No-one is spared in this irreverent take on the general election:

WATCH IT:

UPDATE 14.55:

Thanks to our commenter, Henry, who pointed out that, “LFF are only scratching the surface with their list. You need to look at the companies.”

Companies run by the signatories have given an additional £2 million bringing the total donations from tax letter signatories to a stunning £2,484,804. Going through the list it turns out that:

• Aggregate Industries have given £100,500

• JCB have given £616,010 in cash donations and £118,177 non-cash donations

• Bestway Cash & Carry have given £28,852

• Harris Ventures (Lord Harris’ company) have given £1,160,730 in cash donations and £25,135.59 in non-cash donations

—

Signatories to today’s letter in the Daily Telegraph calling for a stop to the proposed increase in national insurance have given close to half a million pounds to the Conservative party.

The following signatories have made donations to the Conservative party covered on the Electoral Commission register:

• Anthony Bamford has given £86,249.

• Aidan Heavey has given £5,500

• Christopher Gent has given £105,400

• Simon Wolfson has given £238,250

Among the other signatories, Lord Harris of Peckham takes the Conservative whip in the Lords.

Today’s New Statesman carries shocking new revelations about the leader of David Cameron’s MEPs Michal Kaminski – that he was “active in a 1500 strong neo-Nazi skinhead movement”. The latest claims are unearthed by Polish professor Rafal Pankowski, an adviser to Labour MEP Richard Howitt, who is campaigning against Holocaust denial.

Pankowski, author of “The Populist Radical Right in Poland: The Patriots”, also reveals that Kaminski’s denial of Polish responsibility for the mass execution of Jews during the second world war is directly linked to the emergence of Holocaust denial in Poland. The book claims that:

“From political obscurity to the heart of mainstream politics, the recent rise of the extreme right in the Polish context surprised many observers. In the 1990s Poland was usually referred to as a country without significant extremist or populist movements. It was considered to be a stable, even if young, democracy, and ‘extremists’ were perceived as just a little nuisance to the liberal-democratic consensus.

“By the mid-2000s, the picture changed completely, two populist radical right parties entered into a coalition government with the right-wing conservative Law and Justice Party. All of a sudden, racist extremist affiliations were not a hindrance to a high-level career, but were tolerated or even seemed positively valued.“

Writing in the NS, Howitt says that Kaminski’s Law and Justice party:

“Displayed ‘authoritarian tendencies’ during its brief period in government in Poland from 2005 to 2007. Variously, it used the secret services to quash intellectual opposition, took complete control of state broadcasting and engaged in the “systematic” recruitment of right wing extremists and former members of “skinhead groups” to top government positions. The party’s leaders are shown to be personally responsible for the illegal phone tapping and arbitrary arrest of political opponents.

“School children also found ‘unpatriotic’ authors, along with books by Goethe, Kafka and Dostoyevsky, removed from their reading lists as part of an attempt at the “purification of Polish culture”. Science lessons taught that Darwinism was “a literary fiction”. The crude fantasy propagated by Law and Justice that the Solidarity leader Lech Walesa conspired with, rather than helped defeat communism in Poland demonstrates how little truth matters to them.

“Their call for the recriminalisation of homosexuality… together with calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty, are absolutely contrary to Poland’s membership of the European Union… Kaminski’s well-publicised visit to a “Friends of Israel” event at last year’s Conservative Party conference are shown to mirror the party’s previous attempts to shed its Nazi label by making overtures to Israel. These didn’t prevent Law and Justice alleging that Israel was responsible for the Iraq war and that the 9/11 bombing was part of a Jewish conspiracy…

“The book makes a distinction between right wing parties in Poland who promote the politics of “love”, such as the governing centre-right Civic Platform, and those, like Law and Justice, who promote the politics of “hate”. David Cameron should ask himself why British Tories have chosen the latter?”

Also this morning, The Economist, itself opposed to the Lisbon treaty, puts the boot into the Tories, saying “it is not hard to see why many continental Europeans and some Britons worry that a Tory government would be a platoon of little Englanders”. Criticising David Cameron’s decision to leave the mainstream European People’s Party to join up with Kaminski’s European Conservatives and Reformists grouping, it says:

“This newspaper has no regrets about opposing both the draft EU constitution and the Lisbon treaty. It remains appalled about the way the reform was pushed through without a referendum in Britain. But given the choice between putting up with a mildly awful treaty (and the moderately ineffective politicians it has installed in Brussels) or getting out of the EU, we would far sooner stay in. By contrast 40% of Tory candidates favour either “fundamental” renegotiation of Britain’s membership or withdrawal.”

Canvassing opinion in Europe, The Economist reveals that:

“This newspaper recently conducted an unscientific survey of around two dozen Berliners who might be described as Germany’s elite. The various politicians, bureaucrats and businesspeople disagreed about many subjects. But on one thing they were firm. The election of a Conservative government in Britain would be a disaster. Their contempt for the Tories as ‘myopic, ignorant little Englanders’ was matched only by their fear that David Cameron’s party was hellbent on destroying the European Union.“

And another article adds that Cameron:

“Has been (rightly) criticised for pulling his party out of the centre-right grouping in the European Parliament to which the parties of Mrs Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, belong, and for cultivating the Euroscepticism of his party faithful.”

Our guest writer is Guy Aitchison, editor of the Power2010 website and blogger at openDemocracy

In an interview with the Guardian on Monday justice secretary Jack Straw went some of the way to answering the three questions I posed in a post for Left Foot Forward on Labour’s plans for an elected senate of 300 members to replace the Lords.

The full proposals are yet to be released as apparently there’s an internal battle within the Cabinet between those who favour a fully-elected chamber and want to unveil the government’s proposals now and a brigade of “80%ers” and status quo supporters led by Lord Mandelson who want to delay.

But we learn from Mr Straw that Labour is considering:

• An open-list form of PR where voters choose which candidates they want to support rather than parties ranking the candidates;

• Terms of three parliaments alongside a recall system so members don’t “just go off to some island and draw the money”; and

• Elections to the new chamber to be staggered over three parliaments so that potentially a decision on whether or not to go for a fully-elected chamber can be delayed until after two elections have been held.

There is precious time left before Parliament is dissolved to debate these plans but they are likely to feature in the Labour manifesto. We are now in a situation where all parties are agreed on the need for an elected chamber. The Conservatives are committed to a predominantly elected one (though David Cameron has privately declared it a “third-term issue”) and the Liberal Democrats favour one that is wholly elected.

I think there are two tacks reformers should take:

1. Push to make sure parties don’t control a reformed second chamber

In any discussion of reform of the Lords one thing that always comes up is that people do not want to see another chamber of professional politicians and party hacks. The vast majority want the chamber to be elected and accountable but they also want it to retain as much as possible the independence and diversity of the Lords and avoid replicating the craven and party-dominated House of Commons.

The parties, of course, will take a different view and will seek to extend their influence. We should therefore think hard about how to stop this from happening. It is encouraging to see that Open List PR is being considered for elections, but this should go further still. As Stuart Weir, founder of Charter 88, commented on my post:

“Surely STV should be a serious option as well as Open List PR; secondly, the system for allocating seats ought not to be D’Hondt, which favours big parties (and Straw chose this system for the Euro-elections) but the more pluralist Sainte-Lague; and thirdly, there are significant differences in Open List PR which could make the elections more or less voter-friendly.”

We need to advocate strong right of recall and the appropriate voting system to ensure members are accountable to us and not party managers.

2. Call an immediate halt to all new appointments to the Lords

This is the demand of Power2010’s “No more Lords” campaign launched today. Campaign director Pam Giddy sets out why we are making this demand over at Comment is Free – and Alex Smith has a great post on it over at LabourList. Really, this should be the test of sincerity for party leaders. They all like to talk about “cleaning up politics”, but how credible is that when at the same time they draw up lists of pals and party flunkies to stuff in the Lords who will expect to live out their retirements in the chamber or receive “compensation” whilst blocking any kind of reform?

Mr Cameron, you can be sure, has a list of those who will be joining his tax-dodging deputy chairman Lord Aschcroft; and although Stephen “cab for hire” Byers and fellow former ministers Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt won’t now be ennobled following lobbygate, the bar has already been set pretty low for Labour MPs given Michael Martin’s peerage. Even the Lib Dems aren’t exempt with their ermine-clad legislators outnumbering their elected ones.

That is why Power2010 is sending an open letter to Messieurs Brown, Cameron and Clegg asking them to commit to No more Lords! You can co-sign it here: http://www.power2010.org.uk/page/s/secondchamber?source=third1

It is time for party leaders to show they are serious about cleaning up politics; they should start by halting this corrupt practice.

Our guest writer is Guy Lodge, Associate Director at the ippr.

What happens when a giant state bureaucracy decides to trample all over one of the  innovative social enterprises in Britain? So far, nothing much.To explain: two conferences happened in London today. At the first David Cameron (and pretty much half the shadow cabinet) stood up to talk up their vague concept of a “Big Society“. There remain real problems with Tory thinking in this area, not least the assertion that an active state and a big society are locked in some kind of zero-sum relationship. But since his much derided conference speech last year when he claimed that rising inequality was primarily a consequence of big government, Cameron has at least tried to think more creatively about the role of the state.

Back in November he gave the Hugo Young Memorial lecture when he said that government should concentrate on:

“Galvanising, catalysing, prompting, encouraging and agitating for community engagement and social renewal. It must help families, individuals, charities and communities come together to solve problems.”

The idea that it would be good for the state to help husband and grow small, innovative social enterprises (or at least do them no harm) is something which should unite progressives and conservatives alike.

Sadly, then, there was perhaps a more significant event also happening today, about a 15 minute walk across London, run by the National Police Improvement Agency. There two young social entrepreneurs—Lauren Currie and Sarah Drummond, from the innovative police accountability organisation MyPolice.org—told the reality of how such organisations get treated.

MyPolice is an online feedback tool that enables the public and the police to have a conversation, and help people in local communities identify weaknesses in their policy service, and work with local forces to fix them. Most interestingly, all this data is then fed back to the police to help them improve. In short — a really good idea, and one supported by a range of groups, from Geoff Mulgan’s Young Foundation to Tom Steinberg’s MySociety.org.

The two founders were dismayed to find out recently that HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) — the police OFSTED — had decided to launch a vaguely similar site, with exactly the same name. The news wasn’t just irksome, but threatened their very survival: their organisation needs a good google ranking to allow the public to find them, and they had spent a year building relationships under their brand. Both of these won’t happen if a giant bureaucracy gobbles up the name, and creates confusion over who the real MyPolice might be.

That HMIC is investing in public online accountability mechanisms is a great thing — and to be encouraged, even applauded. But it would obviously be better to do this without friendly casualties in the process. And HMIC’s regrettable decision has already got some coverage, with more expected soon.

Rumours suggest that the Conservatives in particular are annoyed about this, given MyPolice are exactly the sort of organisation Cameron wants to flourish. But Labour supporters should be equally put out. We saw something like this happen when the government health website NHS Choices stomped over innovative startups, like PatientOpinion. And now its just happening all over again.

Thankfully, the solution is simple. HMIC should just admit they made a mistake, and change the name of their site. If they don’t, the first, smaller, better MyPolice will get swamped, and it is even possible that one of the most innovative small organisations in Britain could be snuffed out. If HMIC do change their name, everyone wins. And luckily, there are plenty of other good choices out there: OurPolice, YourPolice, BetterPolice, or indeed any one of literally dozens of other choices. Lets hope HMIC see sense, before their reputation suffers.

The government’s Car Scrappage Scheme which aimed to support the car industry comes to an end today with a reported loss to the Treasury and a large boost to the South Korean motoring industry.

From the beginning the scheme has had its critics, many of them within the UK car industry itself.  Following the announcement of the scheme in March 2009 Brian Spratt, chief executive of the Automotive Distribution Federation said:

“It’s a misuse of taxpayers’ pounds to purchase and crush perfectly serviceable vehicles and it’s a nonsense to think it will meet any long-term economic goals for UK plc. As a sensible idea it is a non-runner.”

However, the scheme pressed ahead on a promise of UK job creation and economic stimulus that has changed over time.

At the outset Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) officials thought that the £400 million scheme, which provided consumers with a joint Government and industry subsidy worth £2,000 towards a new car or van, could create a short term boost for the economy. It is reported today that the scheme “saved 4,000 jobs“. But the scheme has not resulted in additional tax receipts. Last autumn, the National Audit Office published estimates putting the loss to the taxpayer at £18 million over the long-term.

The National Audit office outlined that the two factors that made the car scrappage scheme a loss leader:

• a prediction that most sales through the scheme would have happened anyway; and

• some 85 per cent of vehicles sold in the UK are imported.

This investment into putting 400,000 new cars onto our roads couldn’t come at a worse time. Car traffic increased by 85 per cent between 1980 and 2008, with resulting congestion on our roads estimated by the Cabinet Office to cost the wider economy over £10 billion per year in English urban areas alone.

After Barack Obama’s election to the US presidency, British political parties are finally waking up to the importance of community organisation. The Conservative party should be praised for their announcement today of 5,000 new community organisers, which suggests a consensus is emerging. But as leading community organisers have told Left Foot Forward, the challenge for all parties is whether they embrace the goals, as well as the methods, of community organisation.

David Cameron today announced a new “neighbourhood army” with the goal to “encourage every adult citizen to be an active member of an active neighbourhood group”. The new “army” will consist of 5,000 full-time, professional community organisers trained to bring communities together, identify local issues, take control and tackle the problems.

This follows the announcement last week by Liam Byrne MP of a new Local Action Network for community organisers. Writing for Left Foot Forward, the chief secretary set out that the aim is to “get local Labour parties working much more closely with local activists and community organisers, sharing our know-how, connections, contacts and experience to help them to go further and faster in bringing change to their communities.”

Meanwhile, former Labour cabinet minister James Purnell recently quit politics to retrain as a community organiser with London Citizens. Speaking to Left Foot Forward today, Mr Purnell said:

“Obviously, there’s a difference between civil society and politics, and civil society organisations will want to influence all political parties.

“It’s not surprising to see the Tories catching up with the importance of community organising. But now the big issue for both Conservatives and Labour is what they think about the agenda that London Citizens have negotiated and agreed on the living wage, limits to usury, and using 1% of the bank bailout to help local communities.”

Ed Miliband hinted in a recent interview that there would be something in Labour’s manifesto relating to the minimum wage. Earlier this month it was reported that David Cameron’s head of strategy, Steve Hilton, was “losing a battle” to make a living wage for Whitehall part of the Conservative party’s manifesto.

London Citizens Executive Director, Neil Jameson, who met with David Cameron this morning, told Left Foot Forward:

“We warmly welcome the interest the Conservative party as taken in strengthening and supporting civil society. Mr Cameron has today proposed an end to calling civil society the ‘Third Sector’. We name it the ‘first sector’, which Citizens UK would vote for. We will continue to be focused on building and strengthening civil society through broad-based coalitions like London Citizens and employing professional community organisers who spend their time supporting those institutions and the shared concerns which they vote for on, issues of wages, housing, migration and community life.”

Today the TUC have published The Red Tape Delusion, the most recent in our series of ToUChstone pamphlets. Based on a comprehensive literature review undertaken by Howard Reed, the report (jointly authored by Howard and Stewart Lansley) systematically dismantles the neo-liberal argument that labour market regulation prohibits growth.

The UK labour market remains one of the least regulated in the developed world. Yet despite extremely low levels of protection at work, the business lobby has never been slow to tell us of the dire economic consequences that any improvements in workers’ rights will bring. For example, ever since the introduction of the minimum wage multiple warnings have been issued of inevitable rises in unemployment and reductions in job creation. These views are far removed from reality – over the last decade low paid sectors dominated by the minimum wage have been some of the fastest areas of growth, and as the Low Pay Commission have recently shown, during the recession low paying sectors have been more robust than the economy as a whole – despite being more tightly regulated than during the last recession. The evidence shows that in the UK and the US minimum wage legislation has not been an impediment to growth.

But although the orthodox economists who asserted that “the central problem of depression-prevention has been solved” have recently had to eat their words, this hasn’t stopped the neo-liberal de-regulatory chorus from returning. The British Chamber of Commerce assert that employment law is “stifling UK competitiveness”; the CBI report that “employers remain especially worried about the excessive burden of employment regulation” and the IEA is keen for the minimum wage to be cut.

This stance flies in the face of the economic evidence. In a detailed analysis of the relationship between labour market regulation and growth, looking both at cross-country economic performance as well as empirical studies of the impact of particular interventions in the UK, Lansley and Reed show that there is no evidence whatsoever that moderate levels regulation impede economic performance - and that there is good evidence that some types of regulation have positive economic impacts.

This is not an argument in favour of all regulation all of the time – but a clear refutation of the orthodox position that any labour market intervention is bad, and a call for a balanced and pragmatic approach to labour market policy, which recognises that it is possible to achieve successful economic outcomes (low unemployment, high employment participation and growth) with strong social and workplace protection.

Specifically, the research shows that:

• Trade unions have no significant negative consequences for labour market outcomes, and have positive effects in promoting workplace cohesion and social justice.

• Co-ordinated and responsible bargaining systems are associated with lower unemployment.

• Active labour market policies (for example, Job Guarantees), if well designed, can make a substantial difference to the employment prospects long-term unemployed people.

• In-work benefits boost labour supply while redistributing income to low-paid workers.

• Generous unemployment benefits combined with job search requirements are effective in reducing long term unemployment.

Looking at comparative evidence from around the world, the study concludes that a ‘reality-based’ assessment shows that Britain could take a bolder approach to labour market intervention as a means to improve social outcomes and enhance economic performance. Although Labour has implemented stronger measures in some areas, such as parental leave, childcare support and flexible working, Britain’s labour market remains closer to the US than the European model. Its levels of social protection, employment rights and collective bargaining fall well short of those in place in most European countries with the result that Britain remains towards the lower end of the international regulatory league table. But the evidence is clear – it is possible to achieve both social and workplace justice and economic dynamism.

Left Foot Forward is on holiday. The next Politics Summary will be on Tuesday, April 6th.

Facing high levels of public concern about migration, and worried about the continued threat posed by extremists like the BNP, all three main parties are keen to emphasise they are “tough on immigration”. But only the Conservatives have promised to cap immigration levels.  They have been reluctant to specify the details, so it’s not clear which immigration flows they would cap, or at what level.

David Cameron has said that he would like to see “net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than … hundreds of thousands”, and the Conservatives have also intimated their support for calls for annual net immigration to be reduced to around 40,000. The ippr has produced a briefing paper which considers the implications of an immigration cap set at 100,000 or 40,0000.

We show that a cap of 100,000 could be delivered if British net emigration continues at a significant rate and net immigration from the European Union settles down at something close to current levels. However, delivering net immigration of 100,000 (which would surely not satisfy those who want to see a drastic reduction in immigration) would also require current policy plans to be followed through, such as the implementation of plans to further restrict student immigration.

Instigating these policies would be challenging enough, and a cap of 100,000 would still be very difficult to achieve if improvements in the economy lead to increases in work-related migration to pre-recession levels.

A cap of 40,000 could only be met with drastic changes to policy. Given that EU migration is outside the control of government, and asylum/refugee migration is governed by international conventions, very significant reductions in migration to the UK for work and study, and restrictions on family formation/reunion, would be required.  Limiting these immigration flows is not straightforward – a cap of 40,000 looks impossible to achieve from the position that the UK is currently in without threatening both economic performance and the rights of British nationals and settled migrants to be with their families.

Elevating the reduction of immigration to the status of a policy objective in its own right (which a cap would do) begs the question of what the policy problem to be solved is.  If it’s population growth, an immigration cap would only make sense as part of a wider population policy, and presumably the real objective would then be to reduce population growth, rather than immigration.  If the concern is about public services, then it matters much less how many migrants come to the UK than how many go to the South East of England, or London, or Barking, or the catchment area of a particular school.  A national cap with nothing to say about regional population distribution would not solve this problem.

Even for those who are, for whatever reason, inclined to make the reduction of net immigration to the UK an objective of policy, it would make more sense to think about a target than a cap. Rather than limiting immigration numbers by fiat in certain categories, a target-based approach would allow a government to ‘raise or lower the bar’ in order to achieve a certain (desirable or promised) level of net immigration. Given that migration happens in series throughout the year, it is hard to see how fixed caps on particular migration flows would work in practice. If, for example, certain visas were limited annually, what would happen if the limits were met in October, or June?

A fixed cap on net immigration to the UK seems unworkable.  As I’ve suggested on Left Foot Forward before, it may also prove to be a political ‘own goal’.  The public want government to be in control of migration and to be honest with them about the numbers. But what often gives people the impression that immigration is out of control is politicians making promises to ‘clamp down’ that they then can’t deliver.  The immigration cap risks becoming one such promise unless the Conservatives can put forward a clear plan for how they would deliver it in practice.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) announced on twitter this morning that ‘Horizon Nuclear Power’ have said they plan to have their first nuclear plant generating by 2020, apparently in the former Druid hotspot of Anglesey.

The BBC reports the E.On / RWE joint venture will be spending £7.5 billion building a new reactor at Wylfa. But there are a number of reasons why all may not be as it seems in fair Ynys Môn, and that the wheels could come crashing off the nuclear bandwagon and over the Menai Straits.

The government and industry are desperate to show that atomic progress is being made in the UK. Understandably in such a regulatory and policy minefield, investors need clarification and certainty over project roll out to inspire the sort of confidence they need to take a punt on the already shaky economics of nukes. Yet the official timelines for UK new build have slipped repeatedly, and don’t look like stopping.

For example:

• It’s not clear if and when Wylfa would be given the green light, let alone when work could start on site. The complications arise from the deal the government struck with EdF when the company bought British Energy. It has been reported that EdF still holds land vital to the new Wylfa project. It appears EdF doesn’t have to sell the land it owns at Wylfa until it is granted planning permission for two new reactors at both Hinkley Point and Sizewell. There’s no guarantee this will ever happen, so no-one should be holding their breath waiting for an atomic revolution in Anglesey.

• According to the latest list of Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) projects Wylfa was slated to get an application in for November 2011. Yet according to Horizon today, an application for Wylfa is only “scheduled for “2012,” a year behind their original schedule.

• DECC said in 2008 that Regulatory Justification, a legal requirement, would be completed in mid-2009. They now say this won’t be happen until after the General Election.

• Similarly, the National Policy Statements should have been designated before 2010. Now DECC can’t say when this will happen.

• Waste and decommissioning was pencilled in to be signed off in the final quarter of 2009. If or when this particular nuclear nightmare will be straightened out is anyone’s guess.

• Again in 2008, then-Secretary of State at BERR John Hutton said, “We consider that a decision by an operator to proceed in principle with building a new nuclear power station and therefore to request from the Government a fixed unit price for waste disposal in a Geological Disposal Facility could come as early as mid 2009” . The Fixed Unit Price is the government’s clever idea to protect taxpayers from hikes in the cost of new build waste management, and it is absolutely central to making the sums for new nuclear even remotely workable. Hutton hoped that in 2009 operators would be given a set price that they must put aside to cover the estimated costs of dealing with waste at the end of the reactor’s life. Well, we’re in 2010 and DECC have only just launched a consultation on the Fixed Unit Price. This won’t finish until the summer, so an operator like Horizon won’t be able to get a figure until into 2011. This effectively translates as DECC creating a delay of 2 years in the space of 2 years. So much for facilitating a nuclear renaissance.

Interestingly, this announcement also shows that someone writing press releases at DECC needs to spend a bit more time checking their workings because they’re making the poor Energy Minister look a little daft. One press release recently wrote of Lord Hunt visiting “Sellafield nuclear power station” even though the Calder Hall reactor at Sellafield shut in 2003. Today Lord Hunt seems to have got muddled up over the number of jobs a new reactor at Wylfa might produce.

Alan Raymant, Chief Operating Officer at Horizon Nuclear Power, a man who ought to know, said that “Each development would deliver up to 800 direct permanent jobs and around 5,000 during the construction period”. Yet a few minutes later Lord Hunt was quoted by the Press Association saying that “with each potential new nuclear plant providing up to 9,000 jobs, the move to low carbon not only helps our climate, but the economy too”. The figure, also reported on the BBC, is nearly twice what Horizon is using.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised about this sort of thing from a department that recently published a Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS) with 39 references to the word “employment” and a Renewables NPS with no references to employment at all.

Flippancy aside, hats off to the nuclear industry. They are very good at making it sound like they’re going places fast. But despite all the hot air, there’s really more chance of Gaius Suetonius Paulinus turning up at Anglesey again with his XIV Legion Gemina than Wylfa getting three new reactors any time soon.

Our guest writer is Paul Canning

Stonewall and Ben Bradshaw’s talking points got another outing last week and scored what must have pleased both them and Gay Times no end, a ‘gotcha’ moment for Cameron on gay issues. What is frustrating as political leaders do these rare interviews on gay issues is that there’s one area where their glaring failure rarely gets questioned: LGBT asylum and – allied to that – support for LGBT in those parts of the world where they are most at threat.

The UK has a terrible record with case-after-case of people fleeing torture, arrest, “honour” killing and the like needing campaigning and years of expensive legal effort to force the Home Office to grant them sanctuary.

Harriet Harman was booed at the London Pride rally two years ago following the well-publicised case of Mehdi Kazemi. The teenage Iranian had seen his boyfriend murdered by the Mullas but it took a massive campaign before Jacqui Smith relented. Home Office minister Lord West had actually said:

“We do not consider that there is systematic persecution of gay men in Iran.”

Campaigners have sought Home Office changes for years to little effect. Only last month the High Court blocked the government from deporting a Ugandan lesbian who was on a police list; now we have the leader of Iraqi LGBT, an incredibly brave man who has saved countless lives from the pogroms in Iraq, being denied asylum and hence travel rights, which he would use to take up American and European offers to talk with politicians and visit TV studios.

Watch a report oh the Iraqi situation:

Yet only Johann Hari’s recent interviews of Brown, Cameron and Clegg for the Independent have mentioned asylum. This produced the irony of Cameron sounding more liberal than Brown as Hari asked the same question about the policy of telling people to “go home and be discrete”. It also produced a bizarre Daily Mail headline “Cameron: Gay refugees from Africa should be given asylum in UK’”- when Africa hadn’t even been mentioned.

But Hari did the same thing as other gay journalists and zoomed in on the Conservative party’s relationship to eastern European homophobes. Those journalists’ priorities match those of gay and lesbian Labour MPs and Labour LGBT. This when we have executions in Iran, a ‘kill the gays’ bill in Uganda and looming repression in the rest of Africa plus that ongoing pogrom in Iraq. None of those MPs has raised a finger to help (yes Brown did complain to Museveni but one isolated swallow doesn’t make a summer).

The Foreign Office proudly trumpets its gay rights work but it is almost entirely European. Its second Human Rights report has some information about Iraq – sourced from the same person Labour’s Home Office says does not have a “compelling” case. Only Labour’s Michael Cashman MEP has a record to be proud of on international LGBT issues.

By contrast look at what’s happening in the US State Department through Hillary Clinton’s leadership on truly international gay rights work. As the booing of Harman showed LGBT voters are aware of Labour’s big failing on LGBT asylum. And no ammount of spin helped by gay journalists and pointing at the Tories can cover up the big homophobic stink emanating from the Home Office.

Conservative party peer, Nigel Lawson, has said the Government should suspend the “absurd” Climate Change Act in order to allow the third runway at Heathrow to go ahead. The remarks will embarrass fellow Conservative David Cameron who supported the Act and opposes the third runway.

According to the Press Association, earlier today in the House of Lords, Lord Lawson said:

“The third runway at Heathrow has been kiboshed by the courts as the direct and predictable result of the Government’s absurd Climate Change Act, which was passed with enthusiasm and complete thoughtlessness and acclaimed by all parties in this House and the Commons.”

He asked Transport Secretary Lord Adonis:

“Is not the only possible solution – if you think that a third runway is important and I agree with you – to put the Act in suspense not least because even the Government has admitted that it makes no sense without international agreement, which Copenhagen shows is not obtainable?”

Left Foot Forward reported last week that the High Court said the government’s position on airport expansion was “untenable in law and common sense”.

A BNP leader has called for kissing between men to be banned in public. Nick Prince, the BNP leader in East Sussex, also attacked the “morals and honesty” of a gay Conservative MP. Prince attacked Bexhill and Battle MP Greg Barker after criticising gay adoption and same-sex public displays of affection.

Barker responded by saying:

“The BNP is completely beyond the pale and I have no intention in entering into a debate with that sort of people.”

Prince’s bigotry follows Iain Dale’s recent interview with Nick Griffin in which the BNP leader claimed his party are “not anti gay” and “have got gay members”, this despite describing men kissing in public as “creepy”, echoing his remarks on Question Time in which he the sight of two men kissing in public was “really creepy”.

In the interview, Griffin’s mask further slipped when he came out against civil partnerships, ranting about “the left’s war against marriage and the family” and the “hard core Marxist left who have infiltrated their ideas into all aspects of our society”.

Elsewhere, a well-connected Tory councillor has also been exposed for making homophobic remarks. Writing on Facebook, Wirral borough councillor Denis Knowles, who defected from Labour in May, said:

“An unusual group of young boys leafletting … of the limp wristed variety and definitely NOT local.”

He later wrote:

“Just joined Chris Grayling MP and Leah Fraser on a visit to the Allandale “Youthworks” in Seacombe…”

And last week, Tory leader David Cameron floundered badly in an interview with Gay Times, broadcast on Channel Four News. In it, he failed to commit to supporting the Alli amendment in the Lords which would allow civil partnership ceremonies to be performed on religious premises and once again defended the Tories’ far-Right allies in the European parliament.

The House of Commons’ foreign affairs select committee report on Anglo-American relations is a more balanced attempt to understand the nature of the “Special Relationship” than the screaming headlines proclaiming the relationship “dead” otherwise indicate.

The committee warns that:

“The overuse of the phrase by some politicians and many in the media serves simultaneously to devalue its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the UK.”

However, the record of the Special Relationship’s strength in just the last 13 years is a remarkable one, with British foreign policy objectives in the Balkans, on international development and in the G-20 all being furthered by the in-built advantage British premiers have with American presidents.

As Foreign Affairs Select Committee chair Mike Gapes said:

“The UK and US have a close and valuable relationship not only in terms of intelligence and security but also in terms of our profound and historic cultural and trading links and commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law.”

In terms of the future of maximizing UK influence over the US, Gapes added:

“We must be mindful of the FCO’s high reputation in the US which is currently under threat through unacceptable financial pressure from the Treasury. Having previously shed fat and muscle, the FCO’s US network is now being forced to cut into bone.

“Any additional cuts will diminish the FCO’s ability to exercise influence in the US and have a knock-on effect on the UK’s global standing.”

The report’s levelheaded conclusion that “the UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the US but there is a need to be less deferential and more willing to say no where our interests diverge” has already provoked a new storm of premature speculation as to the death of the ‘special relationship’ which closer examination of the report soon disproves.

Firstly, let me make it clear that no government can completely protect those who use a mass transit railway network, such as Moscow’s, from terrorist attack. However, they can take steps to prevent these attacks occurring, and given the threat to Moscow from dissident groups in the Caucasus, it seems those running the Metro at least considered preventative measures before yesterday’s explosions ripped through their trains.

Sniffer dogs employed on the underground railway were withdrawn due to their dubious utility, whilst metal detectors at station entrances were considered but ultimately rejected due to the fact that they would not detect explosive devices. Such considerations and the ultimate failure to prevent the atrocity highlight the quandary security services around the world face when dealing with terrorism in cities. Ultimately, these modes of transport cannot be protected.

The Moscow emergency services seem to have evacuated the wounded quickly and efficiently, but this is about the only thing the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations did right in the crisis. Amazingly, it appears that the Metro line kept running after the first explosion at Lubyanka station in central Moscow during morning rush hour. Normal emergency procedures would dictate the total shut down of all networks until the crisis had been dealt with. This did not happen.

That it did not is even more incredible given the fact that Russian officials paid close attention to the British response to the 7/7 London Underground bombings, in which total shut down was implemented. In Moscow yesterday morning trains continued to run on time despite the explosion and this gave another suspected suicide bomber the chance to strike 40 minutes later at the Kultury Park station, closer to the suburbs. Questions should be asked of the state Ministry why such an obvious security procedure was not implemented.

And what of the Russian security services? What of their counter- terrorist efforts? Indeed it appears the targeting of Lubyanka station, very close to the FSB’s headquarters, was designed to send a message to the very spooks who had failed to stop the attack. Just as they have failed to foil most of the attacks that have occurred on Russian soil in the last decade, from the recent bombing of the St Petersburg – Moscow express, to  the Moscow theatre hostage drama, to the Beslan school murders.

Of course a security service cannot stop all attacks, and by their very nature we often do not know their successes, but by comparison it seems the Russian security services are neither adept at infiltrating the terrorist organisations that threaten the state nor at intercepting those sent to carry out attacks. And once these attacks are successfully made there seems to be no apprehension of suspects and no public enquires into why these incidents occurred. Questions need to be asked; why are these attacks getting through?

However the biggest questions will be political. Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, was originally elected on a mandate that he would tackle the Caucasus problem. Throughout his political career he has been sold to the Russian public as a strong man who would ‘smash’ the terrorists. This has not happened. The suicide bombers who struck today were allegedly female, perhaps members of the ‘Black Widow’, a Chechen group that has carried out previous suicide attacks. Not only are the attacks a reminder of Putin’s failure to eliminate Chechen terrorism, they also highlight the fact that this problem will not go away until a political solution is found in the Caucasus.

UPDATE 3:30 – The Russian media have joined in the criticism of the authorities’ response.

Vadim Rechkalov, of the popular daily Moskvosky Komsomolets, wrote:

“Why didn’t senior officials … talk to people through one of the main federal channels to stop them from going into the Metro and to prevent panic? Instead, from the moment when the first blast took place and till 0900, the leading federal channels showed people singing, dancing, making breakfast and relieving pain with their hands.“

Journalist Moskovsky Komsomolets said:

“The main lesson that ordinary Russians should draw from this tragedy is that the authorities and the people exist separately from each other. If you are not prepared to die like cattle, be ready to defend yourself. Rely only on yourself. In this way, you will be able to save your own life and the life of your country.”

And online newspaper gazeta.ru said citizens remained:

“Defenceless in the face of terrorist attack despite all the promises of the authorities to ensure their safety.”

A group of online entrepreneurs are attempting to use Twitter to predict the election outcome. Tweetminster, a media utility that aims to make UK politics more open and social, is following the success of a Japanese study during last year’s general election which found that that in around 90 per cent of constituencies the most mentioned candidate on Twitter won the seat.

Analysis of 376 British seats since January 1st, 2009 gives Labour a slight lead of 35 per cent to 34 per cent over the Conservatives with a majority of 14 predicted. The Liberal Democrats are on 22 per cent and Others on 9 per cent. But the report is keen to outline that “assuming the same 10% margin of error of the Japanese study, the range of potential outcomes would also encompass various hung parliament scenarios with Labour short of seats”.

The report also predicts that:

• An important number of seats are being closely contested in the South West between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats;

• The Green party may prosper in Brighton and Norwich;

• Support for the SNP is declining while Angus is a particular “race to watch”; and

• The Conservatives will perform positively in the East Midlands while Labour and the Liberal Democrats will “perform better in London than recent polls have shown”.

Alberto Nardelli, Co-founder of Tweetminster, said:

“While we have a 90% accuracy rate benchmark from a similar study in Japan, we are keen to stress that this exercise isn’t a poll, it’s an experiment into predictive modelling and we cannot speculate on the level of accuracy of these predictions at this stage.

“In fact, the whole point of the experiment is to compare mentions and word-of-mouth on Twitter with election results to determine if a correlation between the two actually exists.”

UDPATE 12.06

John Rentoul on the Independent Minds blog suggests a firm “No”

Yesterday, the Government announced plans to extend access to the Future Jobs Fund to everyone who has been out of work and claiming benefits for two years. This truly progressive policy is a cause for celebration.

The Government has proposed that from April 2011, a new Jobseekers Guarantee will be in place for all people who reach two years on Jobseekers Allowance without finding work. Those who have come to the end of Flexible New Deal will be supported to find employment and to gain experience of real jobs paid at least the minimum wage, rather than punished – for what are labour market rather than individual failures – by being forced into a workfare scheme. Only those who do not take up an offer after 13 weeks will be mandated to undertake compulsory work experience, and even then the aspiration is that this activity “is built around the individual needs of the jobseeker”. The Command Paper also suggests that the Future Jobs Fund may be opened to incapacity benefit claimants – helping all of those who are experiencing worklessness, not just those on the claimant count.

This is a truly progressive policy. It provides Government recognition that nearly all unemployed people want to work, and that unemployment is not the fault of lazy individuals, but a consequence of social and economic failures. It recognises that people facing unemployment need support and not punishment. And it is not just the sentiment that is sound. Evidence shows that job guarantee policies provide the greatest chance of preventing long-term unemployment destroying the lives of individuals and communities and enabling unemployed people to move into work. The proposed introduction is a real victory to those – including the TUC – who have been lobbying hard for such a policy to replace the government’s previous ‘work for your benefit’ proposals.

This announcement also draws a clear line between Labour and Conservative labour market policy – recession victims who find themselves out of work for over two years under a Tory administration would face a “mandatory long-term community work scheme” in return for their benefits – a workfare scheme which evidence suggests would have little impact on claimants’ chances of finding work and could even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.

There are of course some caveats, the precise design of the Guarantee will depend on the Spending Review settlement, and there is always a risk that the implementation will not live up to the policy intent. In addition, the future of the work for your benefit pilots remains unclear. There is also a risk that while yesterday’s proposals include a sharp increase in the budget for Access to Work, they could also mean less spending on welfare to work programmes specifically for disabled people.

But overall, yesterday’s announcement is a cause for celebration. It signifies a real shift in the Government’s labour market policy, and demonstrates real support for working people.

The Conservative’s pledge to hold off Labour’s planned rise in national insurance dominates the papers coverage of Channel 4’s chancellors’ debate. The Times reports that, “Alistair Darling and Vincent Cable ganged up on George Osborne last night to heap derision on the Conservatives’ proposed tax cut.” The Guardian front page focuses on Alistair Darling’s remark that the shadow chancellor was taking a “terrible risk”. Left Foot Forward showed yesterday that there was a £3 billion black hole in the Tories’ tax plans.

The Financial Times focuses on criticism of the financial sector: “Banks come under fire in TV clash”. The Telegraph says the candidates were “all agreed that the cuts would have to be tougher than those imposed by Baroness Thatcher in the 1980s.” Channel 4’s Cathy Newman fact-checked the three candidate’s claims and concludes: “Vince Cable reinforced his reputation – telling the truth for example on the income gap being worse than when the Tories left office. Alistair Darling, on the other hand, boobed on the death tax. And George Osborne remains confusing on child tax credits.” Tweetminster reported that there were 12,250 tweets. Final sentiment scores (a measure of the positive or negative reaction to candidates) was Cable +5, Darling +1, Osborne zero. Channel 4’s online poll showed “Cable 36 per cent, Darling 32 per cent and Osborne 32 per cent.”

The front pages of the Telegraph, Times, and Guardian examine Labour’s plans to reshape the welfare state. In the Guardian Andy Burnham, the health secretary, sets out his vision for a “new National Care Service, providing personal care and support to adults on the basis of need and free at the point of use, will ensure that an ageing society remains a decent and fair society.” The paper reports that he will today “promise new laws to cap the cost of residential costs after two years in a home.” The Telegraph says, “No details will be provided on funding. Mr Burnham will instead say that a Royal Commission will be appointed to draw up proposals for a care service after 2015.” But the Times appears to have more details: “The freeze in inheritance tax thresholds for four years, announced in last week’s Budget, would raise up to £500 million a year. Another £200 million would come from the decision to abolish the default retirement age of 65, or raise it, also announced in the Budget.”

Angela Merkel will deliver a “diplomatic snub” this week to the Conservative leader David Cameron, reports the Independent. Ms Merkel will join the Prime Minister for lunch on Thursday. But she has found no space in her diary to meet Mr Cameron – even though the polls suggest he could be in Downing Street within six weeks. In September, Left Foot Forward reported that the German Chancellor withdrew her party’s London representative after Mr Cameron’s decision to withdraw the Conservatives from the centre-right European People’s Party grouping.

A cross-party committee of MPs has criticised the BBC’s financial accountability, reports the Guardian. The Commons culture, media and sport select committee’s review of the BBC’s 2008-09 annual report says the “reward packages of the director general and senior management of the BBC are seen to be out of step with the current economic climate”. The Mirror focuses on the advice that BBC director general Mark Thompson should take a cut on his £800,000 salary. The Telegraph suggests that “No BBC presenter should be paid more than £5 million a year” although it is unclear if anyone other than Jonathan Ross earns that much.

Tony Blair will return to domestic politics today with a speech to the Trimdon Labour Club in Sedgefield, his former constituency. According to the Guardian he will say that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have made the right calls on all the big decisions on the economy during the recession. The Times reports that, “Tony Blair will not attack David Cameron directly in his first speech on domestic politics since leaving office — a move that will retain the ex-Prime Minister’s commercial and political value after the election.”

A leading childcare charity has today published research showing more than two-thirds of mothers would be less likely to vote for a party that cut free childcare places or tax credits. The news comes in the wake of a cross-party Commons committee’s call for Sure Start to be spared the axe in any public spending cuts, saying it would be “catastrophic” to scale it back, describing Sure Start as “one of the most innovative and ambitious initiatives of the last two decades”.

The survey, by Daycare Trust, also comes amidst a welter of attacks from Tories, the Daily Mail and groups like the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which prompted the setting-up of the “Save our Sure Start” campaign. In January, the Mirror reported shadow skills secretary David Willetts’s warning that “only a few of the 3,197 [Sure Start] centres would survive under David Cameron”.

The Daycare Trust research found that:

• The 12.5 hours free childcare a week that all 3 & 4 year olds are entitled to is the most important childcare policy to mothers; 69% say they would be less likely to vote for a party that reduced or removed the free entitlement

• Closely followed by measures that help parents with the huge financial burden of childcare; a removal or reduction in tax credits would make 67% of mothers less likely to vote for a party that cut them, and a limit or reduction in childcare vouchers would put off 60%

• Mothers clearly see the benefits to their children from Sure Start Children’s Centres and the Child Trust Fund, and are protective of these services as a result; 54% and 57% respectively say that any party that failed to protect these initiatives would suffer at the polls

The charity also launched its Childcare Charter, a six point manifesto designed to put the issue of childcare at the heart of the election. It calls on the next government to aim to spend 1% of GDP on early childhood education and care so that all children get the best start in life and extend free places to ensure that all children benefit from early childhood education and care.

It also calls for an extension of parental leave and to make workplaces family friendly, the gaps in provision to be filled and to guarantee extended schools, childcare to be made affordable for all parents and for Sure Start Children’s Centres to be celebrated with the range of services on offer to be extended.

Responding to the findings, Daycare Trust chief executive Alison Garnham said:

“Our survey shows that any party hoping for success at this election must prove they are serious about giving families the support they need, and set out a clear commitment to invest in childcare. The fact that these policies are so significant to the mothers we spoke to shows the progress that has been made in recent years, but there is still a long way to go.

“Parents across the country are telling us more needs to be done – that’s why today we are publishing Daycare Trust’s childcare charter, outlining the policies that will make a real difference to families, and asking all parliamentary candidates to give it their backing.

“In the run up to the election, we are hearing speeches and sound-bites from politicians about children and families every day. However, in reality it is firm policy promises on issues such as flexible working; more financial help with childcare, and improved childcare provision that will not only win votes but also really deliver support for families.”

Children, schools and families secretary Ed Balls added:

“As this poll shows the last thing families want is to have vital support taken away from them, especially during difficult economic times. That’s why, as we secure the economic recovery, our election pledges put families and fairness first. We will raise tax credits for families with young children, protect investment in universal Sure Start children’s centres and extend free nursery places to 15 hours a week for all 3 and 4 year olds.

“This poll is worrying news for David Cameron and George Osborne, who have pledged to take away from ordinary families, who work hard and play by the rules, the tax credits, child trust funds and children’s centres they rely on. As the election choice becomes clearer, mums and dads who do their best to juggle work and family life will know they would be hit the hardest if the Tories win.”