NHS - apparently it's not for sale, only it increasingly looks like it is

The reform privatisation of the NHS is set to continue with backing by the Lib Dems and rubbish opposition from Labour (politicians eh, not worth the paper they’re printed on).

The top-down reform of the NHS has lost the support of pretty much all health professionals. (It was with a certain amount of South West pride that Totnes MP Dr Sarah Wollaston was the first to condemn the reforms – a situation which quickly changed once the reality of a life in politics kicked in.)

Surely reform of the NHS is important? But at a time of economic stress, unless the savings are significant, such a big issue seems a distraction. And the reforms aren’t about saving money. (Then again neither are weekly bin collections.)

So why think of these reforms as privatisation? The bill will lift the cap of private work carried out in NHS hospitals from 2% to 49%.

Here’s some more evidence. And here’s a story of a pensioner launching a high court appeal against the privatisation of the NHS.

Of course, all this was started under Labour.

And while you’re considering the attack on a fundamental issue of Britishness, here’s a story on Nick Clegg and David Cameron’s belligerence for ‘reform’…

(image: Some rights reserved by secretlondon123)

This article titled “No alternative to NHS reforms, say coalition” was written by Patrick Wintour and Juliette Jowit, for The Guardian on Thursday 9th February 2012 01.43 UTC

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have agreed they have no alternative but to push ahead with the planned reforms to the NHS, even though they admit they are in “a rubbish place politically” and it could take three years until the general election to persuade voters that fears about the reforms are unfounded.

Cameron endured a mauling over the issue at prime minister’s questions , and afterwards one senior minister involved in deciding how to proceed with the bill admitted: “This is a politically rubbish place to be. We can either go back, sideways or forward.” Ministers have argued there was no alternative but to plough on.

Liberal Democrats, including Baroness Williams, are in no mood to abandon the bill, even though many health professionals – at one time reconciled to the bill – have now defected.

On the day that health visitors and the Faculty of Public Health joined the long list of those deserting the bill, Labour leader Labour leader Ed Miliband accused Cameron of presiding over a “complete disaster” with the bill.

He said the prime minister had broken a pre-election promise not to have any “top-down re-organisation of the NHS” and told him: “Every day he fights for this bill, every day trust in him on the NHS ebbs away, every day it becomes clearer the NHS is not safe in his hands.”

But Cameron said Labour had previously supported NHS reform – and would not match government commitments on NHS spending: “They are not in favour of the money. They are not in favour of the reform. They are just a bunch of opportunists.”

He criticised Labour’s record on the NHS in Wales – where the party controls the Welsh Assembly – and said the coalition was cutting bureaucracy and ploughing money back into patient care.

He said of Miliband: “This is not a campaign to save the NHS. This is a campaign to try and save his leadership. I make this prediction, the NHS will go on getting better and his prospects will go on getting worse.”

Cameron also backed his health secretary Andrew Lansley, saying he would survive a lot longer in office than Miliband.

It is understood that Lansley put in angry performance at cabinet this week defending his reforms, saying they were in line with government public services reform. He has been infuriated by leaks form Downing Street blaming him for mis-selling the reforms.

Although a Downing Street source has suggested Alan Milburn, the former Labour health secretary could be drafted into Lansley’s role, Milburn himself dismissed the suggestion.

He criticised Lansley’s handling saying: “This bill has ended up as a – to be frank – a patchwork quilt of complexity and compromise and confusion. They will get the measure through in my view, they will probably win the day in parliament, but at a terrible cost. The NHS will not have either the clarity or the direction that is necessary in a period of considerable challenge where it is being asked to make unprecedented efficiency savings.”

In a sign that the government will face a tough month as the bill enters the Lords report stage, peers inflicted an early defeat over the issue of social care. By a margin of four votes, peers demanded mental health be made a higher priority. The amendment creates a duty for the health secretary to promote a health service that deals with “mental and physical illness”, rather then the original draft of just “illness”. The government described issue as largely symbolic.

All but three Lib Dem peers voted with the government, suggesting that on most issues Labour will rely on cross bench support to further amend the bill that has already been heavily altered by government to take on concerns of health professionals.

Meanwhile there was a fresh embarrassment to the reforms after part of a major risk assessment into the bill was published on the internet, suggesting that changes could lead to the financial “failure” of some NHS organisations, worse care for patients, and threats to maternity services, children’s safety and public health.

Most worryingly for the coalition the “risk register” for the London NHS suggested that problems with implementing the new system could delay improvements to patients’ health – even after a host of proposed “mitigation” measures to ensure a smooth transition.

The document, dated October 2011, was published by NHS London on their website, according to the Labour-supporting blogger Dr Eoin Clarke, who has waged a campaign to get the full national risk register published. At least nine Lib Dem MPs have also signed an early day motion organised by Labour MP and health select committee member Grahame Morris calling on the health secretary to publish the document.

Health officials have pointed out that such a risk assessment would be carried out for any major changes, but added that during the transition there was “more of a risk because of the uncertainty”.

In a statement to the Guardian, an NHS London spokesperson said: “It is our job to identify and manage potential risks to deliver safe services for patients. We are duty bound to publish this information quarterly on our website and have done since our formation.” These risks cover a wide range of services and issues, including how we manage the transition to 2013 appropriately. The more we plan for and pre-empt issues, the less of a risk they become.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. South Devon Tory MPs vote to prime the NHS for privatisation Ready yourself for a privatised NHS! South Devon Tory MPs...
2. Plymouth Labour pledges to fight NHS reforms as battles moves to the Lords Despite the city's Tory MPs voting to lay the plans...
3. Your NHS needs you! Volunteers were out in Plymouth city centre raising the awareness...

© People's Republic of South Devon, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

What a load of rubbish: weekly bin collection versus benefit cuts to the most vulnerable – ones a basic right…

At last weekly bin collection – a ‘basic right’ for every household – is nearly here. And the £250 million sweetener is a price worth paying to help force councils’ hands in getting it done (a figure needed to save communities secretary Eric Pickles’ face, according to Labour’s Caroline Flint… [insert your own punchline here…]. And while we’re at it let’s celebrate the fact that the £270 million saving from the proposed benefits cap has enough left over the pay for getting it done.

But we’re not going to talk about the stream of inaccurate utterances of Eric Pickles (who some would say talks with a forked tongue), or that he paid his finance chief £580,0000 for 16 months work while frothing at the mouth over councils’ supposed ‘culture of spending’.

What we’re going to highlight is the divisive culture of hate that the current pursuit of policies have created.

So while you’re thinking it’s quite right that you get your weekly collection back, take a moment to consider whether you’ve been infected by the poison that’s being injected into society.

To help, here’s a report from the Guardian about how benefit cuts are fuelling abuse of disabled people

(image: Small town rubbish – Some rights reserved by dogbomb)

This article titled “Benefit cuts are fuelling abuse of disabled people, say charities” was written by Peter Walker, for The Guardian on Sunday 5th February 2012 18.16 UTC

The government’s focus on alleged fraud and overclaiming to justify cuts in disability benefits has caused an increase in resentment and abuse directed at disabled people, as they find themselves being labelled as scroungers, six of the country’s biggest disability groups have warned.

Some of the charities say they are now regularly contacted by people who have been taunted on the street about supposedly faking their disability and are concerned the climate of suspicion could spill over into violence or other hate crimes.

While the charities speaking out – Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the National Autistic Society, Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB), and Disability Alliance – say inflammatory media coverage has played a role in this, they primarily blame ministers and civil servants for repeatedly highlighting the supposed mass abuse of the disability benefits system, much of which is unfounded.

At the same time, they say, the focus on “fairness for taxpayers” has fostered the notion that disabled people are a separate group who don’t contribute.

Scope’s regular polling of people with disabilities shows that in September two-thirds said they had experienced recent hostility or taunts, up from 41% four months before. In the last poll almost half said attitudes towards them had deteriorated in the past year.

Tom Madders, head of campaigns at the National Autistic Society, said: “The Department for Work and Pensions is certainly guilty of helping to drive this media narrative around benefits, portraying those who receive benefits as workshy scroungers or abusing a system that’s really easy to cheat.”

He added that ministers such as the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, were being “deeply irresponsible” in conflating Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which helps disabled people hold down jobs, and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), a payment for those unable to work. This “scrounger rhetoric” was already having an impact on people’s lives, Madders said, citing a woman who rang the charity to say a neighbour who formerly gave lifts to her autistic child had stopped doing so following press articles about disabled people receiving free cars under a government scheme.

Some disabled people say the climate is so hostile they avoid going out, or avoid using facilities such as designated parking bays if they “don’t look disabled”.

The government has committed to making significant cuts to disability benefits, including a 20% reduction in the DLA bill by 2015/16. Much of its public focus has been on alleged fraudulent claims or cutting benefits to those whose conditions have improved.

Charities point to a series of ministerial statements arguing that the “vast majority” of new ESA claimants are able to work, while the disabilities minister, Maria Miller, said last month that £600m of DLA was overpaid each year, not mentioning that a greater sum is saved by others not receiving what they are due.

This is “playing directly into a media narrative about the need to weed out scroungers,” said Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope. “Our polling shows that this narrative has coincided with attitudes towards disabled people getting worse.

“Disabled people tell us that increasingly people don’t believe that they are disabled and suddenly feel empowered to question their entitlement to support.”

David Congdon, head of policy at Mencap, said the charity feared where this could lead. “We are concerned that this narrative of benefit scroungers or fakers connected to the welfare reform bill does risk stigmatising all people with a disability,” he said. “The worry would be that this could lead to an increase in resentment against disabled people, and even an increase in hate crimes.”

There was “an incredibly strong focus on benefit fraud within the DWP”, said Guy Parckar, policy manager for Leonard Cheshire. “It is mentioned at all possible opportunities. Of course, whenever there is fraud you want that to be tackled, but there should be some serious thought given to the long-term impact that this has. There is the impact of potential hate crime, and issues around that.”

Neil Coyle, head of policy for Disability Alliance, said his organisation was being told of increasing levels of verbal abuse, and worried this could lead to attacks.

“There’s a lot of concern that the level of abuse and harassment goes unrecorded because it’s seen almost as a norm. It seems to be growing as a result of a mis-perception of much more widespread abuse of benefits than actually exists. That’s being fed by the DWP in their attempts to justify massive reductions in welfare expenditure.”

A DWP spokeswoman said the department was committed to supporting disabled people but needed to “do more to change negative attitudes”, and had begun a cross-government consultation on tackling discrimination.

She said: “Our welfare reforms are designed to restore integrity into the benefits system and to ensure that everyone who needs help and support receives it.”

David Gillon from Chatham in Kent, said: “I think we’ve lost all the progress we made in the last 30 years in terms of acceptance.” Gillon, whose chronic back condition forced him to give up a job with British Aerospace, recounts walking on crutches past a pub in the middle of the day and receiving shouts of: “We’re going to report you to the DWP.” He said: “When there’s a bad article in the press, the next day you think, ‘Do I really need to go out of the house?’ We’re being forced back into the attic, locked away from society.”

Fazilet Hadi, head of inclusion for the RNIB, said she also felt the tone was set by ministers: “I think they should be more careful. At the moment it feels like the government is not on the side of disabled people. Most people don’t have that much exposure to disabled people. They don’t see us in the lifestyle pages, they don’t see us in the fashion pages. The only reference they see is in these stories. And that’s why the language is so important.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. Remploy provides work experience for 33 disabled people across the South West Remploy has found work placements for 33 young disabled people...
2. Feeling the benefit According to Saturday’s Evening Herald, people with disabilities in Plymouth...
3. Disabled Kevin says the South West rejects Labour Disabled Kevin sees the election results as a clear...

Drakes Circus in Plymouth City Centre

Crime in Plymouth? It’s got to be those foreigners right? Well, not right, but that’s now how city councillors think about it. They discussed limiting the number of foreign students who can entre shops at one time.

There has been outrage from Plymouth Labour Party. And the council has now issued a statement saying that they won’t implement any of actions in the report. Of course, everyone took the report out of context.

Here’s how the Guardian set the scene.

(image: Some rights reserved by didbygraham)

This article titled “Plymouth considers curbs on foreign students in city centre shops” was written by Steven Morris, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 9th January 2012 11.25 UTC

Plymouth city centre is proposing to limit the number of foreign students who can enter shops at one time because of a rise in shoplifting and antisocial behaviour.

Teenagers who are visiting the city to study English could find their movements restricted by the Operation Drake project.

Shops would display stickers stipulating that only a certain number of students could be inside at a time. Posters would also be sent to language schools explaining the scheme.

Operation Drake is being discussed by city councillors on Monday but the project has already attracted criticism from some local people who believe it could be seen as racist.

The proposals are set out in a report to the council’s growth and prosperity overview and scrutiny panel (pdf).

It says Operation Drake has been worked on by Plymouth Against Retail Crime and a police community support officer.

The report says: “Over the past five years we have seen in Plymouth, especially the city centre area, a large influx of foreign students. Feedback received from retailers has been that they have experienced an increase in shoplifting and antisocial behaviour from foreign students, incurring large financial losses.”

It adds that the action plan includes:

• Special cards for foreign students to carry with them at all times with useful contact numbers.

• Stickers to be displayed in retail premises bearing Operation Drake logo limiting the number of students allowed in at any one time.

• Posters displayed in all language schools explaining Operation Drake.

The plan was greeted with concern on the Plymouth Herald website. “Shocked at how racist this report is. What sort of city are we living in?” said one commentator. “And will we be sewing some symbol on to their clothes just so we know who the ‘different’ people are?” asked another.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. The City and the Tories – research shows extent of donations Donations from finance account for half of payments to Tories...
2. Exeter University becomes the first outside top 20 to charge maximum fees Extra money 'needed to meet the higher expectations of students...
3. Torbay Care Trust to open stop-smoking service and young people’s advice centre in Torquay Torbay Care Trust is to open an NHS stop-smoking...

The cigarette industry has been scrutinised for what to some looks like a fast track to political influence

We think big business, lobbying and influence could be one of the hot issues in the political debate of 2012. Here’s an example of the link between the tobacco industry and politics.

(image: Some rights reserved by stevendepolo)

This article titled “Conservative health minister comes under fire over tobacco briefings” was written by Jamie Doward, for The Observer on Saturday 31st December 2011 21.30 UTC

The position of Tory health minister Earl Howe was under scrutiny after it was revealed he received a series of briefings from lobbyists representing a global cigarette company while drawing up his party’s opposition to tobacco control measures.

A whistleblower who previously worked at Philip Morris International’s headquarters in Switzerland has posted scores of internal company emails and documents on the SmokinGate website. The communications lay bare the company’s determination to resist anti-smoking legislation in Britain.

Among them are exchanges between Howe and the company’s lobbyists, Gardant Communications, that have alarmed health campaigners.

The emails, exchanged in 2009 when Howe was a shadow health minister, show that the peer approached lobbyists requesting the company’s views on calls for cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging. Subsequent emails show that the lobbyists gave several briefings to Howe, who led Tory opposition to the Labour government’s plans to introduce a ban on behind-the-counter cigarette displays in shops.

“It is deeply disturbing that Earl Howe not only met the tobacco industry but also appears to have connived with them to try to undermine public health policy while in opposition,” said Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Ash, the anti-smoking pressure group. “Worse still, he did not make his contacts with the tobacco industry known during the debate in parliament, when he was fighting to prevent the legislation to put tobacco out of sight in shops becoming law. This is unacceptable and his fellow peers should be asking whether he is the right person to lead on health for the government.”

Introduction of the measure was delayed when the coalition came to power, after a powerful lobbying campaign by small shops – co-ordinated and funded by the tobacco companies – pushing the disputed line that the ban would hurt the high street. Supermarkets must observe the ban by this April, but small shops have until 2015 to comply – to the dismay of cancer charities. Health groups and cancer charities say cigarette displays normalise smoking in the minds of the young and removing them will result in fewer children taking up the habit.

A report for the European commission claims: “Restricting or banning the promotion of tobacco products in retail outlets, and restricting or banning the display of tobacco products at the point of sale have been shown to remove smoking cues and reduce triggers for unplanned tobacco purchases in stores. This effect is thought to be particularly strong among adolescents and young people, who are thought to be more susceptible to such displays and promotions.”

Howe endorsed the tobacco industry’s claims that the evidence linking the removal of the displays to a reduction in smoking was inconclusive and that banning them would see many newsagents go out of business.

A spokesman for Howe said any suggestion that the government’s health policies had been influenced by the tobacco industry was completely incorrect. “As an opposition spokesman, it was incumbent on Earl Howe to speak to all sides in the runup to debates on government plans to ban the display of tobacco products in shops,” the spokesman said. “He met with anti-smoking groups as well as representatives of the tobacco industry. The job of any opposition spokesman is to challenge and scrutinise all proposals to ensure laws are as well drafted as possible.”

However, the Labour shadow health minister, Jamie Reed, said Howe still had some explaining to do.

“It is alarming that a health minister ever thought it appropriate to seek the help of the tobacco industry in sabotaging plans to reduce smoking-related diseases,” Reed said. “Howe is the minister now tasked with forcing the government’s reckless dismantling of our NHS through parliament in early 2012.

“Labour will be asking serious questions about his links to Philip Morris International and this further example of the close ties between Tory ministers and tobacco and junk food manufacturers.”

Emailed requests for comment from Philip Morris International went unanswered.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. West Country’s first NHS Stop Smoking shop opens in Torquay The region’s first NHS Stop Smoking shop has opened...
2. Labour shortchanged the South West on health The health spending gap in the South West rose to...
3. Torbay Care Trust to open stop-smoking service and young people’s advice centre in Torquay Torbay Care Trust is to open an NHS stop-smoking...

David Cameron's poster-sized pledge doesn't seem to be entirely accurate

Totnes MP Dr Sarah Wollaston had a much publicised, short-lived criticism about the Tory plans to stoke privatisation into the NHS. Now it turns out she may have been right with her first response – four out of five doctors are saying the cuts have affected care.

There seems to have been an increase in the negative stories about the NHS  – to create an atmosphere ripe for its reform, perhaps (there’s a notable exception from Newton Abbot Councillor Marie Jenkin, who had a positive experience with the NHS).

And the limit has already been lifted on private sector involvement in the NHS, prompting fear of a two-tier system and longer waiting lists.

The stage looks set for profit plundering from being poorly.

Here’s the story from the Guardian on a poll of GPs and hospital doctors.

(image: Some rights reserved by Gene Hunt)

This article titled “NHS cuts have affected patient care say four out of five doctors” was written by Denis Campbell, health correspondent, for The Guardian on Tuesday 27th December 2011 21.30 UTC

The coalition’s pledge to protect the NHS is in fresh doubt after four out of five doctors said they had seen patient care suffer as a result of health service cuts during 2011.

A poll of GPs and hospital doctors, carried out for the Guardian, challenges David Cameron’s promise to “cut the deficit, not the NHS”.

Doctors cite hospital bed closures, pressure to give patients cheaper, slower-acting drugs, cuts to occupational health support, and reductions in community health services as examples of recent cost-cutting measures.

Doctors.net.uk, a professional networking site to which almost all British doctors belong, asked medics: “Have cuts to staff and/or services affected patient care in your department, area or surgery during the last 12 months?” Of the 664 doctors who responded, 527 (79%) said yes and 137 (21%) said no.

Among 440 hospital doctors, 359 have seen cuts, while 168 of the 224 family doctors said the same.

Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association’s hospital consultants and specialists committee, said the poll findings confirmed that the NHS was now “retracting” and doing less for patients, contradicting repeated ministerial pledges that frontline NHS services would escape the government’s deficit reduction programme.

“The reality is that whether you look at it from the point of view of a doctor, another clinician or a patient, there are NHS cuts ongoing and it adds up to a picture where the NHS is now retracting. So it’s hard to marry that back to the original statement ‘I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS’,” he said.

“The evidence all around us of cuts that are being made adds up to a picture where the government has failed to deliver on the promises it made to people on coming into office.”

Patients were waiting in pain “when they might not otherwise have been” because of longer waiting times for hip and knee surgery, for example, Porter said.

Hospitals were cutting services because they are under great and growing financial pressure from a £20bn savings drive (dubbed “the Nicholson challenge” after NHS chief executive David Nicholson), primary care trusts (PCTs) holding back money to pay for the NHS restructuring ordered by health secretary Andrew Lansley, and a reduction in the PCTs’ “tariff” payments to hospitals for treating patients, he added.

Lansley came under fire from Labour on Tuesday after it emerged the government plans to allow foundation trusts to raise up to 49% of their money from private work.

New evidence collected by the Patients Association also confirms that the NHS in England has cut services for new mothers and people with dental problems. Responses by 64 PCTs to freedom of information requests reveal that they spent £5.1m less on pre- and postnatal support in 2010-11 than in 2009-10, despite a baby boom. They also spent £3.7m less on dental services in the same period, official data shows.

Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said she feared young women in the south London borough served by her surgery could become infertile because of the local NHS primary care trust’s decision to spend less on screening for chlamydia.

Failure to detect and treat the common sexually transmitted infection increases the risk of a sufferer not being able to have children later in life. “Chlamydia screening has been cut by Lambeth PCT to save money. That’s sad and short-sighted because it will mean that young girls end up being infertile because they won’t find out that they had chlamydia,” said Gerada.

GPs in Lambeth have also seen cuts to budgets for interpreting services to help them communicate with patients whose first language is not English, and patients forced to wait longer for physiotherapy.

Nicholson, other NHS leaders and ministers have stressed repeatedly this year that the task of saving £20bn by 2015 should not mean cuts to patient services.

“Despite the huge scale of the £20bn efficiency savings demanded by the ‘Nicholson challenge’, the secretary of state for health has consistently pledged to protect the NHS frontline,” said Dr Tim Ringrose, a spokesman for Doctors.net.uk.

“Yet our research, among the doctors who are working there, finds that the reality is somewhat different.”

He added: “We have received reports about across the board budget cuts to essential services, staffing shortages, and pressures to reduce prescribing of newer, potentially more effective therapies.

“Doctors are very supportive of the drive to improve efficiency in the NHS but don’t want to see reductions in access to services or reduced quality to services for patients.”

Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “These poll findings are very worrying because we were repeatedly assured that when savings were made in the NHS they would not affect patient care.

“Yet on a daily basis we get evidence through our helpline of services being withdrawn or reduced.

“We applaud the ‘Nicholson challenge’ but achieving it seems to be shortchanging patients in a way that David Cameron and Andrew Lansley told us would not happen.”

Callers to the group’s helpline have told of having their regular supply of incontinence pads suddenly withdrawn by the NHS, and suffering side-effects after having their usual drugs replaced with cheaper alternatives including older patients on cholesterol-lowering statins.

Care services minister Paul Burstow said: “We are investing an extra £12.5bn in the NHS over the next four years. The Labour party wanted to cut funding for the NHS, but the coalition has prioritised health spending because we do not want the sick to pay the price for Labour’s mismanagement of the economy.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. Care and profit don’t mix: Southern Cross Healthcare is a worrying and sobering story Ten years of triumph followed by a dramatic fall from...
2. Torbay Care Trust to open stop-smoking service and young people’s advice centre in Torquay Torbay Care Trust is to open an NHS stop-smoking...
3. Plymouth Labour pledges to fight NHS reforms as battles moves to the Lords Despite the city's Tory MPs voting to lay the plans...

The government has been 'clumsy' in its hasty cuts to the feed in tariff for solar energy

Transition Newton Abbot had been campaigning to stop the delay the government’s decision to cut the Feed in Tariff, but it seems the government may have been acting illegally in its much criticised hasty slashing of the subsidy.

South West MEP Giles Chichester wrote that too much energy tax goes to inefficient renewables, and that it was time to rethink energy policy, and that the feed in tariff scheme an expensive distraction for an effective national energy policy.

Meanwhile Friends of the Earth and two solar companies took issue with the government’s ‘clumsy’ policy.

Here’s the article…

This article titled “Solar subsidy cuts legally flawed, high court rules” was written by John Vidal, for guardian.co.uk on Wednesday 21st December 2011 16.46 UTC

Government plans to slash incentive payments for householders who install solar panels were on Wednesday ruled “legally flawed” by a high court judge. The ruling opens the door for a judicial review that could force the government to delay its plans, potentially allowing thousands more people to claim the higher subsidy.

The judgment comes after a challenge by Friends of the Earth and two solar companies who argued that the government’s decision to cut the feed-in tariff from 43.3p to 21p with only a few weeks’ notice was premature and unlawful, and had led to unfinished or planned projects being abandoned.

The judgment, made by Mr Justice Mitting after a two-day court hearing, comes hours before two powerful committees of MPs are due to release their report on the government’s handling of the solar subsidy. The environment audit committee and energy committee are expected to add to government’s humiliation by saying it was “clumsy” and had threatened the survival of a nascent industry promising thousands of jobs.

Many thousands of individuals, farmers, councils and community groups had applied to install solar PV to take advantage of the generous subsidy which had been set deliberately high when the scheme launched in April 2010, to encourage people to invest.

But the government announced in October that it would cut the subsidy with effect from 12 December. This was 11 days before the consultation ended.

The judge’s decision was hailed as a major victory by green campaigners and the solar industry, after firms warned that the scale and pace of the proposed cuts would have a crippling effect on the sector resulting in thousands of job losses.

Mitting said the minister was proposing to make an unlawful decision.

Friends of the Earth’s executive director, Andy Atkins, said: “These botched and illegal plans have cast a huge shadow over the solar industry, jeopardising thousands of jobs. We hope this ruling will prevent ministers rushing through damaging changes to clean energy subsidies – giving solar firms a much-needed confidence boost.

Howard Johns, chairman of the Solar Trade Association, said the high court decision gives hope to the 29,000 people currently employed in the industry throughout the country.

“The feed-in tariff cuts are madness. The facts are clear, the public want to see more solar power, but politicians have signed off proposals to deliver a lot less.”

“The government has acted unlawfully and it is right that they are held to account. Now they need to act to rectify the damage, raise the ambition and work with industry to get solar in the UK back on track. We are happy to have cuts but not if they kill the industry.”

Lawyers for the Department of Energy and Climate Change immediately moved to apply for permission to appeal the judge’s ruling.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. Solar system Plymouth’s Maplin Electronics (no, nothing to do with Hi-De-Hi) is...
2. Feed in Tariff scheme an expensive distraction for an effective national energy policy The cut to the Feed in Tariff rate of subsidy...
3. Solar-PV grant and loans for Totnes and Dartington residents Residents of Totnes and Dartington can benefit from funds from...

Organic sales haved faced a downturn

The sale of organic food and drink has slumped, and with Devon being such a centre of the organic trade, we were wondering what impact that downturn was having on our homegrown producers. We’ll put our findings here. Meanwhile, the sale of ethical goods and services is on the increase.

(image: Some rights reserved by dichohecho)

This article titled “Organic food and drink sales slump” was written by Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 15th December 2011 09.55 UTC

Sales of organic food and drink slumped by 10% to £1.53bn last year as shoppers opted for cheaper alternatives, according to a new report.

But despite the impact of the economic downturn, overall sales of “ethical” goods and services – ranging from food and drink to transport and funerals – were generally resilient, increasing by almost 9% last year to £46.8bn from £43bn.

The Co-operative Group‘s annual report into ethical consumerism showed the biggest increases were in sales of small scale “micro-generation” products such as solar thermal and solar photovoltaic panels and heat pumps (up by 386%), and “green” cars (up 129%).

Other sectors enjoying huge growth are Fairtrade food and drink, which pay a premium to farmers and producers in poor countries to help them work their way out of poverty, which recorded a rise of more than a third (36%). Sales of fish from sustainable sources grew by 16.3%, and expenditure on green funerals leaped by 35% to £6.9m from £5.1m.

The report has been compiled since 1999 when annual ethical sales were just £13.5bn, and analyses sales data for sectors including food, household goods, travel and ethical finance. It is based on national data covering spending through all retailers rather than just from the Co-operative’s own outlets.

The slump in sales of organic food means they have plummeted by 23% from an all-time high of almost £2bn in 2008.

Charitable donations have remained surprisingly stable during the downturn, with consumers giving £3.6bn to environmental, social and animal welfare causes. And the value of money in ethical savings and investments increased by 9% in 2010 to £21.2bn. This includes £9bn in ethical bank deposits as well as £11.3bn in ethical investments.

Surprisingly, the use of public transport for ethical reasons has fallen back 7% to £521m, while sales of green cars have surged to £846m, more than double the 2009 value, while spending on bicycles is up to £698m.

Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-operative, said: “The report shows that intervention by enlightened businesses, together with regulatory intervention, is driving ethical sales growth.

“During the downturn we’ve seen some of the biggest ever Fairtrade conversions, be it in chocolate or sugar, and business is beginning to respond to the challenge to provide consumers with more sustainable products and services such as fish, palm oil and soya.

“Ethical consumers are still a vitally important barometer of change. However, the actions of progressive business are now a significant contributor to sales growth.”

Monaghan took a swipe at the government for slashing the value of incentives for the national feed-in tariff programme: “Ultimately, over and above the efforts of responsible business and ethical consumers, sustainable solutions require a government committed to long-term intervention, such as an effective feed-in-tariff programme, to maintain the economic viability of the micro-generation market.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. Food parcel charity helps in Okehampton as unemployment shoots up As jobless total rises six-fold in Okehampton, the Trussell Trust...
2. Torquay-born supermodel Lily Cole launches ethical Climate Week T-shirt The supermodel, student and campaigner for sustainable fashion talks about...
3. Food miles versus carbon footprint? posted by Cptn Having your food delivered in a box...

Ben Bradshaw: ‘the BBC should be taking a more long-term strategic approach to its reduced circumstances’

Exeter MP, and former culture minister, Ben Bradshaw has accused the BBC of ducking the big decisions by salami slicing across the board rather than axing a particular service.

With local radio services facing budget cuts of 20%, Ben told the Guardian: “The BBC should be taking a more long-term strategic approach to its reduced circumstances instead of trying to continue to do everything they currently do with less money,” he said.

“They should be bold and stop doing things that few people watch or listen to, or that the commercial sector already does perfectly adequately.

“It seems to me the BBC was so traumatised by [the rejection of] their proposals to close 6 Music and the Asian Network that they won’t contemplate closing down anything. That is not leadership.”

Read the full article below.

(image: Ben Bradshaw at Exeter LGBT Pride 2011 Some rights reserved by Gray Marchiori-Simpson)

This article titled “BBC under fire from MPs over cuts to local radio” was written by John Plunkett, for guardian.co.uk on Wednesday 26th October 2011 11.52 UTC

The BBC is facing a growing political backlash to its proposed cuts to local radio after MPs lined up at a Westminster debate to criticise the changes as unfair, unjustified and a “travesty” for listeners.

About 50 MPs took part in a private members’ debate on Wednesday brought by Conservative MP Robin Walker, many of them highlighting the impact the cuts would have on BBC local stations in their constituencies.

The corporation was accused of being biased towards its national stations such as Radio 4 at the expense of its local services, and in favour of London and the south-east to the detriment of the north and west of England.

Luciana Berger, the Labour & Co-operative MP for Liverpool Wavertree, claimed Radio 4′s lunchtime consumer affairs programme You and Yours had more staff on it than the whole of BBC Radio Merseyside.

“The impact these cuts will have on all of its programming is a travesty,” she told the debate in parliament’s Westminster Hall.

Roger Gale, the Conservative MP for Thanet North, took aim at the salaries paid to BBC management, saying director general Mark Thompson earned twice as much as the cuts being required at the Merseyside station.

“Local radio is a lifeline at times of crisis,” he added. “If we allow these cuts to go ahead, then broadcasting generally, not just the BBC, will be all the poorer. Once that infrastructure is gone it will be impossible to get it back.”

Former Labour culture minister Ben Bradshaw accused BBC management of ducking the big decisions by salami slicing across the board rather than axing a particular service.

“The BBC should be taking a more long-term strategic approach to its reduced circumstances instead of trying to continue to do everything they currently do with less money,” he said.

“They should be bold and stop doing things that few people watch or listen to, or that the commercial sector already does perfectly adequately.

“It seems to me the BBC was so traumatised by [the rejection of] their proposals to close 6 Music and the Asian Network that they won’t contemplate closing down anything. That is not leadership.”

Many of the BBC’s 40 local stations are having to make budget cuts of 20%, with the axe falling hardest at BBC London 94.9, which is having to save 25%, about £1m.

The cuts are being made as part of Thompson’s Delivering Quality First proposals, following last year’s flat licence fee settlement, which are now the subject of a consultation by the BBC Trust.

About 2,000 jobs will be lost as part of efforts to save a total of £700m a year. It will include 380 jobs going in the English regions, of which 280 will be in local radio.

Walker, the Tory MP for Worcester who brought today’s debate, said for many listeners local radio was their only return on the licence fee.

“Of the 7 million people who listen to local radio more than 2 million don’t listen to another BBC station,” he added. “Local radio is special, not just another part of the BBC.”

The BBC’s director of news Helen Boaden, in a blog post published on Tuesday ahead of the debate, admitted she had “lost count of the number of people who have complained to me about Radio 4 being protected from the cuts at the alleged expense of local radio”.

However, she said it was the “right decision” that Radio 4 was protected from the “full force” of the cuts, adding that it was not true to say that “local radio is being picked on, though its particular circumstances may make it feel like that on the ground”.

“Are the plans for Local Radio ideal? Not at all,” she added. “Despite the cuts, I believe that BBC local radio can survive and even thrive because it will always have its unique connection to its audiences.

“By 2016 we will still have 40 BBC local radio stations delivering quality output to audiences who rely on us and often love us. We have no intention of letting them down.”

Alison McGovern, the Labour MP for Wirral South, said the cuts to BBC local radio were “not just a question of funding but a question of identity, heritage and culture”.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. Weak Lib Dem leadership continues while communities face up to the loss of Lib Dems in local government Labour's lost its voice, the Lib Dems are denying their...
2. If the Daily Mail’s a ‘bigoted comic’, where does that leave our local press? Commons Speaker's caustic remarks follow repeated criticism by newspaper's parliamentary...
3. Devon, an audio Palo Alto in new digital experiment? Devon airwaves have been the testing ground for the...

Northcote House, University of Exeter: ‘The sector as a whole seems to be experiencing a reduction in applications for 2012/13′

Latest figures are the first evidence of how would-be students are being put off by fear of debt when fees rise to a maximum of £9,000 next year.

Figures show the biggest fall in university applications in more than 30 years, 9% below last year’s level, according to UCAS, with the Guardian quoting a figure of an almost 12% decrease (see below).

Ian Blenkharn, head of admissions at the University of Exeter told the PRSD: “The sector as a whole seems to be experiencing a reduction in applications for 2012/13.

“However, we believe that students are taking longer to make their decisions regarding their institutional preferences and therefore it will be some weeks before we are able to give a definitive answer on our position regarding admissions.”

(image was taken from the Geograph project collection. See this photograph’s page on the Geograph website for the photographer’s contact details. The copyright on this image is owned by Pierre Terre and is licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license.)

This article titled “UK university applicants drop by 12% before tuition fee rise” was written by Jessica Shepherd, education correspondent, for The Guardian on Monday 24th October 2011 12.58 UTC

The number of UK-born university applicants for next September – when fees rise to up to £9,000 a year – has plummeted by almost 12%, official figures show.

The first set of statistics on applications to university next year, published by the Universities and Colleges and Admissions Service (Ucas), reveal that 52,321 applicants have applied from within the UK, compared with 59,413 this time last year.

Union leaders said the figures were proof that ministers’ decision to almost treble fees had been “a disaster”, while charities expressed concern that students from low-income homes may have been deterred from applying.

The statistics show the number of applications received by universities by 15 October, the deadline for Oxford, Cambridge and courses in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, and are an early indication of the total across all courses this year.

Candidates for other universities have until 15 January to apply, but there has been a trend for early submissions and the figures include early applications for other universities and courses too.

The number of applicants from within and outside the UK combined has fallen by 9% to 69,724, from 76,612 this time last year.

The statistics show that the number of applications – candidates can apply to up to five universities – from the UK and elsewhere has fallen by 7.9% to 299,764, from 325,527 this time last year.

Applications to Oxford, Cambridge, medicine, veterinary science and dentistry courses alone have fallen, but not by very much. The number of applicants has decreased by 0.8% (464 candidates), and the number of applications has gone down by 1.7% (2,298).

Universities and politicians have been worried that the decision to almost treble tuition fees to up to £9,000 next year would deter many, particularly the most disadvantaged, from applying. Students can pay the fees with a student loan to be repaid when they are earning more than £21,000.

The figures suggest more women than men have been put off from applying to university. Some 10.5% fewer women have applied this year, and 7% fewer men.

Mature students appear to have been particularly deterred by the higher fees, the figures show. The number of applicants aged 40 or older has fallen by 27.8%, and among those aged between 30 and 39 the number has dropped by 22.7%.

The figures do not show whether those from low-income families have been particularly deterred.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, the trade union for lecturers, said the statistics showed the government’s fees policy had been a “disaster from the start”.

“It is clearly having a serious impact on the choices young people make,” she said. “People should study the right course for them, not just the cheapest one or none at all. These depressing figures take us back to the time when it was cost, not ability, that determined your future.”

But others said it was too early to interpret the figures as a sign of an overall fall in total applications to university.

In 2006, when tuition fees last trebled from £1,000 a year to £3,000, applications fell by 4.5%, but were followed by a 7.1% rebound the following year. Two years after that, in 2009, applications soared by 10.1%.

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the umbrella group for vice-chancellors, Universities UK, said: “Historically, the application figures at the end of October have proven to be unreliable indicators of the final numbers. It may also be that students are taking longer this year to consider their options.”

Tessa Stone, chief executive of Brightside, an education charity, said the statistics showed many young people were confused by the new fee system. “The Ucas statistics are not disaggregated by income, so we don’t know where this fall [in applicants] is coming from, but I would bet that the most disadvantaged young people have been put off,” she said.

“The figures published today show, for the most part, applications to the most competitive courses and universities. A drop in these applications shows that even the brightest young people are confused about whether to go to university. Young people we speak to say they are not being given enough information about bursaries they may be entitled to and are therefore unable to make a sensible decision about where to apply.”

James Gould, chief executive of the Villiers Park Educational Trust, a charity that helps bright, less well-off students to attend top universities, said the figures should be a wake-up call for policymakers to properly explain the financial implications of higher fees. “We need to really get the message through that students won’t be using their credit cards to pay university fees. They won’t pay anything back until they earn £21,000 and even after that, their contributions won’t be that high.”

The figures are broken down into applicants from the UK, those from within the European Union (but outside the UK) and from outside the EU. The number of applicants from within the UK has fallen by 11.9%, and from in the EU by 9.3%, but the number from outside the EU has grown by 8.8%.

The number of applicants in England has fallen by 12.1%, in Northern Ireland by 13%, in Scotland by 11.8% and in Wales by 8.3%. Numbers of applicants from the east Midlands (down 20%), Yorkshire (17.3%) and the north-east (14.7%) have fallen furthest, the figures show. London (down 9.1%) and the south-east (8.1%) have been less affected.

Applications to education degrees have fallen by 30%, and those to business studies by 26.1%, the figures show.

Toni Pearce, vice-president of the National Union of Students, said a fall in mature students was a warning sign. “Ministers must stop tinkering around the edges of their shambolic reforms, listen to students, teachers and universities and completely overhaul their white paper before temporary chaos turns into permanent damage to our education system,” he said.

David Willetts, the universities minister, said the number of applications for Oxbridge, medicine, veterinary science and dentistry had “broadly held up” compared with last year.

“Going to university depends on ability not the ability to pay,” he said. “Most new students will not pay upfront, there will be more financial support for those from poorer families and everyone will make lower loan repayments than they do now once they are in well-paid jobs.”

Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group, which represents 20 leading universities in the UK including Oxbridge, said top universities would be “pumping millions more into financial support over the coming years”.

“Students should certainly not be put off university by the new fees and funding system. If you’re good enough to get in, you can afford to go.

“We will continue to urge every student with the talent, potential and ability to succeed at a Russell Group university to apply. In addition to the government’s student support package and the fee waivers and bursaries that our universities offer, we will continue actively to reach out to students from all backgrounds, especially those with no family history of higher education,” Piatt said.

Individual university applications have not been revealed, but government sources have suggested there is a mixed picture. A report at the weekend suggested some universities were experiencing a steep drop in demand for courses beginning next September, with one, City University London, saying applications were down 41.4%. Goldsmiths has reported a 35% drop and Brunel has 24% fewer candidates, according to figures gathered by the Sunday Times.

However, some universities, including the London School of Economics, Queen Mary and Bath, are seeing rises in applications, according to the report.

Demographic factors could also be behind a slump in applications. The number of 18-year-olds in the UK is projected to decline over the rest of this decade by about 11%.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. Exeter University becomes the first outside top 20 to charge maximum fees Extra money 'needed to meet the higher expectations of students...
2. What’s it like at Exeter University? The Guardian’s John Crace went back to find out What’s it like being at university? Guardian journalist John...
3. Martin Bush on Plymouth student Encounters art exhibition Martin Bush, artist in residence at the Royal William Yard,...

Tom Watson: and his role on the culture, media and sport select committee

The latest shadow cabinet reshuffel sees Labour’s thorn-in-the-side-of-big-media Tom Watson promoted to Labour’s deputy chair – but the Tory chair of the culture, media and sport select committee, John Whittingdale is calling for Tom to step down. We asked Torbay MP Adrian Sanders, who also sits on the commitee, what all the kerfuffle is about.

Why the hoo-hah, hadn’t Tom been doing a sterling job on the committee? Adrian explained: “Select committee members are supposed to leave party politics at the door and look into issues and reach conclusions on the basis of the evidence. Consequently it is rare for any select committee not to make a set of unanimous recommendations to Government.

“Let’s say a committee does an enquiry into school sports and Labour’s policy is to ensure 10 hours school sport a week, Lib Dems 15 hours and the Tories no target. The evidence submitted and people questioned during the enquiry lead to only one conclusion, there should be five hours school sport a week. Do we all vote along party lines and agree nothing, or back the evidence?

“It is felt a member on the Government pay-roll or opposition front bench or in a party campaign position would not be able vote for the evidence, hence the convention that they do not serve on select committees.”

But should Tom resign from the culture, media and sport select committee, where he’d given (faux) Old-Man Murdoch such a roasting?

Adrian said: “I think Tom should delay taking up his Party post until our enquiry into phone hacking has been completed. No one will be able to devalue our conclusions if all of the members are independent of Government or their party.”

• For John Whittingdale’s call for Tom’s departure, read on…

(image: Tom Watson MP / The White Knight Some rights reserved by ssoosay)

This article titled “Tom Watson should quit culture select committee, says John Whittingdale” was written by Patrick Foster, for guardian.co.uk on Friday 7th October 2011 13.27 UTC

Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has played a central role in helping expose phone hacking at the News of the World, must stand down from the Commons culture, media and sport select committee after becoming deputy chair of the Labour party, the chairman of the panel has said.

The MP for West Bromwich East was appointed to the shadow front bench by Ed Miliband, in Friday’s reshuffle. He is deputy chair and campaign co-ordinator, and is listed as a member of the shadow cabinet on the Labour party’s website.

John Whittingdale, the Conservative MP and committee chairman, said that parliamentary convention dictated that members of the shadow cabinet should not sit on backbench committees. But he has no powers to force Watson to stand down.

Whittingdale said: “If Tom is going to be a member of the shadow cabinet he should step down, no question. It would be unprecedented for a member of the shadow cabinet to be on a select committee. On the front bench you are bound by collect responsibility and so you are not independent. It would go against the whole principle that these committees are made up of backbench MPs.”

Watson’s dogged pursuit of News Corporation executives over phone hacking at the News of the World has won him a reputation as an attack dog. In July, he led the questioning of Rupert Murdoch during the media tycoon’s appearance in front of the committee – a performance that led Time magazine to describe him as the “man who humbled Murdoch”.

However, Watson said he would not stand down, writing on Twitter: “To be clear: I don’t hold a front bench policy brief so remain on DCMS select committee. The Tories can say all they like. I’m not budging.”

Pointing to Michael Fallon, the Tory deputy chairman, who sits on the Treasury select committee, Watson said: “No doubt the Tories will comment on his role.”

Whittingdale cannot force Watson, who was appointed by a ballot of Labour MPs, to stand down. He said he would raise the matter with the liaison committee, the group of 32 select committee chairmen set up to oversee their operations, adding: “I am surprised that he thinks he can stay on. I will certainly raise this with the chairman as something that will have to be considered.”

Whittingdale added: “I would say without hesitation that Tom has been an exceptionally effective member of the committee, not just on phone hacking. I will be extremely sorry to lose him. But this is not about Tom, it is about the principle.”

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email edi...@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. Adrian Sanders questions timing of Rebekah Brooks arrest The arrest of Rebekah Brooks could impede her appearance in...
2. South West MEP Sir Graham Watson slams UKIP’s embracing of corruption Disgraced former Tory MP Neil Hamilton joins UKIP's National Executive...
3. Who has shown leadership skills during the hacking scandal? The phone hacking scandal in the British media has called...

© People's Republic of South Devon, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

The City and finance: offering financial support to the Tories

For politicians, on a local level there’s plenty of national money sloshing around from think tanks, Christian fundamentalists and professional political donors. We all know the relationship between Labour and affiliated unions, and it turns out that (hold the front page), The City and financial institutions bankroll the Tories…

(image: City of London Some rights reserved by aurélien.)

This article titled “City’s influence over Conservatives laid bare by research into donations” was written by Rajeev Syal, Jill Treanor and Nick Mathiason, for The Guardian on Friday 30th September 2011 22.13 UTC

The influence of the City over the Conservatives has been laid bare by new research showing that more than half of the Tory party’s donations since the general election have come from individuals and businesses working in finance.

Hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed more than a quarter of all the Tories’ private donations – which this year poured in at a rate equal to £1m a month – the study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found.

The figures show an increase in the proportion of party funds coming from the financial sector, raising fears that the City’s financial influence over the Tories is on the rise as key pieces of legislation are discussed by the coalition government.

They come amid growing concerns that some parts of the financial sector, described by Labour leader Ed Miliband this week as “asset strippers” or “predator financiers”, are profiting from financial instability.

The senior Labour shadow minister Peter Hain said the figures confirmed that the Tories remain wedded to the few who do well out of the financial and political system. The Liberal Democrats used the research to step up their campaign for changes to party funding.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has mapped, for the first time, donations to the Tories from business to the year ending 30 June.

Using analysis from the Electoral Commission and Companies House databases, the researchers found City donations in the 12 months to July accounted for 51.4% of the £12.2m of funds received by Central Office. Hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed £3.3m – 27% – while 50 City donors paid more than £50,000. All donors contributing this amount or more become members of the Leader’s Group and qualify for a face-to-face meeting with the prime minister.

The largest contributor across all the business sectors studied by the bureau was hedge funds which donated £1.38m (11.4%). Three of the City’s biggest name hedge fund bosses – Michael Farmer, Lord Stanley Fink and Andrew Law – together contributed £636,300. Fink is the party treasurer. The top financier donor was David Rowland, who contributed £1.1m. Rowland has a colourful City career and was forced to resign as party treasurer before he even took up the job because of links to tax havens. He now controls Banque Havilland – which used to be the crashed Icelandic Kaupthing bank business – in Luxembourg and the hedge fund Blackfish Capital Management.

Outside the City, the sector that donated most was industry, including manufacturing and defence. This sector contributed £913,411 (7.5%). A company controlled by Michael Spencer, another former Conservative party treasurer, donated £163,350. He is campaigning against the EU’s attempts to introduce a transaction tax on financial trades and threatened on Fridayto shift some of his company’s operations from London “extremely rapidly” if the tax was introduced.

Peter Cruddas, the multimillionaire currency trader who grew up on a Hackney housing estate and left school with no qualifications, handed over £123,600, while his business, CMC Markets UK, donated £100,000. He is co-treasurer of the Conservative party, alongside Fink.

But while Spencer and others are now campaigning against potential tax changes, since the coalition came to power several key measures have been introduced that could benefit the Conservative’s City backers. Among them is a commitment to reduce corporation tax to 23% by April 2014 and exempting UK resident companies from corporation tax on all profits for their foreign branches.

The figures show the insurance sector has donated £189,400 as the government discusses radical plans to slash the legal aid budget – a measure which critics claim will benefit insurers. Construction companies have donated more than £220,000 amid a lobbying campaign to relax planning rules covering the green belt.

In a separate survey, the Labour MP John Mann disclosed figures that showed that the top three donors – Rowland, Farmer and Fink – had donated almost £10m since 2005. Stuart Wilks-Heeg, executive director of Democratic Audit, said: “What this study tellingly reveals is the scale of the Conservative party’s reliance on a variety of City interests at a time when the Conservative-led government is attempting to kick banking reform into the long grass.”

Hain said: “The Conservative party has long since been over reliant on donor income from people at the top of the income scale.

“No wonder David Cameron and George Osborne are straining at the leash to cut tax for people earning at least £150,000 a year while asking everyone else to pay the bill for a financial crisis caused by the banks,” he said.

The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott said: “Big financiers are still the Tories’ big backers with hedge fund gamblers and private equity asset strippers leading the way. Labour is being bankrolled by the union bosses. The coalition must act now to clean up party funding.”

Who gave what?

From the celebrity hairstylist to the Oscar-winning screenwriter, Haroon Siddique profiles a dozen top Tory donors

David Rowland, property developer: £1,160,936

Notoriously camera-shy, Rowland was by a distance the Conservatives’ largest donor last year. The former tax exile was set to become party treasurer last year but resigned shortly before he was due to start.

Michael Bishop, former airline head: £335,000

Was one of the country’s first openly gay senior executives when he headed BMI. Sold stake in airline to Lufthansa for £318m in 2008.

May Makhzoumi, fibreglass pipe manufacturing and supply business: £308,000

The biggest individual female donor. Wife of the Lebanese businessman Fouad Makhzoumi.

JCB Research, industrial equipment company: £300,000

Subsidiary of the Bamford family’s JCB digger empire. JCB chairman Sir Anthony Bamford was nominated for a peerage by David Cameron last year, but withdrew his nomination.

David Whelan, fitness clubs & football club owner: £100,000

The founder of JJB Sports sold up in 2007, then later bought its fitness clubs. Also owns Wigan Athletic football club.

John Frieda, hairdresser: £50,000

Celebrity hairstylist with salons in London, New York, Los Angeles and Barbados. Sold his hair care products business to a Japanese corporation for £290m in 2002.

Jeremy Isaacs, private equity firm co-owner: £50,000

Left role as head of Lehman Brothers’ European and Asian operations days before bank went bankrupt in 2008. Later co-founded private-equity group vehicle JRJ group.

Hans Rausing, ex-packaging tycoon: £49,000

Co-inherited Sweden’s Tetra Pak group, the world’s largest packaging production company, then sold out to brother Gad in 1995 for an estimated $7bn. Wife Marit also donated £49,000 last year.

Julian Fellowes, writer and actor: £40,000

Won an Oscar for his first Hollywood screenplay, Gosford Park, and created the hit ITV series Downton Abbey. Was made a Conservative peer in January.

Annabel’s, private members restaurant & nightclub: £20,000

Legendary central London society haunt, frequented over the years by Frank Sinatra, Aristotle Onassis, assorted royals and David Blunkett.

Mike Batt, composer: £20,000

Composed such classics as Remember You’re a Womble and the theme to Watership Down. Took over composing Tory election themes from Andrew Lloyd Webber and often donates in kind through music.

Bell Pottinger, PR group: £11,900

As representative for Trafigura, tried to prevent media revelations about the oil company’s involvement in toxic waste dumping in Africa. Also represents the government in Bahrain.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Related posts:

1. Plymouth considered curbs on foreign students in city centre shops Proposal would limit number of students allowed in a shop...
2. Even the Tories now foresee chaos in Lansley’s NHS The health secretary's reforms will not bring slow and stealthy...
3. Lib Dems claim Labour no-shows at public meetings. We say most candidates are arrogant Liberal Democrat European Parliamentary elections candidates for the South...

I Divide: the Exeter-based band get into their performing in their video with some fans

With nearly 30 stories in the past week on the People’s Republic of South Devon site, you could be forgiven for missing the odd one. Here’s a list of our headlines for you to catch up, just in case.

Related posts:

1. Text ads on the People’s Republic of South Devon For the last couple of weeks we’ve been carrying...
2. Go mobile with the People’s Republic of South Devon – optimised for your phone The PRSD website is optimised for phone browsing, so...
3. The People’s Republic of South Devon guide to submissions We at the People’s Republic of South Devon are keen...