering or soliciting for prostitution, which is presently dealt with by a fine in most cases, which the Government said did not deal with the underlying reasons why women went on the game.
The strategy document, which applies to England and Wales, said: "At present only one person may work as a prostitute - more than that ... and the premises are classed in case law as a brothel.
"This runs counter to advice that women should not work alone in the interest of safety. The Government will make proposals for an amendment to the definition of a brothel so that two or three individuals may work together."
Ministers have already ruled out a previous proposal to create licensed "red light" zones to deal with street prostitution.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Blair re-invents the past again
TONY Blair's gran was a graffiti vandal, it has been revealed.
Mary Blair helped daub Communist slogans on walls in the 1930s.
The revelation mocks the PM's claim, made as he hosed down graffiti, that older generations of his family would have abhorred such behaviour.
Friends of the late Mary - she and husband James adopted the PM's dad Leo - ridiculed his portrayal of their life in Glasgow's tough Govan slums.
Ex-neighbour Alex Morrison, 86, said: "I'm sure Mary would have been laughing her head off at her grandson's description of Govan as an idyllic community where everyone respected each other and the law.
"He talks about the old Govan like it was some sort of ideal place, but he is speaking absolute rubbish. Poverty and misery were widespread and it was a violent place as well.
"You had lads hanging around street corners with no work and nothing to do. They got up to as much trouble then as young people do now."
The ex-Communist activist revealed Mary, who died in 1975, mixed white-wash used for the graffiti. Last week the PM - in Swindon on an anti-yob drive - claimed: "My father, growing up in Glasgow in a poor community, didn't have as much money as we have.
"But people behaved more respectfully to one another." However, old Glaswegians laid bare the area's numerous difficulties. Mr Morrison said: "Drink was also a problem. When the pubs closed at 10pm, there was never a policeman to be seen."
George Greig, 78, another of Mary's old friends, added: "There was a slum area which became known as Wine Alley because people had no work and turned to alcohol."
Yesterday, No10 said: "I don't think this is something we'll comment on."
Ed: Poor Tony. He only wants to say what suits him at the moment and people think he is a liar.
Mary Blair helped daub Communist slogans on walls in the 1930s.
The revelation mocks the PM's claim, made as he hosed down graffiti, that older generations of his family would have abhorred such behaviour.
Friends of the late Mary - she and husband James adopted the PM's dad Leo - ridiculed his portrayal of their life in Glasgow's tough Govan slums.
Ex-neighbour Alex Morrison, 86, said: "I'm sure Mary would have been laughing her head off at her grandson's description of Govan as an idyllic community where everyone respected each other and the law.
"He talks about the old Govan like it was some sort of ideal place, but he is speaking absolute rubbish. Poverty and misery were widespread and it was a violent place as well.
"You had lads hanging around street corners with no work and nothing to do. They got up to as much trouble then as young people do now."
The ex-Communist activist revealed Mary, who died in 1975, mixed white-wash used for the graffiti. Last week the PM - in Swindon on an anti-yob drive - claimed: "My father, growing up in Glasgow in a poor community, didn't have as much money as we have.
"But people behaved more respectfully to one another." However, old Glaswegians laid bare the area's numerous difficulties. Mr Morrison said: "Drink was also a problem. When the pubs closed at 10pm, there was never a policeman to be seen."
George Greig, 78, another of Mary's old friends, added: "There was a slum area which became known as Wine Alley because people had no work and turned to alcohol."
Yesterday, No10 said: "I don't think this is something we'll comment on."
Ed: Poor Tony. He only wants to say what suits him at the moment and people think he is a liar.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Tony Blair in honours for sale scandal
WHEN Paul Drayson joined the House of Lords in 2004 he became the latest in a long line of Labour donors to be handed a peerage, knighthood or other gong, writes Robert Winnett.
Drayson, who has given more than £1m to the party, joins Lord Sainsbury, Lord Bhattacharyya and at least six other donors who have joined the Labour benches in the upper house since 1997.
He became a government minister in 2005 — joining Lord Sainsbury, the party’s biggest donor, who has given more than £16m over the past decade. He has served as a science minister since 1998.
Tony Blair was recently identified as the biggest dispenser of political patronage in the Lords since life peers were created in 1958.
Yet behind the scenes the prime minister’s plans to ennoble a further four Labour donors have met resistance. They are among the latest batch of nominees for working peerages from Blair and the opposition parties. One of the Labour donors, the stockbroker Barry Townsley, has made a £2m donation to a city academy in west London.
The appointment of the new peers has been delayed by the Appointments Commission, which is charged with scrutinising the list and advising the prime minister about the candidates’ suitability. The commission is understood to have concerns about several of those put forward, but does not have the power to block nominations.
The chances of Labour donors being honoured are statistically high. Three-quarters of donors who have given more than £50,000 to the Labour party have been honoured, leading to accusations that gongs may in effect be for sale.
A recent analysis found that every Labour donor who has given more than £1m has received a peerage or a knighthood. These include Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, Sir David Garrard, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Frank Lowe and Sir Alan Sugar.
Since 2001, when the Electoral Commission began detailing political donations, the government has bestowed honours on 12 of the 14 individuals who have given Labour more than £200,000. Of the 22 who donated more than £100,000, 17 received honours — including Bill Kenwright, the impresario and Patrick Stewart, the Star Trek actor. In total, 80% of the money raised from individuals is from those who have received honours.
Suzanne Evans, a statistician at Birkbeck, University of London, found Labour donors are three times more likely to be honoured than Tory backers. “The probability that this difference could have occurred by chance is less than three in 1,000. Statistics cannot prove cause and effect but the results should arouse concern,” she said.
Drayson, who has given more than £1m to the party, joins Lord Sainsbury, Lord Bhattacharyya and at least six other donors who have joined the Labour benches in the upper house since 1997.
He became a government minister in 2005 — joining Lord Sainsbury, the party’s biggest donor, who has given more than £16m over the past decade. He has served as a science minister since 1998.
Tony Blair was recently identified as the biggest dispenser of political patronage in the Lords since life peers were created in 1958.
Yet behind the scenes the prime minister’s plans to ennoble a further four Labour donors have met resistance. They are among the latest batch of nominees for working peerages from Blair and the opposition parties. One of the Labour donors, the stockbroker Barry Townsley, has made a £2m donation to a city academy in west London.
The appointment of the new peers has been delayed by the Appointments Commission, which is charged with scrutinising the list and advising the prime minister about the candidates’ suitability. The commission is understood to have concerns about several of those put forward, but does not have the power to block nominations.
The chances of Labour donors being honoured are statistically high. Three-quarters of donors who have given more than £50,000 to the Labour party have been honoured, leading to accusations that gongs may in effect be for sale.
A recent analysis found that every Labour donor who has given more than £1m has received a peerage or a knighthood. These include Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, Sir David Garrard, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Frank Lowe and Sir Alan Sugar.
Since 2001, when the Electoral Commission began detailing political donations, the government has bestowed honours on 12 of the 14 individuals who have given Labour more than £200,000. Of the 22 who donated more than £100,000, 17 received honours — including Bill Kenwright, the impresario and Patrick Stewart, the Star Trek actor. In total, 80% of the money raised from individuals is from those who have received honours.
Suzanne Evans, a statistician at Birkbeck, University of London, found Labour donors are three times more likely to be honoured than Tory backers. “The probability that this difference could have occurred by chance is less than three in 1,000. Statistics cannot prove cause and effect but the results should arouse concern,” she said.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Blair and Straw back Howells who cleared sex offender to work in schools
Prime Minister Tony Blair has full confidence in minister Kim Howells, who admitted clearing sex offender Paul Reeve to work in a school, Downing Street has said.
Mr Howells, now a junior foreign office minister after his stint at the education department, also won the support of his boss, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly was forced to make a Commons statement on Thursday announcing an "exhaustive review", both of the "small number" of other cases where sex offenders have been cleared to work with children, and of the vetting process itself.
At present, ministers pass judgment on "borderline cases" where offenders have not been placed on the Education Department's own List 99 containing the names of those banned for life from working in schools.
Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "Kim Howells made a judgment based on the evidence before him, which he checked was the only evidence that was available to him, and based on the advice contained in that evidence, and the Prime Minister recognises that Kim Howells did his job."
Asked if the premier retained full confidence in him as a minister, the spokesman replied: "Yes."
Mr Straw said he retained "every confidence" in his junior minister, adding that Mr Howells was a "responsible, careful and a good colleague".
Ministers sometimes regretted decisions they made, he said, although he would not say whether that was true in this case. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think he acted properly. Kim is a long-standing friend of mine and a very good minister as well. I know, he has talked to me about this, that he looked at the papers with great care, he looked at the recommendations, he took the best decision that he thought was available at the time."
Mr Reeve was appointed as a PE teacher at a school in Norfolk, despite his police caution for accessing child pornography, having been cleared by the Education Department to work at schools. He lost his job when Norfolk Police contacted the school to air their concerns.
Mr Howells, now a junior foreign office minister after his stint at the education department, also won the support of his boss, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly was forced to make a Commons statement on Thursday announcing an "exhaustive review", both of the "small number" of other cases where sex offenders have been cleared to work with children, and of the vetting process itself.
At present, ministers pass judgment on "borderline cases" where offenders have not been placed on the Education Department's own List 99 containing the names of those banned for life from working in schools.
Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "Kim Howells made a judgment based on the evidence before him, which he checked was the only evidence that was available to him, and based on the advice contained in that evidence, and the Prime Minister recognises that Kim Howells did his job."
Asked if the premier retained full confidence in him as a minister, the spokesman replied: "Yes."
Mr Straw said he retained "every confidence" in his junior minister, adding that Mr Howells was a "responsible, careful and a good colleague".
Ministers sometimes regretted decisions they made, he said, although he would not say whether that was true in this case. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think he acted properly. Kim is a long-standing friend of mine and a very good minister as well. I know, he has talked to me about this, that he looked at the papers with great care, he looked at the recommendations, he took the best decision that he thought was available at the time."
Mr Reeve was appointed as a PE teacher at a school in Norfolk, despite his police caution for accessing child pornography, having been cleared by the Education Department to work at schools. He lost his job when Norfolk Police contacted the school to air their concerns.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
John Prescott caught not paying his Council Tax
John Prescott today apologised for "inadvertently" charging the council tax bill for his official London residence to the public purse.
The Deputy Prime Minister admitted £3,830 of taxpayers' money had been paid out on his grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House, near Trafalgar Square in London, since 1997.
Mr Prescott, whose department has presided over a hugely unpopular 76 per cent rise in council tax since Labour took power, said the payment was the result of an "inadvertent error... based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The backlog built up because Mr Prescott claimed that Admiralty House, which has a market rental value estimated at £8,000 a month, was his ‘secondary residence’ when in fact it was his main home.
In response to a parliamentary question from the Shadow Secretary for Local Government, Caroline Spelman, he explained: "In 1997, the Government carried on paying council tax as before on the flat and claimed a discount [on a second home basis].
"This was not confirmed with me and nor was any advice given to me at the time. On reviewing the situation, I am now aware that an inadvertent error has occurred, based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The Deputy Prime Minister has a second official residence at Dorneywood, a manor in Buckinghamshire, where the council tax there is covered by an independent trust which owns the house.
He is entitled to claim back the tax on his family home in Hull on parliamentary expenses, meaning that until today the Deputy Prime Minister - whose 'two Jags' nickname has cheekily been upgraded to 'three pads' - paid no council tax out of his own pocket.
Ms Spelman, who has pursued a lengthy campaign over Mr Prescott's unpaid bill, said: "At a time when pensioners are being jailed for not paying their council tax, the public will find it galling that the man who has forced up their bills hasn’t had to pay it himself.
"Conservative pressure has now forced him to pay back the money but it is a shame it has taken him so long to come clean. People will be forgiven for thinking there is one rule for Cabinet Ministers and another for the rest of us."
Sarah Teather, who shadows Mr Prescott’s department for the Liberal Democrats, said: "It is extremely embarrassing for the Government that the man in charge of councils hasn’t paid his council tax for nearly eight years.
"We are relieved to hear that Mr Prescott will be paying his bill as soon as possible, but this situation should never have arisen.
Referring to an internal survey published earlier this week which described the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as lacking leadership and comparable to a "pantomime horse", she added: "If, as Mr Prescott claims, it was an administrative error, this is simply more proof of the chaotic state of his department."
Other ministers who have apartments in Admiralty House - Geoff Hoon, the leader of the Commons, and Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary - personally pay their council tax already.
Tony Blair pays the council tax for his Downing Street flat out of his own pocket. Gordon Brown has his council tax for his Downing Street apartment paid by the Treasury. A spokesman for Mr Brown said he never stayed in the Downing Street residence and used it only for receptions.
When Labour came to power, council tax on the average band D home in England was £688. It has risen to £1,214, an increase of 76 per cent.
Sylvia Hardy, a pensioner jailed last year for refusing to pay her council tax in full, said she did not have much sympathy for Mr Prescott.
"I can’t understand how it was allowed to have got to such a high amount when I got my first demand letter after I owed the council here £14."
The Times by Simon Freeman
Ed: Mr Prescott is obviously incompetent and should not be trusted. He also thinks the British voter is an idiot
The Deputy Prime Minister admitted £3,830 of taxpayers' money had been paid out on his grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House, near Trafalgar Square in London, since 1997.
Mr Prescott, whose department has presided over a hugely unpopular 76 per cent rise in council tax since Labour took power, said the payment was the result of an "inadvertent error... based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The backlog built up because Mr Prescott claimed that Admiralty House, which has a market rental value estimated at £8,000 a month, was his ‘secondary residence’ when in fact it was his main home.
In response to a parliamentary question from the Shadow Secretary for Local Government, Caroline Spelman, he explained: "In 1997, the Government carried on paying council tax as before on the flat and claimed a discount [on a second home basis].
"This was not confirmed with me and nor was any advice given to me at the time. On reviewing the situation, I am now aware that an inadvertent error has occurred, based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The Deputy Prime Minister has a second official residence at Dorneywood, a manor in Buckinghamshire, where the council tax there is covered by an independent trust which owns the house.
He is entitled to claim back the tax on his family home in Hull on parliamentary expenses, meaning that until today the Deputy Prime Minister - whose 'two Jags' nickname has cheekily been upgraded to 'three pads' - paid no council tax out of his own pocket.
Ms Spelman, who has pursued a lengthy campaign over Mr Prescott's unpaid bill, said: "At a time when pensioners are being jailed for not paying their council tax, the public will find it galling that the man who has forced up their bills hasn’t had to pay it himself.
"Conservative pressure has now forced him to pay back the money but it is a shame it has taken him so long to come clean. People will be forgiven for thinking there is one rule for Cabinet Ministers and another for the rest of us."
Sarah Teather, who shadows Mr Prescott’s department for the Liberal Democrats, said: "It is extremely embarrassing for the Government that the man in charge of councils hasn’t paid his council tax for nearly eight years.
"We are relieved to hear that Mr Prescott will be paying his bill as soon as possible, but this situation should never have arisen.
Referring to an internal survey published earlier this week which described the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as lacking leadership and comparable to a "pantomime horse", she added: "If, as Mr Prescott claims, it was an administrative error, this is simply more proof of the chaotic state of his department."
Other ministers who have apartments in Admiralty House - Geoff Hoon, the leader of the Commons, and Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary - personally pay their council tax already.
Tony Blair pays the council tax for his Downing Street flat out of his own pocket. Gordon Brown has his council tax for his Downing Street apartment paid by the Treasury. A spokesman for Mr Brown said he never stayed in the Downing Street residence and used it only for receptions.
When Labour came to power, council tax on the average band D home in England was £688. It has risen to £1,214, an increase of 76 per cent.
Sylvia Hardy, a pensioner jailed last year for refusing to pay her council tax in full, said she did not have much sympathy for Mr Prescott.
"I can’t understand how it was allowed to have got to such a high amount when I got my first demand letter after I owed the council here £14."
The Times by Simon Freeman
Ed: Mr Prescott is obviously incompetent and should not be trusted. He also thinks the British voter is an idiot
Blair government U turns on IRA pardons
The government is shelving its bill to grant an amnesty to paramilitary terrorists who have been on the run for many years, the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, announced last night.
Mr Hain coupled his decision to an attempt to kickstart the stalled devolution process by promising talks in February aimed at finding ways to revive the Stormont government ahead of elections to the Northern Ireland assembly scheduled for 2007.
Citing growing public discontent over the continued payment of £32,000-a-year salaries, plus allowances averaging £53,000, to assembly members when Stormont has been suspended since October 2002, Mr Hain said the bill was £78m so far and could not long continue. "2006 is a make or break year."
But his statement to MPs at Westminster focused most backbench attention on the decision to abandon the Northern Ireland (offences) bill, which has been widely attacked since its second reading in the Commons before Christmas, and faced the prospect of being blocked in the Lords.
Mr Hain admitted that he had not brought forward the bill "with a spring in my step, because I knew how hard it was for those thousands of victims who had lost so much".
But the British and Irish governments had promised it in 2003 as part of the peace process and only hesitated because the IRA had not delivered on its own promise to end illegal military activities and disarm. Following the 1998 Good Friday agreement some 400 paramilitary prisoners were released on licence. But there remain 1,800 unsolved murders in the province. The bill would have enabled people who had been living abroad, or people suspected of murders before the Good Friday agreement, to avoid ever having to go to jail in Northern Ireland for offences.
Human rights critics were incensed that on-the-runs, including escapers, would not be expected to make any court appearance.
Sinn Féin had backed the bill - the only Northern Ireland party to do so - until the rival nationalist party, the SDLP, persuaded voters that it was unfair because it would mean that British soldiers who might in future be charged with offences during the 30-year Troubles would also be pardoned.
Sinn Féin did a U-turn, leaving its president, Gerry Adams, to say yesterday: "I told the British prime minister and Peter Hain directly that if the British government was not prepared to change the legislation to remove the inclusion of British state forces then the legislation should be withdrawn. They have now done so."
MPs from the DUP's Peter Robinson on the right to Mark Durkin, SDLP leader, welcomed the decision, which Mr Durkin said had been based on moral quicksand.
The Guardian from Michael White and Angelique Chrisafis
Mr Hain coupled his decision to an attempt to kickstart the stalled devolution process by promising talks in February aimed at finding ways to revive the Stormont government ahead of elections to the Northern Ireland assembly scheduled for 2007.
Citing growing public discontent over the continued payment of £32,000-a-year salaries, plus allowances averaging £53,000, to assembly members when Stormont has been suspended since October 2002, Mr Hain said the bill was £78m so far and could not long continue. "2006 is a make or break year."
But his statement to MPs at Westminster focused most backbench attention on the decision to abandon the Northern Ireland (offences) bill, which has been widely attacked since its second reading in the Commons before Christmas, and faced the prospect of being blocked in the Lords.
Mr Hain admitted that he had not brought forward the bill "with a spring in my step, because I knew how hard it was for those thousands of victims who had lost so much".
But the British and Irish governments had promised it in 2003 as part of the peace process and only hesitated because the IRA had not delivered on its own promise to end illegal military activities and disarm. Following the 1998 Good Friday agreement some 400 paramilitary prisoners were released on licence. But there remain 1,800 unsolved murders in the province. The bill would have enabled people who had been living abroad, or people suspected of murders before the Good Friday agreement, to avoid ever having to go to jail in Northern Ireland for offences.
Human rights critics were incensed that on-the-runs, including escapers, would not be expected to make any court appearance.
Sinn Féin had backed the bill - the only Northern Ireland party to do so - until the rival nationalist party, the SDLP, persuaded voters that it was unfair because it would mean that British soldiers who might in future be charged with offences during the 30-year Troubles would also be pardoned.
Sinn Féin did a U-turn, leaving its president, Gerry Adams, to say yesterday: "I told the British prime minister and Peter Hain directly that if the British government was not prepared to change the legislation to remove the inclusion of British state forces then the legislation should be withdrawn. They have now done so."
MPs from the DUP's Peter Robinson on the right to Mark Durkin, SDLP leader, welcomed the decision, which Mr Durkin said had been based on moral quicksand.
The Guardian from Michael White and Angelique Chrisafis
Kinnock attacks Blair's education reforms
The former Labour leader Lord Kinnock today makes a startling attack on Tony Blair's education reforms in what are his most forthright criticisms of Downing Street since the party came to power.
Speaking to the Guardian, he condemned the proposals for schools as "at best a distraction and at worst dangerous" and said the government would have to change the white paper radically.
The safeguards to prevent schools breaking free of local authority control and imposing their own selective admissions criteria were, he said, "paper thin and really not satisfactory at all".
Lord Kinnock said the white paper was "a strange document for something setting out such a crucial new strategic direction for education. It looks as if it is written by committee, and the committee should have spent more than an extra week on it".
The peer has had previous differences with Downing Street over Europe, but it is the first time he has laid out such bare political disagreements. The prime minister's proposed education reforms have already provoked a threatened rebellion by up to 100 backbench MPs. Yesterday the government was under renewed pressure after the publication of a National Audit Office report which estimated up to 1 million children are being failed by underperforming schools.
One concern is a lack of headteachers, underlined today by a separate survey which warns of an alarming turnover of senior staff in state secondaries. It shows more than one in three were unable to appoint headteachers last year when they first advertised, and the readvertisement rate rose to more than 50% in London, which was the worst-affected region.
Lord Kinnock will underline his opposition to the reforms when he chairs a meeting next week launching a pamphlet that attacks the white paper for "entrenching existing inequalities in our education and storing up trouble for generations to come". The pamphlet, published by the pressure group Compass, is written by Melissa Benn and Fiona Millar. The latter is the partner of the former No 10 communications director, Alastair Campbell.
Lord Kinnock said yesterday that he admired the campaign being undertaken by Ms Millar, a comment offering a green light to more Labour MPs to join the rebellion: "My concern is that the white paper will lead to further fragmentation of our education system, and God knows over the past 40 years we have had enough segmentation. There is a multiple divergence of governance proposed - specialist schools, trust schools and academies - that gives the appearance of choice, but will not be available to many. This whole approach is also not relevant to rural and semi-rural schools."
"People say there are safeguards, but there are such undeniable inbuilt pressures that will have the effect of reducing the role of individual local authorities, and the importance of the code setting out the rules of admissions. And when you look at the safeguards, they appear paper thin. Fragmentation will have a damaging effect on schools, individuals and ultimately the level of educational performance."
The Guardian by Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Speaking to the Guardian, he condemned the proposals for schools as "at best a distraction and at worst dangerous" and said the government would have to change the white paper radically.
The safeguards to prevent schools breaking free of local authority control and imposing their own selective admissions criteria were, he said, "paper thin and really not satisfactory at all".
Lord Kinnock said the white paper was "a strange document for something setting out such a crucial new strategic direction for education. It looks as if it is written by committee, and the committee should have spent more than an extra week on it".
The peer has had previous differences with Downing Street over Europe, but it is the first time he has laid out such bare political disagreements. The prime minister's proposed education reforms have already provoked a threatened rebellion by up to 100 backbench MPs. Yesterday the government was under renewed pressure after the publication of a National Audit Office report which estimated up to 1 million children are being failed by underperforming schools.
One concern is a lack of headteachers, underlined today by a separate survey which warns of an alarming turnover of senior staff in state secondaries. It shows more than one in three were unable to appoint headteachers last year when they first advertised, and the readvertisement rate rose to more than 50% in London, which was the worst-affected region.
Lord Kinnock will underline his opposition to the reforms when he chairs a meeting next week launching a pamphlet that attacks the white paper for "entrenching existing inequalities in our education and storing up trouble for generations to come". The pamphlet, published by the pressure group Compass, is written by Melissa Benn and Fiona Millar. The latter is the partner of the former No 10 communications director, Alastair Campbell.
Lord Kinnock said yesterday that he admired the campaign being undertaken by Ms Millar, a comment offering a green light to more Labour MPs to join the rebellion: "My concern is that the white paper will lead to further fragmentation of our education system, and God knows over the past 40 years we have had enough segmentation. There is a multiple divergence of governance proposed - specialist schools, trust schools and academies - that gives the appearance of choice, but will not be available to many. This whole approach is also not relevant to rural and semi-rural schools."
"People say there are safeguards, but there are such undeniable inbuilt pressures that will have the effect of reducing the role of individual local authorities, and the importance of the code setting out the rules of admissions. And when you look at the safeguards, they appear paper thin. Fragmentation will have a damaging effect on schools, individuals and ultimately the level of educational performance."
The Guardian by Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
P.M. Blair's authority on the wane so U turn on smoking
A complete ban on smoking in all English pubs and clubs looks increasingly likely after the Labour government said on Wednesday it would allow its M.P's to vote according to conscience and not along party lines.
The move averts a likely parliamentary revolt and possible defeat for Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose plans, listed in the parties manifesto in the last election, propose a smoking ban which would exempt pubs which do not serve food and private clubs.
Many M.P's in Blair's Labour party, including some Cabinet members, want a total ban and surveys show most Britons support smoke-free pubs and bars.
A partial ban would put England at odds with Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland which have either completely banned smoking in indoor public places or have announced plans to do so.
Blair's government bowed to pressure from its Members of Parliament after several of them put forward an amendment to remove the exemptions in the law, which is due to take effect in mid 2007.
"Following discussions ... it is the government's intention to allow its Members of Parliament -- including ministers -- a free vote on the amendment," Blair's spokesman told reporters.
The spokesman said the decision on the vote, which will take place in February, reflected a change in the public mood.
But it also means Blair, who has seen his authority wane since announcing he would stand down before an election due by 2010, will avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat.
Fewer than 40 Labour M.P's can defeat Blair by siding with opposition parties after last May's election more than halved his majority. He suffered his first ever parliamentary defeat last year, on anti-terrorism laws.
The move averts a likely parliamentary revolt and possible defeat for Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose plans, listed in the parties manifesto in the last election, propose a smoking ban which would exempt pubs which do not serve food and private clubs.
Many M.P's in Blair's Labour party, including some Cabinet members, want a total ban and surveys show most Britons support smoke-free pubs and bars.
A partial ban would put England at odds with Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland which have either completely banned smoking in indoor public places or have announced plans to do so.
Blair's government bowed to pressure from its Members of Parliament after several of them put forward an amendment to remove the exemptions in the law, which is due to take effect in mid 2007.
"Following discussions ... it is the government's intention to allow its Members of Parliament -- including ministers -- a free vote on the amendment," Blair's spokesman told reporters.
The spokesman said the decision on the vote, which will take place in February, reflected a change in the public mood.
But it also means Blair, who has seen his authority wane since announcing he would stand down before an election due by 2010, will avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat.
Fewer than 40 Labour M.P's can defeat Blair by siding with opposition parties after last May's election more than halved his majority. He suffered his first ever parliamentary defeat last year, on anti-terrorism laws.
Blair admits smacking his children
TONY BLAIR smacked his three older children when they were small, he admitted yesterday, but insisted that he does not hit his five-year-old son, Leo.
Mr Blair was put on the spot about his methods of parental discipline by Kirsty Wark, the BBC Two Newsnight interviewer, at a question and answer session with the public and media in Swindon as he promoted his “respect” agenda.
He was asked: “Do you smack your kids? Did you?”
When he failed to reply immediately, Ms Wark asked him: “Did it cause a problem?”
Mr Blair said: “No, I think actually, funnily enough, I’m probably different with my youngest than I was with my older ones.”
Misunderstanding his reply, Ms Wark asked him: “What, you do smack the younger one?”
Mr Blair, whose other children are aged 21, 20 and 17, replied: “No no, no no. It was actually the other way round but . . . I think, look, this smacking . . . I mean, I agree with what you just said, I think everybody actually knows the difference between smacking a kid and abusing a child.
“But I, if I can honestly say this to you — I think the problem is when you get these really, really difficult families, it’s moved a bit beyond that.”
In 2004 as the Government faced calls to back a total ban on physical punishment, Mr Blair said he understood why parents would want to smack “really naughty” children.
But he said that he felt “a bit different now”, and called for a “dose of common sense” in the debate.
His comment came during debates on the Children Act, which bans any physical punishment by parents in England and Wales that leaves a mark on the youngster.
In 1998 the European Court of Human Rights declared that the ancient British law that permits the “reasonable chastisement” of children was unlawful. The ruling has been endorsed by two parliamentary committees, and the monitoring committee of the UN’s Rights of the Child Convention.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that Mr Blair does not smack Leo because the boy is perfectly behaved and dutifully respects his father at all times.
(Ed: Tony Blair ain't very smart. He does not seem to realise that Leo is the son of his old age. Most men will know that their youngest children get away with stuff the older ones did not. Oh and of course as P.M. he will be seeing less of Leo than his older children )
Mr Blair was put on the spot about his methods of parental discipline by Kirsty Wark, the BBC Two Newsnight interviewer, at a question and answer session with the public and media in Swindon as he promoted his “respect” agenda.
He was asked: “Do you smack your kids? Did you?”
When he failed to reply immediately, Ms Wark asked him: “Did it cause a problem?”
Mr Blair said: “No, I think actually, funnily enough, I’m probably different with my youngest than I was with my older ones.”
Misunderstanding his reply, Ms Wark asked him: “What, you do smack the younger one?”
Mr Blair, whose other children are aged 21, 20 and 17, replied: “No no, no no. It was actually the other way round but . . . I think, look, this smacking . . . I mean, I agree with what you just said, I think everybody actually knows the difference between smacking a kid and abusing a child.
“But I, if I can honestly say this to you — I think the problem is when you get these really, really difficult families, it’s moved a bit beyond that.”
In 2004 as the Government faced calls to back a total ban on physical punishment, Mr Blair said he understood why parents would want to smack “really naughty” children.
But he said that he felt “a bit different now”, and called for a “dose of common sense” in the debate.
His comment came during debates on the Children Act, which bans any physical punishment by parents in England and Wales that leaves a mark on the youngster.
In 1998 the European Court of Human Rights declared that the ancient British law that permits the “reasonable chastisement” of children was unlawful. The ruling has been endorsed by two parliamentary committees, and the monitoring committee of the UN’s Rights of the Child Convention.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that Mr Blair does not smack Leo because the boy is perfectly behaved and dutifully respects his father at all times.
(Ed: Tony Blair ain't very smart. He does not seem to realise that Leo is the son of his old age. Most men will know that their youngest children get away with stuff the older ones did not. Oh and of course as P.M. he will be seeing less of Leo than his older children )
Thursday, January 05, 2006
New Labour misled public over cannabis
MINISTERS misled the public over the dangers of smoking cannabis, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has admitted.
And it was the downgrading of the drug to Class C status less than a year ago that was responsible, he said.
In an interview last night, the Home Secretary laid the blame squarely with predecessor David Blunkett for his softly-softly approach.
Mr Clarke said that he was now “very worried” about evidence linking marijuana to mental illness.
He said that downgrading it from a class B to a class C drug, like steroids and anti-depressants, had caused “confusion”.
People were also startlingly unaware of the health risks, he added. The damning remarks pave the way for a dramatic U-turn in the coming weeks — first forecast by The Sun.
Asked if Mr Blunkett’s decision to reclassify the drug was responsible for the confusion Mr Clarke replied: “Yes.”
He went on: “People do not understand the impact of the consumption of cannabis well enough and what the legal consequences are.
“The thing that worries me most (about downgrading) is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is.
“I am very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they are wrong.
“I am also very worried about the most recent medical evidence on mental health. This is a very serious issue.”
Mr Blunkett relaxed the law to free up police to tackle more serious crime.
But the move sparked an explosion in pot-smoking among teenagers who wrongly think it has been decriminalised.
Seizures soared by a third and cops have spent £1million on posters warning it is still illegal.
Experts say youngsters who regularly smoke dope are four-and-a-half times more likely to suffer psychosis or schizophrenia in their 20s.
Mr Clarke, who was fiercely opposed to downgrading when it was railroaded through by Mr Blunkett, launched an inquiry.
It will soon formally report back — but the Home Secretary has already read its conclusions.
He said: “Let me reveal one recommendation of the advisory committee which they make very very strongly.
“It is a renewed commitment to public education about the potential effects of the consumption of cannabis and the legal status of cannabis. That is well made and I will accept it.”
(From Michael Lea at The Sun)
And it was the downgrading of the drug to Class C status less than a year ago that was responsible, he said.
In an interview last night, the Home Secretary laid the blame squarely with predecessor David Blunkett for his softly-softly approach.
Mr Clarke said that he was now “very worried” about evidence linking marijuana to mental illness.
He said that downgrading it from a class B to a class C drug, like steroids and anti-depressants, had caused “confusion”.
People were also startlingly unaware of the health risks, he added. The damning remarks pave the way for a dramatic U-turn in the coming weeks — first forecast by The Sun.
Asked if Mr Blunkett’s decision to reclassify the drug was responsible for the confusion Mr Clarke replied: “Yes.”
He went on: “People do not understand the impact of the consumption of cannabis well enough and what the legal consequences are.
“The thing that worries me most (about downgrading) is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is.
“I am very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they are wrong.
“I am also very worried about the most recent medical evidence on mental health. This is a very serious issue.”
Mr Blunkett relaxed the law to free up police to tackle more serious crime.
But the move sparked an explosion in pot-smoking among teenagers who wrongly think it has been decriminalised.
Seizures soared by a third and cops have spent £1million on posters warning it is still illegal.
Experts say youngsters who regularly smoke dope are four-and-a-half times more likely to suffer psychosis or schizophrenia in their 20s.
Mr Clarke, who was fiercely opposed to downgrading when it was railroaded through by Mr Blunkett, launched an inquiry.
It will soon formally report back — but the Home Secretary has already read its conclusions.
He said: “Let me reveal one recommendation of the advisory committee which they make very very strongly.
“It is a renewed commitment to public education about the potential effects of the consumption of cannabis and the legal status of cannabis. That is well made and I will accept it.”
(From Michael Lea at The Sun)
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Labour Party campaign manager attacked Tory
Labour Party worker David Harding appeared before magistrates
A Labour Party campaign manager punched and grabbed the throat of a Tory activist on the eve of the 2005 general election, a court has heard.
Labour Party worker David Harding is alleged to have set upon Robert Benham, parliamentary assistant to Romford Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell.
Havering Magistrates heard on Tuesday the assault took place outside Romford Railway Station on 4 May, 2005.
Mr Harding, 48, of Hornchurch, Essex, denies common assault.
He has also denies a charge of using abusive words or behaviour.
Rekha Kodikara, prosecuting, told the court Mr Harding and 25-year-old Mr Benham had been part of two competing groups of canvassers outside the station.
She said Mr Harding had been using a loudspeaker to canvass voters and suggested that Mr Rosindell had "acted inappropriately" when campaigning.
She said Mr Benham had recorded these remarks on his mobile phone. Mr Harding then approached him and said: "You are in big trouble."
When the Labour canvassers had left the area, Mr Harding returned to the station with about two other men and attacked Mr Benham, Ms Kodikara said.
She said the situation then "spiralled out of control" and Mr Harding "lashed out at anyone who stood in his way".
Giving evidence, Mr Benham said he was punched and the accused tried to strangle him.
He told the court: "I got a punch or a palm to the head. I went forward and the accused tried to strangle me and forced me to the ground, digging his fingers into my neck."
Mr Benham said he had to undergo three months of physiotherapy for muscle damage.
A Labour Party campaign manager punched and grabbed the throat of a Tory activist on the eve of the 2005 general election, a court has heard.
Labour Party worker David Harding is alleged to have set upon Robert Benham, parliamentary assistant to Romford Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell.
Havering Magistrates heard on Tuesday the assault took place outside Romford Railway Station on 4 May, 2005.
Mr Harding, 48, of Hornchurch, Essex, denies common assault.
He has also denies a charge of using abusive words or behaviour.
Rekha Kodikara, prosecuting, told the court Mr Harding and 25-year-old Mr Benham had been part of two competing groups of canvassers outside the station.
She said Mr Harding had been using a loudspeaker to canvass voters and suggested that Mr Rosindell had "acted inappropriately" when campaigning.
She said Mr Benham had recorded these remarks on his mobile phone. Mr Harding then approached him and said: "You are in big trouble."
When the Labour canvassers had left the area, Mr Harding returned to the station with about two other men and attacked Mr Benham, Ms Kodikara said.
She said the situation then "spiralled out of control" and Mr Harding "lashed out at anyone who stood in his way".
Giving evidence, Mr Benham said he was punched and the accused tried to strangle him.
He told the court: "I got a punch or a palm to the head. I went forward and the accused tried to strangle me and forced me to the ground, digging his fingers into my neck."
Mr Benham said he had to undergo three months of physiotherapy for muscle damage.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Blair has no answer for Trust under fire for axing heart op
Hospital chiefs were accused of sacrificing heart patients' welfare to meet targets after scrapping their operations.
Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust has wiped dozens of people from waiting lists for cardiac catheter ablation, the operation which cured Tony Blair of an irregular heartbeat.
The cash-strapped trust said it had been forced to restrict the treatment to only the most desperate cases in an attempt to cut costs. But patients, pressure groups and MPs say they believe the operations - which have a 95% success rate - were stopped to meet maximum six-month wait targets.
The alarm was first raised by the Arrhythmia Alliance a month ago after the patients' group was deluged by complaints from disappointed sufferers and concerned doctors. Their letters to the Prime Minister and Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt went unanswered. They now hope the public row will force the trust into a rethink and prevent other trusts around the country using the same tactics.
Founder Trudie Lobban told the Press Association: "The trust are saying it's because of the cost, but it's ironic that with one fell swoop they have got rid of their waiting list. Some of these patients cannot work - yet Tony Blair had the operation and he was back at work the next day, running the country.
"It is a scandal what they are doing. These poor people are being made scapegoats for the bureaucracy which goes on behind."
She said her concerns were shared by Professor Roger Boyle, the Government's heart tsar, who was "appalled" by the decision to cut the operations. Stephen Eeley, one of those dropped from the list, said he now faced spending the rest of his life "breathless and tired" because of a "short-term fix to massage figures".
An administrator at Oxford University, he said he was "furious" to be told he no longer met the criteria for treatment after months spent on the waiting list. "This is exactly the same thing that Tony Blair suffered," he said.
"To suffer what he suffered and to have no recourse to anybody is very extremely frustrating. They sorted him out immediately. It's very cynical that the Radcliffe Hospital have chosen (to discontinue) this particular procedure, which I understand they do very well. It's a short-term fix to massage figures.
Ms Hewitt said she understood patients' concerns but insisted it was a local decision. "It's not at all clear to me why the costs at the Oxford Radcliffe of doing that particular procedure are so much higher than the average," Ms Hewitt said.
Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust has wiped dozens of people from waiting lists for cardiac catheter ablation, the operation which cured Tony Blair of an irregular heartbeat.
The cash-strapped trust said it had been forced to restrict the treatment to only the most desperate cases in an attempt to cut costs. But patients, pressure groups and MPs say they believe the operations - which have a 95% success rate - were stopped to meet maximum six-month wait targets.
The alarm was first raised by the Arrhythmia Alliance a month ago after the patients' group was deluged by complaints from disappointed sufferers and concerned doctors. Their letters to the Prime Minister and Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt went unanswered. They now hope the public row will force the trust into a rethink and prevent other trusts around the country using the same tactics.
Founder Trudie Lobban told the Press Association: "The trust are saying it's because of the cost, but it's ironic that with one fell swoop they have got rid of their waiting list. Some of these patients cannot work - yet Tony Blair had the operation and he was back at work the next day, running the country.
"It is a scandal what they are doing. These poor people are being made scapegoats for the bureaucracy which goes on behind."
She said her concerns were shared by Professor Roger Boyle, the Government's heart tsar, who was "appalled" by the decision to cut the operations. Stephen Eeley, one of those dropped from the list, said he now faced spending the rest of his life "breathless and tired" because of a "short-term fix to massage figures".
An administrator at Oxford University, he said he was "furious" to be told he no longer met the criteria for treatment after months spent on the waiting list. "This is exactly the same thing that Tony Blair suffered," he said.
"To suffer what he suffered and to have no recourse to anybody is very extremely frustrating. They sorted him out immediately. It's very cynical that the Radcliffe Hospital have chosen (to discontinue) this particular procedure, which I understand they do very well. It's a short-term fix to massage figures.
Ms Hewitt said she understood patients' concerns but insisted it was a local decision. "It's not at all clear to me why the costs at the Oxford Radcliffe of doing that particular procedure are so much higher than the average," Ms Hewitt said.
Child killer in unescorted trips
A triple child killer has been allowed out of jail on unescorted trips, it has been reported.
David McGreavy killed siblings Paul, four, Dawn, two, and Samantha, nine months, before impaling them on a railing while babysitting at their Worcester home more than three decades ago, it was said.
During the past six weeks, the 54-year-old has been on visits to Liverpool from Ford Prison in Arundel, West Sussex, according to the Sun.
A Home Office spokeswoman confirmed that McGreavy was jailed for life in 1973 but said she could not discuss the case further.
She said it was "normal" for life sentence prisoners to be allowed out temporarily before their release.
She added: "All prisoners will be fully risk-assessed before being moved to an open prison or being allowed out of prison on a temporary licence. It's a tightly managed process.
"(It) happens as part of our commitment to rehabilitate prisoners, to help them reintegrate into society and also to test them."
A spokesman for the dead babies' mother, Dorothy Urry, said she did not wish to comment.
Mrs Urry told the Sun: "I cannot believe it. This man took three children's lives. He should have got the electric chair.
"I wouldn't trust him near any kids. It's just not safe."
David McGreavy killed siblings Paul, four, Dawn, two, and Samantha, nine months, before impaling them on a railing while babysitting at their Worcester home more than three decades ago, it was said.
During the past six weeks, the 54-year-old has been on visits to Liverpool from Ford Prison in Arundel, West Sussex, according to the Sun.
A Home Office spokeswoman confirmed that McGreavy was jailed for life in 1973 but said she could not discuss the case further.
She said it was "normal" for life sentence prisoners to be allowed out temporarily before their release.
She added: "All prisoners will be fully risk-assessed before being moved to an open prison or being allowed out of prison on a temporary licence. It's a tightly managed process.
"(It) happens as part of our commitment to rehabilitate prisoners, to help them reintegrate into society and also to test them."
A spokesman for the dead babies' mother, Dorothy Urry, said she did not wish to comment.
Mrs Urry told the Sun: "I cannot believe it. This man took three children's lives. He should have got the electric chair.
"I wouldn't trust him near any kids. It's just not safe."
Violent crime up again
The use of weapons in all types of violent crime increased last year, according to new Home Office figures.
Weapons including knives, clubs, firearms, stones and glasses or bottles were used in 24% of violent incidents in 2004-05, compared with 21% the previous year. All categories measured by the British Crime Survey, which interviews thousands of people about their experiences of crime, showed a rise of between 1% and 6%.
Weapons were used in 26% of common assaults, up from 20%.
Attacks between "acquaintances" also featured weapons in 33% of cases, up nearly 5% on the previous year.
Robberies - previously the subject of a high-profile crackdown driven by Prime Minister Tony Blair - also showed a rise in weapons-use of 2% to 24%.
In all, knives were used in 6% of violent incidents, sticks, clubs or other hitting implements in 7%, glasses or bottles in 6% and firearms in 1%.
Home Office figures published in July showed that violence against the person incidents recorded by police in England and Wales have topped one million for the first time.
Total recorded violent crime - including sexual offences and robbery - stood at 1,184,702 in 2004-05, up 7% year on year.
Weapons including knives, clubs, firearms, stones and glasses or bottles were used in 24% of violent incidents in 2004-05, compared with 21% the previous year. All categories measured by the British Crime Survey, which interviews thousands of people about their experiences of crime, showed a rise of between 1% and 6%.
Weapons were used in 26% of common assaults, up from 20%.
Attacks between "acquaintances" also featured weapons in 33% of cases, up nearly 5% on the previous year.
Robberies - previously the subject of a high-profile crackdown driven by Prime Minister Tony Blair - also showed a rise in weapons-use of 2% to 24%.
In all, knives were used in 6% of violent incidents, sticks, clubs or other hitting implements in 7%, glasses or bottles in 6% and firearms in 1%.
Home Office figures published in July showed that violence against the person incidents recorded by police in England and Wales have topped one million for the first time.
Total recorded violent crime - including sexual offences and robbery - stood at 1,184,702 in 2004-05, up 7% year on year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)