Les Bonner

 The Defence Secretary has admitted that the Government did not enough support British troops at the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth said that military personnel were justified in complaining about a lack of interest in their work at the beginning of the campaigns.

Mr Ainsworth said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph that improvements to  pay, equipment and support over the last two years had been absolutely essential.

Mr Ainsworth said

“People were pretty cheesed off with the attitude not only of the Government, but of the British public” 

“They were out there in Iraq, they were out there in Afghanistan, they were doing hard yards and putting their lives on the line - and nobody back here was nearly as interested as they ought to have been.”

Mr Ainsworth also said that he thought that the defence budget would have to be given a higher priority in future, which ever party was in government.

“We are going to wind up with a real debate on defence. It has not necessarily had a high enough profile,” 

 ”We have tended in politics in this country to concentrate on the domestic, on the here and now - the ‘what’s in it for me’.”

Mr Ainsworth agreed that some past decisions to cut defence spending icould now be seen as mistakes.

In 2004, Gordon Brown’s Treasury imposed a significant cut in the Ministry of Defence’s budget for helicopters, which critics say has contributed to a current shortage.

 ”You can’t totally and utterly predict where the threat might be, where the need might be, years in advance,”

Commenting on today’s Treasury Committee report into the banking crisis, Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable said:

 “This report rightly underlines the need for high quality and transparent regulation if we are to create a stable financial system.

“We must not create a regulatory system that just deals with the current crisis but one which is fit for all the challenges ahead.

“The cross party report also exposes the sheer folly of George Osborne’s proposal to hand all power back to the Bank of England.

“While it is true that breaking up the banks will be complex, it is also necessary. A bank which is too big to fail is simply too big.

“The secrecy in which the White Paper was created shows the extent of the deteriorating relations between the Bank of England and the Government and does not bode well for the future.”

Culture, Media and Sport Spokesperson, Lord Clement-Jones has launched the Live Music Bill.

The Bill received its First Reading in the House of Lords on 15th July 2009 and is awaiting a more formal second reading sometime in the Autumn.

The Live Music Bill aims to revive live music by:

• Creating an exemption from licences for the performance of any live music in a pub or similar venue 
• Reintroducing the rule allowing up to two performers to play live music anywhere without the need for a licence 
• Enabling hospitals, schools and colleges to perform live music without the need for licences

Commenting on the launch of his Bill, Lord Clement-Jones said:“We were literally promised ‘an explosion’ of live music when the Licensing Act went through in 2003, yet the reality has been a major reduction in performances in the small venues which are so important to new artists.

“This Bill will provide crucial exemptions and free small venues from the bureaucracy and cost of the Act which I am sure will be of major benefit to Britain’s talented musicians and the many millions of people who enjoy live music.”

You can view a PDF of the Bill here.

Commenting on the High Court decision not to overrule the extradition of Gary McKinnon, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said: “Today’s judgement is a hammer blow to a vulnerable man and his long suffering supporters.

“The succession of ministers who have let this sorry saga drag on for seven long years should hang their heads in shame.

“There is no way the American Government would hang one of their citizens out to dry in the same way.

“The Government must ensure that the US-UK Extradition Treaty is repealed and that its replacement treats US and British citizens equally.”

A Mori poll, commissioned by the Schools Department, found that 23% of five to 19-year-olds are not taking part in any form of organised sport, defined as “sport, dance or other physical activity which is organised and led by an instructor like a coach, teacher, sports leader or someone else, including any events or competitions.”

The problem also appeared to worsen as children grew older.  In a sample of 12,000 children and teenagers who were interviewed, more than one in 10 five to 16-year-olds did not partake in any organised sport.  The figure almost reached three out of five for 16 to 19-year-olds.

Participents in the survey were asked how many times they attended school or college in the last seven days and how much time they spent participating in organised sport both during the school day and outside school over that period.

Ian Wright, the Schools Minister, said:

“Mori questioned children aged five upwards about the specific previous week where there could have been one-off changes to the timetable due to bad weather or the pupils was absent or on school holidays.

“Our focus is now on the more challenging ambition of getting young people to take up five hours PE and sport a week.  Today’s survey findings give us a good idea of what remains to be done to get more children and young people taking up the five hour offer.”

Critics dismissed the idea that bad weather was responsible for such poor figures.

David Laws, the Liberal Democrat schools spokesman, said:

“The Government’s excuse is pretty desperate and unconvincing.

“It is hardly likely that bad weather is a serious excuse when the survey has taken place over such a long period of time.  The real issue is more likely to be a lack of making time for sports in the curriculum together with poor facilities in some schools.

“It’s astonishing that a large number of pupils seem not to be engaged in sporting activities.  This seems to contradict all of the Government’s assurances that they were succeeding in increasing the numbers of young people engaged in sport.”

Tam Fry, chair of the National Obesity Forum, said:

“We are way off what we should be doing for our children in terms of sport and it will be a long time before we get anything comparable to a good record.”

In an article in today’s Independent, Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg supported the idea of a televised debate between the party leade4rs at the next election:

It seems the Prime Minister is the only person left in the country who thinks there shouldn’t be a televised debate between party leaders at the next general election.

It would be an opportunity for transparency, to reinvigorate political debate, and to put party manifestos and leaders up against one another in a fair competition.

Gordon Brown says there’s no need for debates because we have Prime Minister’s Questions. But, despite nearly always descending into farce and name-calling, at PMQs, opposition leaders can only ask questions about government policy.  In a proper debate, each leader would be able to question both the other parties’ policies as well as championing his own.

Our politics is marred by profound unfairness.  Big donations mean far too much is decided by which party has the biggest coffers. A televised debate would go some way to correcting that.

A debate wouldn’t advantage a party; it would advantage the people.  It would be the voters’ opportunity to see the leaders competing to be Prime Minister promoting their policies and answering difficult questions about how they’d change the country.

It would bring in a wider audience than leaders could reach otherwise, giving more people the opportunity to make up their own minds based on the facts.

If Gordon Brown believed in the Labour party and his own record, he would be champing at the bit to hold this debate.  I’m eager because I want people to know about Liberal Democrat policies, and I want the opportunity to explain why Labour and the Conservatives would take us in the wrong direction.  Labour’s time is up, and the Conservatives think it’s automatically their turn, but I think in these difficult times we need to do something altogether different.

British Gas has come under pressure to cutcustomer bills after it revealed an 80% increase in profits, caused partly by last year’s price rises.

British Gas said freezing winter weather also helped to boost its January to June profit to £299million from £166million.

Critics would like to see the energy companyto share its good fortune by cutting bills for its 15.5 million customers who are still paying substantially more for gas and electricity than they were in January 2008.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Simon Hughes said energy firms had a duty to give their customers a fair deal and called on all the main suppliers to bring down their prices.

“Millions of people will be angry that they have to pay such high fuel bills when their energy supplier is making such whopping profits,” he warned.

British Gas emphasised that its residential arm’s January to June profits were up 80% on the same period of 2008 when profits were very low. It says that it has cut household gas prices by 10% in February and its electricity by 10% in May which together reduced off its average dual-fuel customer’s annual bill by £132 .

But those reductions have failed to reverse increases last year which together ramped up its gas prices by an average of 55 per cent and its electricity prices by 25 per cent. Managing director Phil Bentley said it was likely bills would come down in future but ruled out any imminent reductions.

“Yes, I can see prices coming down but we are investing heavily and we do expect to make a return,” he said. “It would be misleading to suggest prices are about to fall because the gas we are burning today is expensive gas we bought last year.”

Mr Bentley stressed British Gas had to strike a balance between keeping customers happy while still creating jobs and ploughing money into creating new power plants and green energy.

The new Home Secretary found himself in Manchester for the second time
in a month this week, pausing only to wave the final mock-up of the
identity card at St Pancras Station.  We wonder whether this counts as
two towards the Home Office’s quota of summer policy announcements to
make the government look active and decisive.

Once in Manchester, which is to be a “beacon area” (beachhead?) for the
scheme, he conducted what is certainly the third, and (if you count St
Pancras) possibly the fourth re-launch of ID cards this year. It is
beginning to look a bit desperate.

Mr Johnson called ID cards a “No-brainer” in the fight against fraud. “I
believe the ID card will be welcomed as an important addition to the
many plastic cards that most people already carry,” he said. You’d have
to *be* a no-brainer to believe that. Nobody with a brain is going to
take up Mr Johnson’s important addition when they realise it means being
tagged and tracked for the rest of their lives, and that that particular
plastic card will own *them*.

Strangely the Home Office is quiet about that element of the bargain. It
is up to NO2ID to tell the public, and we will be launching a series of
campaigns in Manchester and the north west during the autumn. Look out
for more information soon about how you can help.

The Home Office has revealed the designs for ID cards at two launch events in London and Manchester.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson launched the design at St Pancras International Station in London, saying that it is another milestone, enabling people to “prove and protect their identity in a quick, simple and secure way”.

The card will be offered to members of the public in the Greater Manchester area from the end of this year.

It is planned to launch the £30 card nationwide on a voluntary basis in 2011 or 2012 but the government is facing opposition over the card with critics saying it breaches privacy as well as being useless and a waste of money.

The Conservatives have also threatened to cancel the scheme if elected at the next general election, which will be in May 2010 at the latest.

The ID card design shows the information contained on the face of the card, including photograph, name, date of birth, the holder’s National Identity Register (NIR) number and signature.  It will hold similar information to that currently contained in the UK passport as well as a photograph and fingerprints on an embedded electronic chip.

Mr Johnson said:

“Given the growing problem of identity fraud and the inconvenience of having to carry passports, coupled with gas bills or six months worth of bank statements to prove identity, I believe the ID card will be welcomed as an important addition to the many plastic cards that most people already carry,”

Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary, Chris Huhne, said:

“It doesn’t matter how fancy the packaging is when the product is a colossal waste of money that achieves nothing. A designer piece of plastic is not going to combat identity fraud, crime or terrorism.”

NO2ID has announced it will hold a series of campaign events in Manchester.  It said the events would allow the people of the North West “a voice in defending their way of life from this intrusive scheme”. To accompany the campaign, NO2ID will launch a new website to publicise events and help people coordinate their contribution.

“Inform yourself, inform others. Don’t be a guinea-pig. Together we can beat this insidious scheme,” said Phil Booth, NO2ID’s national coordinator.

Motorists in Nottingham who drive to work may soon have to pay a £250 parking tax under a Government scheme which is expected to be announced today.

Under the scheme businesses that employ 11 or more staff who park their cars in company bays will be charged for each space.

Employers would be allowed to pass the cost on to their staff.

An estimated 40,000 commuters in Nottingham drive to work and some businesses have already threatened to leave the area if the scheme is introduced.

Business associations oppose the extra cost, which has been put at more than £3 billion if it were rolled out nationwide.  It is estimated that about 10 million people in Britain drive to work every day.

The scheme, which has been condemned by critics as a ‘tax on jobs’, will initially charge £250 per space but the cost is bound to rise in successive years.

The schemeis expected to be introduced in 2012 but other councils are expected to follow suit.

The scheme is expected to be endorsed today by Transport Minister Sadiq Khan during a visit to Nottingham.

An estimated 500 firms in the city will be hit by the scheme, which will be enforced by CCTV cameras, spot checks and number-plate recognition systems, but critics claim that the scheme is unfair and penalises shift workers who rely on cars to get to work at night when public transport is unavailable.

A spokesman for the AA said:

“It is discriminating against those employers who have parking spaces, which gets vehicles off the street.

“These tariffs apply around the clock, which is especially unfair to shift workers who rely on their cars because public transport is not available. 

“This is more about generating a revenue stream than reducing congestion and will require snooping to enforce it properly.’

Nottingham council estimates that the parking charge will raise £5.6 million in the first year, and the money will be used for new tram and bus routes and refurbishment of the main train station.

Environmental groups have welcomed the move.

Richard Hebditch, of the Campaign for Better Transport, said:

“It has the added benefit of tackling unnecessary commuter journeys, one of the main causes of congestion.

“Failing to deal with the causes of congestion is simply not an option.

“We put forward the idea of workplace parking levies as a fairer way to raise money to invest in the future of local transport services. We are pleased that the people of Nottingham will be the first to benefit.”