Liverpool v Man Utd Live England FA Cup Streams and TV ChannelsIf you are good soccer fan of the team, they will meet at game live on tv, this sport light present available online and feed. What a nice idea if you are a over busy man, cannot follow because you far way from your tv, don't vex you can visit it live by survey the watch-button yell.

LIVERPOOL VS MANCHESTER LIVE

FA Cup Liverpool vs Manchester United, enjoy Liverpool vs Manchester United, Liverpool vs Manchester United English FA Cup, English FA Cup, FA Cup live Free Online,Free Stream,Free Watch,live broadcast,Live Online,live p2p,live sopcast,Live Stream,live tv,Live Watch,Online Tv

Liverpool vs Manchester United live,Free Liverpool vs Manchester United, watch Liverpool vs Manchester United, FA Cup Liverpool vs Manchester United, enjoy Liverpool vs Manchester United, Liverpool vs Manchester United English FA Cup, English FA Cup, FA Cup live Free Online,Free Stream,Free Watch,live broadcast,Live Online,live p2p,live sopcast,Live Stream,live tv,Live Watch,Online Tv

Once you think of applying for loans you should think about the credit score as it is very important. Many borrowers due to less than perfect credit scores are not capable to right to use loans of specific concerns while not being able to sort their vital instant economic issues. But worry not as today there are loans that find a way around this criteria while approvals on loan applicants. One such excellent loan is 12 month loans for bad credit that provide instant immediate cash solutions without considering the credit histories.

When we apply for loan we think of better and decent interest. For assuring these aspects they check credits and payday loans no faxing of their loan applicants. The better the credit scores will be the lower the interests rates are while assuring timely payback of cash repayments. But maintaining a good one of this is not at all an easy task. This is one of the main facts why many borrowers today are not capable to access and apply specific loans.

The best thing about our services are that you can surely get the cash through us irrespective of their past credit histories. Instant payday loans under these loans the credit checks are find a way around while allowing bad holders to benefit from this specific loan. Also, under these issues such as bankruptcy, late payments, arrears, defaults, bankruptcies, CCJs and even IVAs also don't stand as obstruction in the borrower's path. Besides, the collateral issues have also been knocking down under these loans. Hence, even tenants and non homeowners can directly benefit from this loan as there is no requirement of pledging any valuables against the money being borrowed.

Now you are thinking that how to apply for these loans and we are here to tell you that applying for them are very easy and simple. The query asked are prescribed that auxiliary paves the path for rapid verifications and approvals. Once approved borrowers are provided cash directly into their bank accounts within the shortest possible time frames. This online manner of loan application is also very safe and sound since here no private data is ever shared with any third sources. Further, there are no issues with the cash received under 12 month loans for bad credit. As such, these loans can be used for satisfying any expense under concern.

If you are worried about any bad credit then come to us and apply. You can check online for various lenders in UK.

Moon Thomas is a good writer and financial adviser on the loan related issues. You can seek his advises about any financial issues. Get more quality information about 12 month loans for bad credit and payday loans no faxing.

Each man goes on the internet now as of late comes in get in touch with with Penis Enlargement advertisements enticing greater penis size instantaneously. I am aware for a actuality bring about I have purchased many of the solutions advertised on-line and from the good marketing I thought the wish present in the head of every man for a larger penis would come real. They do have some genuine purely natural penis enlargement items available that do operate. However what I realized was you really need to separate the superior from the bad and not be enticed by the hype for penis enlargement products that don't get the job done. You definitely need to do research to essentially obtain the items to determine which ones perform along with the other folks which have been out just to get your dollars.

You'll find four locations you must search at when deciding upon the best penis enlargement products to select. By looking at these four guidelines you might be capable to avoid getting ripped off online and uncover the best products.

Criteria For Picking out The Major Penis Enlargement Solutions

one. Excellent of Ingredients – Analyze the different solutions, and examined the potency and quantity of each method. That is to make sure that the penis enlargement merchandise aren't manufactured from low cost resources that only provide minimal outcomes.

2. User Benefits – Collect reviews and testimonials from shoppers of these penis enlargement products to determine how effectively they really operate. See which had the highest satisfaction rate while in the industry, along with the most good user results.

This press release is submitted by Penis Enlargement which is the number one company for Penis Enlargement Products in USA.

As a curious mother, there are several items look out for the way your youngster is treated, but will assist you to see whether whomever taking good care of him or her is who you want, if you're not, you merely change. This nanny cam will arm you with plenty of time to instruct your son or daughter care provider with the items, when, where and how of the child's needs. Never give up you need to know is that your child over stays in wet diapers, is fed late or otherwise not at all, plays a lot and many others.

When you purchase to never condone negligence then your best step you should decide to use support the child care should be to secure and use a nanny cam. By way of example, should the baby takes ill, diagnosing should help be aware of the root cause of what he is afflicted with, or else, the nanny cam is able to prevent him for falling sick in any way since he is under your watch continually. You can now earn extra money just as one adult webcam entertainer. There is no need to become particularly young, slim or maybe great-looking. The only prerequisites you need to get involved really are a a sense of fun and adventure, a high-speed connection to the internet along with a webcam.
A webcam is actually a device that enables you to transmit streaming video of you to ultimately another computer. Maybe you have already got one. For adult entertainment, you may need a top quality camera as opposed to a basic, cheap one that might transmit dark or grainy images. Using this kind of work, you're going to be making profits speaking to people and entertaining them with the streaming video of yourself. It's completely your choice what you do. Some webcam models simply want to chat and flirt a little and the like are happy to provide a great deal more.
Realistically, whatever you earn relies on the level of work you spend, as you are decide when to work. Working eight hours a day is going to earn over working a couple of hours a day. Also, the greater a person looks and act has a touching on your pay. There is a promote for all sorts of looks considering will offer something more important (maybe Goth, cuddly, costumes or some different) you will get even more of followers.
Rates vary although the pay is nearly always on a for each minute basis so that you usually get between two and $ 5 for each minute. Before getting too excited, it is very important understand that you just earn income for your minutes that you are actually performing for the camera, if you decide to use a 30 minute gap between customers you simply won't earn anything in that time. Adult webcam efforts are not for everybody. For anyone who is shy about showing your whole body or flirting next kind of job might not exactly interest you. In case you are outgoing and adventurous it might be ideal.

If you register by using a webcam company you will usually should send a graphic of your face along with a copy of your respective passport to prove that you're over eighteen. You possibly can prepare this info at home and send it via fax or scanner and email at an internet café if you do not gain access to a fax or scanner. Webcam entertainment work can be quite a wide range of fun and financially rewarding if you're confident and outgoing enough to experience the knowledge. Whether you just want to come up with a little more once a week or complete a regular living from this, that is definitely employment which is worth investigating further sex employment.

• The Dilemma of Being a Cyborg - NYTimes.com

  The Dilemma of Being a Cyborg

• The Cost of Doing Business: Foxconn, Apple and the Fate of the Modern Worker

  The Cost of Doing Business: Foxconn, Apple and the Fate of the Modern Worker

• Angoulême 2012: Friday | The Comics Journal

• The Ti Mosieko Interview: Transmedia and Mermaids of the Chicago River | The Alphaville Herald

  Ti Mosieko Interview: Transmedia and Mermaids of the Chicago River

• The Dance Of Life: The Elf Knight & The Faerie Queene

  The Elf Knight & The Faerie Queene

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Row erupts after prime minister claims that MPs had no choice but to agree to RBS head's bonus are challenged by Labour

David Cameron was under fire for failing to intervene to block a bonus of nearly £1m for Royal Bank of Scotland's chief executive, Stephen Hester, and for allegedly misleading parliament after he blamed Labour for negotiating a contract that prevented the government from intervening.

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, speaking in Davos, piled the pressure on the prime minister by describing the bonus as "absolutely bewildering". Labour called on Cameron to appear before MPs to explain why he did nothing to block the bonus.

The row erupted on Friday morning when Lord Myners, the former Labour Treasury minister who negotiated the contracts with the new state-controlled banks, challenged the prime minister's claim that ministers had no choice but to agree to the Hester bonus, announced in the same week that the coalition announced proposals to hand shareholders more power to block pay deals.

"There is nothing in the employment contract of Stephen Hester or any director of Royal Bank of Scotland which binds the company or its remuneration committee to pay a mandatory bonus," Myners said. "All matters relating to bonuses are at the full discretion of the board of directors and the shareholders, including UKFI, who have elected them."

The prime minister, who indicated in recent weeks that Hester's bonus would be less than £1m, said the government had little room for manoeuvre because of the contract negotiated by the last government. The bonus is in shares, which rose to £981,000 last night - up from the £963,000 they were valued at by the bank in its announcement late on Thursday. The exact value will be determined in 2014 when he finally receives them while a three-year bonus he was handed in shares shortly after he joined in October 2008 - worth £6.4m - has now been deemed worthless by the bank.

Downing Street said that Hester's contract meant that he had to be considered for a bonus in "good faith". But the prime minister's spokesman admitted that a bonus was not mandatory and that the government, through UK Financial Investments, could have blocked it.

The spokesman said: "The contract says that he should be considered for bonus in good faith. That decision is taken by the board. Yes, shareholders have a role in that. UKFI, as the government's shareholder, takes a very active interest. But we are not the only shareholder in that company ... The board is required to act in the interests of all its shareholders and the board takes this decision."

Downing Street admitted that Cameron was not relaxed by the bonus but said that Hester has reduced the RBS balance sheet by £0.5tn and has increased business lending in the last year.

But George Osborne, the chancellor, defended the bonus after a speech in Davos - but also distanced the government from the decision. "I would bet his bonus will be a lot less than the bonuses of other people running banks are going to get and half of what he got last year."

Bob Diamond, chief executive of Barclays - who was also in Davos, speaking at an event on "building trust" - refused to talk specifically about Hester's bonus, but commented: "If we don't celebrate reward for success we won't have an economy."

Diamond declined to comment on the scale of his own bonus, which could be in the region of £10m.

Osborne added: "The alternatives [to the Hester payout] would have been worse for the taxpayer. Either there would have been a much larger bonus, of the kind he would have got a few years ago. Or the British government would have had to take over complete ownership of RBS and over-ruled the board, and I think that would have cost the taxpayer more as well."

His comments did not appease critics. Ed Miliband, also in Davos, described it as a " disgraceful failure of leadership" by the prime minister. "He owns, through the British government, 83% of the Royal Bank of Scotland. He must now explain, not least to the British people, why he has allowed this to happen."

Labour sought to increase the pressure on the government by writing to the prime minister to ask him to set out to MPs why he said he was bound by a contract which is flexible.

Simon Danczuk, a Labour MP, said in the letter: " I trust you will want to come to the house to explain why you previously told the house that you did not have any such power, as well as to explain why your government has decided, in its role as the majority shareholder in RBS, to approve a bonus to Stephen Hester worth almost £1m."

The TUC's general secretary, Brendan Barber, also in Davos, described the decision to hand Hester a bonus as terrible. "The government might have been able to subcontract the decision [to UK Financial Investments] but they can't sidestep the responsibility." Already doubful that government plans to hand shareholders new powers to tackle high pay would be effective, Barber said: "The government through their stakes in the banks had the possibility of sending the signal. They've really bottled the decision".

It is not clear whether John Hourican, head of the RBS investment bank or Ellen Alemany, head of the US bank, will receive their bonuses this year.

o Cameron 'not doing enough to tackle racial prejudice'
o Murdered boy's brother stopped and searched 20 times
o Trust set up to help deprived youth has money problems

Doreen Lawrence has said David Cameron's government is not doing enough to tackle racial prejudice, which continues to blight society, and has warned that spending cuts will hit working-class and black Britons the hardest.

In a Guardian interview, Lawrence says the government has huge powers to make a difference in leading the fight against racism, but says: "I've not heard them talk about race."

Earlier this month her 18-year battle for justice saw Gary Dobson and David Norris convicted of the 1993 racist murder of her son Stephen by a white gang in south London. The murder led to a public inquiry that exposed police failings and prejudice in the ranks and in wider society.

In the interview, she reveals:

o While the police were failing to catch her son's murderers, they managed to stop his brother 20 times as a criminal suspect.

o Police also managed to stop Mrs Lawrence the year after the murder and told her she was suspected of driving a stolen car. She says continuing racist stereotyping by officers explains why African-Caribbeans are more likely to be stopped.

o She was told she should be "ashamed to show our faces" by a police employee, during a visit to Scotland Yard in 2009 to discuss her son's murder.

o The trust she set up in Stephen's name to help youngsters from deprived backgrounds to realise their ambitions is in financial trouble.

Lawrence criticises the government's record on race, saying they are squandering the opportunity to restart the war against prejudice presented by the conviction of two men for her son's murder.

She says the convictions have at least temporarily put the battle against racial discrimination back on the agenda, after years of the fight having stalled. "There is a lot they can do. People take their lead from the government. If the prime minister said 'this is what I'd like to see happen in our society' ... people will try to work towards that. At the moment, I'm not sure exactly what they are doing around race."

Cameron has tried to cleanse the Tories of their "nasty party" image, but the criticism from one of the leading black figures in Britain raises questions about that. Cameron, Lawrence says, was wrong to attack multiculturalism in a speech last year. "Sometimes people misinterpret what the word means," she says.

Recalling longstanding Conservative hostility - the party opposed the setting up of the Macpherson inquiry, and attacked its findings - she notes some top Tories have changed their tune, such as Boris Johnson, who once attacked the Macpherson reforms but of whom she quips: "He's changed completely. He's my best friend now."

She says she regrets that after the guilty verdicts no minister sent a letter "in recognition of what has been denied for so long". Her surviving son, Stuart, said: "David Cameron has not sent my mum a letter saying sorry it has taken so long. It shows the stance of the Conservative government. I don't think they care at all."

Mrs Lawrence said the government may be preoccupied with the economy, but warned that spending cuts would hurt those who have least. "It is the working class and black people who are going to suffer the most - they are at the bottom of the ladder."

She said some of the reforms proposed by Macpherson had made Britain less racially prejudiced, but much more could have been done: "It's like a missed opportunity. For so long the perception is we've dealt with race, so we can move on. Under the surface they have not dealt with race - it is still there."

People suffering discrimination contact Mrs Lawrence for help - "families feel there is a lot of discrimination happening" - and she believes black Britons have to be four times better than their white counterparts to get as far. Stop and search, which she says police use disproportionately against African-Caribbeans, "has a great effect on their lives" and racist stereotyping is to blame: "Because in their mindset they still believe that they are criminals."

Despite the fact that the Lawrences have been praised by prime ministers and police chiefs as a model law-abiding family, Mrs Lawrence, Stuart and her former husband, Neville, have all been stopped under stop-and-search powers. Stuart has been stopped more than 20 times: "He will be on the phone saying 'mum I can't believe they have stopped me again'."

Once, after she complained, a police chief suggested an officer who had stopped Stuart should meet him and discuss why. The officer refused to do so. Stuart said: "There is no reason I can give, other than I am a young black man, who usually wears a baseball cap in my car, which is my God-given right." Asked if it is possible police were targeting her son because of any suggestion of criminality, she said: "He's a teacher for goodness sake."

Mrs Lawrence reveals she was stopped in 1994, a year after Stephen's murder, by police who first said she might have been drinking. When she pressed them to breathalyse her, they suggested she had been driving erractically, then that it was possible she was driving a stolen car.

She says the police were wrong to claim they were no longer institutionally racist, as Macpherson had found, and said in September 2009, on a visit to Scotland Yard, one staff member had said "we should be ashamed to show our face in the building".

The Metropolitan police said: "The incident that Mrs Lawrence referred to was completely unacceptable and the individual was immediately dealt with by their line manager." The force added it is "immeasurably different to 1993" and that the Lawrence case had "contributed to major changes within policing".

Lawrence described Norris and Dobson as "pure evil". Asked if she, a churchgoing Christian, could see herself forgiving the racists who killed her son, she said: "You can only forgive somebody, something, who asks for forgiveness, who admits their wrongs and they have never done that."

She believes there is very little chance of the other men suspected of her son's murder standing trial. She will now focus her efforts on the Stephen Lawrence trust which gives young people opportunities.

She met Cameron once, when he was in opposition: he came to a memorial service to mark the 15th anniversary of Stephen's death. Cameron and Nick Clegg sent a letter in support of a fundraising dinner for the trust, and the home secretary had visited its south London base, which Lawrence appreciated.

A Downing Street spokesperson said the PM admired Lawrence for her "great bravery" and her family's "tireless fight for justice" and added: "He also recently made clear that he believes that although things have changed for the better, there is still a problem with racism in this country and more work to be done to tackle it."

No 10 added that "a new action plan to tackle hate crime" would be unveiled soon, building on "one of the strongest legislative frameworks anywhere in the world", as would "a new approach to the integration of local communities".

Lawrence said the trust was facing a cash crisis and needs to plug a £150,000 shortfall by the end of March.

o Donations to the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust can be given:

o By credit card or paypal at the trust's JustGiving web page click here justgiving.com/slct/donate

o By texting SLCT18 followed by the £ symbol, then the amount to 70070

o By bank deposit to the following account: sort code 30-94-08 account number 02963035

o By cheque, made payable to Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust and sent to 39 Brookmill Road, Deptford, London SE8 4HU.

Row erupts after prime minister claims that MPs had no choice but to agree to Stephen Hester's bonus are challenged by Labour

If Scots vote for independence, England's political will would shape that of the UK even more decisively

Alex Salmond's plans for a Scottish independence referendum in 2014 are concentrating minds on the future shape of the United Kingdom. If Scots vote yes, the country they leave will consist of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. England, currently with 84% of the UK population, would then have 92%, Wales 5% and Northern Ireland 3%. England's share of the seats in the Westminster parliament would rise in proportion; its dominance, already great, would become even greater, so that the political will of England would shape that of the UK even more decisively. Wales and Northern Ireland might object to this and seek greater autonomy, or perhaps even independence. Yet if Scots vote no, England's continuing dominance would still be an issue, especially if Scots vote for a home rule alternative (the so called "devo max"), which would make the anomaly of Scottish MPs at Westminster even greater. Whatever the outcome, the constitutional relationship between the UK home nations is thus likely to change. If the union between them is to be preserved, now is the time to consider the deeper entrenchment of the nations within the UK parliament proposed by Welsh first minister Carwyn Jones. That could mean scrapping the House of Lords altogether and creating a federal upper house, with equal representation for the four home nations, and the House of Commons becoming an English parliament on an equal footing with home rule parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Celebrated architect Richard Rogers and his partners discuss £140m penthouses, John Prescott's ministerial 'flair' and Prince Charles's strange ideas about architecture

Richard Rogers, at 78, is not about to slow down. "I am enjoying myself, so why would I retire?" says the architect of the Pompidou Centre and the Lloyd's of London building. "I'd like to think I'll be learning a new language or something when I die."

But even a master builder can't go on for ever, which is why Richard Rogers Partnership discreetly changed its name, some five years ago, to Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners. "We wanted," explains Rogers, "to avoid the situation where the name of the practice is someone who died 100 years ago. Architecture is a living thing. If I want to leave something to the future, it has to be able to change - but retain something of the ethos that we built up over 50 years."

Graham Stirk and Ivan Harbour are here today too, flanking Rogers protectively like affectionate, respectful and, just occasionally, faintly exasperated sons. (If Rogers is known for running his practice like a family, he is also famous among those who know him for a close and warm family life - one into which tragedy came late last year with the unexpected death of one of his sons, Bo.)

Leeds-raised Stirk, 54, is trim and wiry, with a narrow tie, dark suit and spiky hair; he is softly spoken and emphatic. Harbour, 49, is a rangily tall redhead, brought up in the West Country, with an easy grin and friendly manner. Between them is Rogers, whose get-up - turquoise shirt, orange sweater and splendid, canary-coloured socks - reminds me of Madrid airport's brightly coloured Terminal 4, for which Harbour was lead architect, winning the practice the 2006 Stirling prize.

At the moment Harbour is involved in planning Barangaroo, a former container port in Sydney - the biggest piece of city-making the practice has ever undertaken. Stirk, meanwhile, is working on the new exhibition and conservation centre for the British Museum; he also designed the Knightsbridge residential complex One Hyde Park, infamous for its £140m penthouse, thought to be the most expensive apartment ever put on sale. According to Harbour, their emergence as key figures in the firm is not a revolution. "Between Graham and myself, we have put in 55 years at the practice, so we are not new at it. It's an evolution."

Could a practised eye, I wonder, tell a Stirk from a Harbour building? "I hope not," says Harbour. (Though in fact, one might contend that Stirk buildings - such as the Leadenhall Building in the City of London, and Neo Bankside, a new apartment block next to Tate Modern - tend to be somewhat orthogonal; Harbour's buildings, such as Madrid airport, more expressive and sculptural.) This self-effacing attitude to individual style comes in part from that ethos Rogers mentions. The practice is run on idealistic principles; it has a manifesto that asserts the architects' responsibility towards "contributing to the welfare of mankind, the society in which we practise and the team with whom we work". (It is a moot point, of course, whether the creation of a building containing a £140m penthouse contributes to the welfare of society, a point to which we shall return.) Each Monday morning the staff gather for a discussion of current projects, in which everyone from the highest to the lowest can express views - along the lines of an art-school "group crit" session. There is a profit-share system, and the salaries of the directors cannot rise above a certain proportion of the lowest paid in the firm.

Rogers starts waxing lyrical about the profit-share scheme in answer to a question I put to Harbour about why he has never left the practice, which he joined as an architecture graduate in 1985 "to help out on the Lloyd's building for a couple of months". (Stirk joined in 1983, also cutting his teeth on Lloyd's, which was in December accorded Grade I listed status.) After listening patiently for a little bit, Harbour says: "Actually Richard, that's not the primary reason I am still here. The primary reason I am still here is ... every Monday morning it is exciting to come into work because you never quite know what's going to happen, and the debate about architecture and the enthusiasm of the people here is infectious. Richard has been fantastic at encouraging us. I have always felt I can go anywhere within the practice, and I am more excited about tomorrow than yesterday. It's the intellectual environment that I have enjoyed. When I was at college I learned about learning. Here I learned about architecture." He suddenly gets modest. "Of course I know very little about architecture, and the older I get the less I know." He makes it sound a little cultish, as the passion burns in his voice.

Rogers tells me that "architecture is about public space held by buildings"; and civic space, both metaphorical and physical, and the architecture that holds it together, is the subject of a lecture the three are giving at the Royal Institute of British Architects on Tuesday. They gesture toward the public square outside the office, on the banks of the Thames near Hammersmith Bridge in London, to illustrate what they mean. (Beside it is the famous restaurant, the River Cafe, run by Rogers' wife, Ruth.) It is privately owned land; but the architects take the view that it adds to the sum of human happiness if they don't lock it off from passersby. And that, in microcosm, is Stirk's argument about One Hyde Park. The important thing, he says, is what they didn't do: "We could have slapped up 12 storeys hard against Knightsbridge, and held the line of the street," he says. Instead, they built a series of pavilion-like structures at right angles to Knightsbridge, allowing passersby to glimpse Hyde Park between the buildings as they wander past.

According to Stirk: "We replaced one big slab building that was impermeable. The notion was to say: this is not a citadel. There are retail areas and garden areas at the base of the building. At least people can sit down on extended pavements; there is an area now where people can congregate and breathe." In short, whatever absurdities prevail upstairs, at street level it is still a better public environment than before.

The idea of the city has preoccupied much of Rogers' life as an architect and, in later years, a politician. He was chairman of the Urban Taskforce from 1998-2005, championing high-density cities; brownfield not greenfield for building. The taskforce was appointed by then deputy prime minister John Prescott, about whom Rogers has nothing but good to say. "Contrary to what everyone believed, I thought Prescott was a good minister, because he concentrated, and stuck around, and had a certain flair. It was a very important part of my life." The question of "how one builds at the density required of a city centre, and still achieves the right feel at the street scale", as Harbour puts it, is of urgent concern, they argue. "It's about humane scale in intensified development," adds Stirk. "It's about concentrating, rather than spreading," says Harbour. "You need good design to solve the problems of dense spaces."

Which is why Rogers has been speaking in the Lords about the government's draft National Planning Policy Framework. He agrees that the planning laws are due for rationalisation. But he fears the proposed reforms will loosen planning regulations too much: we could end up "like the south of France or the southern coast of Spain, with the whole south-east peppered with buildings". He agrees with the National Trust's campaign against the reforms, but from the other end of the argument - their potential effect on cities and towns, rather than just on the countryside. Cities that sprawl lose energy, he says. It's not so long ago, he warns, that post-industrial city centres, such as Manchester's, were bleak places, more or less uninhabited. Drawing residents back to the heart of cities has made them more attractive, safer, livelier. Intelligent density is the answer, with old and new buildings cohabiting gracefully, argue the architects. "Cities are about juxtaposition," says Rogers. "In Florence, classical buildings sit against medieval buildings. It's that contrast we like." Harbour adds: "In Bordeaux we built law courts right next door to what is effectively a listed historic building, and that makes it exciting. Can you imagine that in London?" There is some hope that the government will change its position - the MPs of the communities and local government committee have urged ministers, in a report published before Christmas, to drop the notion of the default "yes" to development. But the battle is not yet won, and Rogers will continue to campaign from the Lords.

The question of juxtaposition, of course, is one that has bedevilled modernist British architects in the past, particular

President of the French Republic

Make the argument for how detrimental the 50% tax rate is for jobs and investment, chancellor tells British executives in Davos

George Osborne urged business to make the case for the scrapping of the 50% income tax rate as he gave his clearest signal yet of his desire to reduce taxes on the wealthy.

The Conservative chancellor told a lunch of British executives in Davos: "I have always said this is a temporary tax. The long-term damage of this tax is potentially quite considerable, and that's why it is temporary."

Osborne said that his predecessor, Alistair Darling, had made it clear that the tax was not intended to be permanent when it was announced as a emergency measure to repair some of the damage to the public finances caused by the recession of 2008-09.

He added: "Frankly, if the business community wants to make the argument about how detrimental the 50% tax is for investment and job creation, it should go away and do it."

But Treasury sources played down the prospect of any change to tax rates in this year's budget, saying that officials were still waiting for a full year's data on how much revenue the 50% rate had reaped.

HM Revenue & Customs will conduct a study once the evidence has been collected.

The rhetoric coming from the US, British and Israeli governments is that all the sanctions being imposed are about bringing Iran to the negotiating table, because we supposedly could not risk the “threat” that Iran would pose if it developed nuclear weapons, despite the fact that not even the head of Mossad believes Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israeli it it developed them.

(Map of US military bases and allies around Iran from The Peoples Voice blog)

Apart from US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta saying Iran is not currently developing a nuclear weapon ; and the fact that we’ve been being told Iran was about to develop a nuclear weapon for 20 years, including among many, many others, some CIA claims in 1992 and Israeli intelligence claims in 1995 that Iran would have them in 5 years and US State Department claims that they’d have one within 16 days in December 2006; not even the current head of Mossad thinks Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel if it developed them (1) – (5).

Last month he told ambassadors that Iran developing nuclear weapons would not be an “existential threat” to Israel (6). Former US General John Abizaid, US Central Command (Middle East) commander under Bush agrees with Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld that if Iran does develop nuclear weapons it will be as a deterrent against attack, not to launch nuclear Armageddon (7) – (8).

As Condoleezza Rice wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2000, before she began participating in war propaganda, ‘if they ["rogue states"]do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration’ (9).

This is certainly the case, as even if Iran wiped out Israel in a sudden nuclear strike (the supposed threat), it would then face either a counter-strike or a massive invasion from the US and it’s allies which no senior Ayatollahs or Revolutionary Guard commanders would survive for.

The past decisions of the Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard commanders also show they don’t wish to commit national suicide. In 1988, fearing the US military was joining the Iran-Iraq war on Saddam’s side, they persuaded Khomeini to negotiate peace (10) – (11).

The issue can’t be democracy or “Iranian aggression” either, when our governments continue to support and sell arms to the Saudi monarchy whose troops have invaded Bahrain in British Aerospace Systems vehicles to ensure there are no concessions to democracy protesters; only jail, torture or death for them (12). Saudi forces killed their first ‘Arab Spring’ protester in their own country earlier this month (13). Bahrain and Saudi were still invited to arms fairs in London. Hyping up the Iranian “threat” may be helping boost western arms sales to the gulf emirates though.

The Iran “nuclear threat” is as phony as the Iraq “WMD threat”. Saddam was not prepared to risk nuclear retaliation or being overthrown by a US invasion by using WMD when he did have them, in 1991 , either. His chemical warheads for his scuds were never used in attacks on Israel or Kuwait – only conventional warheads. (14).

The current campaign of sanctions and ‘covert action’ including assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists may well be designed to try to provoke Iran’s rulers into retaliation that can be used as a pretext for war (15) – (17).

The huge cost in lives of sanctions and war against non-existent threats

The story that sanctions or war will do less harm and carry less risks than maybe letting Iran get it’s own nuclear deterrent is the opposite of the truth. Sanctions on Iraq killed millions due to shortages of food and medicines, including over 500,000 children, according to the two heads of the sanctions programme who resigned in protest (18) – (19).

Iraq is now full of not only Al Qa’ida terrorists, but also US trained police commando and ‘counter terrorist’ death squads, ( modelled on the notorious ones trained by US forces in El Salvador in the 1980s), using the same torture methods as under Saddam – rape, electrocution, beatings, breaking bones, pulling out nails – and additionally kidnapping people to torture to extort money from their families (20) – (25). Arab Spring demonstrations against the government led to protesters being shot dead (26).

War on Iran would lead to the kind of chaos there has been in Iraq since the invasion (and the same massive increase in terrorism ) or the kind of chaotic civil war that is going into it’s second round already in Libya, as rebels imprison, torture or kill many thousands of people on suspicion based on the colour of their skin or what tribe they belong to, leading to renewed fighting in Bani Walid  (27) – (29).

In Iraq, far from securing arms dumps or suspected WMD sites the US invasion and occupation allowed huge amounts of conventional weapons and ammunition, hundreds of tonnes of explosives and machinery which could potentially be used to make chemical weapons or nuclear components to be looted. Much of the conventional arms and explosives likely used by insurgents and terrorists afterwards (30) – (34).

In Libya Gaddafi’s armouries weren’t secured either in an “intervention” which supposedly “would not repeat the mistakes made in Iraq” - and Al Qa’ida may now have it’s hands on surface to air missiles as a result (35) – (36).

Stroud District Budget - could have been better! : Ruscombe Green

Whilst the unionist unity debate rages on, Mick's thread linking to an article by Michael Shilliday, a vocal opponent within the UUP to the idea, is interesting for highlighting both the dangers of the aspiration for a unified unionist (or nationalist) voice and the gulf between the infrequently lofty rhetoric of the DUP's Peter Robinson regarding his party's vision of a unified community and the words and actions of his own fellow party members (more on that here and here.)

The policy of DUP councillors in Cookstown of refusing to stand for a minute's silence for relatives of deceased Sinn Fein councillors was cited by Michael Shilliday as one reason why he opposed the ‘all Prods together' strategy. Another blogger is also rather unimpressed, not least by the latest declaration by one of the Cookstown DUP councillors, Maureen Lees, that she would "rather die" than be photographed with a Sinn Fein colleague- a remark made during a meeting of the Council's Good Relations Committee!  

From the Mid Ulster Mail:

Councillor McNamee's mother Lily had died and at a subsequent council meeting the DUP refused to stand for a minute's silence.

Late last year Councillor McNamee's brother Pius had died and the DUP were not in the chamber for the minute's silence held at that time.

Councillor McElhone, who is a member of the Good Relations Committee, said the Council should be setting an example and the attitude of the DUP was setting back community relations.

SF Councillor Cathal Mallaghan also voiced his disgust at the DUP saying it was making the job of building community relations more difficult.

Meanwhile Councillor McNamee said he had been left "insulted" by fellow councillors who refused to mark a minute's silence following the death of his brother.

"It is totally disgraceful, but this is an ongoing thing," Councillor John McNamee said. "The same thing happened when the fathers of Councillors McAleer and Clarke passed away. They refused to stand for a minute's silence when my mother died and now they refused to enter the meeting until after the other members had respected a minute's silence in memory of my brother.

"I have challenged the three DUP councillors on this issue. They are clearly out of step with their party and their community."

It was at a Council meeting on December 13 when Councillors Ian McCrea, Maureen Lees and Samuel McCartney refused to enter the council chambers while the Council stood for a one minute silence as a mark of respect.

"This does seem to be a problem found only amongst councillors in Cookstown," the Sinn Fein member said. "From our point of view it is not the our feelings but those of the wider family circle who are the worst affected. I personally couldn't even contemplate doing this to anyone's family."

 

An earlier row over this policy by DUP councillors had led to the party alleging it was unfair that a minute's silence for the deceased mother of a Sinn Fein councillor was held alongwith one for the relative of a council employee.

Again from the Mid-Ulster Mail:

In June last year the DUP said it would write to the family of a Cookstown council employee whose sister had died and who had voiced their "deep hurt" at the party's refusal to stand for a minute's silence.

DUP councillor Ian McCrea apologised to the family while claiming that it was unfair that the minute's silence was conducted jointly with that of councillor McNamee's mother.

Movement tries to stage its own debate on 'remodelling capitalism' at World Economic Forum venue

Activists from the Occupy movement attempted to disrupt a debate in Davos attended by the Labour party leader, Ed Miliband, calling on him and the other delegates to leave the stage and join them on the floor of the packed debate on "remodelling capitalism".

The event, which was open to the public as part of a 10-year programme by the organisers of the World Economic Forum to engage with a wider audience, was eventually brought back under control when other public participants refused to support the efforts of Occupy activists.

Eyewitnesses said about 30 activists had strategically placed themselves in the large auditorium in the local Swiss Alpine High School and had attempted to conduct the debate on their own terms.

A representative of Occupy - who started the proceedings and gave her name only as Maria - had already been scheduled to take part in the debate, in which Juan Somavía, director general of the International Labour Organisation, was also a speaker.

After the event Miliband told the Guardian: "Occupy wanted us to do the debate in a different way."

But, he said, they had been outnumbered by other members of the public. He had argued: "This is a big moment of opportunity. There are real opportunities to show there are solutions that can be moved forward. I understand why people are angry."

The Guardian's economics editor, Larry Elliott, who chaired the debate said: "Eventually the will of the audience prevailed and we had a good, productive discussion."

The Occupy protesters have set up a camp of igloos in this Swiss Alpine resort attended by prime ministers, central bankers, business people and charitable organisations from across the globe. Earlier on Friday a number of them had attempted to gain entry to the high security venue where the major events are held and Klaus Schwab, the septuagenarian who founded the WEF, has offered to meet them on Saturday.

Liberal Democrat MP and Minister for Care Services, Paul Burstow visited Boots Opticians on Sutton High Street on Friday 27th January to find out why regular eye tests are so important in preventing blindness.

1.8 million people in the UK are living with sight loss and this figure is set to increase by 115% to nearly 4 million people by 2050, largely due to the ageing population. Much of this is preventable through the early detection and treatment of eye problems. Regular eye tests are a simple and practical way to maintain good eye health and look after your eyes.

Local Optometrist and Chair of the Local Optical Committee Sonal Patel explained the health benefits of regular eye tests:

"An eye test is not just to check whether you need glasses but is also a means of ensuring your eyes are healthy. An eye test can also pick up other health problems such as high blood pressure or diabetes, so they are an important health check for everyone. Many eye conditions such as glaucoma are treatable and sight loss can be prevented if they are detected early enough."

Commenting on his visit Paul Burstow MP said:

"Given that sight is one of the most vital senses, it is really important that people take good care of their eyesight, and if ever in doubt, visit their local opticians. As we update the NHS it is a good thing that opticians will be taking a greater role in the public's health alongside clinicians and their local authorities."

Many groups of people are entitled to free NHS sight tests. These include those aged 60 and over, all children under 16 and those on low incomes. Optical practices are convenient and offer easy access in the local community. You can visit any practice that is either near where you live or where you work. Optical practices can see NHS patients at times that suit them.

In a move imported from the US right, the Conservatives have successfully induced people to vote against their own interests

The art of the magician, so they say, is distraction. Divert the eye of the audience with one hand and all kinds of mischief are available to the other. And if that's true of magic, it's truer still of politics. To adapt the slogan selling the new film Man on a Ledge, a big deception requires a big distraction.

Take these two apparently contradictory facts. This week saw proof that Britain is no longer merely suffering from anaemic growth but actual contraction, a shrinkage of 0.2%. One more dose of this, and we will be in official recession. And yet a day earlier the Guardian/ICM poll showed the Conservatives surging into a five-point lead over Labour, their highest rating for nearly two years. Even the coalition's junior partners, the Liberal Democrats, saw a modest uptick.

Part of the explanation for this lies in Labour weakness. But relevant too is a trick that has long been part of US politics and which has now, it seems, reached our shores.

Here's how it works over there, a phenomenon charted best by Thomas Frank in his 2004 book What's the Matter with Kansas? For several decades, at least since Nixon, the right has persuaded middle- and lower-income Americans to vote against their own economic self-interest, by diverting their attention to "values" issues such as affirmative action, abortion or the sanctity of the flag. Upending the old rule that people vote with their wallets, Republicans understood that cultural anxieties - artfully stoked - could shift voters' allegiances, even if that came at those voters' expense.

So in 2004, it was clearly in the interest of a coalminer in West Virginia or a manual worker in Ohio to vote Democratic: John Kerry's plans on pensions, safety at work, healthcare and tax would have helped them. But those states backed George W Bush, partly through appeals to patriotism and, especially in Ohio, fear of gay marriage.

Thus are millions of middle Americans recruited as footsoldiers into an army that, once in power, does the bidding of those at the very top. Once in office, thanks to those Ohio workers, Bush passed tax cuts that, by one estimate, benefited the richest 1% of Americans to the tune of $708bn. It is what the Americans call a bait-and-switch: get the voters riled up about gays or Barack Obama's birth certificate, so that you can get to work shovelling cash from the poor to the rich.

Frank has now updated his thesis with a new book, Pity the Billionaire. It argues that the Tea Party right has sought to channel Americans' fury at the post-2008 economic crisis not at its rightful target - Wall Street - but at Washington, casting "big government" as the villain. If only Washington were less intrusive and cut red tape, if only it spent less, then all would be well. So it is that the man on the dole ends up demanding action that helps not him, but the CEO on his yacht.

All this probably sounds alien to our politics. We congratulate ourselves that no mainstream politician here would try to distract the electorate by stirring subterranean racism or homophobia. True enough. And yet the coalition deploys some bait-and-switch of its own, albeit adapted for the British terrain. It's working, too.

Thus the memorable political conflict of this week was not over that contraction in GDP, which should have registered as devastating proof that the government's economic strategy is not working. It was over plans to cap benefits at £26,000. The timing may have been a function of the House of Lords' timetable, but the strategy of the cap itself is clear. Rather than training its guns on the masters of high finance who caused the crash and had to be bailed out with billions in taxpayers' cash - the scroungers at the top - the government is channelling our rage towards those on benefits, the "scroungers" at the bottom. If it hadn't been for Stephen Hester and that pesky £1m bonus, it would have been a great success.

That Tea Party move has been imported too, though translated into British English. Here too the right argues, though less crudely, that governments not markets are to blame for the crisis. That is the implication of constantly damning Labour for "leaving us in this mess", as if Lehman Brothers never toppled and as if the deficit ballooned because the last government paid too many nurses, rather than because tax revenues collapsed here the same way they collapsed everywhere else. That is the implication, too, of the Tory promises to make it easier for employers to sack staff or to relax the rules on health and safety, as if our current economic fate is the fault of an overzealous state rather than of an epic failure of the free market.

Most striking of all, because so Republican, is the Conservatives' increasing use of what the Americans would call cultural or values questions to divert the public gaze away from the economic catastrophe. The Tories have used not race or gay rights but nationalism. Their current poll lead began with the bounce Cameron gained by apparently standing up to Europe with his December veto. He began 2012 casting himself as the union's defender against Alex Salmond and the rebellious Scots.

And as if to recall the latter-day Boudica herself, Downing Street briefed that last week's meeting of the National Security Council was devoted entirely to discussion of the Falkland Islands.

Bashing benefit claimants and waving the flag gets the polls numbers up - and all the while the economy tanks and the banks get to keep paying out bonuses. It works like a charm.

The irony is that the trick is being adopted here just as it's losing some of its magic in the US. A new study found that conflict between the rich and the rest has replaced race and immigration in voters' minds as the key tension in American society. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina partly by slamming Mitt Romney as a super-rich asset stripper. President Obama's populist state of the union address this week suggests he recognises this shift and now believes that redressing the country's wild economic imbalance is a vote winner. The same could be true in Britain, but first the opposition has to expose what the magicians are up to - and break their spell.

Row erupts after prime minister claims that MPs had no choice but to agree to RBS head's bonus are challenged by Labour

David Cameron was under fire for failing to intervene to block a bonus of nearly £1m for Royal Bank of Scotland's chief executive, Stephen Hester, and for allegedly misleading parliament after he blamed Labour for negotiating a contract that prevented the government from intervening.

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, speaking in Davos, piled the pressure on the prime minister by describing the bonus as "absolutely bewildering". Labour called on Cameron to appear before MPs to explain why he did nothing to block the bonus.

The row erupted on Friday morning when Lord Myners, the former Labour Treasury minister who negotiated the contracts with the new state-controlled banks, challenged the prime minister's claim that ministers had no choice but to agree to the Hester bonus, announced in the same week that the coalition announced proposals to hand shareholders more power to block pay deals.

"There is nothing in the employment contract of Stephen Hester or any director of Royal Bank of Scotland which binds the company or its remuneration committee to pay a mandatory bonus," Myners said. "All matters relating to bonuses are at the full discretion of the board of directors and the shareholders, including UKFI, who have elected them."

The prime minister, who indicated in recent weeks that Hester's bonus would be less than £1m, said the government had little room for manoeuvre because of the contract negotiated by the last government. The bonus is in shares, which rose to £981,000 last night - up from the £963,000 they were valued at by the bank in its announcement late on Thursday. The exact value will be determined in 2014 when he finally receives them while a three-year bonus he was handed in shares shortly after he joined in October 2008 - worth £6.4m - has now been deemed worthless by the bank.

Downing Street said that Hester's contract meant that he had to be considered for a bonus in "good faith". But the prime minister's spokesman admitted that a bonus was not mandatory and that the government, through UK Financial Investments, could have blocked it.

The spokesman said: "The contract says that he should be considered for bonus in good faith. That decision is taken by the board. Yes, shareholders have a role in that. UKFI, as the government's shareholder, takes a very active interest. But we are not the only shareholder in that company ... The board is required to act in the interests of all its shareholders and the board takes this decision."

Downing Street admitted that Cameron was not relaxed by the bonus but said that Hester has reduced the RBS balance sheet by £0.5tn and has increased business lending in the last year.

But George Osborne, the chancellor, defended the bonus after a speech in Davos - but also distanced the government from the decision. "I would bet his bonus will be a lot less than the bonuses of other people running banks are going to get and half of what he got last year."

Bob Diamond, chief executive of Barclays - who was also in Davos, speaking at an event on "building trust" - refused to talk specifically about Hester's bonus, but commented: "If we don't celebrate reward for success we won't have an economy."

Diamond declined to comment on the scale of his own bonus, which could be in the region of £10m.

Osborne added: "The alternatives [to the Hester payout] would have been worse for the taxpayer. Either there would have been a much larger bonus, of the kind he would have got a few years ago. Or the British government would have had to take over complete ownership of RBS and over-ruled the board, and I think that would have cost the taxpayer more as well."

His comments did not appease critics. Ed Miliband, also in Davos, described it as a " disgraceful failure of leadership" by the prime minister. "He owns, through the British government, 83% of the Royal Bank of Scotland. He must now explain, not least to the British people, why he has allowed this to happen."

Labour sought to increase the pressure on the government by writing to the prime minister to ask him to set out to MPs why he said he was bound by a contract which is flexible.

Simon Danczuk, a Labour MP, said in the letter: " I trust you will want to come to the house to explain why you previously told the house that you did not have any such power, as well as to explain why your government has decided, in its role as the majority shareholder in RBS, to approve a bonus to Stephen Hester worth almost £1m."

The TUC's general secretary, Brendan Barber, also in Davos, described the decision to hand Hester a bonus as terrible. "The government might have been able to subcontract the decision [to UK Financial Investments] but they can't sidestep the responsibility." Already doubful that government plans to hand shareholders new powers to tackle high pay would be effective, Barber said: "The government through their stakes in the banks had the possibility of sending the signal. They've really bottled the decision".

It is not clear whether John Hourican, head of the RBS investment bank or Ellen Alemany, head of the US bank, will receive their bonuses this year.

o Cameron 'not doing enough to tackle racial prejudice'
o Murdered boy's brother stopped and searched 20 times
o Trust set up to help deprived youth has money problems

Doreen Lawrence has said David Cameron's government is not doing enough to tackle racial prejudice, which continues to blight society, and has warned that spending cuts will hit working-class and black Britons the hardest.

In a Guardian interview, Lawrence says the government has huge powers to make a difference in leading the fight against racism, but says: "I've not heard them talk about race."

Earlier this month her 18-year battle for justice saw Gary Dobson and David Norris convicted of the 1993 racist murder of her son Stephen by a white gang in south London. The murder led to a public inquiry that exposed police failings and prejudice in the ranks and in wider society.

In the interview, she reveals:

o While the police were failing to catch her son's murderers, they managed to stop his brother 20 times as a criminal suspect.

o Police also managed to stop Mrs Lawrence the year after the murder and told her she was suspected of driving a stolen car. She says continuing racist stereotyping by officers explains why African-Carribeans are more likely to be stopped.

o She was told she should be "ashamed to show our faces" by a police employee, during a visit to Scotland Yard in 2009 to discuss her son's murder.

o The trust she set up in Stephen's name to help youngsters from deprived backgrounds to realise their ambitions is in financial trouble.

Lawrence criticises the government's record on race, saying they are squandering the opportunity to restart the war against prejudice presented by the conviction of two men for her son's murder.

She says the convictions have at least temporarily put the battle against racial discrimination back on the agenda, after years of the fight having stalled. "There is a lot they can do. People take their lead from the government. If the prime minister said 'this is what I'd like to see happen in our society' ... people will try to work towards that. At the moment I'm not sure exactly what they are doing around race."

Cameron has tried to cleanse the Tories of their "nasty party" image but the criticism from one of the leading black figures in Britain raises questions about that. Cameron, Lawrence says, was wrong to attack multiculturalism in a speech last year. "Sometimes people misinterpret what the word means," she says.

Recalling longstanding Conservative hostility - the party opposed the setting up of the Macpherson inquiry, and attacked its findings - she notes some top Tories have changed their tune, such as Boris Johnson, who once attacked the Macpherson reforms but of whom she quips: "He's changed completely. He's my best friend now."

She says she regrets that after the guilty verdicts no minister sent a letter "in recognition of what has been denied for so long". Her surviving son, Stuart, said: "David Cameron has not sent my mum a letter saying sorry it has taken so long. It shows the stance of the Conservative government. I don't think they care at all."

Mrs Lawrence said the government may be preoccupied with the economy, but warned that spending cuts would hurt those who have least. "It is the working class and black people who are going to suffer the most - they are at the bottom of the ladder."

She said some of the reforms proposed by Macpherson had made Britain less racially prejudiced, but much more could have been done: "It's like a missed opportunity. For so long the perception is we've dealt with race, so we can move on. Under the surface they have not dealt with race - it is still there."

People suffering discrimination contact Lawrence for help - "families feel there is a lot of discrimination happening" - and she believes black Britons have to be four times better than their white counterparts to get as far. Stop and search, which she says police use disproportionately against African-Caribbeans, "has a great effect on their lives" and racist stereotyping is to blame: "Because in their mindset they still believe that they are criminals."

Despite the fact that the Lawrences have been praised by prime ministers and police chiefs as a model law-abiding family, Mrs Lawrence, Stuart and her former husband, Neville, have all been stopped under stop-and-search powers. Stuart has been stopped more than 20 times: "He will be on the phone saying 'mum I can't believe they have stopped me again'."

Once, after she complained, a police chief suggested an officer who had stopped Stuart should meet him and discuss why. The officer refused to do so. Stuart said: "There is no reason I can give, other than I am a young black man, who usually wears a baseball cap in my car, which is my God-given right." Asked if it is possible police were targeting her son because of any suggestion of criminality, she said: "He's a teacher for goodness sake."

Lawrence reveals she was stopped in 1994, a year after Stephen's murder, by police who first said she might have been drinking. When she pressed them to breathalyse her, they suggested she had been driving erractically, then that it was possible she was driving a stolen car.

She says the police were wrong to claim they were no longer institutionally racist, as Macpherson had found, and said in September 2009, on a visit to Scotland Yard, one staff member had said "we should be ashamed to show our face in the building".

The Metropolitan police said: "The incident that Mrs Lawrence referred to was completely unacceptable and the individual was immediately dealt with by their line manager." The force added it is "immeasurably different to 1993" and that the Lawrence case had "contributed to major changes within policing".

Lawrence described Norris and Dobson as "pure evil". Asked if she, a churchgoing Christian, could see herself forgiving the racists who killed her son, she said: "You can only forgive somebody, something, who asks for forgiveness, who admits their wrongs and they have never done that."

She believes there is very little chance of the other men suspected of her son's murder standing trial. She will now focus her efforts on the Stephen Lawrence trust which gives young people opportunities.

She met Cameron once, when he was in opposition: he came to a memorial service to mark the 15th anniversary of Stephen's death. Cameron and Nick Clegg sent a letter in support of a fundraising dinner for the trust, and the home secretary had visited its south London base, which Lawrence appreciated.

A Downing Street spokesperson said the PM admired Lawrence for her "great bravery" and her family's "tireless fight for justice" and added: "He also recently made clear that he believes that although things have changed for the better, there is still a problem with racism in this country and more work to be done to tackle it."

No 10 added that "a new action plan to tackle hate crime" would be unveiled soon, building on "one of the strongest legislative frameworks anywhere in the world", as would "a new approach to the integration of local communities".

Lawrence said the trust was facing a cash crisis and needs to plug a £150,000 shortfall by the end of March.

Letters: A Wapping lesson : Politics news, UK and world political comment and analysis | guardian.co.uk

With revelations still emerging from the Leveson inquiry about the cynical behaviour of News International, readers might like to note that the exhibition on the Wapping dispute in 1986-87, when Murdoch sacked the workforce at his newspapers and set out to destroy the print unions, continues at the Bishopsgate Institute, London EC2, until 29 February. The News of the World phone-hacking scandal, which has revealed the dark side of Murdoch's global empire, should be no surprise when you look at the collusion 25 years ago between the Tory government, the police and NI to promote corporate interests over and above workers' rights or responsible journalism. With the ejection of the unions, editors and managers were handed unlimited power and ethical reporting went out of the window. I hope Leveson considers the lessons offered by history during his inquiry.
Chris Guiton
Crowborough, East Sussex

Shadow foreign secretary warns that public has not heard enough from Labour party about how it would cut the deficit

Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, is warning Labour it has only created a bridgehead towards establishing economic credibility and will need to talk "a lot more" about bringing the deficit down if it is to reap political dividends from the government's economic failure.

Making a rare intervention in the debate on Labour's economic approach, he said in a Guardian interview: "I don't think the public has yet heard us talking enough about dealing with the deficit, as well as talking about the need to boost growth and jobs."

He also warned the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, that he will endanger the patience of Scotland if he is seen to be trying to fix a referendum on independence.

Alexander added that Labour would support a cap on household welfare benefits, saying: "This is a difficult but necessary step but let us be clear we support the principle, of a benefit cap, but with the important caveat that it should not render people homeless."

Regarded as one of the party's key strategists, Alexander's intervention is likely to be taken as a sign of determination within the shadow cabinet not to lose the momentum created by the two big speeches by leader Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, insisting Labour needed to adjust to an era of austerity, including the need for further spending cuts after the 2015 election.

Balls committed the party to a continued public sector pay freeze, so long as extra help is given to the low paid, a move that prompted a furious union response and was described by Miliband as a watershed for his leadership.

Some critics have accused Miliband of running up the white flag on economic policy, and others that the message is still confused. Alexander believes the party now has to go further to convince the electorate of its credentials, and suggests it has to rebalance its rhetorical emphasis from stimulus to deficit.

He said: "There have always been two parts to the Labour argument - a short-term stimulus now to get the economy moving and medium-term cuts to get the deficit down.

"It was always vital that we won the first part of that argument - that the government are going too far and too fast - and I think thanks to Ed Miliband and Ed Balls we are winning that argument.

"But the second half of that argument - that the deficit has to come down - has to be emphasised more, and all of us have a responsibility to make that case. We have talked a lot about the first and we need to talk a lot more about the second"

He added: "We must convince the public of our commitment to both parts of our argument - securing growth and securing deficit reduction. We have to be heard on both sides of our argument to win."

He also praised Balls's announcement on keeping the public sector pay freeze as the best way to keep people in work. "Ed's was just the first tough choice of many - credibility will involve other tough choices. We cannot promise now to reverse every Tory cut, not least because we do not know the state of public finances in 2015.

"To some that may seem controversial, to me it is common sense. Securing economic credibility is never easy, but it is always essential - fiscal realism is the only path to power."

Urging his party not to back away, he said: "We need to step into this conversation and not step away from it. This is not about positioning against the unions or even towards the electorate. It is more fundamental than that - it is about being open about the condition of the economy. For me fiscal realism is not a betrayal of Labour values, it is the foundation by which we win the trust of the public."

Alexander also urged his party to recognise that the public are in the mood to hear realism from politicians, rather than evasions. "My sense is that, given people's real worries about the economy, there is a yearning for politicians to level with the public. They want us to be honest about the difficult decisions we face to ensure that Britain earns its living and pays its way in the world in the tough years ahead."

Faced by the warnings of disaffiliation by some unions in response to the leadership's shift, Alexander said: "Labour has to hold its nerve. Some of our own supporters will be upset, but we cannot have a reverse gear on this. This is just the start of a difficult process - the two speeches were a beachhead."

He also warned his party that the public would not regard Labour as credible simply if Conservative austerity economics turned out to have failed. Such a view, he said, would be wrong and complacent.

With Labour level pegging with the Tories in the polls he says: "At the time of the Autumn statement we saw that economic failure for the Tories did not translate into political success for us. The task for all of us is to ensure that George Osborne's economic failure becomes an electoral failure for him as well . We will not win the next election just because George Osborne is being exposed as making the wrong economic judgements. The Tory economic policy is clear and it is clearly wrong - you cannot simply cut your way to recovery".

But Alexander argued that the party was paying the price for a deeper failure to be straight with the electorate before the 2010 election, saying: "We should have been much clearer much sooner after the crisis in 2008 about the consequences."

That failure created a benign political environment for the Conservatives. He said: "From 2007 to 2011, the Conservatives worked very hard to establish a public language and a public logic that the crisis was caused by Labour's actions in government. Both Ed Balls and Ed Miliband made important steps forward in correcting that in recent speeches. We all have a responsibility to continue that process."

On Scotland, he said Salmond was trying to avoid a straight choice between separation and the status quo by promoting a third option of greater independence within the UK.

He said: "He is on the horns of a dilemma. He knows he is selling a product that the Scottish people do not want to buy - that is why he is scrambling around trying to find a get out of jail card, and his card is devo max. He cannot explain it, he cannot define it but he hopes it will provide a means by which he can claim victory when he suffers defeat over the sovereignty question.

"As I understand it, Salmond said this week that if 99.5% voted for devo max and 50.1% voted for independence, then Scotland would be independent - try explaining that. If he goes on like this, the tolerance of the public will be strained if this looks like an attempt to rig a referendum. We need a clear and decisive question on independence, and soon.

''The Scottish [Labour] party leader Johann Lamont recently said it is as if he is Moses and he has taken people to the top of the mountain, and shown them the promised land, and then said why don't we camp here for two years."

It used to be that you could live a long time in Scotland and never meet a nationalist other than the kind who wanted to beat England at football

At midnight, when reporters and sub-editors on Glasgow newspapers ended their late shifts, there was nowhere to go but home or the press club. On Fridays, the second seemed the natural choice. The press club lived in a big room up a stair in the middle of town and sold beer and spirits - Glasgow in the 1960s confined wine to restaurants - but the atmosphere was usually fairly orderly and subdued, so that when Jim from the Daily Record asked his regular closing-time question, everyone could hear. "Would ye fight for Scotland then? Would ye? Would ye?" Jim had served in a Scottish regiment. The question was a test of both patriotism and manliness to anyone who happened to be within slurring distance. No women were present. Men standing at the bar would smile apprehensively at him and say it was time we were all getting home.

I don't know if Jim was a political or a sentimental nationalist, or a nationalist only at one in the morning, nor do I mean to suggest that an unfocused belligerence was all nationalism amounted to 45 years ago. The fact is that he was part of a tiny minority. You could live a long time in Scotland and never meet a nationalist other than the kind who wanted to see England beaten at football. By the age of 25 I had met only three who declared themselves politically. The first two were at school: a classmate, Norval Macphail, who wore a kilt and, in the usual "but-what-will-we-live-on?" arguments, spoke up for hydro-electricity and the fishing fleet; and a teacher, Mr Halliday, who was rumoured to be something quite big in the SNP but (so far as we could tell) kept his history lessons untainted by his views on the United Kingdom's future.

Then, across a newspaper's subediting table, I met Jack Wills. That a clothing chain catering to the middle-class young should later take the same name is an inappropriate coincidence: Jack wasn't a man for the rugby shirt. He came into the office every night muffled in scarves and waterproofs, having ridden his motorbike 40 miles from his house in the southern Highlands. Many aspects of his life were mysterious. He never went to the pub with the rest of us. He spoke severely and often impatiently. A bad legal mistake - not his fault, but on his watch - was thought to have ended his career as an executive on a rival paper. Now he was prized purely for his fine editing skills, and given the exclusive task of reshaping and rewriting the most important story in every edition, the front-page splash. Military service played a part in his history, too. He had been wounded in the Malayan Emergency, and in heated arguments (about what? You may well ask) had been known to pull up a trouser leg to show off a badly scarred shin. Everybody, including the editor, was slightly scared of him, and I was flattered that he thought well enough of me to make me his young friend.

One aspect of Scottish nationalism, perhaps of all nationalisms, is the honouring of the landscape. Jackie Kay has some fun with this in her memoir, Red Dust Road, when she describes driving through Glencoe with her parents. "Stunning," her mum says. "Nothing like it, our ain wee country. God, it's beautiful." Kay adds. "So many trips and journeys around Scotland involve paying it effusive compliments as if we believe the country has a large listening ear, cocked to one side. Sometimes I imagine I can see the land blush with recognition."

Such feelings, of course, aren't restricted to political nationalists. All kinds of people can have them - Kay's parents belonged to the Communist party. But a nationalist sees the land as part of his movement's purpose and spiritual identity. I think Jack did at any rate, because he invited me to go walking and climbing with him, to see as much land as possible. "Our land," Jack would say, implying that in an independent Scotland we would have some right to it; we would own, as it were, the view.

Our most ambitious expedition took us to the Cairngorms, where we camped for three nights in a hut at the end of Scotland's most famous hill pass, the Lairig Ghru, and climbed mountains during the day. The snow lay deep all around. Outside, it gusted into our faces. Melted, it covered the hut's concrete floor in a layer of water that we perched above on a pair of rusty bedsteads, fully clothed and inside our sleeping bags. There was neither fire nor light. We had a Primus stove, but only one pan. The tea tasted of onion soup, and the onion soup of tea. But worse, much worse, was that on every expedition Jack was always at least 100 yards ahead, moving easily upwards as I struggled behind. On the second day, fed up with his military level of fitness, I turned back halfway up a slope steep and slippery enough to need an ice axe, and went back to the hut. He was disappointed in me. We stayed friends, but things were never quite the same after that. Many years later, I heard he'd become a postman in Argyllshire and, more recently, I heard that he was dead.

It seems unlikely that the Scottish writer James Robertson ever met him, and yet in Robertson's novel, And the Land Lay Still, he has an almost perfect incarnation in the character of Jack Gordon, who leaves his wife and child to spend his life tramping across Scotland for no clear reason, to become the mystery who unites the book. Like my friend, he's a lonely nationalist who has been in the army. Like my friend, he doesn't disclose too much about himself. Both the real man and his fictional equivalent have a mystical belief in Scotland and its topography that would look odd in any novel written by an English writer, about England, since the second world war. But then Robertson's novel does all the things that some critics wish English novels would do: it takes the recent history of the nation as its subject, abstains from knowingness, draws characters from every social class and manages to be sympathetic to all of them, and plainly establishes the historical background. "Lothian Regional Council and Mike reached an impasse in negotiations over his community charge liabilities" is not a sentence you expect to find in a "literary" novel, and especially one so widely praised. Still, it may be the most politically significant Scottish novel ever written.

Alex Salmond chose it as his book of the year for 2010, which is perhaps not surprising given that he is mentioned in it, kindly, and that the novel is literally portentous in its telling of Scotland's progress towards a separate nationhood, with every station of the cross, such as the poll tax, getting its due. But Robertson also shows a country of believable decency, to which the Glasgow Press Club's pro patria mori might be applied.

On Wednesday, in his statement on the referendum, Salmond approvingly quoted a line from a poem by Robertson: "The bird that was trapped has flown." Salmond said: "The bird has flown, and cannot now be returned to its cage." Metaphors and mysteries, mountains and Robert Burns: political nationalism is making a bid to own all of them. If the bid isn't successfully contested, to be Scottish will be to vote SNP.

The days when ordinary people sold their own produce and bought the produce of other ordinary people are long gone

One brief phrase in Nick Clegg's call for tax cuts, aimed at low- to middle-income families, says more about Britain's current economic predicament than the rest of the debate around the subject put together. Clegg calls for the tax system to be rebalanced so that it "encourages ordinary people to drive growth". That sounds splendid.

The trouble is that "encouraging ordinary people to drive growth" is harder than it sounds. In fact, in a developed economy, it's something of an oxymoron.

Sure, consumption drives growth, and everyone needs to consume. But consumption needs production. What can "ordinary people" produce that other ordinary people will want to consume, so that they can drive growth? The harsh answer is: not much. Here is the great paradox of our so-called market economy. The access of ordinary people to ordinary markets has been severely curtailed by technological advancement, mass production and the globalisation that it ushered in.

One only has to look, literally, at actual markets themselves, to see how things have developed. Farmer's markets, or artisan markets - they are lovely places to shop, and sell quality goods, locally produced. But they are expensive. Shopping at that sort of market is a luxury. The markets frequented by low to middle-income families are quite a different matter. They are cheap, yes. But the goods offered are imported goods, of low quality and made by the poor of developing nations. The growth driven by ordinary people tends to be in far-off nations, not in our own economy.

The same divisions can be seen on local high streets. In areas without much money, small shops have been routed, unable to compete with the hangar-sized retail services offered by big companies. In areas with money, however, small shops selling specialised items thrive, staving off the march of the chains by virtue of the very fact that they are more individual, less "ordinary".

The days when ordinary people sold their own produce, and bought the produce of other ordinary people are long gone. In general, neither the artisanal producer nor the artisanal consumer is ordinary. This is the basic but unacknowledged problem that Britain has been struggling with for ages: how can people be kept consuming when they are not producing? How can national economies be sustained when local economies are dying?

These questions, simple as they may seem, are actually at the very heart of contemporary political debate. The last Labour government, let's face it, gave the wrong answer to the first of these questions, an answer which was not in the least opposed by the "opposition". That answer was to create cheap money, in the form of cheap debt.

The financial crisis has very comprehensively illustrated that this was not a tremendously sustainable solution. The great mystery now is how anyone ever believed that it was.

But Labour also tried to answer the second question. It created lots of public sector jobs, largely based in places with ailing local economies, which provided employment in dying places. This may not have addressed the underlying problem. In fact, it was funded using the unsustainable revenue generated by wrong answer number one.

But it was, nevertheless, socially ameliorative, a sticking plaster over a wound, but better than nothing. It has not taken long for George Osborne's belief that the public sector was strangling the private sector to be exposed for the risible fatuity that it is. The public sector grows when the private sector fails. It is not the other way round. But there is not a great deal of consolation in merely establishing that the Tories have no more of a clue about how to lead the nation to the "sunny uplands" than Labour did.

A lot of Britain's problems are encapsulated in the very fact that politicians feel perfectly comfortable pontificating so patronisingly about "ordinary people" at all. Yet they all do it. Labour even boasts that it's "ordinary people" that the party exists to champion.

Ask any politician what makes a person "ordinary" and they'll offer some guff about "the decent, hard-working backbone of the nation". It's nonsense. What they mean is (airy waggle of wrist): "Oh, the undifferentiated mass that we don't expect much of, except votes."

Much of the particular trouble with Britain is that its much-trumpeted revolt against "the class system" was so unimaginative. Private education may be widely reviled. Grammar schools may have been (almost) eradicated. Yet the emphasis on academic success has actually intensified. There is little sense that anything other than a specific type of quite substantial educational attainment can pluck a person out of the ranks of "ordinary people" (with even that something of a gamble). "Everyone else" has to make do with some "lesser" form of qualification, or come to terms with "educational failure". Sure, being dumped into a secondary modern at 11, to be designated as "factory fodder" was pretty horrible. But it seems to me that children now are just given more time to come to terms with the idea that they are "not academic", and therefore, well, not much use.

Amid all the talk of how Britain needs "practical skills", usually accompanied by some statistic involving the creation of a piddling number of apprenticeships, there remains a suspicion that this is merely a way of shutting down opportunity, and promoting elitism by other means. Yet what could possibly promote "elitism" more effectively than distrust of the practical, especially in an economy that relies so heavily on services?

Sure, our economy needs to be able to compete globally. Sure, that's not easy when the global market is so competitive. But people need to be able to compete locally, too. Among many other economic recalibrations, there needs to be acknowledgement that global markets crush local markets, and some willingness to tackle the kinds of protectionism that global markets employ.

Peter Mandelson this week popped up to give dire warnings about "creeping protectionism". Yet large companies constantly use protectionism to grow their own organisations. They sell spare parts at a premium, for example, and only to their own salaried fitters, when they should be obliged to sell them at a market rate to people who mend things locally. The very idea that you need to provide the serial number on your cooker so that the company that manufactured the thing that broke in the first place will deign to come and mend it - minimum call-out: something exorbitant - ought to be anathema to free marketers, but somehow just isn't.

The degree to which "ordinary people" are trammeled in their choices about the services they can offer, or consume, is massive. Then politicians stroke their chins, and suggest that changes in the tax system are the thing that will help "ordinary people" to drive the economy.

It's a bit of a farce, really. I find a line from Blake's Songs of Experience particularly haunting: "Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy."

Certainly, the commodity does appear, at the moment, to be in perilously short supply.

The News Letter and UTV's Ken Reid have been tweeting tonight what looks like being the latest episode in the UUP-DUP united unionist soap opera. David McNarry has resigned from the UUP Assembly group after Tom Elliott withdrew him as vice-chair of education committee, though stopped short of taking away the party whip.

The BBC add:

Mr McNarry said he spoke to the party leader on Friday evening by telephone. And Mr Elliott told him he was being disciplined as a result of an article that appeared in the Belfast Telegraph last Monday.

Although Mr Elliott said he would not be removing the party whip, Mr McNarry in response informed the leader he was resigning with immediate effect from the assembly group.

The article was an interview Mr McNarry gave, in which he revealed that he had been meeting the DUP to discuss closer co-operation and maximising the unionist vote. These talks had previously been secret and the article caused a backlash throughout the assembly group and the party.

Picture of Tom Elliott and David McNarry on a happier occasion – the October opening of the UUP David McNarry Advice Centre in Saintfield.

By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American. (Newt Gingrich)

It certainly qualifies as a BHAG – Big Hairy Audacious Goal for anyone lucky enough to be steeped in management speak. An injection of ambition and cash into the state space industry would be a big sweetener to people listening to Newt Gingrich's message at his Florida campaign rally.

We will have commercial near-Earth activities that include science, tourism and manufacturing, because it is in our interest to acquire so much experience in space that we clearly have a capacity that the Chinese and the Russians will never come anywhere close to matching.

But does the US have that kind of money to spare given the economic conditions and the problems it faces down on Earth? In the Telegraph, Ed West argues that Newt Skywalker's idea is inspired rather than foolish:

Then there is the money; a manned mission to Mars, which would be the next logical step, is estimated to cost in the region of $450 billion, which is quite a lot. But put it in perspective: the total cost for American taxpayers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was recently estimated to be between $3.2 and $4 trillion. And on welfare, one think-tank estimates that Barack Obama's various programmes will cost a staggering $10.3 trillion over a decade.

However, the return on investment of establishing a moonbase is going to be small ... unless someone opens a tuck shop and alien species queue up to buy coke and fries! Monetising the research discoveries made in space is likely to be slow. And eight years is a short time in which to develop, design and test an enormous range of kit to create a moonbase, never mid transport it up there. As Ed West notes:

... after the retirement of the US space shuttle fleet, NASA can't even get to the International Space Station alone, let alone 250,000 miles away.

Perhaps Newt's answer to his doubters – which include fellow candidate Mitt Romney – should be to look across the border and enlist the help of two Canadian 17 year olds.

Mathew Ho and Asad Muhammad sent a Styrofoam capsule carrying a Lego figure holding a Canadian flag 24km up into space – that's "three times the typical cruising altitude of a commercial aircraft". Lifted by a weather balloon and carrying four cameras (including a GoPro) and a mobile phone that sent out its GPS position when it was within 7km of the ground (particularly critical to help find the device when it returned 97 minutes later!), the home made space vehicle even had a home-made parachute to soften its landing. Check out the article in the Toronto Star for more details.

Maybe a couple of teenage Canadians could inspire the US to the moon ... and beyond?

"Both my grandfather - the president - and my father, were married twice. And they had children by their first wives. And their first wives died, and they married again and had more children. And my father was 75 when I was born, his father was 63 when he was born."

The attempt to distinguish between different categories of the poor is almost as old as the modern British state

When the Archbishop of Canterbury warned against "a quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor" he may not have expected his immediate predecessor to lead a charge against "hand-outs given to the long-term unemployed", as he did this week. Yet Lord Carey's attack upon his fellow bishops for resisting the government's welfare reform legislation breathes new life into that most unhelpful of distinctions. According to Lord Carey, we now have a "bloated" welfare system that "rewards fecklessness and irresponsibility". In contrast, the former archbishop offers his own story of how hard work and diligence led him from a Dagenham council estate to Lambeth Palace. By so doing he reinforces the view that there are a whole category of people who are responsible - and thus to be blamed - for their own misfortune.

The attempt to distinguish between different categories of the poor is almost as old as the modern British state. The Elizabethan poor laws were designed to keep the poor at home - and thus to stop them from becoming vagrants. By the time of the Napoleonic wars, however, the rise in population, the escalating cost of war, and sharp differences in the scale of poor relief between urban and rural parishes, all led to the conclusion that the old poor law wasn't working. Utilitarians insisted that a great deal of poverty was not inevitable but a product of fecklessness. Economists like Rev Thomas Malthus argued that the Elizabethan poor law encouraged irresponsibly large families. All this has a horribly familiar ring again today.

The result was the introduction of an increasingly uniform system based around the idea of the workhouse - a place where paupers would be incarcerated and made to work. In 1834 the new poor law was promulgated. At its heart was the notion of less eligibility: reducing the number of people entitled to support, so that only those who could not work (rather than those who would not work) would receive support. It's here that the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor became a legal one. To deter those who would not work from applying for poor law support, workhouses were made deliberately unpleasant, often resembling a prison as much as a refuge. Critics condemned them as "the new Bastilles". As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charles Dickens, we are witnessing a return of just the sort of language about the poor that he did so much to expose as cruel and inhuman.

Who are today's new undeserving poor? The familiar tabloid assumption is that you know them when you see them. The undeserving poor drink White Lightning in the daytime, have too many children, keep dangerous dogs and spend their lives lolling about on the sofa. Now as in the past, the undeserving poor make an easy and popular target, especially when public money is tight again. Which is why references to fecklessness and irresponsibility have become such effective drivers of the coalition's welfare reform legislation.

During the last recession in the 1990s, public attitudes towards those living on benefits were considerably more sympathetic than they are today. Anxieties involving welfare and work, immigration and housing shortage, have all contributed to a hardening approach. As the latest British Social Attitudes survey demonstrates, 55% of the English subscribe to the view that high benefits encourage poor people to remain poor. Which is undoubtedly why even the Labour party is hesitant to challenge the prevailing mood to limit state support for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Like any other government programme, welfare must be open to serious reform. Yet a society that cannot cap the income of the undeserving rich - witness the latest row over bank bonuses this week - but is quite happy to cut off funds to the poor is a society that has learned nothing from its own history.

Liz Kendall uncovers NHS document which outlines five layers of management for new GP-led commissioning system

Andrew Lansley is once again having a wretched time.

The health secretary, whose NHS reforms are in severe trouble in the House of Lords, gave vent to his frustration on Thursday when he accused the BMA of being "politically poisoned" in the way it is opposing his health reforms. Denis Campbell noted that this echoed the language of Nye Bevan, Labour's founding father of the NHS, who famously had to battle against BMA claims that his blueprint looked "uncommonly" like a step towards Nazism.

Downing Street is deeply nervous about the health and social care bill which will be considered at report stage in the House of Lords on 8 February. No 10 sources say they are more nervous about Lansley's bill than the welfare reform bill even though the latter has suffered high profile defeats in recent weeks. Sources share Lansley's believe that the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing are behaving like hidebound trade unions. But there is a feeling that Lansley's failure to win over the medical profession - he was meant to have forged strong relations with "stakeholders" - is fuelling opposition in the House of Lords.

If all that sounds tricky, the shadow care minister Liz Kendall has uncovered a document which appears to raise questions about one of Lansley's central claims - that handing commissioning powers to GPs will make the NHS more efficient. Kendall has tweeted that a document prepared for a meeting of the NHS Commissioning Board next week suggests that it will take at least five layers of management to run the new GP-led commissioning system.

I reported this morning that the document says:

In most cases, there should be no more than five layers of management in each directorate, from national director to the 'front line'. The exception to this will be the performance and operations directorate, where an additional layer (or layers) will be required to link through to the local offices. The principle of no more than five layers of management is based on extensive evidence of effective organisational structures which has been applied in [the department of health] and other public sector organisations.

I also reported Kendall as saying:

Cameron's health bill is an utter shambles. He claimed it would cut costs and red tap but we now know there will be at least five layers of management with total confusion about who does what and how. None of this is in the legislation currently before parliament or been discussed by MPs. This chaos must end - Cameron should listen to doctors and nurses and drop the bill.

Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, will feel vindicated. As health secretary, he wrote in the Guardian in 2009 that Lansley was "turning Britain's best loved institution into the world's biggest quango".

We've a Tory PM whose policies are causing irreparable harm and an opposition leader who nobody believes will become PM

?Step back with me in time: we are governed by a Tory prime minister whose policies appear to be causing irreparable harm to the economy, but who refuses to budge. We have an opposition leader who nobody believes will become prime minister himself. And there is the possibility of war in the Falklands. I know that history repeats itself, but in only 30 years?

?I went to the Hugo Young memorial lecture at the Guardian this week to hear Alex Salmond talk about Scottish independence. I doubt very much that he is the genius, the Mycroft Holmes of politics, that some seem to think, but he is extremely crafty. He introduced himself as an Anglophile and listed many of the wonderful things about England that an independent Scotland would always cling to. I thought, he hopes to get his way by tickling our tummies.

He had most respect for the former Scottish first minister and Labour leader Donald Dewar (who spent his last years living on his own in a flat, watching football on TV and subsisting on the snacks he stuffed into his pockets at formal receptions).

An anonymous Scottish Labour politician had given some offence when he was quoted as describing Calton Hill, a proposed site of the Scottish parliament, as "a great nationalist shibboleth". Salmond said: "I knew it had to be Donald, because he was the only person in the Scottish Labour party who would know what a shibboleth was."

?To the launch for the memoirs of Mark Seddon, Standing for Something (Biteback, £16.99). A Jag-driving, wine-bibbing, lefty bon vivant, Seddon loathed New Labour. Once, to liven up a tedious meeting of the party's national executive, he persuaded Dennis Skinner to ask Tony Blair a question in New Labour-speak. Skinner asked: "When are we going to apply blue sky thinking to a third way approach to beacons of excellence at municipal level?" Blair couldn't react, but instead looked shocked and scribbled furiously.

?Thanks for all the round robin letters. There is certainly a new trend - misery. This is from Canada. It starts with the fridge packing in, continues with a lamp breaking, a door falling off, the TV losing most of the stations it is supposed to pick up and the car needing new tyres.

Then, visiting a department store on crutches, the man takes the down escalator, which lifts the crutches from his arms and pitches him, head first, on to the metal steps and smashing his forehead. At a high school reunion he has a horrible time, as nobody seems to realise how important he is and how many books he has written. He is the only one there to appear in Who's Who In America, but no one is impressed. Reflecting ruefully that he has no money, he finally signs off after about 2,000 words of distilled unhappiness.

?I have been very pleasantly inundated with your suggestions for satnav voices such as the Robert Frost one I mentioned last week ("you have come to a crossroads. Take the road less travelled"). The most obvious of all I missed, but lots of you - led by Simon Lacey - did not. It's the Margaret Thatcher satnav: "U-turn - if you want to."

Brendan Moran suggested Talking Heads' minatory "You're on the road to nowhere" and I very much liked John Kilcoyne's Tennyson instructing: "Half a league, half a league, half a league onward ... "

Gerry Northam proposed the Bob Dylan version: "Don't think twice, it's a right." He also proposed a satnav for narrow boats on long, lazy canal holidays: "In three days, turn left."

The former Labour MP Alf Bates suggested the pope: "Stop! Now pull out!" Andrew Stewart had the Proclaimers: "Continue 500 miles, after which proceed for a further 500 miles ... "

WB Wenot recalled Yogi Berra's famous line: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Anne Winter wrote from Phoenix, Arizona, to remind me of the Grateful Dead's Jerry Garcia GPS, as the Americans call them: "You have reached your destination. What a long, strange trip it's been."

I really liked Martin Stott's notion of the TS Eliot Four Quartets satnav: "At the chapel leave the rough road, and turn behind the pigsty to the dull facade." Trouble is that Eliot's mournful monotone voice might send you to sleep at the wheel. Roger McCarthy said that when he lived in the old Soviet Union, street maps and road signs were regarded as a security risk. "You could drive along a largely deserted highway, and the only signage was a giant Lenin pointing into the distance, saying: 'You are on the right road, comrade!' "

?Labels: Ian Williams bought some Mr Muscle Shower Shine, which offered: "Directions for use. Start with a clean shower." Neil Gershon of Sussex sent a flyer for a "Nearly New Baby Sale". He remarks: "The recession must be biting in Haywards Heath." Peter Wrigley was given a pad and pen set, with inch-thick magnets on the back so it can be stuck on a fridge. "Seek immediate medical help if the magnets are swallowed or inhaled."

Mrs GM Wood has chortled over an advert for gloves in Garden Answers magazine: "Prick protector. Pink suede. One size, ladies only." Stuart Booth bought a CD case in the States for $3.99. "Unit automatically becomes portable when carried."

And months ago I mentioned those annoying inanimate objects that try to talk to you, such as coffee cups marked "I'm hot". My friend Karl Sabbagh found the ultimate on a flight from India, on the bottle of Himalaya brand water he read: "I look back on life - it's funny how things turn out. You, a connoisseur of fast food, now gaze at water that took years to make. And I, some of the purest water in the world, stand here trapped in a bottle. Come, enjoy the irony." He almost couldn't bear to drink it.

Government signals it will not challenge fiscal enforcement role for European commission and European court of justice

The prime minister has abandoned his pledge to block the eurozone from using common EU institutions to police a new regime of fiscal integration and stiff German-style rules for the embattled single currency.

Ahead of Monday's summit of EU leaders, which is due to finalise "political agreement" on the fiscal compact treaty, the government signalled that it would not challenge a role for the European commission and, more sensitively, would also allow resort to the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg to enforce new debt ceilings and fines for fiscal miscreants in the eurozone.

Last month David Cameron shocked the rest of Europe by vetoing new EU laws on fiscal rigour, forcing the other member states instead to turn the pact into an international treaty between participating governments outside the EU treaties. Cameron also vowed to resist a role for EU institutions on the grounds that they served all 27 member states.

Berlin insists that the Luxembourg court should be empowered to rule on whether the new "debt brakes" are being properly enshrined in national law across the eurozone and applied.

A senior German official said the European commission would act as "referee" in deciding whether eurozone members were breaching the new rules. A commission ruling would be accepted by eurozone governments unless overturned by "reverse majority voting" and any signatory government could then take the perceived sinner to the European court.

Senior diplomatic sources in Brussels made clear Friday that while Britain still had reservations about these provisions, there would be no attempt to block them and no quick legal challenge.

Cameron is understood to have made it clear to José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, in a telephone call on Wednesday that Britain would no longer object to using the ECJ to enforce the new treaty. "There were a number of issues in the heat of the moment," one EU source said of the prime minister's threat in December to block the use of EU institutions to police the fiscal compact. "But they quickly disappeared."

Cameron's concession marks a significant watering down of his previous position and represents a victory for Nick Clegg, who has been urging the prime minister to recover ground after wielding the veto. The deputy prime minister lobbied hard inside Whitehall for Cameron to drop his objections to the use of EU institutions to enforce the compact.

The prime minister raised concerns about the use of the ECJ as recently as 6 January. He told the Today programme on Radio 4: "You can't have a treaty outside the European Union that starts doing what should be done within the European Union and that goes back to the issue of safeguards.

"There are legal difficulties over this. One of the problems is that the European court of justice, we all think it is a great independent arbiter, but the European court of justice tends to come down on the side of whatever 'more Europe' involves. Let me be very clear that they shouldn't do things outside the European Union that are the property of the European Union."

The abrupt change of heart by Cameron may have been prompted by German anger over the British veto. Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, highlighted concerns in Berlin about Britain when he blamed Cameron for blocking the EU from embedding the eurozone fiscal compact in the Lisbon treaty.

Asked in Davos Friday about the failure to agree a revision of the Lisbon treaty, Schäuble said: "I would like to give you the number of David Cameron. Of course, this is not a joke. It would be much better, and better to understand for everyone outside of Europe, if we were to do what we will now have to do in our fiscal compact in the framework of European treaties."

Tory Eurosceptics warned Cameron against diluting his opposition to the use of the ECJ. Bill Cash, the veteran Conservative Eurosceptic who chairs the commons European scrutiny committee, said: "There mustn't be any backsliding. There are serious concerns about the lawfulness of these proposals. The institutions are simply not allowed to use the European commission and the [European] court of justice in an unlawful manner."

The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has said he thinks the Coalition should speed up the implementation of its pledge to increase the amount of money people can earn before they have to pay Income Tax (the 'personal allowance') to £10,000. The level is currently £7,475 and is scheduled to rise to £8,105 but Mr Clegg argued that poor families being squeezed by the VAT hike and tough economic conditions deserve a break from taxes sooner:

"Today I want to make clear that I want the coalition to go further and faster in delivering the full £10,000 allowance, because bluntly the pressure on family finances is reaching boiling point."

Quite right. Mr Clegg said much the same thing in January 2011 and we congratulated him then and urged Mr Osborne to take heed. But his other idea, to raise a new tax on houses worth over £2 million, is the wrong way to fund it. As Allister Heath wrote in a blistering editorial in yesterday's City AM, the Coalition needs to wake up to the urgency of the economic problems Britain faces:

"IT is hard to understand what the coalition is playing at. Britain's economy is stagnating, GDP appears to have shrunk in the last three months of 2011 and yet the government exudes no sense of emergency, no impression that it realises that we are in a national crisis and that radical, drastic and unpopular action must be taken."

Raising the personal allowance to take the least well off out of taxes is right on its own merits and the Chancellor should listen to the Deputy Prime Minister. Taxing the poorest on such low incomes and then giving the money back is crazy and kills incentives for people to work and improve their lives.

Despite what some on the left may claim, raising the personal allowance will benefit the poor most, as a graph by TPA Director Matthew Sinclair illustrates. Another way of looking at the policy is to consider how much the move would reduce people's Income Tax bill by. As you can see from the graph below, it would cut the tax bill of someone earning £26,000 a year by 14 per cent. An earner on £18,000 would enjoy a 24 per cent cut while those on £14,000 would have their tax bill slashed by 39 per cent. Obviously, those on £10,000 or less would have their tax bill completely wiped out. That has to be a good thing and shouldn't be opposed simply because people below £7,475 already don't pay any tax and therefore wouldn't benefit!

But such an obviously popular and ‘progressive' move should be used to help the Coalition take necessary steps that might otherwise be unpopular. Abolishing the 50p rate of Income Tax, for example. And it should be funded through scrapping wasteful schemes like High Speed Rail 2 and reversing the rises on international aid and the NHS budget, not from even higher taxes on other people.

New powers to help councils cut the disruption caused by road works have been announced today by Liberal Democrat Transport Minister Norman Baker.

Under 'lane rental' schemes councils will be able to charge utility companies up to £2,500 a day to dig up the busiest roads during peak times when road works cause the most disruption. This will incentivise utility firms to carry out their works more quickly and at times when roads are quieter. Companies would be able to avoid the charges by carrying out works during off-peak periods or, if appropriate, at night.

Following consultation, the Department for Transport has today published guidance for local authorities wanting to put lane rental schemes in place. In order to gather evidence on the effectiveness of lane rental, the Department has proposed that schemes should initially be used in up to three pioneer authorities - one metropolitan area and two others - and is inviting applications from interested local authorities. The successful pioneer areas will need to have exhausted other options, including using a permit scheme. They will also be required to evaluate their lane rental schemes annually and this evidence will be used to decide how further lane rental schemes should be implemented.

Norman Baker said:

"It is incredibly frustrating to find vital roads being dug up in the middle of the rush hour or, even worse, traffic lanes closed when no one is even carrying out any work.

"This disruption is not only inconvenient but very expensive, with roadworks-related congestion costing the economy an estimated £4 billion a year, which is why we are taking firm action.

"While permit schemes are working well to reduce disruption from roadworks in areas where they have been sanctioned we think it sensible to try out a further option. We believe lane rental schemes provide a further incentive to utility companies and local authorities to carry out their works at times when they will cause the minimum disruption and to complete them as quickly as possible."

The guidance which accompanies the new powers makes it clear that lane rental charges must be avoidable and proportionate to the costs of congestion. Councils are also being encouraged to apply the same principles to their own works and come forward with lane rental schemes which fit the needs of their local area.

Any revenue raised from the implementation of lane rental charges will have to be used by councils to fund measures which could help to reduce future road works disruption. This could include infrastructure work, research or measures to improve the management of works.

The Metropolitan Police have arrested 97 people in connection with ticketing, accommodation, and online fraud in relation to the Olympics due to begin in London in July.

Scotland Yard's Operation Podium is a special task force set up to prevent criminal activity by keeping on top of intelligence concerning organised gangs. The Home Secretary, Theresa May has commented on the possibility of internet crime whereby hackers may attempt to disrupt Olympic sponsors' websites.

She has said:

"We are aware of the threat from so-called 'hacktivist' groups," and has confirmed that both the Government and private sector are working towards increased security against attacks from hackers.

Scotland Yard has confirmed that the investment in overall security for the Olympic Games to date is £475m.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency has recently published information advising that the most common frauds associated with the Games are the 'London 2012' logo appearing in mass marketing frauds, hoax websites, e-mail scams. Fraudsters have also falsely offered employment and set up lotteries and prize draws under the auspices of fundraising for the event.

SOCA reports that a number of companies have been registered with a direct link to the London 2012 brand. Domain names which include "2012" have also been registered, and SOCA believes that this may be with a view to facilitate fraud.

The official Olympic committee's website has all the information the public needs to know about London 2012, including ticketing, employment and merchandise.

For accommodation in London, visitors are advised to book through well-established organisations such as Visit Britain.

The public are strongly advised not to purchase merchandise online from websites that offer too good to be true deals on products and services purportedly linked to the Olympics.

If you or anyone you know experience fraud, report it to Action Fraud.

According to a new study conducted by researchers at the Department of Public Health at Oxford, better hospital care and efforts to improve the nation's health have helped cut the number of people dying from heart attacks by half in less than ten years.

The researchers, writing in the British Medical Journal, analysed data for England throughout the eight-year period from 2002 to 2010.

The team examined more than 840,000 people in England who had been admitted to hospital for a heart attack, or who died suddenly from one, and assessed the total death rate as well as the number dying within 30 days of an attack.

The results of the survey showed that the death rate fell by roughly half between 2002 and 2010, with a 50% drop in men and a 53% drop in women.

The researchers said just over half of the reduction in the number of deaths could be attributed to a fall in the number of new heart attacks, while just under half was because of a decline in the death rate following heart attack.

Overall, 61% of the people who experienced a heart attack were men, 36% of heart attacks resulted in death and 73% occurred in those aged 65 and over.

The study gave credit to efforts to cut smoking, manage high blood pressure and high cholesterol for helping to reduce the number of people suffering an attack.

An improvement in the hospital care of those who did suffer an attack was also recognised as contributing to the reduction. Researchers believe this has contributed to a fall in the overall number dying.

An email entitled ‘Population Census: a message to everyone – act now' is being circulated, allegedly in the name of National Statistician, Jil Matheson. This email demands individuals provide further personal information, supposedly for the Census and threatens fines for non-compliance.

This email is a scam and a hoax. It has no connection whatsoever with the National Statistician, the 2011 Census or the Office for National Statistics.

Action Fraud believe the links in the e-mail could download malware to any computer where the user clicks on the links. This could put your personal data, including financial information, at risk.

Anyone receiving this, or similar emails, should delete them, not open any links and certainly not provide any information.

For more information on how to protect yourself from this type of threat, please visit the GetSafeOnline website.

The Office for National Statistics takes the protection of personal census information extremely seriously. Collection of census data was completed last year and no further requests will be forthcoming from them relating to the 2011 Census.

If you have been a victim of this, or any type of fraud then report it to Action Fraud via their online webtool.

          The media is contrasting the  US growth rate which hit 2.8% per annum in the last quarter of 2011 favourably with the stalling economies of Europe. What they are not doing, however, is picking up on the different composition of growth.

            In the UK the public sector made a positive contribution to growth, whilst industry and mining fell, producing an overall small decline.  In the US federal spending was down 7.3% and total public spending  down by 4.6%  whilst  the private sector grew well, producing the overall gain of 2.8% per annum.

 I presume this part of the truth did not fit in with the highly spun stories abouts cuts, or with the belief that Obama has avoided cuts.  The facts show in the last quarter tough cuts in US public spending along with good growth. In the UK there was public spending growth with no overall growth.  That's too difficult for UK commentators to explain!

A few recent news articles about the UK's Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem's – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges intended to issue a joint statement of opposition to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley and the Con-Dem coalition government's proposed changes to the NHS.

Lansley became aware of the letter and lobbied secretaries of the Royal Colleges to prevent the letter being issued.

The statement was not issued after objection by the Royal College of Surgeons. There are suggestions of another objection by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

A draft of the statement is published by the Guardian. Medical leaders may seek Cameron talks over health bill concerns | Politics | The Guardian

Andrew Lansley attacks the BMA (British Medical Association) as being "politically poisoned" for opposing the Con-Dem government's attack on the NHS.

Speaking at Liverpool's Alder Hey children's hospital, Lansley said: "Look back to 1948 when the BMA denounced Aneurin Bevan as ‘a would-be Führer' for wanting them to join a National Health Service. And Bevan himself described the BMA as ‘politically poisoned people'. A survey at the time shows only 10% of doctors backed the plans."

Andrew Lansley calls BMA ‘politically poisoned' for opposing NHS shakeup | Society | The Guardian

The same Guardian article claims defeat for the government in it's attempt to abolish the Health Secretary's responsibility to provide the NHS.

However, later in the day, Lansley performed his most significant U-turn yet on the bill over the highly charged issue of the health secretary's "constitutional responsibilities" to the NHS, which a House of Lords committee had warned would be "diluted" by the proposals.

Faced by a united front - led by Labour's Lady Thornton and the Liberal Democrats' Lady Williams - health minister Earl Howe conceded defeat by withdrawing proposals that had sparked major concern and backing the alternative amendment. It explicitly states: "The secretary of state retains ministerial responsibility to parliament for the provision of the health service in England."

This claim appears unreported elsewhere and I've tried to verify using Lords' Hansard without success.

I am likely to return to Lansley's comments on the BMA since it seems a particularly nasty, underhand attack.

Andrew Lansley calls BMA ‘politically poisoned' for opposing NHS shakeup | Society | The Guardian

Andrew Lansley announces new NHS property company | Healthcare Network | Guardian Professional

How US private insurance healthcare is failing | Rose Ann DeMoro | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Assuming - for the sake of discussion - Scottish independence happens in the next 5-50 years:

1. What would be in the best interests of Ulster Protestants in a post-unionist (i.e. post-U.K) Northern Ireland and why?

2. For centuries most Ulster Protestants have had a series of reasons for being both a. pro-Union and b. opposed to a unified, one-person-one-vote independent Irish state. Notwithstanding your views on the continuing present day validity of perspective (b), what would it mean to be pro-Union in the advent of an independent Scotland breaking up the U.K as we know it?

3. If Scottish independence creates a demand in England for English independence (hardly unthinkable), how would this change answers to question 1.?

4. If Scottish independence and English independence breaks up the U.K completely, would you rather have an independent Northern Ireland or a negotiated new Ireland?

5. If you would prefer a negotiated New Ireland to an independent Northern Ireland, what features of this New Ireland would be non-negotiable for you?