SIR ALEX FERGUSON ON A LABOUR GOVERNMENT

Local Election - Leaders Debate at 11am on Thursday - Don't Miss It

Salford City Radio is hosting its very own "Leaders Debate" live on the air with the three main party leaders in Salford. Labour Councillor John Merry, Liberal Democrats Councillor Norman Owen, Conservative Councillor Karen Garrido and Salford Independents Leader Councillor Martin O Neill will be in our studio with Brian Minor discussing the matters that affect Salford people.

YOU set the agenda for this debate.Ask a question either on the phone during the show, or by e-mail - please submit them to the e-mail address

info@salfordcityradio.org or by calling 0161 793 2939 and 0161 793 2944.

This is a unique opportunity to get your questions heard and answered by the Leaders. Please support this public service broadcast by tuning in on 94.4FM or online via www.salfordcityradio.org

Liberal Democrats and "Faith Schools"

Councillor John Warmisham outside the new Holy Family RC Primary School being built in Langworthy thanks to the Labour run council working closely with Salford RC Diocese.


A bishop has severely criticised the Liberal Democrats for an election pledge that could result in the abolition of religious schools.

The Liberal Democrat manifesto commits the party to stopping Catholic, Anglican and Jewish schools from selecting pupils on grounds of faith. Critics say the policy would effectively spell the abolition of nearly 7,000 religious schools that have succeeded in delivering a high quality of education over generations.

Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham accused the Liberal Democrats of seeking to destroy the historic partnership between the state and the churches in the provision of education.

“Catholics should give it very serious consideration before they vote Liberal Democrat,” said Bishop McMahon, the chairman of the Department for Education of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales,

“Our position is that every person should have the right to bring up their children according to their consciences.”

He said that this was the “firm principle” on which all the education policies involving the Catholic Church have been established since Cardinal Henry Edward Manning embarked on a vast school-building programme in 1870.

The bishop said the principle was enshrined in the 1944 Education Act and preserved by the 1988 Education Reform Act.

But he said the Liberal Democrats were now “looking at changing the fundamentals of education policy which is going to be very damaging for the Catholic Church”.

“I think we have fought hard over the last 150 years to develop the Catholic school system which we believe provides for the needs of our children,” said Bishop McMahon. “We would not want to see that eroded in any way.”

The bishop said he was “surprised” by the policy, which he described as “unnecessary”.

He also accused the Liberal Democrats of seeking to “take a slice of the faith school capital”.

He said the party was targeting religious schools because they are successful, with religious schools together gaining about two-thirds of all perfect Standard Attainment Tests although they constitute a minority of the sector.

“They [the Liberal Democrats] want a slice of success for everybody, which sounds wonderful until you realise that our schools weren’t founded for that purpose,” Bishop McMahon said.

“We have an education system based on principles not results,” he added. “We believe that education is fundamentally about developing the human person and everything, including good results, flows from that.

“The reason that the Catholic Church is in education is based on the fact that we believe a child should get to know God and God’s creation. That’s why we are in it, that’s why we do it. It’s not only because we get good results.”

The policy is contained in a section of the Liberal Democrat election manifesto called Freeing Schools for Excellence. “We will ensure that all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith,” the policy states.

Critics say it will mean that 4,470 Church of England, 2,300 Catholic and 85 Jewish schools will lose control over their admissions, with successful schools in particular possibly inundated with non-religious pupils – often at the expense of religious families.

Story from The Catholic Herald.

Salford Liberal Democrats should come clean and say if they support their parties election manifesto or was all their posturing about BSF faith schools just jumping on the bandwagon AGAIN !

Salford shared ownership homes now all snapped up in just one month

Thanks to Salfordonline for the following story.

This scheme has only happened because of a Labour run council in Salford and a Labour Government. That's why on May 6th in Langworthy Ward vote Labour to continue with investment.

Salford shared ownership homes now all snapped up in just one month
The official launch last month of Fitzwarren Street, Plumlife’s latest development, attracted unprecedented interest from Salford residents keen to get a foot on to the property ladder. Of the eight homes for sale under the government’s shared ownership scheme, all eight have been reserved in just three weeks.
The frenzied atmosphere and swift reservations at the launch was reminiscent of the pre-recession era, where homes were sold effortlessly off-plan in a flurry of excitement.

But perhaps what makes the swift sales targets even more impressive, is that the homes are located in Pendleton, an inner city area of Salford undergoing multi-million pound investment to regenerate the area, led by Salford City Council.

The terraced townhouses are part of a new Great Places Housing Group mixed tenure development of 39 homes for rent and affordable sale to help people get onto the property ladder.

Commenting on the huge interest in the new homes, Plumlife deputy chief executive, Matthew Harrison, said, “We’re delighted with the response to this development. We were cautiously optimistic that the homes would sell reasonably quickly due to the massive demand for decent and affordable family homes in the area. However even we were surprised at the speed of reservations, given both the recession and the challenges of selling in an inner city area, albeit one in the throes of dramatic and exciting regeneration

“This illustrates why, even during this tough economic climate, continuing to invest in government schemes such as shared ownership remains critical. We’ve worked hard to create the kind of homes that are both desirable, and will accommodate a family’s practical needs. The shared ownership scheme gives people the opportunity to commit to a relatively small mortgage and pay rent on the rest. This takes the pressure off them to come up with a huge deposit, one of the main problems facing buyers today.”

Paul Walker, Salford City Council’s strategic director of sustainable regeneration added: “Our vision to create a new Pendleton is all about providing a range of quality and affordable homes for local people and it’s good to see that the first new homes are a success with residents.

“A lot of careful planning with our partners and developers has been put into our plans to regenerate Pendleton and the popularity of these new homes shows that we’re delivering desirable places for people to live.”

The Fitzwarren Street development has given Salford residents a real opportunity to fulfil their home ownership dreams, via the ever popular New Build HomeBuy scheme (aka “shared ownership”. The initiative allows eligible buyers to buy a share of their home – typically from 35%, and pay a low rent on the remainder. Plumlife, part of Great Places Housing Group, is of

Prices start from just £43,750 for a 35% stake in a three bedroom home. The shared ownership scheme also gives home owners the opportunity to ‘staircase’ upwards in the future, offering them the chance to buy the remaining share of the property – either in stages or in a single lump payment.

The show home at Fitzwarren Street will remain open every Saturday between 11am – 4pm with viewing appointments during week days available on request.



Related Links
For more information on Fitzwarren Street, or any of Plumlife’s low cost homeownership packages, please contact Plumlife on 0161 447 5050 or click here

Love Music Hate Racism Carnival 2010

LMHR CARNIVAL 2010, SATURDAY 1st MAY 2010, 4pm-10pm

County War Car Park, Barnsley, South Yorkshire



Final 100% confirmed main stage lineup:
UB40

CHIPMUNK

REVEREND & THE MAKERS

ROLL DEEP

THE BLACKOUT

GET CAPE WEAR CAPE FLY

MUMZY STRANGER
The Rabbits

Delicateers

Gaia

Plus more than *20* fringe events across Barnsley from noon til 4am!

TICKETS: JUST **£8** from: http://bit.ly/9XUYec + HMV Barnsley/Sheffield/Manchester/Leeds/Doncaster

Local Coaches + ticket sellers: http://bit.ly/a6NutW

Download latest Carnival Flyer + more info etc: http://is.gd/bvTcg

LMHR CARNIVAL 2010 is supported by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, the PCS union and the National Union of Teachers

Thanks to this Labour Government and Langworthy Labour Councillors working with Salford PCT, finance was secured to invest in "The Pendleton Gateway" which provides a wide range of health & social care services to improve the health and wellbeing of local residents, as well as a new modern Library. This sort of investment will not happen under the Tories or negative Liberal Democrats. Use your vote for Labour on May 6th.

Local disabled people still “Polls Apart” when it comes to voting

Local disabled people still “Polls Apart” when it comes to voting

Voting is a right that many of us probably take for granted - but for thousands of disabled people that is not the case and they are denied the opportunity to make their voices heard at the ballot box.

Disabled people still face discrimination when it comes to voting because of a number of different access barriers. These can include polling stations without ramps for wheelchair users or voting information which is not available in alternative formats such as Braille.

That’s why local councillor John Warmisham will be supporting disability charity Scope’s Polls Apart campaign in the run-up to the General Election.

Polls Apart is a campaign to ensure that disabled people have the same access to voting as everyone else.
John Warmisham is calling on Salford City Council to ensure that all local polling stations are fully accessible to disabled people. This could include changes such as installing temporary ramps or ensuring that polling station staff have disability equality training.

He will also be taking part in a survey of local polling stations produced by Scope on polling day looking at access.

Councillor John Warmisham said

“In a modern democracy it is simply not acceptable that so many disabled people are still denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote.

“I hope as many people as possible will take part in this survey to raise awareness about this issue. Disabled people must be treated equally and fairly when it comes to voting.”

ENDS

Notes to Editor:

• To learn more about the Polls Apart campaign and also download a copy of the survey go to www.pollsapart.org.uk

Personal privacy: Caught on Camera

The authors of section 44 of the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act did not intend to mandate the systematic harassment of photographers. The law gives police the power to stop and search people, without suspicion of criminal intention, in any area considered a possible target for terrorist attack.

Since al-Qaida targets civilians, an area vulnerable to attack can plausibly be defined as a place where people gather. Predictably, that interpretation is the one police seem to prefer when using their power. They are also zealous in following guidance that identifies photography of public buildings as one possible stage in the chain of planning a terrorist act. So anyone taking a picture anywhere can be stopped by the police as a potential terrorist.

The New Review today reports how a rising tide of suspicion is threatening the art of street photography. Anti-terror law is only part of the picture. Concern about paedophiles has lead in many public places to a ban on photography where children might be caught in the frame. Many streets and shopping centres that appear to be public spaces are run by private companies with their own rules on photography enforced by security guards in pseudo-police garb.

Meanwhile, CCTV cameras belonging to private and state bodies are constantly capturing images of the public, with no obligation to respect privacy or seek consent.

The ubiquity of the camera, whether mounted on government buildings or in a mobile phone, is a defining feature of our lives, but we have yet to settle the laws and protocols that should govern their use: what is public, what is private, what is fair game for a snapper. It is clear, however, that the balance is currently skewed the wrong way. Moral right gives citizens possession of the streets. Governments and corporations should ask permission to take our pictures if they must, not the other way around.

OBSERVER EDITORIAL

FIB DEM MANIFESTO

Having spent a column on the Labour manifesto and another on the Tory travesty, it seems only fair to take the time to comment on the Lib Dem offering.

But it's the most difficult of all to analyse, because it's without doubt the most deceitful.

It has clearly been developed without the slightest fear of being implemented. Even the Lib Dems themselves have no illusions about the likelihood of winning a parliamentary majority. And doesn't it show?

It's a hotch-potch of policies thrown together with ingredients to please everyone in part, to grab votes without commitment to any philosophy of government.

And it's in contradiction to everything we know about the Lib Dem style of work in local authorities, which is the only yardstick that can be used, since you can't very well find their track record in government. They don't have one.

It's the mealy-mouthed equivocations that you have to look for, as usual with this party. At first sight, peace activists might be attracted by the commitment to abandon Trident. But on closer inspection, is it all that it seems? No, it most certainly isn't. All that the Lib Dems say is that they wouldn't support a "like-for-like" replacement and what exactly does that mean? We can't tell and neither can anyone else. It could mean banana-shaped missiles rather than pointy ones.

They talk about the end of the ID card scheme but at the same time the Lib Dems' dream Britain will see the reintroduction of exit checks at ports and airports, the development of a national border force with police powers, electronic tagging, privatisation of the asylum system, hospitals feeding information on patients to the police and a whole host of repressive measures.

On power, what do we see? Why, it's a full stop on coal-fired power stations unless they have fully developed carbon capture facilities. Nuclear power stations are out - a new generation is rejected out of hand.

But there's going to be investment in turning derelict shipyards into wind turbine manufacturers.

Quite where these shipyards are going to get the power to operate in the interim isn't specified, since there's no provision for investment in clean coal technology to get coal-fired stations operating and nuclear is ruled right out.

Perhaps the Lib Dems envision a host of members pedalling generators in the meantime, to supplement the country's crumbling power infrastructure.

It's the unreality of this politics-in-a-vacuum manifesto that irritates most.

It shows worst over reforming banking. The manifesto talks about separating retail and investment banking without any idea of how this can be done in the face of inevitable resistance from the City.

It waffles on about responsible lending without the slightest analysis of how it could be achieved, as if the banks will suddenly see the light and say: "Oh, it's the Lib Dems in power, let's all be nice from now on."

But it's all hot air, all promises manufactured without substance and sold to the public without qualm, despite most of it being utterly unachievable without a shift in political power to working people which the Lib Dems can't even mention because they know that their members would never tolerate it.

It's still the case that you can only judge them by results and ask local authority workers up and down the country about the Lib Dems.

Ask the Leeds council workers about Lib Dem policies on day-centre closure. Or about 1,400 expected job cuts. Ask Renfrewshire educationalists about the SNP/Lib Dem council's £12 million education cuts in teacher numbers and cutting school buses. And ask Brent residents about swingeing increases in care charges for elderly people, the 143 per cent increase in the cost of burying children and the new charges for bulky refuse collection.

You'll hear the truth about the Lib Dem manifesto. A tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

MORNING STAR EDITORIAL

WHEN THE CONSERVATIVES SAY "WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER", WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN IS "YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN"

Conservative Party manifesto.



We cannot do anything we want for public services unless we first secure the economic recovery. This is Labour's priority. It's the great big hole at the centre of the Tories' manifesto - the doughnut manifesto.


When the Conservatives say "we're all in this together", what they really mean is "you're on your own".


It is not a question of involving people in the running and delivery of public services - we're all in favour of this. It's one of the reasons why public services have improved.


Labour wants to make all public services even more responsive and accountable to the public. We set out our ideas for achieving this in our manifesto yesterday, continuing a clear direction of travel.


But do-it-yourself public services of the sort the Conservatives are describing won't work unless the frontline is properly protected and properly funded and the Tories will have to cut spending very sharply to make all their promises and all their figures add up.


Everything we want to do in public services depends on a strong economy. Labour has led Britain from recession to recovery and has set out a credible, coherent plan to secure the recovery this year. You cannot build a strong society without a strong economy.


There is a big hole in the Tory manifesto. It's called economic credibility. They say they will reduce taxes, protect spending and lower the deficit. This is something-for-nothing Santa Clause economics. It will kill the recovery and mean we would be paying the price for years to come.


A combination of their black hole and a sink-or-swim approach to public services shows that for all the PR blitz, David Cameron has not changed the Tory Party. This is not an agenda for empowerment - it's an agenda for abandonment.


David Cameron is promising the same policies which the Conservative Party promised in 2005



As part of his ‘detoxification strategy', David Cameron has attempted to distance himself from the first Conservative Party manifesto.


But real change requires a lot more than just changing the cover of his first manifesto document.


David Cameron is promising the same policies which the Conservative Party promised in 2005:


A quota on immigration;


To bring back fox hunting;


To scrap Britain's opt-in to the Social Chapter, which helped establish a right to parental leave, better maternity leave and flexible working;


A bill to deal with the fact they're still struggling in Scotland by introducing so-called ‘English votes for English laws';


To cut the number of MPs - mostly Labour ones - and especially in Wales;


More private providers to set up thousands of new school places;


A risky plan to allow more hospital borrowing;


More bureaucracy with elected police commissioners;


And the ‘Tony Martin' law giving people the right to defend your home with violence.


Not only that, David Cameron has gone back even further for his key pledges: from William Hague's 2001 manifesto, he's brought back the marriage tax allowance and an inheritance tax giveaway for the wealthiest few.


And he's also brought back William Hague's pledge to scrap health targets and Regional Development Agencies, which he now calls ‘stuff' and ‘nonsense'.


When he wrote his first manifesto for the Conservatives, David Cameron asked the British people ‘are you thinking what we're thinking?'


When you look at his policies it is clear that David Cameron is still thinking what they were thinking.

A FUTURE FAIR FOR ALL

In this year's election there will be a big choice about the future we want for Britain.

Labour will build a future fair for all.

The Tories threaten an age of austerity - a change you can't afford.

- We must secure the recovery - not put it at risk.

- We must support new industries and future jobs.

- We must protect frontline services - not cut them.

- We must stand up for the many - not the few.

TORY MARRIAGE TAX PLANS

Tory marriage tax plans: what they give with one hand, they take away with the other.



With the Tories you always need to look behind the headlines. Their marriage tax plans are more evidence of that. What they give with one hand, they take with the other.


The Tories are giving to some married couples, but taking away from children with their plans to cut Child Trust Funds and Tax Credits.


It's not just that widows and wives who've been forced to leave their husbands get nothing. Two out of three married couples get nothing. And most couples who work get nothing.


The Tories' choice is to take money away from families with children. That's not our choice. We're committed to standing by the Child Trust Fund, the Child Tax Credit, and protecting schools.


This shows once again that the Conservatives have not changed.

TORY CREDIBILITY UNDER PRESSURE

The pressure is growing on the Tories' tax and spending plans. David Cameron's Today interview this morning was very revealing, both for what he said and what he didn't say.

David Cameron has today confirmed his intention to make a very expensive tax cut costing £30 billion over a five year parliament in cancelling the National Insurance Contributions increase.

But he has claimed that he cannot know how to pay for it until after the election:

"The changes we want to make in terms of the first year savings along the lines of what Peter Gershon is talking about in the Financial Times are things that we want to agree with the Treasury, through the Treasury in government and we believe they are doable and deliverable. But the exact balance between things like procurement, recruitment and IT should be decided calmly and reasonably with the Treasury if we're elected on May 6th."
David Cameron, BBC Radio 4 Today, 09 April 2010

He contradicted George Osborne by admitting that efficiency savings won't be enough to pay for this:

Evan Davis: You're the one, you're the one who says you can afford to cut taxes. My point is this, is that by Year 5, even if we accept you can find efficiency savings in Year 1, by Year 5 you're making difficult decisions on public spending, not efficiency savings, and if you cut taxes relative to Labour in Year 5, it must simply be the case that your core public spending is lower than Labour's would be?
David Cameron: Of course.
Evan Davis: Not efficiency savings, core public spending would be lower, taxes would be lower, that is what you get if you vote Conservative.
David Cameron: Yes, absolutely. I think you've put it very clearly. We are saying that you need to go faster on public spending than Labour. Absolutely, I accept that.
David Cameron, BBC Radio 4 Today, 09 April 2010


It is now clear from the interview on Today - and he was unable to deny this - that additional heavy cuts will have to be made in public sector spending, with tens of thousands of jobs being lost not just in the public sector but in the private sector as well where they depend on government contracts.


David Cameron needs to come clean on what his plans are.


We said yesterday the Conservative economic strategy was based on a house of cards and increasingly the cards are looking very wobbly.

A Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote.

Electoral Publicity on Internet and Social Networking Material

I set out below guidance issued by the Electoral Commission in respect of such matters. This advice is contained on page 36 of the Guidance to Candidates and Agents- Local Government Elections.

INTERNET and SOCIAL NETWORKING MATERIAL

The rules on including an Imprint do not apply to material that appears on a website, on a social networking site or any such system. However, websites that contain material by or on behalf of a candidate should have an Imprint as a matter of good practice.

The Imprint to be included should be the same as for printed material, except that there would be clearly no requirement to give the printers details.


Any posters that are available for download from a website should, however, carry the full imprint, i.e. include the full details of both the printer and the promoter.

Cllr Norman Owen on the Politics Show.

In this weeks Salford Advertiser Cllr Norman Owen boasts about his brilliant appearance on the Politics Show. Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL8n4OqEhWg

Cllr Norman Owen response.

A gimmick is defined in my dictionary as a device for the purpose of attracting publicity - so I would expect that Cllr Norman Owen would be sufficiently familiar with the term to be able to use it properly.
Unfortunately, he applies it to real money, which will make a real difference to the real issue of the condition of our highways.
It is not a gimmick to resurface around 90 roads in the coming weeks from the final £850,000 of a five year investment programme.
It is not a gimmick to resurace at least another 100 roads from an extra £2.8m investment found by the Lead Member for Finance, Cllr Bill Hinds, thanks to extra savings we have made on tripping claims.
It is not a gimmick to set aside an extra £0.5 million to fill potholes in response to the 50% increase in repairs needed as a result of the severe winter.
And it is not a gimmick to top that up with the extra £200,000 the Chancellor awarded Salford in his budget to tackle potholes.
These are a genuine response to the genuine concerns of the people of Salford and Cllr Owen's negative comments are, I fear, symptomatic of his philosophy: he attacks what is good for Salford - because what is good for Salford is bad for Norman Owen.
It is, however, a gimmick for Cllr Owen to be photographed pointing to a pothole he know is in a programme to be repaired. And when Cllr Owen voted for a cut in the budget that includes potholes last year - well, that was just plain hypocrisy.
Councillor Derek Antrobus
Lead Member for Planning

The Sun and the BNP

The Sun newspaper appears to be celebrating the "increased popularity of the BNP", which is being picked up and promoted by the BNP itself: http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/uk-party-political-news/%E2%80%9Cbnp-gaining-in-popularity%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-the-sunAnd according to a recent YouGov poll, 1/3 of BNP members read The Sun: Who votes BNP and why (Searchlight report)A new survey into the attitudes of BNP voters has produced some startling revelations. Unsurprisingly BNP voters are overwhelmingly opposed to immigration and asylum seekers but a sizeable number also share the BNP’s hardline attitudes about citizenship and racial superiority.It shows that BNP voters are predominantly working class, drawn from former Labour-voting households and feel more insecure about their economic prospects.Conducted by YouGov from 29 May to 4 June, the survey questioned 985 BNP voters as part of a much bigger study of the political views of 32,268 people.The study tells us that men are twice as likely to support the BNP as women, 44% of BNP voters are aged 35 to 54 and 61% are drawn from the social groups C2DE. One third of BNP voters read The Sun or the Daily Star, whereas only 13% read the Daily Mirror and those reading The Guardian and The Independent are statistically insignificant. One fifth claim to be members of trade unions or trade associations and 36% identify themselves as skilled or semi-skilled manual workers.On one level the report tells us little new. More BNP supporters regard immigration as one of the key issues facing the country at the moment – 87% compared to 49% among all voters. Again unsurprisingly, 94% of BNP supporters believed that all further immigration should be halted. This compares with 87% of UK Independence Party voters, 68% of Conservative voters, 46% of Labour voters, 43% of Lib Dem voters and even 37% of Green voters.Only 4% of BNP voters believed that recent immigration had benefited the country.What is more startling is the strength of the racial attitudes of many BNP voters. In a result that gives the lie to the BNP vote simply being a protest, 44% (compared to 12% of all voters) disagreed with the statement: “non-white British citizens who were born in this country are just as ‘British’ as white citizens born in this country”.Among BNP voters 21% strongly disagreed with the statement compared to just 1% of Greens and Lib Dems and 2% of Labour and 3% of Conservative voters.More disturbingly, 31% of BNP voters believed there was a difference in intelligence between the average black Briton and the average white Briton.http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=284

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S CREDIBILITY DEFICIT

Today Labour published a new analysis of Conservative tax and spending promises. It shows that they have made promises of tax cuts and new spending worth nearly £29 billion - but have only identified just under £6.5 billion of savings to pay for them. This leaves them with a "credibility deficit" of over £22 billion.
In addition to this, matching our deficit target even one year faster would mean having to find a further £26 billion through cuts to public services or extra taxes.
When we published a list of Conservative tax and spending promises in January, it plunged the Conservative Party into disarray - David Cameron wobbled on his flagship policy of tax breaks for married couples and his party also broke key promises on policies such as NHS single rooms and extra prison places.
But they have also made new commitments, such as this week's promise to reverse the planned National Insurance rise - without setting out clear, credible savings to pay for them.
Alistair Darling MP, Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer said:"In January, we brought together for the first time all the promises David Cameron and George Osborne had made."The challenge to them in January was to eliminate the entire ‘credibility gap' in their plans - before they could say anything meaningful about going further and tackling the deficit at all. The challenge was to eliminate their entire credibility gap. They failed."Today we have looked at this again, it leaves the Conservatives with a ‘credibility deficit' of £22 billion. It means they are now forced to find £22 billion in extra spending cuts or tax rises to deal with this, even before they have made any moves to cut the deficit faster than we are."So the challenge to David Cameron today is - stand up and tell people: which of these are promises you'll stand by - and ident ify the real cuts or tax increases that you'll do to afford them or be clear to people which further promises you are breaking today."If he fails to do so, the Tories will have no credibility left."
Peter Mandelson, Labour's Business Secretary said:"In the coming weeks we are going to focus relentlessly on these Tory plans. On the fact that money doesn't grow on trees. Tax cuts cannot be plucked out of thin air. And that, if you want to protect frontline services - as we do - they have to be paid for."The credibility of David Cameron and George Osborne is an important issue - for the public, for the markets and internationally."But even more important are the costs to the British people. The list of Conservative tax and spending promises that we have outlined today all have to be paid for by the public."
We have made our choices and set out our deficit reduction plan - halving the deficit over four years with fair tax rises and lower spending growth. We have also set out the tax rises that will be part of that plan - totalling £19 billion. They do not include a rise in VAT. As the Chancellor said today, he considered VAT but chose to raise NICs as the fair choice - protecting those earning under £20,000 and not affecting pensioners.
No Chancellor ever rules out future tax changes. But we are clear that we have no need to raise VAT to deliver our deficit reduction plan.
The Tories are the ones with a £22 billion credibility gap to fund, even before they start cutting the deficit. It's hard to see how they could deliver additional resources on that scale without raising VAT and making further large cuts in public spending.

Tories return to anti-Gypsy message

Wednesday 31 March 2010
Paul Donovan

The Tories have never liked the travelling community. At the last general election in 2005, then Tory leader Michael Howard made a point of attacking Irish travellers and Gypsies.
Now the party has issued a green paper which looks to reverse the limited gains that have been made over the last decade or so.
Many of today's problems were caused by the last Tory government's repeal of the Caravans Act 1968, which imposed a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide sites.
As a result, the travelling community was put into a state of perpetual motion, moving from one local authority to the next. There was no incentive for any local authority to provide sites.
There are estimated to be between 200,000 and 300,000 Gypsies and travellers in the UK.
To put the accommodation needs in perspective, the Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that one square mile of land across England would provide enough authorised sites.
The Labour government has since called on local authorities to identify land suitable for sites and to build suitable accommodation for travellers.
This process has slowly been taking root across the country, accompanied by a number of scare stories in the tabloid press about compulsory purchase orders and travellers moving in on middle England.
Conservative-controlled authorities' reluctance to act in the spirit of this guidance was best illustrated by London Mayor Boris Johnson, who recently reduced the provision of sites in the London Plan from 538 to 238.
Originally travellers' groups had been pushing for 807 sites, the boroughs for 238.
In October Johnson accepted 538, but now the lower figure has been adopted.
The Tories' new green paper illustrates their desire to return to their early 1990s position on the travelling community.
The paper stresses a criminal justice approach, seeking to strengthen local authorities' powers to move travellers on, while removing any obligation to provide sites.
In a letter to The Conservative communities spokeswoman Caroline Spellman, Lord Eric Avebury warns: "If this document is used by Conservatives in local or national election campaigns, it will provoke community tensions, as occurred at the last general election when negative Conservative policies, less extreme than the present green paper, aroused great concern among Gypsies and travellers and an increase in racism in schools and the wider community."
But the Labour government, rather than standing its ground over this threat, has issued guidance on anti-social behaviour within the Gypsy and travelling community.
The guidance points to the use of Asbos, acceptable behaviour contracts and injunctions. It specifies particular offending behaviour such as fly-tipping, noise, straying livestock and untaxed vehicles.
The fact is that the travelling community is one of the most discriminated-against groups in British society.
Statistics show the community receiving second-class health care, limited educational opportunities and it has an over-representation among the prison population.
Some of the official data makes for shocking reading, with life expectancy among travellers 10 years less than for the settled population and self-reported mental illness standing at 19 per cent, compared with 9 per cent in the general population.
The travelling population also has the highest number of miscarriages among Britain's ethnic groups, with a rate of 29 per cent compared with 16 per cent for the general population.
Premature deaths of older offspring are 18 per cent, compared with 1 per cent for the general population.
There has been some progress over recent years to address some of the travelling community's problems, most notably over site provision and health care.
Slowly but surely the world of Gypsies and travellers is becoming better known to the wider community. It must be hoped that greater tolerance will follow.
What is not needed now is a gutter-based election campaign with political parties competing to see who can be toughest on one of the most marginalised groups in society. Pandering to prejudice and the desire of some to scapegoat minorities in order to win cheap votes will help no-one.

Read more of Paul Donovan's writing at www.paulfdonovan.blogspot.com