You can't make this stuff up.
Baroness Scotland, the government's chief legal adviser who oversees criminal prosecutions in England and Wales and helped take legislation on employing illegal workers through Parliament when she was a Home Office minister has broken the same law.
She has now been fined £5000 for employing an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper.
The Prime Minister Gordon Brown says that as it was only a technical breach she does not have to resign or get the sack.
How far will Gordon and his gang sink before finding some principles.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Harriet Harman fouls up
That well known product of private education, wealth and privilege with at least one Sir, Ladies and Lord in the family tree, yes champion of the poor inadequate lower classes and now women and minorities and husband of the Labour party treasurer who was unaware of the Labour party loans scandal Harriet Harman.
Well in her official position as Government Equalities Office boss she had a taxpayer-funded fact sheet produced for schools about Women in Power, marking the milestones of female politicians.
Some how Margaret Thatcher was left out of the document. Like marmite you might love or hate her but she was the first, and so far the only, female Prime Minister in British history.
How can you make a mistake like that?
Would you give Ms H responsibility to spend your money?
Well in her official position as Government Equalities Office boss she had a taxpayer-funded fact sheet produced for schools about Women in Power, marking the milestones of female politicians.
Some how Margaret Thatcher was left out of the document. Like marmite you might love or hate her but she was the first, and so far the only, female Prime Minister in British history.
How can you make a mistake like that?
Would you give Ms H responsibility to spend your money?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Election that never was cost Labour £1m
Gordon Brown's decision this month not to call a general election has left the cash-strapped Labour party with a bill approaching £1m, according to the Guardian.
Party officials had sanctioned hundreds of thousands of pounds of expenditure on booking hoarding sites, literature and recruitment of staff, and were at an advanced stage in setting up a media centre to handle daily press conferences.
The cost of detailed polling in marginal seats by Opinion Leader Research - the company run by one of the prime minister's most trusted pollsters, Debbie Mattinson - is also understood to have run to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The Conservatives are thought to have spent substantially less in the week before the election was called off. It is understood their bill came to less than £200,000.
Meanwhile, Labour candidates in some marginal seats had already printed letters to go out to supporters. One, Martin Linton, who has a majority of 163 over the Conservatives in Battersea, south London, sent out letters to thousands of Labour members and supporters asking for their help.
The Guardian has been told by Labour and union sources that:
· Some three million letters - the first tranche of a series to key voters and supporters - were printed and had to be binned
· Technicians working on communication links at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool were called away by Labour on a contract to work on the election media centre in Victoria Street, London
· Furniture and equipment for the media centre was ordered, and a lorry delivering the equipment had to be turned away on the following Monday
· Hundreds of poster sites booked by Labour had to be pre-paid - the Tories also booked sites and mobile posters which are now being used to campaign for a European referendum
· Staff were recruited to work at union headquarters - notably the GMB and Unite - on campaigns in marginal seats
The cost of the election is certain to be raised when Labour's national executive meets next month. Some members thought Mr Brown should not have considered calling the election.
The party declined to respond to question from the Guardian.
Source: David Hencke, Westminster correspondent The Guardian (Monday October 22, 2007)
Party officials had sanctioned hundreds of thousands of pounds of expenditure on booking hoarding sites, literature and recruitment of staff, and were at an advanced stage in setting up a media centre to handle daily press conferences.
The cost of detailed polling in marginal seats by Opinion Leader Research - the company run by one of the prime minister's most trusted pollsters, Debbie Mattinson - is also understood to have run to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The Conservatives are thought to have spent substantially less in the week before the election was called off. It is understood their bill came to less than £200,000.
Meanwhile, Labour candidates in some marginal seats had already printed letters to go out to supporters. One, Martin Linton, who has a majority of 163 over the Conservatives in Battersea, south London, sent out letters to thousands of Labour members and supporters asking for their help.
The Guardian has been told by Labour and union sources that:
· Some three million letters - the first tranche of a series to key voters and supporters - were printed and had to be binned
· Technicians working on communication links at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool were called away by Labour on a contract to work on the election media centre in Victoria Street, London
· Furniture and equipment for the media centre was ordered, and a lorry delivering the equipment had to be turned away on the following Monday
· Hundreds of poster sites booked by Labour had to be pre-paid - the Tories also booked sites and mobile posters which are now being used to campaign for a European referendum
· Staff were recruited to work at union headquarters - notably the GMB and Unite - on campaigns in marginal seats
The cost of the election is certain to be raised when Labour's national executive meets next month. Some members thought Mr Brown should not have considered calling the election.
The party declined to respond to question from the Guardian.
Source: David Hencke, Westminster correspondent The Guardian (Monday October 22, 2007)
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Labour government sucking the South dry
GORDON BROWN is facing a growing backlash over the way hard-working southerners fund northerners and Scots.
Workers in the South East believe the Scottish PM and his team don’t understand the pressures of life in and around Greater London.
Figures show well over half the economy of Scotland, the North West, North East, Wales and Northern Ireland is funded by the taxpayer.
Yet the economy in highly populated London and the South East – Britain’s engine room – gets just a third.
Critics in the South East believe they are becoming the cash cow for the rest of the country.
Currently 19 per cent of all UK tax receipts come from London and 37 per cent from London and the South East.
Only seven per cent of tax comes from Scotland.
And just TWO Cabinet ministers represent a southern seat.
The PM represents a Fife seat and his Chancellor Alistair Darling is MP for Edinburgh South West.
Defence supremo Des Browne represents Kilmarnock and International Aid secretary Douglas Alexander is the MP for Paisley, near Glasgow.
It reveals Northern Ireland’s budget per head of population is 70.5 per cent of the nation’s wealth. Wales gets 64.3 per cent, the North East 63, Wales 55.6 and Scotland 54 per cent.
And their figures show the gap is widening, not closing.
Ministers keep pumping cash into northern regions because they need the votes to win an election.
source: GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON Political Editor at The Sun
Workers in the South East believe the Scottish PM and his team don’t understand the pressures of life in and around Greater London.
Figures show well over half the economy of Scotland, the North West, North East, Wales and Northern Ireland is funded by the taxpayer.
Yet the economy in highly populated London and the South East – Britain’s engine room – gets just a third.
Critics in the South East believe they are becoming the cash cow for the rest of the country.
Currently 19 per cent of all UK tax receipts come from London and 37 per cent from London and the South East.
Only seven per cent of tax comes from Scotland.
And just TWO Cabinet ministers represent a southern seat.
The PM represents a Fife seat and his Chancellor Alistair Darling is MP for Edinburgh South West.
Defence supremo Des Browne represents Kilmarnock and International Aid secretary Douglas Alexander is the MP for Paisley, near Glasgow.
It reveals Northern Ireland’s budget per head of population is 70.5 per cent of the nation’s wealth. Wales gets 64.3 per cent, the North East 63, Wales 55.6 and Scotland 54 per cent.
And their figures show the gap is widening, not closing.
Ministers keep pumping cash into northern regions because they need the votes to win an election.
source: GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON Political Editor at The Sun
Another Labour M.P. forgets his roots
How sad it is when someone forgets their roots and principles. Dear old Michael Martin, former sheet metal worker, went into politics with the Peoples Party to right some wrongs.
Some years later he was promoted above his capability to the prestigious position of Commons Speaker where he has to maintain order in the Commons without favour to his old People Party mates.
Unfortunately, like many of his mates, he now appears to think that the taxes gleaned from the sweat of working people can be splashed around for personal reasons.
Working class Michael got upset when people started having a go at how he was doing his job so he spent £20,000 of taxpayers having some P.R. people issue statements saying that he was actually doing a good job..
It is not known what Michael ( Red Mick?) would have done if his sheet metal work had been critised back in his youth. Maybe it was a P.R. statement to the effect of Go away you beggers.
Some years later he was promoted above his capability to the prestigious position of Commons Speaker where he has to maintain order in the Commons without favour to his old People Party mates.
Unfortunately, like many of his mates, he now appears to think that the taxes gleaned from the sweat of working people can be splashed around for personal reasons.
Working class Michael got upset when people started having a go at how he was doing his job so he spent £20,000 of taxpayers having some P.R. people issue statements saying that he was actually doing a good job..
It is not known what Michael ( Red Mick?) would have done if his sheet metal work had been critised back in his youth. Maybe it was a P.R. statement to the effect of Go away you beggers.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Climate change model wrong - again
Apparently the brilliant brain boxes behind climate change claims have had to face up to another error in their calculations.
Surprise surprise nature is not as fragile as they thought.
The naughty trees of the Amazon jungle went and found underground water that the Brains did not know about and did not die as predicted. But don't worry because in common with most discredited experts the climate change Brains have shifted the goal posts.
They claim that the Amazon will die but later than expected unsurprisingly some time after all alive at the moment are dead and unable to argue the toss.
Researchers found that during the 2005 drought, many parts of the rainforest "greened", apparently growing faster.
This finding contrasts with some computer models of climate change, which forecast that the Amazon would dry out and become savannah.
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers say it is unclear how the forest would respond to a long drought.
"We measured the changes between the drought (of July to September 2005) and an average year," explained study leader Scott Saleska from the University of Arizona, Tucson, US.
Some of the models, in particular the Hadley Centre group, became famous for predicting collapse of the Amazon and a change into savannah
Scott Saleska"And what we saw was that there was more photosynthesis going on, more capacity to take up carbon dioxide than in an average year," he told the BBC News website.
He said, however, that a climatic shift to longer and more frequent drought conditions would eventually diminish the deep-water stores, and make the trees suffer.
(souce: bbc)
Surprise surprise nature is not as fragile as they thought.
The naughty trees of the Amazon jungle went and found underground water that the Brains did not know about and did not die as predicted. But don't worry because in common with most discredited experts the climate change Brains have shifted the goal posts.
They claim that the Amazon will die but later than expected unsurprisingly some time after all alive at the moment are dead and unable to argue the toss.
Researchers found that during the 2005 drought, many parts of the rainforest "greened", apparently growing faster.
This finding contrasts with some computer models of climate change, which forecast that the Amazon would dry out and become savannah.
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers say it is unclear how the forest would respond to a long drought.
"We measured the changes between the drought (of July to September 2005) and an average year," explained study leader Scott Saleska from the University of Arizona, Tucson, US.
Some of the models, in particular the Hadley Centre group, became famous for predicting collapse of the Amazon and a change into savannah
Scott Saleska"And what we saw was that there was more photosynthesis going on, more capacity to take up carbon dioxide than in an average year," he told the BBC News website.
He said, however, that a climatic shift to longer and more frequent drought conditions would eventually diminish the deep-water stores, and make the trees suffer.
(souce: bbc)
Friday, September 28, 2007
Speed Camera Con
A Department for Transport report has found that, in 2007, exceeding the speed limit was a factor in 14 per cent of deaths, up from 12 per cent in 2005.
You may be forgiven for having overlooked this piece of information as it appears to be buried by the Labour government and it's fellow trough users.
The stat means that whatever impact the much admired speed camera may have had it's effect is now declining. This is despite Labour quietly changing the law so that camera's do not have to be placed near accident black spots.
It also means that 86% of accidents are NOT caused by breaking the speed limit.
It also means that all the effort put into creating the vast network of speed camera's was either based on a misunderstanding or it is just another way of raising tax.
You may be forgiven for having overlooked this piece of information as it appears to be buried by the Labour government and it's fellow trough users.
The stat means that whatever impact the much admired speed camera may have had it's effect is now declining. This is despite Labour quietly changing the law so that camera's do not have to be placed near accident black spots.
It also means that 86% of accidents are NOT caused by breaking the speed limit.
It also means that all the effort put into creating the vast network of speed camera's was either based on a misunderstanding or it is just another way of raising tax.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
85pc of health cash goes to Labour areas
(ED: Tony does as Tony does, crooks the figures, crooks the weapons of mass destruction, sells honours for New Labour funds, gerrymandering tax spend to suit New Labour Party interests, is there enough space in cyberspace to list the acts of deceit Tony has been involved in. Was he always like this or has he been replaced by an evil spirit?)
Celia Hall, Medical Editor at Daily Telegraph
As much as 85p in every £1 the Government has spent on health has gone into Labour constituencies.
Details from a Parliamentary question show that of the 46 multi-million-pound hospitals built in England since Tony Blair came to power, 33 are in Labour areas. That amounts to £3.5 billion out of a total spend of £4.1 billion.
Government health policy has aimed at removing "health inequalities" and lifting health services in deprived areas many of which are Labour strongholds.
But the Tories say they are still waiting for the Government to tell them why one area is favoured over another and to explain the rationale of agreeing to new hospital developments in particular areas.
Andrew Lansley the shadow health spokesman, said yesterday: "Four in every five of Labour's new hospitals have been built in the constituencies of their own MPs.
The Conservatives say "Ministers are holding secret meetings with Labour Party officials to target up to 60 hospital cutbacks on the constituencies of Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. These figures confirm what we suspected when Patricia Hewitt went against the advice of experts and ordered a new hospital to be built in a Labour constituency in south London.
A Conservative Party spokesman said that in 2005 Ms Hewitt overturned a decision to build a new critical care hospital on the site of Sutton Hospital, in the Sutton and Cheam constituency of Liberal Democrat MP Paul Burstow.
"Instead, even after seeking the advice of her independent advisers, who similarly recommended the Sutton site, Patricia Hewitt recommended that the new hospital should be built at St Helier, in the Mitcham and Morden constituency of a Labour MP, Siobhan McDonagh," the spokesman said.
Celia Hall, Medical Editor at Daily Telegraph
As much as 85p in every £1 the Government has spent on health has gone into Labour constituencies.
Details from a Parliamentary question show that of the 46 multi-million-pound hospitals built in England since Tony Blair came to power, 33 are in Labour areas. That amounts to £3.5 billion out of a total spend of £4.1 billion.
Government health policy has aimed at removing "health inequalities" and lifting health services in deprived areas many of which are Labour strongholds.
But the Tories say they are still waiting for the Government to tell them why one area is favoured over another and to explain the rationale of agreeing to new hospital developments in particular areas.
Andrew Lansley the shadow health spokesman, said yesterday: "Four in every five of Labour's new hospitals have been built in the constituencies of their own MPs.
The Conservatives say "Ministers are holding secret meetings with Labour Party officials to target up to 60 hospital cutbacks on the constituencies of Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. These figures confirm what we suspected when Patricia Hewitt went against the advice of experts and ordered a new hospital to be built in a Labour constituency in south London.
A Conservative Party spokesman said that in 2005 Ms Hewitt overturned a decision to build a new critical care hospital on the site of Sutton Hospital, in the Sutton and Cheam constituency of Liberal Democrat MP Paul Burstow.
"Instead, even after seeking the advice of her independent advisers, who similarly recommended the Sutton site, Patricia Hewitt recommended that the new hospital should be built at St Helier, in the Mitcham and Morden constituency of a Labour MP, Siobhan McDonagh," the spokesman said.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Plan to fine rowdy pubs watered down on the quiet
James Slack at Daily Mail - 02.04.2007
(ED: Tony at it again - Big headline then a row back after the media focus is elsewhere. Any trouble with 24-hour drinking in city centres were to have been dealt with Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ). Unfortunately none of the smarties in the government thought about the Human Rights law, introduced by themselves of course. If you were of a more machavelian frame of mind you might think that ADZ's were always just window dressing to insure that increased working class drinking would keep the prole's focus on the beer and off government incompetence while providing more tax for the machine. Surely not?)
The Government has quietly given up its hardline stance on rowdy pubs thanks to human rights regulations
Labour's promise to make rowdy pubs and clubs pay for the disturbance they cause has been quietly shelved.
So-called Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ) will be used only as a "last resort" as they risk breaching human rights laws.
Ministers previously said that forcing licensed premises to pay up to £100 a week for extra policing was vital to curb the negative effects of 24-hour drinking.
But papers slipped out Monday during the Parliamentary recess place almost insurmountable bureaucratic obstacles in the way of any police force or council wishing to pursue a "polluter pays" policy.
Police would actually lose out financially from an idea that was supposed to spare them - and therefore the taxpayer - from picking up the bill for binge-drinking and drunken violence.
The Police Federation accused the Government of "deceit" as it had linked the relaxation of the licensing laws to new powers they are now unlikely to use.
Vice-chairman Alan Gordon said: "If it is this bureaucratic and burdensome, police will never use these zones or attempt to use them.
"The Government made great play of the additional powers they were going to give the police. To make them so bureaucratic they are nearly impossible to use is being deceitful in what was involved in 24/7 drinking in the first place."
Ministers promised the zones in January 2005.
But the Home Office now says it has to be careful that human rights laws are not breached. Zones must be declared only in extreme circumstances where all other options had failed, its says.
Monday's consultation documents said no less than 15 times that the zones should be a "last resort".
They warned that charging a pub, club or off-licence for disturbance amounts to an interference with property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Critics say the process for setting up a zone is so complex it verges on the impossible.
Police must first give drinkers on-the-spot fines or ban louts from town centres. They must also make attempts to close down any problem pubs using the Licensing Act.
If this fails, they must amass evidence that a street or "zone" is blighted by binge-drinking.
Officers - who are already struggling with mountains of paperwork - would have to produce details of violent incidents, relevant A&E notes and a CCTV incident log.
Once this so-called "trigger stage" is complete, pubs and clubs must be given a 28-day consultation period when they can object to the plans.
While this is taking place, police and local councils must draw up an Action Plan of steps they want the premises to take to reduce the misery they are inflicting on local residents.
Pubs are then given eight weeks in which to introduce these changes.
It is only if police and councils can prove the Action Plan has been ignored that they can declare an Alcohol Disorder Zone and levy charges.
(ED: Tony at it again - Big headline then a row back after the media focus is elsewhere. Any trouble with 24-hour drinking in city centres were to have been dealt with Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ). Unfortunately none of the smarties in the government thought about the Human Rights law, introduced by themselves of course. If you were of a more machavelian frame of mind you might think that ADZ's were always just window dressing to insure that increased working class drinking would keep the prole's focus on the beer and off government incompetence while providing more tax for the machine. Surely not?)
The Government has quietly given up its hardline stance on rowdy pubs thanks to human rights regulations
Labour's promise to make rowdy pubs and clubs pay for the disturbance they cause has been quietly shelved.
So-called Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ) will be used only as a "last resort" as they risk breaching human rights laws.
Ministers previously said that forcing licensed premises to pay up to £100 a week for extra policing was vital to curb the negative effects of 24-hour drinking.
But papers slipped out Monday during the Parliamentary recess place almost insurmountable bureaucratic obstacles in the way of any police force or council wishing to pursue a "polluter pays" policy.
Police would actually lose out financially from an idea that was supposed to spare them - and therefore the taxpayer - from picking up the bill for binge-drinking and drunken violence.
The Police Federation accused the Government of "deceit" as it had linked the relaxation of the licensing laws to new powers they are now unlikely to use.
Vice-chairman Alan Gordon said: "If it is this bureaucratic and burdensome, police will never use these zones or attempt to use them.
"The Government made great play of the additional powers they were going to give the police. To make them so bureaucratic they are nearly impossible to use is being deceitful in what was involved in 24/7 drinking in the first place."
Ministers promised the zones in January 2005.
But the Home Office now says it has to be careful that human rights laws are not breached. Zones must be declared only in extreme circumstances where all other options had failed, its says.
Monday's consultation documents said no less than 15 times that the zones should be a "last resort".
They warned that charging a pub, club or off-licence for disturbance amounts to an interference with property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Critics say the process for setting up a zone is so complex it verges on the impossible.
Police must first give drinkers on-the-spot fines or ban louts from town centres. They must also make attempts to close down any problem pubs using the Licensing Act.
If this fails, they must amass evidence that a street or "zone" is blighted by binge-drinking.
Officers - who are already struggling with mountains of paperwork - would have to produce details of violent incidents, relevant A&E notes and a CCTV incident log.
Once this so-called "trigger stage" is complete, pubs and clubs must be given a 28-day consultation period when they can object to the plans.
While this is taking place, police and local councils must draw up an Action Plan of steps they want the premises to take to reduce the misery they are inflicting on local residents.
Pubs are then given eight weeks in which to introduce these changes.
It is only if police and councils can prove the Action Plan has been ignored that they can declare an Alcohol Disorder Zone and levy charges.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Tony weakens NHS pledge to mothers
Jo Revill, health editor The Observer April 1, 2007
(ED: Usual lies from Tony and his mates. Get Big Big headlines then when attention has moved on water everything down. As for Health Minister Ivan Lewis I wonder what he would be saying if his wife was in labour again. Perhaps " oh a 12k a year unqualified support worker excellent eh darling? Or "don't be so stupid that's my wife you are putting at risk.")
A government pledge to give every mother the right of one-to-one care from a midwife during labour has been watered down to allow hospitals to use lower-paid attendants with fewer skills.
Midwives' leaders call the move 'scandalous', arguing that it will increase the risks for those women and babies not supported by a qualified midwife.
The policy shift will be in the government's maternity strategy, due to be announced by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt this week.
The government has come under increasing pressure over the state of maternity wards due to a recent spate of reports showing that standards in Britain are falling, with thousands of women not receiving good antenatal care or enough support during the birth.
In its election manifesto in May 2005, Labour promised that by 2009 women would be cared for by a named midwife throughout pregnancy and would receive continuous care throughout the delivery. Instead they could now find themselves in the care of a maternity support worker, a new category of staff without a nursing or midwifery degree who may not be able to deliver a baby safely.
However, Health Minister Ivan Lewis is adamant they would not jeopardise safety. He told The Observer: 'By the end of 2009, we want to see trusts at least giving a commitment to the fact that a skilled professional is present throughout the birth. That could be a midwife or it could be a maternity support worker.'
He defended the use of lower-skilled staff: 'What matters is that the mother feels confident that she is well cared for. There are many maternity support workers who are providing an excellent service.'
Lewis also criticised the 'rhetoric and scare-mongering' of recent media reports that have highlighted problems on maternity wards. 'A lot of the media reporting has been very irresponsible because it scares women. There have been two million births over the past three years, and 50 women died in that time due to obstetric complications that could have been dealt with better. One death is too many - but that number doesn't suggest a crisis in terms of safety.'
The Royal College of Midwives is furious that hospital trusts will be able to claim they offer continuous care during labour when they have replaced trained midwives with maternity care assistants, who are paid around £12,000 a year and are not subject to the same regulation. They were originally introduced to help with lighter duties on maternity wards, such as feeding and washing, but many believe hospital trusts see them as a cheap workforce.
RCM adviser Sue Jacob said: 'This change has been quietly slipped in and is nothing short of scandalous. Do we really see childbirth as so unimportant that you de-skill the very people who will be delivering children? Women want nothing less than a midwife by their side when they are in labour. We know from all the research that's been done that continuous care from an experienced professional makes a huge difference to the safety of both the mother and the child.'
Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, pointed out that in Scotland the target of offering continuous care from a midwife is already being met. 'It has to be asked why the rest of the country can't achieve this goal, given that it is so very important for women when they go into labour,' she said.
(ED: Usual lies from Tony and his mates. Get Big Big headlines then when attention has moved on water everything down. As for Health Minister Ivan Lewis I wonder what he would be saying if his wife was in labour again. Perhaps " oh a 12k a year unqualified support worker excellent eh darling? Or "don't be so stupid that's my wife you are putting at risk.")
A government pledge to give every mother the right of one-to-one care from a midwife during labour has been watered down to allow hospitals to use lower-paid attendants with fewer skills.
Midwives' leaders call the move 'scandalous', arguing that it will increase the risks for those women and babies not supported by a qualified midwife.
The policy shift will be in the government's maternity strategy, due to be announced by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt this week.
The government has come under increasing pressure over the state of maternity wards due to a recent spate of reports showing that standards in Britain are falling, with thousands of women not receiving good antenatal care or enough support during the birth.
In its election manifesto in May 2005, Labour promised that by 2009 women would be cared for by a named midwife throughout pregnancy and would receive continuous care throughout the delivery. Instead they could now find themselves in the care of a maternity support worker, a new category of staff without a nursing or midwifery degree who may not be able to deliver a baby safely.
However, Health Minister Ivan Lewis is adamant they would not jeopardise safety. He told The Observer: 'By the end of 2009, we want to see trusts at least giving a commitment to the fact that a skilled professional is present throughout the birth. That could be a midwife or it could be a maternity support worker.'
He defended the use of lower-skilled staff: 'What matters is that the mother feels confident that she is well cared for. There are many maternity support workers who are providing an excellent service.'
Lewis also criticised the 'rhetoric and scare-mongering' of recent media reports that have highlighted problems on maternity wards. 'A lot of the media reporting has been very irresponsible because it scares women. There have been two million births over the past three years, and 50 women died in that time due to obstetric complications that could have been dealt with better. One death is too many - but that number doesn't suggest a crisis in terms of safety.'
The Royal College of Midwives is furious that hospital trusts will be able to claim they offer continuous care during labour when they have replaced trained midwives with maternity care assistants, who are paid around £12,000 a year and are not subject to the same regulation. They were originally introduced to help with lighter duties on maternity wards, such as feeding and washing, but many believe hospital trusts see them as a cheap workforce.
RCM adviser Sue Jacob said: 'This change has been quietly slipped in and is nothing short of scandalous. Do we really see childbirth as so unimportant that you de-skill the very people who will be delivering children? Women want nothing less than a midwife by their side when they are in labour. We know from all the research that's been done that continuous care from an experienced professional makes a huge difference to the safety of both the mother and the child.'
Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, pointed out that in Scotland the target of offering continuous care from a midwife is already being met. 'It has to be asked why the rest of the country can't achieve this goal, given that it is so very important for women when they go into labour,' she said.
Police have time and officers to investigate 10-year-old for calling his mate "gay"
Jonathan Owen at The Independent - 01 April 2007
(ED: Good to see that the 2.5% of active police officers have enough time to follow up this type of "crime".)
A father launched a furious attack against the police yesterday for investigating claims that his 10-year-old son had called a schoolfriend "gay" in an email.
Company director Alan Rawlinson said he was astounded after two police officers arrived at his home in Bold Heath, Cheshire, to speak to his son George. The officers were called after a complaint from the parent of another boy at his son's school in Widnes.
"They told me they considered it a very serious offence," said Mr Rawlinson, 41. "I thought they were joking at first. I am furious about what has happened. It just seems the politically correct brigade is taking over."
But Inspector Nick Bailey of Cheshire Constabulary defended the decision: "The matter was reported to police as the parents of the boy believed it was more sinister than just a schoolyard prank." He said that they would not be pursuing the complaint any further, commenting: "We would be hard-pushed to say this is a homophobic crime."
(ED: Good to see that the 2.5% of active police officers have enough time to follow up this type of "crime".)
A father launched a furious attack against the police yesterday for investigating claims that his 10-year-old son had called a schoolfriend "gay" in an email.
Company director Alan Rawlinson said he was astounded after two police officers arrived at his home in Bold Heath, Cheshire, to speak to his son George. The officers were called after a complaint from the parent of another boy at his son's school in Widnes.
"They told me they considered it a very serious offence," said Mr Rawlinson, 41. "I thought they were joking at first. I am furious about what has happened. It just seems the politically correct brigade is taking over."
But Inspector Nick Bailey of Cheshire Constabulary defended the decision: "The matter was reported to police as the parents of the boy believed it was more sinister than just a schoolyard prank." He said that they would not be pursuing the complaint any further, commenting: "We would be hard-pushed to say this is a homophobic crime."
UK child mortality rate 2nd worst in rich countries
Roger Dobson at The Independent - 01 April 2007
(ED: I am sure Tony or one of his front men will rubbish the figures as wrong or inccurate without explaining that the inaccuracy is the use of UK rather than U.K..)
Britain has the second highest child death rate among the 24 richest countries in the world, with infants in the UK twice as likely to die before the age of five as children in Sweden, a study has shown.
The researchers, from Dundee University, who link relatively high infant mortality with income inequality, found that in the UK the gap between the haves and the have-nots was the third biggest among the 24 countries. They calculated that the top 20 per cent of people in the UK have more than 2.5 times the income of the bottom 40 per cent, almost double the difference in Japan.
Their work, which is reported this week in the Journal of Public Health, analysed Unicef data on child mortality and income inequality. The study comes 14 years after the UK and other "Anglo-American" rich countries were strongly criticised in a Unicef study on child neglect in wealthy nations. That study did not report on child death rates but at that time the UK ranked 15th for child mortality;the new research shows it has now dropped to joint 22nd, just above the US.
The results show that the child mortality rate, based on the number of children dying before the age of five per 1,000 live births averaged over a four-year period, was below five in the top six countries - Sweden at 3.25, followed by Iceland (3.75) Norway (4.00) Denmark (4.25) Japan (4.50) and Finland (4.75). The bottom six were New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland (all 6.0), UK and Canada (6.5) and the US (8.0).
The researchers also calculated income inequality in each country by comparing the income share of the top 20 per cent with that of the bottom 40 per cent. The ratio was lowest in Luxembourg, Japan, Finland and Norway, where the income of the top earners 20 per cent was only 1.5 times greater than the bottom 40 per cent. But the ratio was 2.5 in the UK and 2.8 in the US.
"There is a very strong association between income inequality and under-five child mortality among the wealthier OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries,'' said the report. "Within this group the highest child mortality figures are to be found in those 'Anglo-American' countries which attracted criticism in 1993 in a Unicef study on child neglect. Since 1960, the relative ranking, based on increasing under-five mortality, of these countries has markedly worsened relative to the others.''
David Collison, who led the study, said: "All the Anglo-American countries do pretty badly. It is clear that inequality is linked to the poor position of the UK and elsewhere."
(ED: I am sure Tony or one of his front men will rubbish the figures as wrong or inccurate without explaining that the inaccuracy is the use of UK rather than U.K..)
Britain has the second highest child death rate among the 24 richest countries in the world, with infants in the UK twice as likely to die before the age of five as children in Sweden, a study has shown.
The researchers, from Dundee University, who link relatively high infant mortality with income inequality, found that in the UK the gap between the haves and the have-nots was the third biggest among the 24 countries. They calculated that the top 20 per cent of people in the UK have more than 2.5 times the income of the bottom 40 per cent, almost double the difference in Japan.
Their work, which is reported this week in the Journal of Public Health, analysed Unicef data on child mortality and income inequality. The study comes 14 years after the UK and other "Anglo-American" rich countries were strongly criticised in a Unicef study on child neglect in wealthy nations. That study did not report on child death rates but at that time the UK ranked 15th for child mortality;the new research shows it has now dropped to joint 22nd, just above the US.
The results show that the child mortality rate, based on the number of children dying before the age of five per 1,000 live births averaged over a four-year period, was below five in the top six countries - Sweden at 3.25, followed by Iceland (3.75) Norway (4.00) Denmark (4.25) Japan (4.50) and Finland (4.75). The bottom six were New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland (all 6.0), UK and Canada (6.5) and the US (8.0).
The researchers also calculated income inequality in each country by comparing the income share of the top 20 per cent with that of the bottom 40 per cent. The ratio was lowest in Luxembourg, Japan, Finland and Norway, where the income of the top earners 20 per cent was only 1.5 times greater than the bottom 40 per cent. But the ratio was 2.5 in the UK and 2.8 in the US.
"There is a very strong association between income inequality and under-five child mortality among the wealthier OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries,'' said the report. "Within this group the highest child mortality figures are to be found in those 'Anglo-American' countries which attracted criticism in 1993 in a Unicef study on child neglect. Since 1960, the relative ranking, based on increasing under-five mortality, of these countries has markedly worsened relative to the others.''
David Collison, who led the study, said: "All the Anglo-American countries do pretty badly. It is clear that inequality is linked to the poor position of the UK and elsewhere."
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Pension snatcher Brown defied £5bn pensions warning
ED: So Cival servants arn't so stupid after all. How any honest person could maintain that snatching £5bn from the pension system would not have a seriously negative impact beggers belief. But don't worry Gordon and his mates' pensions are all gold plated so that they don't have to suffer like us prolitariate mugs.
Gordon Brown ignored repeated warnings that a tax raid on pension funds - one of his first moves in office - would cost savers billions of pounds a year.
Newly-released documents show that the Chancellor was told his money-raising scheme would hurt the poor and damage the savings industry.
The decision to scrap tax relief on dividends paid into retirement plans came in Mr Brown's first Budget in 1997, just weeks after Labour took power.
The move has been widely blamed for a crisis which has left huge shortfalls in pension pots and encouraged hundreds of firms to wind up their final-salary schemes.
The Chancellor has consistently denied that the pensions industry was harmed or that workers were left facing lower pension payments. As recently as Thursday he rejected accusations from MPs that he had blundered.
But documents that the Treasury was ordered to release under Freedom of Information rules reveal that back in 1997 senior officials were concerned at the impact of the tax grab.
"We agree that abolishing pension tax credits would make a big hole in pension scheme finances," they told Mr Brown.
The Treasury has fought for several years to prevent its advice to the Chancellor from being made public for fear that it would expose internal divisions.
A report from Terry Arthur, a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, warned last year the decision has cost pension savers at least £100billion. Other estimates make the losses even higher.
The papers, released late last night, show civil servants predicted the move would provoke "clamour and public consternation" and create "a big hole in pension scheme finances".
Mr Brown was told "there is therefore a very big uncertainty over the extent to which pension schemes could absorb the effect of the loss of tax credits".
The change would cost pension schemes between £3billion and £4billion a year and employers might have to contribute over £2billion a year more to keep them afloat, Mr Brown was advised.
He was told that money would need to be found to top up local authority schemes and that the value of pension funds could plunge immediately by £50billion.
The advice was also clear on who would be hardest hit: "The change would therefore lead to a reduction in pension benefits for the lower paid' while "those who are about to retire (or who have just retired) could be worst affected".
Some of the advice given to the Chancellor predicted the move could accelerate the closure of final salary pension schemes - something that has happened at an alarming rate since.
Ros Altman, a former adviser on pensions to Tony Blair, said: "They were knowingly embarking on the emasculation of the most successful pension system in the world.
"The Government came in with much hope that things would get better, then set about destroying the retirement security of so much of the population."
Mervyn Kohler of Help the Aged said: "This is staggering. There is a strong feeling among pensioners that they have been let down by this Government, and this information will only reinforce that perception."
Gordon Brown ignored repeated warnings that a tax raid on pension funds - one of his first moves in office - would cost savers billions of pounds a year.
Newly-released documents show that the Chancellor was told his money-raising scheme would hurt the poor and damage the savings industry.
The decision to scrap tax relief on dividends paid into retirement plans came in Mr Brown's first Budget in 1997, just weeks after Labour took power.
The move has been widely blamed for a crisis which has left huge shortfalls in pension pots and encouraged hundreds of firms to wind up their final-salary schemes.
The Chancellor has consistently denied that the pensions industry was harmed or that workers were left facing lower pension payments. As recently as Thursday he rejected accusations from MPs that he had blundered.
But documents that the Treasury was ordered to release under Freedom of Information rules reveal that back in 1997 senior officials were concerned at the impact of the tax grab.
"We agree that abolishing pension tax credits would make a big hole in pension scheme finances," they told Mr Brown.
The Treasury has fought for several years to prevent its advice to the Chancellor from being made public for fear that it would expose internal divisions.
A report from Terry Arthur, a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, warned last year the decision has cost pension savers at least £100billion. Other estimates make the losses even higher.
The papers, released late last night, show civil servants predicted the move would provoke "clamour and public consternation" and create "a big hole in pension scheme finances".
Mr Brown was told "there is therefore a very big uncertainty over the extent to which pension schemes could absorb the effect of the loss of tax credits".
The change would cost pension schemes between £3billion and £4billion a year and employers might have to contribute over £2billion a year more to keep them afloat, Mr Brown was advised.
He was told that money would need to be found to top up local authority schemes and that the value of pension funds could plunge immediately by £50billion.
The advice was also clear on who would be hardest hit: "The change would therefore lead to a reduction in pension benefits for the lower paid' while "those who are about to retire (or who have just retired) could be worst affected".
Some of the advice given to the Chancellor predicted the move could accelerate the closure of final salary pension schemes - something that has happened at an alarming rate since.
Ros Altman, a former adviser on pensions to Tony Blair, said: "They were knowingly embarking on the emasculation of the most successful pension system in the world.
"The Government came in with much hope that things would get better, then set about destroying the retirement security of so much of the population."
Mervyn Kohler of Help the Aged said: "This is staggering. There is a strong feeling among pensioners that they have been let down by this Government, and this information will only reinforce that perception."
New Labour friend gets to boss the BBC
Tania Branigan, political correspondent at The Guardian 31.03.07
(ED: Welcome to the Tony/Gordon British Broadcasting Corporation. At least I will be able to see England and The F.A. Cup without visiting the P.C. and self admitted anti-christian and anti-conservative so-called media organisation.)
The government's adviser on council tax reforms, Sir Michael Lyons, is expected to take over the chairmanship of the BBC, it has emerged.
The role vacated by Michael Grade's defection to ITV last year has proved surprisingly unpopular despite its £140,000 salary, with a string of high-profile potential contenders ruling themselves out.
But the BBC is expected to announce Sir Michael's appointment shortly, after a selection panel chaired by a senior civil servant picked him from a four-strong shortlist. He must be approved by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, and then by the Privy Council, which advises the Queen, before the prime minister rubber-stamps the decision.
His closest challenger is thought to have been Chris Powell, a director of advertising agency DDB London, who played an influential role in helping to create New Labour in the 90s and whose brother Jonathan is Tony Blair's chief of staff.
Whitehall insiders speculated that Sir Michael had benefited from Gordon Brown's backing. The chancellor commissioned him to carry out a root and branch review of local government finance, but kicked his proposals into the long grass when the three-year study was finally published earlier this month.
(ED: Welcome to the Tony/Gordon British Broadcasting Corporation. At least I will be able to see England and The F.A. Cup without visiting the P.C. and self admitted anti-christian and anti-conservative so-called media organisation.)
The government's adviser on council tax reforms, Sir Michael Lyons, is expected to take over the chairmanship of the BBC, it has emerged.
The role vacated by Michael Grade's defection to ITV last year has proved surprisingly unpopular despite its £140,000 salary, with a string of high-profile potential contenders ruling themselves out.
But the BBC is expected to announce Sir Michael's appointment shortly, after a selection panel chaired by a senior civil servant picked him from a four-strong shortlist. He must be approved by the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, and then by the Privy Council, which advises the Queen, before the prime minister rubber-stamps the decision.
His closest challenger is thought to have been Chris Powell, a director of advertising agency DDB London, who played an influential role in helping to create New Labour in the 90s and whose brother Jonathan is Tony Blair's chief of staff.
Whitehall insiders speculated that Sir Michael had benefited from Gordon Brown's backing. The chancellor commissioned him to carry out a root and branch review of local government finance, but kicked his proposals into the long grass when the three-year study was finally published earlier this month.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tony Blair spends 1billion on truancy and fails
Laura Clark at Daily Mail
Although ministers have spent £1billion trying to tackle truancy, figures show that almost a million children, aged 11 and over, dodged some of their lessons in the last school year.
Almost 220,000 "persistent absentees" miss the equivalent of nearly two days a week through truancy, illness or term-time holidays.
And the problem is much worse than previously thought. A new system of collecting data has found that truancy levels are 18 per cent higher than previous Government statistics showed. The difference amounts to an extra 7,000 skipping school every day.
Absence agreed by schools, including holidays taken during term and sick days, is also up.
The breakdown shows that almost 43,000 pupils a day skipped school in 2005/06 - against 36,200 under the old system for calculating absence, in the same year.
The old system of calculating truancy relied on averages compiled by schools once a year. The new data has been calculated by officials using raw information supplied by schools.
Even under that system, ministers had missed their targets on truancy. Their aim was to cut unauthorised absence by a third by 2002.
But they had to reduce their own target. The Government then said it wanted to cut truancy by ten per cent by 2004. But this did not happen either.
Truancy across primary and secondary schools rose to record levels last year. Although the new data so far covers only secondary schools, it is likely a similar trend of under-estimation will emerge at primary level.
Last year the Education Department said this Government had spent £885million on improving attendance and behaviour. The total is now thought to exceed £1billion.
It has been used for schemes such as town centre truancy sweeps, during which police and welfare staff question children found outside during school hours. Electronic registration systems have also been introduced. Meanwhile, Labour has introduced tougher sanctions against parents who condone truancy.
The Government has responded with another initiative - text message alerts for parents if children fail to turn up for registration.
Schools Minister Jim Knight said: "Parents have a critical role to play. We know from truancy sweeps that around half of all children caught out of school with no good reason are found with an adult."
(ED: So Big Big headlines about how Tony is going to sort out a terrible social evil, throw a lot of tax payers money at the problem, discovery that the problem is harder to sort out than all the alleged brains in New Labour thought it would be and then try to cover off the mess with a fatuous announcement. Seems like business as usual for Tony and New Labour.
Oh by the way Tony half the kids caught playing truant are with their parents so a text to the parents to tell them their child is not at school is even stupider than it first appears.)
Although ministers have spent £1billion trying to tackle truancy, figures show that almost a million children, aged 11 and over, dodged some of their lessons in the last school year.
Almost 220,000 "persistent absentees" miss the equivalent of nearly two days a week through truancy, illness or term-time holidays.
And the problem is much worse than previously thought. A new system of collecting data has found that truancy levels are 18 per cent higher than previous Government statistics showed. The difference amounts to an extra 7,000 skipping school every day.
Absence agreed by schools, including holidays taken during term and sick days, is also up.
The breakdown shows that almost 43,000 pupils a day skipped school in 2005/06 - against 36,200 under the old system for calculating absence, in the same year.
The old system of calculating truancy relied on averages compiled by schools once a year. The new data has been calculated by officials using raw information supplied by schools.
Even under that system, ministers had missed their targets on truancy. Their aim was to cut unauthorised absence by a third by 2002.
But they had to reduce their own target. The Government then said it wanted to cut truancy by ten per cent by 2004. But this did not happen either.
Truancy across primary and secondary schools rose to record levels last year. Although the new data so far covers only secondary schools, it is likely a similar trend of under-estimation will emerge at primary level.
Last year the Education Department said this Government had spent £885million on improving attendance and behaviour. The total is now thought to exceed £1billion.
It has been used for schemes such as town centre truancy sweeps, during which police and welfare staff question children found outside during school hours. Electronic registration systems have also been introduced. Meanwhile, Labour has introduced tougher sanctions against parents who condone truancy.
The Government has responded with another initiative - text message alerts for parents if children fail to turn up for registration.
Schools Minister Jim Knight said: "Parents have a critical role to play. We know from truancy sweeps that around half of all children caught out of school with no good reason are found with an adult."
(ED: So Big Big headlines about how Tony is going to sort out a terrible social evil, throw a lot of tax payers money at the problem, discovery that the problem is harder to sort out than all the alleged brains in New Labour thought it would be and then try to cover off the mess with a fatuous announcement. Seems like business as usual for Tony and New Labour.
Oh by the way Tony half the kids caught playing truant are with their parents so a text to the parents to tell them their child is not at school is even stupider than it first appears.)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
UK children living in poverty increases
Figures showing a 200,000 rise in UK children living in relative poverty last year have been described as a "moral disgrace" by Barnardo's.
The children's charity said ministers were a long way from honouring a pledge to halve child poverty by 2010.
In 2005-6 3.8m children were in poverty - in homes on less than 60% of average income including housing costs.
In the previous year the number of children living in relative poverty with housing costs taken into account was 3.6m.
With housing costs not deducted from incomes the number of children living below the relative poverty line was 2.8m, up from 2.7m in the year before.
The increases are the first recorded in six years; since 1998/99, 600,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty.
But to reach their stated targets, ministers must now help lift a further 1.1 million children above the poverty line by 2010 - or 1.6 million after housing costs are included.
Barnardo's chief executive Martin Narey said: "This is a moral disgrace. In 1999, we were all excited by the Government's determination to eradicate child poverty and, on the way, to halve it by 2010.
"It is now clear that what they meant was that they intended, not to halve child poverty by 2010, but to reduce it a bit."
Tony Blair's government hopes the launch of a new £150m child poverty strategy, which includes a programme to get parents into employment, will help hit its target.
Save the Children's UK director Colette Marshall said: "This vital target is slipping dangerously out of reach.
"It is only too clear that Gordon Brown's Budget announcements last week will not be enough to get the government back on track.
"We must now see a sense of urgency from the government to make the target achievable."
The children's charity said ministers were a long way from honouring a pledge to halve child poverty by 2010.
In 2005-6 3.8m children were in poverty - in homes on less than 60% of average income including housing costs.
In the previous year the number of children living in relative poverty with housing costs taken into account was 3.6m.
With housing costs not deducted from incomes the number of children living below the relative poverty line was 2.8m, up from 2.7m in the year before.
The increases are the first recorded in six years; since 1998/99, 600,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty.
But to reach their stated targets, ministers must now help lift a further 1.1 million children above the poverty line by 2010 - or 1.6 million after housing costs are included.
Barnardo's chief executive Martin Narey said: "This is a moral disgrace. In 1999, we were all excited by the Government's determination to eradicate child poverty and, on the way, to halve it by 2010.
"It is now clear that what they meant was that they intended, not to halve child poverty by 2010, but to reduce it a bit."
Tony Blair's government hopes the launch of a new £150m child poverty strategy, which includes a programme to get parents into employment, will help hit its target.
Save the Children's UK director Colette Marshall said: "This vital target is slipping dangerously out of reach.
"It is only too clear that Gordon Brown's Budget announcements last week will not be enough to get the government back on track.
"We must now see a sense of urgency from the government to make the target achievable."
Tony Blair: 'failed on sleaze'
Joe Murphy, Evening Standard 27.03.07
The "sacked" sleaze watchdog Sir Alistair Graham today accused Tony Blair of failing to clean up politics.
In his final report as chairman of the committee of standards in public life, he said the Prime Minister had not lived up to New Labour's rhetoric of being "purer than pure".
He said his "greatest regret" was that Mr Blair had not made high ethical standards a priority - with the result that public faith in the country's political leadership had been damaged.
Alistair leaves his post next month after Mr Blair refused to reappoint him for a further term, effectively sacking him.
and at times plain-spoken. Given the circumstances I have faced, I make no apologies for this."
The "sacked" sleaze watchdog Sir Alistair Graham today accused Tony Blair of failing to clean up politics.
In his final report as chairman of the committee of standards in public life, he said the Prime Minister had not lived up to New Labour's rhetoric of being "purer than pure".
He said his "greatest regret" was that Mr Blair had not made high ethical standards a priority - with the result that public faith in the country's political leadership had been damaged.
Alistair leaves his post next month after Mr Blair refused to reappoint him for a further term, effectively sacking him.
and at times plain-spoken. Given the circumstances I have faced, I make no apologies for this."
UK failing as more babies born with dangerously low weights
More babies are born at dangerously low birth weights in Britain now than in 1989, a report says.
The study was carried out by the Fabian Society, a left-leaning think-tank, which called the finding a "scar on the national conscience".
It calls for more financial support for at-risk women, better access to antenatal services and one-to-one care for all newborns in intensive care.
The researchers found that in 2006, 78 out of every 1,000 babies were born weighing less than 5lb8oz (2.5kg). That amounted to a total of more than 50,000 babies.
In 1989, 67 out of every 1,000 babies were born under weight.
Low-birth weight is linked to an increased risk death and disability, and a range of long-term health problems, such as diabetes, heart disease, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and depression.
The report also found lone parents were nine times as likely to have a stillbirth as other parents.
Babies born to working-class mothers were twice as likely to die before their first birthday as those with middle-class parents.
"The facts should shock us all. Britain has the worst rate of every country in western Europe, except Greece.
"And being born very small creates health risks throughout life - and will affect the health of babies they will themselves have years later."
Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman said: "We have made important progress since 1997 on reducing child poverty and creating the early years agenda.
"We must now be bolder and develop the new policies to make building a fairer society the central theme of Labour's next term in office.
"The Fabian Society's evidence on inequalities at birth must be studied carefully by government and the Labour party. The political argument will need to be won too."
The study was carried out by the Fabian Society, a left-leaning think-tank, which called the finding a "scar on the national conscience".
It calls for more financial support for at-risk women, better access to antenatal services and one-to-one care for all newborns in intensive care.
The researchers found that in 2006, 78 out of every 1,000 babies were born weighing less than 5lb8oz (2.5kg). That amounted to a total of more than 50,000 babies.
In 1989, 67 out of every 1,000 babies were born under weight.
Low-birth weight is linked to an increased risk death and disability, and a range of long-term health problems, such as diabetes, heart disease, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and depression.
The report also found lone parents were nine times as likely to have a stillbirth as other parents.
Babies born to working-class mothers were twice as likely to die before their first birthday as those with middle-class parents.
"The facts should shock us all. Britain has the worst rate of every country in western Europe, except Greece.
"And being born very small creates health risks throughout life - and will affect the health of babies they will themselves have years later."
Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman said: "We have made important progress since 1997 on reducing child poverty and creating the early years agenda.
"We must now be bolder and develop the new policies to make building a fairer society the central theme of Labour's next term in office.
"The Fabian Society's evidence on inequalities at birth must be studied carefully by government and the Labour party. The political argument will need to be won too."
Monday, March 26, 2007
601,000 Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'
Owen Bennett-Jones - BBC World Service
The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire. The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.
But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".
Another statistician agreed the method was "tried and tested".
The Iraq government asks the country's hospitals to report the number of victims of terrorism or military action.
Critics say the system was not started until well after the invasion and requires over-pressed hospital staff not only to report daily, but also to distinguish between victims of terrorism and of crime.
The Lancet medical journal published its peer-reviewed survey last October. It was conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health and compared mortality rates before and after the invasion by surveying 47 randomly chosen areas across 16 provinces in Iraq.
The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people.
In nearly 92% of cases family members produced death certificates to support their answers. The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire.
Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair's official spokesperson said the Lancet's figure was not anywhere near accurate.
He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole.
One of the documents just released by the Foreign Office is an e-mail in which an official asks about the Lancet report: "Are we really sure the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies."
The reply from another official is: "We do not accept the figures quoted in the Lancet survey as accurate. "
In the same e-mail the official later writes: "However, the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones."
Asked how the government can accept the Lancet's methodology but reject its findings, the government has issued a written statement in which it said: "The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic republic of Congo.
"However, the Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources, which only goes to show how estimates can vary enormously according to the method of collection.
"There is considerable debate amongst the scientific community over the accuracy of the figures."
If the Lancet survey is right, then 2.5% of the Iraqi population - an average of more than 500 people a day - have been killed since the start of the war.
(ED: I know who I would believe.)
The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire. The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.
But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".
Another statistician agreed the method was "tried and tested".
The Iraq government asks the country's hospitals to report the number of victims of terrorism or military action.
Critics say the system was not started until well after the invasion and requires over-pressed hospital staff not only to report daily, but also to distinguish between victims of terrorism and of crime.
The Lancet medical journal published its peer-reviewed survey last October. It was conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health and compared mortality rates before and after the invasion by surveying 47 randomly chosen areas across 16 provinces in Iraq.
The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people.
In nearly 92% of cases family members produced death certificates to support their answers. The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire.
Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair's official spokesperson said the Lancet's figure was not anywhere near accurate.
He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole.
One of the documents just released by the Foreign Office is an e-mail in which an official asks about the Lancet report: "Are we really sure the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies."
The reply from another official is: "We do not accept the figures quoted in the Lancet survey as accurate. "
In the same e-mail the official later writes: "However, the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones."
Asked how the government can accept the Lancet's methodology but reject its findings, the government has issued a written statement in which it said: "The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic republic of Congo.
"However, the Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources, which only goes to show how estimates can vary enormously according to the method of collection.
"There is considerable debate amongst the scientific community over the accuracy of the figures."
If the Lancet survey is right, then 2.5% of the Iraqi population - an average of more than 500 people a day - have been killed since the start of the war.
(ED: I know who I would believe.)
Cabinet minister Kelly loses private education complaint
Cabinet minister Ruth Kelly has lost her complaint against the Daily Mirror, over its coverage of her decision to educate her son privately.
The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) rejected her complaint that the story had breached her son's privacy.
The former education secretary decided to send him to a private school because of his learning difficulties.
The PCC said the Mirror had correctly balanced the public's right to know with the child's right to privacy.
In its ruling, the PCC said the issues raised in the article were "a matter of considerable public interest".
The fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling
PCC ruling
"The fact that a Cabinet minister - who had previously been Secretary of State for Education and Skills - had elected to remove her child from the state system to be enrolled in a private school raised important issues for public debate," it said.
"Even if government policy included an acceptance of private schooling for those with special needs, the fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling and its ability to cater for children with special needs - including those whose families would not be able to pay for private schooling."
A spokeswoman for Ms Kelly said she was very disappointed with the decision and she believed the PCC should have granted the same right of privacy to her child, that it does to others.
The story - that a Cabinet minister had sent their child to a private school - was first reported, without names, in the Mail on Sunday.
Ms Kelly, now the Communities Secretary, was named in the Mirror's story the next day, although her child was not. The issue of private education has long been controversial within the Labour Party.
Mirror editor Richard Wallace argued that it was "right and proper" to identify her, as her actions "were clearly at odds with government policy".
(ED: I am just glad that a socialist representative of the people can afford £15k a year private school fees, on top of the normal costs of supports four children, and opt out of her government's education decisions. It's a shame that most people she represents can't afford to opt out but that's New Labour socialism do as we say not as we do.)
The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) rejected her complaint that the story had breached her son's privacy.
The former education secretary decided to send him to a private school because of his learning difficulties.
The PCC said the Mirror had correctly balanced the public's right to know with the child's right to privacy.
In its ruling, the PCC said the issues raised in the article were "a matter of considerable public interest".
The fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling
PCC ruling
"The fact that a Cabinet minister - who had previously been Secretary of State for Education and Skills - had elected to remove her child from the state system to be enrolled in a private school raised important issues for public debate," it said.
"Even if government policy included an acceptance of private schooling for those with special needs, the fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling and its ability to cater for children with special needs - including those whose families would not be able to pay for private schooling."
A spokeswoman for Ms Kelly said she was very disappointed with the decision and she believed the PCC should have granted the same right of privacy to her child, that it does to others.
The story - that a Cabinet minister had sent their child to a private school - was first reported, without names, in the Mail on Sunday.
Ms Kelly, now the Communities Secretary, was named in the Mirror's story the next day, although her child was not. The issue of private education has long been controversial within the Labour Party.
Mirror editor Richard Wallace argued that it was "right and proper" to identify her, as her actions "were clearly at odds with government policy".
(ED: I am just glad that a socialist representative of the people can afford £15k a year private school fees, on top of the normal costs of supports four children, and opt out of her government's education decisions. It's a shame that most people she represents can't afford to opt out but that's New Labour socialism do as we say not as we do.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)