Why Conservatives Failed The Test On Islamic Schools

Conservative Party officials made two basic errors in their attack on two schools said to be run by a radical Islamic group, it emerged Wednesday.

During Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday and in briefings afterwards the Conservatives claimed there was no evidence that the schools had been registered or inspected by Ofsted, the education standards watchdog; they also said the schools had received money from an anti-terrorism fund. But yesterday the claims were beginning to unravel. The most obvious mistake was the allegation that they appeared not to have been registered or inspected.

In fact, one of the two schools – in Slough, Berkshire – had posted a glowing commendation from Ofsted on its website. The report was easily accessible by Googling the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, and its veracity could be confirmed with Ofsted.

It praised the school for its "broad and balanced curriculum" and for its commitment to the "spiritual, moral, social and cultural development" of its 55 four- to 10-year-old pupils.

The second error, over the allegation that state finance from a fund designed to combat terrorism was being channelled into an extremist school dedicated to the overthrow of Western culture, was perhaps more serious.

The waters here were slightly muddier, although the Conservatives were mistaken again. Money from a government fund was paid to both schools – the second is in Haringey, north London – but the £113,000 concerned came from a fund designed to promote nursery education and distributed by local councils; the fund just happened to have the same name, Pathfinder, as the anti-terrorist fund.

Haringey council suspended funding when the controversy over the running of the two schools broke a month ago. An official inquiry has found "no evidence to suggest inappropriate content or influence in the school".

Slough council said it was satisfied with its school, citing the Ofsted report in the school's defence.

A third allegation concerned the extent of Hizb ut-Tahrir's involvement with the school. The Government has faced pressure to ban the organisation, which supports "Muslim liberation", for alleged extremist views.

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, told the House of Commons: "Two schools have been established by an extremist Islamist foundation, the ISF, which is a front organisation for Hizb ut-Tahrir." He added: "Two of its four trustees are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the headteacher and proprietor of one of the schools [in Slough] are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir."

Farah Ahmed, the head in question, told the BBC she was not a member. The proprietor of the Slough school, Yusra Hamilton, who is the wife of a Hizb ut-Tahrir member, has since resigned as a trustee of the school.

The Haringey school has told the local council it no longer has links with "any of the individuals alleged to have connections with Hizb ut-Tahrir".

Brown & Cameron Clash Over Budget Deficit

I know where I would put my money to run the country see link below:

Gordon Brown and David Cameron clashed over plans to tackle Britain’s budget deficit on Monday, as the party leaders sought political advantage on an issue that is set to dominate next year’s election.The prime minister and Conservative leader both claimed international backing for their approach, as each warned the annual conference of the CBI employers’ organisation that their rival’s strategy would jeopardise the economic recovery.

Mr Cameron rejected suggestions that he had switched emphasis from “austerity” measures to tackle the £175bn deficit to growth in response to fears that his party’s poll lead was under pressure.

Asserting that his message had not changed, Mr Cameron said his plans for an “emergency growth Budget” within 50 days of taking office were interlinked with his call for urgent measures to tackle the deficit.

“Dealing with this deficit is not an alternative to economic growth – the two go hand in hand,” he said.

The Tory leader asserted that a failure to address the deficit with sufficient urgency posed the “greatest single risk to sustained economic recovery”. He told delegates there was a growing consensus behind the Tory argument that “urgent action is vital to recovery”.

But the prime minister scored a coup when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, lauded Mr Brown’s global leadership and backed his warning that fiscal stimulus should not be withdrawn too quickly.

“We recommend erring on the side of caution, as exiting too early is costlier than exiting too late,” Mr Strauss-Kahn told the event in London.

But Mr Cameron’s approach received tacit backing from the European Central Bank, which warned that delays in unwinding exceptional measures taken to combat the economic crisis could backfire. Speaking in Madrid, Jean-Claude Trichet, ECB president, said threats to public finances posed by stimulus packages meant that “there is an increasingly pressing need for ambitious and realistic fiscal exit strategies and for fiscal consolidation”.

Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, an ECB executive board member, said on Friday history showed that the late implementation of “exit strategies” could cause future crises.

“In my view, the ‘err on the side of being late’ paradigm is potentially as dangerous as the ‘productivity growth’ paradigm of the late 1990s and the ‘fear of deflation’ paradigm of the early 2000s, which led some advanced economies to implement policy stimuli for too long, sowing the seeds of the subsequent crisis,” Mr Bini Smaghi said in Paris.

Mr Brown sought to capitalise on the IMF’s support for his stance by suggesting that the Tory growth “soundbite” was meaningless without substantive policies to support it. The prime minister criticised the Conservative call for immediate action on the deficit, warning that “choking off the recovery too soon would be fatal to world growth”.

Business reacted with bemusement to the ferocity of the debate, suggesting that the clashes were largely for political effect since – whoever wins next year’s general election – significant spending cuts were unlikely to bite until 2011-12.

“The instincts of Mr Cameron and Mr Brown are clearly different. There may not be in policy terms all that much [to separate the duo],” Richard Lambert, CBI director-general, said.

“Business is focusing on a different issue [to the rhetoric on exit from the fiscal stimulus],” said John Cridland, CBI deputy director-general. “Business knows that significant fiscal tightening has to be achieved at some point in the cycle but it’s how we do it.”

Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war - live

If that is the case what about the Major Government and Lib Dems who also supported the first Gulf war as soon as the troops arrived into a position that they could take out Saddam the troops did a U turn on the comrades in Iraq so that they could turn on Saddam.

So the question is given the circumstances all the countries that all was involved in the war all the countries that went into the first Gulf War & second Gulf War should be held to account yes?

Follow the action as inquiry into one of the most contentious decisions of modern times begins hearing evidence.

Sir John Chilcot, who is chairming the inquiry into the Iraq war. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

10.49am: Chilcot asks about the "smart sanctions" policy. How did we get there, and what happened in the security council?

Patey says that by March 2001 Britain had reached agreement with the US to narrow and strenthen sanctions. At one stage eggs had been subject to sanctions (because they could be incubated to produce WMD). The Americans and the British wanted to get away from that, by moving towards a "controlled goods list" and tightening border monitoring. The government wanted to "narrow the scope of sanctions and make their implemention more effective".

10.48am: More Iraq inquiry jargon: the NFZ operation. That stands for the no-fly zones.

10.47am: Webb says that "the question of regime overthrow was mentioned" but that Britain was not being asked to support it at that stage.

10.43am: Chilcot asks about "regime change". When did it start to "loom" as an object of US policy.

Ricketts says that the notion of regime change was around when the Bush adminstration took over. "We did hear voices [talking about] arming the Iraqi opposition." But this was not being pushed heavily, Ricketts says. The State Department was in charge.

Patey says that in February 2001 British policy makers were "aware of the drumbeats in Washington" relating to regime change. But Britain's policy was to "keep well away" from this option.

10.41am: They're talking about the Americans now. Ricketts says that from Bush's election until 9/11, the State Department (ie, Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State) was in the lead in relation to US policy towards Iraq.

Patey says the State Department was being "given a chance" to see if it could "make containment work".

10.40am: BBC News is still showing the hearing. Sky has given up already.

10.38am: Webb says there were different opinions about the threat posed by Iraq at the time. In Kuwait there was a lot of concern.

Patey talks about the need for "P5 unity".

We're going to have to get used to Iraq inquiry jargon. P5 stands for the permament five - the five permanent members of the UN security council.

10.36am: Webb explains how the arms embargo was working in 2001. "Almost all members of the UN were abiding by it," he says. It was preventing Iraq acquiring "major new weapons systems". But there was "some leakage of parts and components that allowed them to be a bit more effective. They appeared to be flying their aircraft a bit more regularly [than expected]."

10.33am: Ricketts starts with an opening statement saying that by 2001 the various policies in place to contain Saddam Hussein were not working well.

10.24am: The three witnesses introduce themselves. I gave some details about them in my post at 8.42am but they add a few details.

Ricketts says he is now permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. He starts by saying how anxious people within government are to cooperate with the inquiry.

Patey says he is now ambassador to Saudi Arabia. After leaving his Middle East job in the Foreign Office in 2002 he became ambassador to Sudan.

Webb says he is now working in the Cabinet Office on a project on "crisis management". He also says he is on part-time secondment to the Football Association helping prepare the World Cup bid.

This is interesting. Webb also says that, during the time in question, he received a promotion in the MoD after going through a selection process that involved two members of the inquiry assessing candidates - Lady Prashar, who, as First Civil Service Commissioner, was involved in senior appointments of this kind and Sir Lawrence Freedman, who I presume was on the panel as a member of the "great and the good". This disclosure does rather reinforce the impression that the inquiry represents the establishment interrogating itself.

10.21am: This morning the inquiry will focus on "broad lines of policy" relating to Iraq before the way, Chilcot says. In the afternoon the hearing will concentrate on the no-fly zones policy and sanctions.

10.18am: Chilcot is now telling members of the public that, if they disrupt proceedings, they will be thrown out.

10.16am: Chilcot has mentioned the "protocols" for witnesses giving evidence. There are three of them and they are available on the inquiry's website. They explain how the process will work and when witnesses will be allowed to give evidence in private, or anonymously.

10.10am: My 10am post was based on the text we were given in advance. Chilcot is speaking now. He starts with a moment's silence in memory of all those killed in Iraq.

10.00am: Chilcot is about to give his opening statement. We've been given a text in advance. Here are the highlights.

He reasserts his determination to be rigorous and frank - and, where necessary, to attibute blame.

My colleagues and I come to this task with open minds. We are apolitical and independent of any political party. We want to examine the evidence. We will approach our task in a way that is thorough, rigorous, fair and frank ...

As I have said before, we are not a court or an inquest or a statutory inquiry; and our processes will reflect that difference. No-one is on trial. We cannot determine guilt or innocence. Only a court can do that. But I make a commitment here that once we get to our final report, we will not shy away from making criticisms where they are warranted.

He renews his appeal for evidence from ordinary members of the public. This suggests he is trying hard to stop it becoming an establishment-only affair.

We don't want to, and are not, just hearing from the 'official' representatives. We value hearing a broad spectrum of views from a wide range of people and organisations. We want to know what people across Britain think are the important questions. We want to get a range of challenging perspectives on the issues we are considering.

He urges people to be patient. The first round of witness hearings will begin today and run until early February 2010. Then (after the election) he will hold a further round of hearings in the middle of 2010.

We expect to invite back some previous witnesses and, where relevant, call some new ones. What I would like to stress now is that people should not jump to conclusions if they do not hear everything they expect to in the first round of hearings: there will be more to follow.

He says the inquiry will not start considering issues relating to the legality of the war until the hearings in the New Year

And, finally, he explains what he wants to learn from the early hearings.

We want to establish a clear understanding of the various core elements of the UK's involvement in Iraq, and how these developed over time. We will start by hearing from the senior officials and military officers who had a key role in developing advice for Ministers and/or implementing government policy. We want them to take us through the main decisions and tasks. That will give us a clear understanding of the various strands of British policy development and implementation since 2001. We will learn the reasons why particular policies or courses of action were adopted, and what consideration was given to alternative approaches.

9.54am: Ian Drury in the Daily Mail says that Gordon Brown is not expected to give evidence to the inquiry. Iain Dale on his blog says he finds this "incredible".

If [Brown] had stood up to Blair and said no, it is almost inconceivable that Blair could have gone ahead and proceeded as he did.

9.48am: Some 53% of "Westminster insiders" polled by PoliticsHome think the Iraq inquiry will be "sufficiently independent", while 38% do not.

9.44am: Rose Gentle (see my 9.20am post) is on Sky and News 24, giving different interviews, at the same time. (One is a pre-record.) She tells Sky that she thinks this inquiry will be different.

This time the families have been allowed to ask questions. The families have put in a lot of questions. If the questions are not answered, we can always says 'why were our questions not asked?'

9.38am: This is what Michael Howard had to say about the Iraq inquiry on the Today programme this morning.

Tony Blair told the House of Commons that the intelligence he received on weapons of mass destruction was 'detailed, extensive and authoritative'. What he had actually been told by the intelligence community was that the information they had was 'limited, sporadic and patchy'. He translated those words 'limited, sporadic and patchy' into 'detailed, extensive and authoritative' and ... that is a clear example of how he misled the House of Commons and the nation.

"The point about the Chilcot Inquiry is that it has wide points of reference. There may well be evidence that wasn't available to Butler. I hope we get the truth. T

9.20am: Change of plan. The Chilcot inquiry are only letting one journalist per media organisation into the building. I'm going to let one of my colleagues take the Guardian seat and I'm back in the Commons, where I'll watch proceedings on the web feed. There are a few seats for reports in the room where the hearings will take place and there's a separate overflow room next door where reporters can watch a live feed. But apparently there are only spaces for 80 journalists in total and they are massively oversubscribed, particularly because of the international interest. I saw about half a dozen names from Al Jazeera alone on the accreditation list at the door.

I'm not one to make a fuss, but some journalists can get very prickly about this kind of thing and I expect there will be some very angry newspaper writers prowling around Parliament Square soon. Not a good start, Sir John.

And you can't say you weren't warned. As the Iraq Inquiry Digest reported last month, Chilcot was asked when he had a meeting with relatives whether they would all be able to attend when Tony Blair gave evidence. Chilcot told them that he could not give them that guarantee, because there might not be enough room. Rose Gentle, whose son was killed in the war, had a simple response:

We want to be face-to-face with him – get a bigger hall.

8.42am: At last. After six years of fighting and insurgency in Iraq, two parliamentary inquiries, the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the conflict and a long campaign for a full inquiry into the whole affair, which culminated in Gordon Brown having to abandon his attempt to have the evidence heard in private, we have finally come to the day when the Chilcot inquiry is going to start hearing evidence.

Sir John Chilcot, the chairman, is going to open proceedings with a statement at 10am and then we're going to hear from three witnesses this morning on the subject of "UK policy towards Iraq in 2001". They are:

• Sir Peter Ricketts - chairman of the joint intelligence committee 2000-01 and director general political at the Foreign Office 2001-03

• Simon Webb - director general operations policy at the Ministry of Defence 1999-2001 and policy director at the MoD 2001-04

• Sir William Patey - head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office 2001-03

They won't be the most interesting witnesses to give evidence to the inquiry. But today's session will nevertheless be fascinating, because we will be able to start forming a judgment about how rigorous and revelatory the proceedings are going to be.

The hearings are taking place at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in Westminster, a large, charmless-but-functional conference centre about two minutes' walk away from the House of Commons. I'm heading off there now. I'll start blogging again once I'm up and running in the press room.

China Executes Two For Contaminated Milk

Where is the human rights that China has promised to reform, for many Chinese living abroad we all say China is our land, but we must continue to stand our ground to protest in a democratic society. See link below to read the article and then log onto www.chinese forlabour.org to see what help you can give. Thanks

Official news agency says death sentences carried out on pair who added industrial chemical to infant formula

Zhang Yujun, second right, seen here before the trial last December, was executed for endangering public safety. Photograph: China Daily/Reuters

China executed two men today for their roles in a tainted milk powder scandal in which at least six children died and more than 300,000 became sick.

Zhang Yujun was executed for endangering public safety and Geng Jinping for producing and selling toxic food, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

Their sentences were upheld in March by an appeal court in the northern city of Shijiazhuang. China requires death sentences to receive final approval from the supreme people's court in Beijing, after which most are carried out by lethal injection.

Xinhua said news of the execution had been issued by the Shijiazhuang municipal intermediate people's court, although a court clerk who answered the phone today said he was unable to confirm the sentences had been carried out.

The case was one of China's worst-ever food safety scandals, involving tainting of infant formula with the industrial chemical melamine, which can cause kidney stones and kidney failure.

Melamine, used in the manufacture of plastics and fertiliser, was added to watered-down milk to fool inspectors testing for protein, and to boost profits.

Zhang, a cattle farmer, and Geng were convicted of producing and selling a fake protein powder containing melamine, much of it to producers who sold tainted milk to the now-defunct Sanlu Group, at the time one of China's biggest dairies. Geng's brother, Geng Jinzhu, had his eight-year jail sentence upheld last week.

In all 21 people involved in the scandal were tried and sentenced in January, including Sanlu's general manager, Tian Wenhua, who was given a life prison sentence after pleading guilty to charges of producing and selling fake or substandard products.

Three other former Sanlu executives were given between five and 15 years in prison.

The harsh sentences accompany an increased government focus on recurring food safety problems and an eagerness by the communist leadership to move past the scandal.

However, no public investigation was ever made into accusations that news of the melamine tainting was suppressed before last year's Olympics in Beijing because the government did not want it overshadowing the event.

Glaswegians Run Fascists Off City Centre Streets

Scottish anti-fascists congratulated Glaswegians on Sunday after thousands turned out to run the far-right Scottish Defence League (SDL) off their city's streets on Saturday.

A tiny group of 80 thugs chanting slogans such as "No surrender to the IRA" were escorted out of Glasgow by police for their own safety after roughly 3,000 people turned out to protest against their anti-Muslim rally.

Organisers said they were overjoyed by the response of Glaswegians to their call for a counterdemo on Glasgow Green.

Unite Against Fascism Scotland spokeswoman Margaret Woods said: "It's by far the biggest demo to have been called against the defence leagues and particularly impressive because the green was just squelching. It was tipping it down with rain, so to get that many people out was excellent.

"People were furious about them and were already very angry about the BNP getting fourth place in the Glasgow North East by-election.

"Nick Griffin had already been up here twice and his appearance on BBC Question Time had given the local party a boost. So people were very determined."

Early in the day, a group of around 30 SDL members were spotted in a pub known historically as a far-right haunt, leading to a stand-off between them - surrounded by a line of police six deep - and around 200 anti-fascists.

On Cambridge Street, SDL members were penned into a bar until 12.20pm, allowed 20 minutes in the open air for their rally and then told by police to leave the city centre.

Police made five arrests, with four men arrested for alleged breach of the peace and one man for alleged racial breach of the peace in the Ibrox area.

While anti-fascists celebrated their victory, several SDL members on the group's Facebook page were lamenting their poor turnout.

One wrote: "People were literally laughing at us like we were clowns."

• Glasgow's annual St Andrew's Day rally against fascism will start from St Andrew's in the Square at 11am on November 28.

In Swindon, the Tories Have The Audacity To Question Labour's Education Priorities - But Then Get Their Own Numbers Wrong!

Like many Councils across the country, Swindon Borough Council is now controlled by a monopoly of Tories. Since they took control in 2003 the people of Swindon have seen a Park and Ride site close, a Women’s Refuge shut down, local libraries closed and funding to a number of community groups slashed.

So when it comes to Tory motions at Full Council you would expect them to focus on what the administration is doing to improve services and make Swindon a better place. Not in Swindon. In Swindon we have an administration that indulges in political point scoring and attacking the town’s two Labour MPs, Anne Snelgrove MP and Michael Wills MP. Forget the fact that they don’t have the decency to speak with the MPs face-to-face for a second; surely this is missing the point of the Council’s responsibilities.

This week is no different. Two Tory backbenchers have tabled a motion regarding per pupil funding in Swindon, claiming that children in Swindon are funded significantly worse than others in England.

Firstly, there is the sheer audacity of the Tories in complaining about education funding when in 1997 per pupil funding in Swindon stood at £2,960 compared with today’s figure of £3,913, rising to £4,079 next year.

Secondly, they can’t even get the figures right! The motion reads:

“This council further notes with regret that under a Labour Government Swindon receives among the lowest funding per pupil for education in the country, the 17th lowest funding per pupil for education in England, only £3,913 guaranteed funding per pupil against an average of £5,410 last year in England, with some London Boroughs in excess of £6,000 per pupil.”

Well, the figure they quote as an England average is actually the figure for the average in the UK. This includes Scotland and Wales, which the Westminster Government has no control over. The actual figure for the average per pupil funding in England in 2009 is £4,218, a lot closer to Swindon’s figure.

Swindon’s grant has also increased by 13.4% since 2007 which is the 31st highest increase out of 149 local authorities. The grant is worked out based on the deprivation in an area and population density, Swindon suffers with pockets of deprivation and it is ludicrous to compare it with London Boroughs like Tower Hamlets and Hackney that rightly receive higher funding.

Swindon Labour Group’s Education spokesperson, Councillor Fay Howard, sums it up well:

"This motion could make it more difficult for Swindon to get funding. It is potentially damaging and based on flawed figures."

What really sticks in the throat about this is that on the one hand we have a Labour Government that has built 18 new schools in Swindon since 1997, refurbished many more and will have increased funding by over £1,000 per pupil by next year, while on the other hand we have the Tories who reveal with mouth-watering glee that they will slash 10% from the education budget, close two Sure Start Centres in Swindon and the two Tory candidates in Swindon are opposed to building a University.

Our children’s education is only safe in Labour’s hands, if for no better reason than the Tories can’t even count!

Willie Bain Labour's New MP for Glasgow North East

Congratulations to Willie Bain, Labour's new MP for Glasgow North East.

As with defeat, there are important lessons to be learned from victories - and this was an expected, though reassuring, success.

Labour devised and stuck to a strong strategy in Glasgow. With a local candidate and a lively grassroots campaign, it played to Willie Bain's strengths - and the party's. It was built around Willie's personal narrative and won through comfortably in the end.

Glasgow's was a much better campaign than the one in Norwich North, where much of the message was anti-Tory and top-down; this was a campaign much more based on local issues and local people.

The result was that, in continued difficult circumstances nationally - and in spite of early fear that this could be another swing away from Labour of Glasgow East proportions - Labour held one of its safer seats with a majority of 8,111 and nearly 60% of the vote. Meanwhile, the Tories were unable to make any ground in Scotland.

But there are worrying signs, too. Turnout was just 33%, low even for a by-election, and the lowest turnout in Scottish by-election history. If Labour cannot come up with the policy to mobilise its base in the general election, we will have severe problems.

And the BNP have gained more traction than in any previous Parliamentary election in Scotland, with over 1,000 votes.

So we cannot pretend that this victory constitutes a turning point: the national polls remain dire for Labour; Glasgow is after all a traditional Labour heartland; and seats like this will not in any case decide the general election.

But what this win does do is to open the general election campaign proper on a very positive and motivating note. It shows that Labour can still generate passionate activism on the ground - and translate that into votes when it matters. In a longer, more considered campaign than the snap-elections in Glasgow East and Norwich North, Labour prevailed. It should be used as a springboard for energy toward the big one next spring.

Willie Bain said yesterday that his victory was a "great endorsement for Gordon Brown in his efforts to set the economy back on track and it shows election is very much game on."

Few would wholeheartedly agree that this was a full endorsement of Labour or the party's economic policies - but it is certainly game on.

Fort Hood: Obama Urges Caution Amid Fears of Backlash Against Muslims

There is no doubt that there will be some ill feeling towards Muslims but as I have always said that YOU van not blame one individual for the death toll hits 13 in Texas shooting spree Link to this video

Barack Obama today joined calls from across America for calm amid fears of a backlash in the wake of the shooting spree by a Muslim soldier at the Fort Hood that left 13 dead and 28 wounded.

Obama, speaking in the White House Rose Garden after being briefed by the FBI, sought to dampen tensions, as did politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties, the military, Muslim associations and the family of the alleged shooter, Major Nadil Malik Hasan.

"I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we get all the facts," Obama said. The risk of a witchhunt rose today when the commander at the Fort Hood base, Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, disclosed that wounded soldiers said Hasan had shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire on unarmed soldiers at the Texas base.

The troops, from 12 different units across the US, had been receiving final medical checks before deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hasan, 39, was initially reported by the military to have been killed but hours later officials confirmed he was still alive, though wounded. He was on a ventilator today.

The trained military psychiatrist had been due to be deployed to Afghanistan later this year and had been desperately trying to get out of it.

As the initial shock of the massacre began to wear off today, a bout of national soul-searching began about the mental strain caused to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular as a result of multiple tours of duty.

Although the vast majority of Muslims in the US are fully integrated, websites on major newspapers sites quickly filled with hate mail questioning their loyalty.

There have been only a few incidents since 9/11 of troops from a Muslim background killing comrades, and nothing near this scale.

Obama's call for patience, saying there were still too many unanswered questions, was echoed by Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress, and by the Pentagon.

In a statement, Hasan's family said his actions were "despicable and deplorable". "His actions did not reflect how they were raised in the US," they said.

Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, joined the calls for patience. "That investigation is under way by law enforcement authorities, and let's let that be the number one priory in terms of ascertaining what motivations he had," she said in a television interview.

Obama ordered flags across the country to be flown at half-staff in tribute to the dead. The president was scheduled to visit Walter Reed military hospital today, where coincidentally Hasan previously worked as a psychiatrist.

Twelve of the dead were soldiers, with one lone civilian.

Dozens of grief counsellors were being sent to Fort Hood to help the families of the dead. The FBI was today going through Hasan's apartment and office to see whether there is a clue to his motivation on his computer, as well as from his phone records.

Investigators were by his bedside, hoping to interview him when he regained consciousness. He took four bullets from a policewoman, Kimberly Munley, 34, who was wounded in the encounter.

"She happened to encounter the gunman. In an exchange of gunfire, she was wounded but managed to wound him four times," Cone said. "It was an amazing and aggressive performance by this police officer."

Soldiers said that Hasan had two handguns, including a semi-automatic, and shot down troops in clusters. Cone said one soldier who had been shot told him: "I made the mistake of moving and I was shot again."

Hasan had been in uniform at the time.

Questions were raised about why the FBI had not pursued postings on a website from a person identified as Hasan who appeared to express sympathy for suicide bombings.

Hasan, a Virginian whose parents were Palestinians, worked as a psychiatrist at the Fort Hood base and before that at Walter Reed counselling troops suffering psychological problems after returning from war zones. He heard both what they had suffered and the violence they had inflicted on Iraqis and Afghans.

Video footage at a grocery store showed him relaxed, buying goods as normal. But his behaviour then changed, going home to clear out his flat and the usually reclusive figure went round his neighbours distributing groceries from his kitchen and handing out Qur'ans.

Colonel Steven Braverman, a hospital commander at Fort Hood for whom Hasan worked, said: "He took care of soldiers with behavioural health problems and evaluated people with disabilities." He said there was no indication prior to the shooting that Hasan was unable to provide those services.

"We had no problems with his job performance while he worked at Darnall," Braverman said.

A definitive figure for the number of Muslims in the US military is unknown, as recruits are not obliged declare a religious affiliation. There are only 3,526 declared Muslims in a military force totalling 1.4 million.

Israel's Immoral War On Learning

If there's one thing Israel is good at it's making war on women and children.

It killed 952 Palestinian children in their homeland between 2000 and the start of the Gaza blitzkrieg in December 2008. It murdered at least 350 more during its Cast Lead onslaught and has kept Gaza under daily attack ever since. So the brave Israelis must have eliminated nearly 1,400 youngsters by now. Would anyone care to guess how many they left bleeding, maimed and crippled?

The "most moral army in the world" also loves waging war against Palestinian university students. Israeli military law treats Palestinians as adults as soon as they reach 16, a flagrant violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Israeli youngsters - of course - are regarded as children until 18.

Palestinians are dealt with by Israeli military courts, even when it's a civil matter. These courts ignore international laws and conventions, so there's no legal protection for individuals under Israeli military occupation.

As detention is based on secret information, which neither the detainee nor his lawyer is allowed to see, it is impossible to mount a proper defence. Besides, the security service always finds a bogus excuse to keep detainees locked up "in the greater interest of the security of Israel."

Although detainees have the right to review and appeal, they are unable to challenge the evidence and check facts as all information presented to the court is classified. So much for Israeli "justice."

Not long ago I wrote about Merna, a student in her final year taking English. Israeli soldiers frequently rampaged through her Bethlehem refugee camp in the middle of the night, ransacking homes and arbitrarily arresting residents. They took away her family one by one.

First her 14-year-old cousin and best friend was shot dead by an Israeli sniper while she sat outside her family home during a curfew.

Next the Israelis arrested her eldest brother, a 22-year-old artist, and imprisoned him for four years. Then they came back for Merna's 18-year-old brother. Not content with that, the military came again, this time to take her youngest brother - the "baby" of the family - just 16. These were the circumstances under which Merna had to study.

To get to Bethlehem University or any other, many students have to run the gauntlet of Israeli checkpoints.

"Sometimes they take our ID cards and they spend ages writing down all the details, just to make us late," said one.

Students are often made to remove shoes, belt and bags. "It's like an airport. Many times we are kept waiting outside for up to an hour, rain or shine, they don't care." The soldiers attempt to forcibly remove students' clothes and they swear and shout sexual slurs at female students.

Some Palestinian students recall how they are sexually harassed on their way to university and spend the rest of the day worrying what the Israelis will do to them on their way home. The constant humiliation undermines student motivation and concentration.

Five years ago, the Israelis forcibly removed four Birzeit University students from their studies in the West Bank and illegally sent them back to the Gaza Strip. All four were due to graduate by the end of that academic year. There was an outcry from around the world and the Israeli army legal adviser was bombarded with faxes and letters demanding that the students be allowed to return to their studies.

The world's most moral army agreed that the students might be allowed to return to Birzeit if they signed a guarantee to permanently return to the Gaza Strip after completing their studies. This effectively exposed Israel's policy to impose a final separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, even though the two are internationally recognised as one integral territory.

Under international law everyone has the right to freely choose their place of residence within a single territory, but since when did Israel give a damn about international law?

The racist regime makes it virtually impossible for Gaza students to reach the eight Palestinian universities in the West Bank. In 1999 some 350 Gaza students were studying at Birzeit. Today there are almost none.

It was no great surprise, then, to hear from Bethlehem University a few days ago that fourth-year business administration student Berlanty Azzam was being held in detention by the Israeli military authorities with the intention of deporting her to Gaza "for trying to complete her studies at Bethlehem University."

Berlanty, a Christian girl, is originally from Gaza but has lived in the West Bank since 2005 after receiving a travel permit from the military to cross from Gaza to the West Bank. She too is being robbed of her degree at the last minute. She was detained at the Container checkpoint between Bethlehem and Ramallah after attending a job interview in Ramallah.

The 21-year-old was due to graduate before Christmas. Last Wednesday night the most moral army in the world blindfolded and handcuffed her, bundled her into a military jeep and drove her from Bethlehem to Gaza, despite assurances by the Israeli military legal adviser's office that she would not be deported before an attorney from Gisha - an Israeli NGO working to protect Palestinians' freedom of movement - had the opportunity to petition the Israeli court for her return to classes in Bethlehem.

When they'd crossed the border the world's most moral army dumped Berlanty in the darkness late at night and told her: "You are in Gaza."

"Since 2005, I refrained from visiting my family in Gaza for fear that I would not be permitted to return to my studies in the West Bank," Berlanty told Gisha on her mobile phone before the soldiers confiscated it. "Now, just two months before graduation, I was arrested and taken to Gaza in the middle of the night, with no way to finish my degree."

If this had been a Jewish girl deprived of her university degree and life chances, Israeli embassies around the world would be instantly on the warpath hurling accusations of religious hatred and anti-semitism.

But it's the Jewish state screwing up the young life of a Christian, so that's alright then.

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk

Article from the Morning Star Gender politics: Equal, right!

Whenever I hear a bloke describe himself as a feminist I reach for the sick bucket.

I certainly wouldn't describe myself that way, despite believing in equality and having right-on positions on the major issues of day.

Sometimes labels don't get us very far.

When men describe themselves as feminists they are telling us something about their politics, but that is not the same thing as actually having consistent positions on women's equality.

For every political stance you can think of there is someone who describes themselves as a feminist.

It can give an indication of how someone sees themselves but it doesn't tell us what they think about sex work, trade unions, abortion, marriage or a host of other issues.

Despite feminism's continued relevance, it has become so devalued as a term that it gets used to describe almost anything.

A recent piece in the Guardian, which should know better but never does, described fascist sympathiser Brigitte Bardot as a feminist because "she represents the power of women. What's iconic about her is her shape, the way she occupies space."

Was this what the pioneers of feminism were struggling for - to be defined by their "shape?"

There's a middle class version of feminism that focuses on language while ignoring social inequality.

I can't be the only person who has had a female manager who is more than relaxed about the all-female cleaning staff being paid a pittance and given no respect while insisting that the workplace uses bizarre jargon in order to avoid "sexist language."

It's enough to give equality a bad name.

However the feminist movement has brought enormous social advances - and not just for women.

Struggles led by feminists have brought about significant positive shifts over the decades, although no-one sensible would argue that these battles are over.

The break from the rigid moralism that kept people who didn't love each other within spitting distance provided a massive step forward in quality of life for millions of people. Divorce has saved countless couples from emotional disfigurement.

The right to an abortion, easily available contraception and sex education have not just been essential for a woman's right to control her own body but have been absolutely revolutionary in terms of how we all live our lives.

Family planning isn't just something that has enhanced people's sex lives or simply allowed them to have one, it's a social revolution allowing us to make choices about children, sexual health and orientation that simply were not open to us before.

I'm certain that the 17-year-old me would have been a pretty poor husband and father and I'm very glad that, due to the advances that feminism fought for, it never had to happen.

And feminism has broken down barriers to advancement for men and women. It may sound strange to some that allowing women to be promoted into positions previously the preserve of men should benefit both sexes, but it certainly seems that way.

When my mum was at school not only was she not allowed to take her best subject - maths - because it was not a "girl's subject," but she was all but forced to become a nurse, which did not suit her.

It was not in anyone's interest that the job of, say, a heart surgeon, did not go to the best person because gender roles forbade it.

The other side of the coin is that many men of my dad's generation simply never learned skills such as cooking because it was assumed that a woman would do it all for them. How many men have no confidence to do the simplest things around the home because they have been told it is "women's work?"

Feminism has gone a long way to making workplaces habitable too. My first job was in a lawnmower factory and I thought it was hell on Earth.

I found it difficult to cope with the constant use of the c-word, the misogynist tripe that my workmates came out with and the dull-as-ditch-water view on what was and was not "homosexual behaviour," even down to your choice of biscuit or how you wear your jacket.

These attitudes have now gone away but feminism should be heartily thanked for the progress made in workplaces in terms of how people behave with each other.

Feminism may not be about bettering men's lives but there is no question it has improved them.

Acrticles by Paul Richards & Bonnie Greer Re: Last night’s events have set back, not advanced, the fight against fascism and racism

I am sure that comrades Paul Richards and Bonnie Greer gcomments goes a long way see below:

Lots of people watched last night’s Question Time. Despite not wanting to boost their viewing figures, even by one, I was one of them. We saw Griffin’s unconvincing ‘hard-done-to’ act (‘I’ve been relentlessly attacked and demonised’); his eccentric description of white people as aborigines who’ve been here for ’17,000 years, since the ice melted’; his slur about Jack Straw’s father being imprisoned as a conscientious objector; his highly- selective view of Churchill’s statements on race and immigration; his constant complaining about being ‘misquoted’ and being the ‘most loathed man in Britain’; his justification for sharing a platform with David Duke from KKK, and visiting Libya; his nonsense about ‘genocide’, ‘homosexuality’ and the ‘ultra-leftist BBC’. He did not come across well.

The audience resembled a rowdy student union meeting at times: angry people shouting, peppered with small amounts of applause. At other times, the questioners had better lines than the politicians. The guy with the line about a one-way ticket to the South Pole deserved his applause. The young Jewish guy nailed him on Holocaust denial. Griffin squirmed, but failed to repudiate his underlying denial of the facts of the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews. The woman who said she was in a civil partnership, and told Griffin the feeling of ‘revulsion’ was mutual, spoke for millions.

Jack Straw did his best in the circumstances. Unfortunately his reference to Dr Strangelove (a 1950s Peter Sellers film) went over the heads of his mostly young audience. He messed up his answer on immigration, and Baroness Warsi got a clap for challenging him on the issue. She rightly called Griffin a ‘thoroughly deceptive man’. Bonnie Greer made a good point about the multi-cultural Romans’ legacy in the British gene-pool, and the BNP’s ‘wacky history’. Chris Huhne was typically underwhelming.

It was not good television. It was disjointed and ill-tempered. But it gave the BNP 72 hours of wall-to-wall coverage, and, I fear, hundreds of new members and donors. In short, the BBC’s invitation to Nick Griffin, the screening of the programme, and the Labour party’s willingness to take part last night, has set back, not advanced, the fight against fascism and racism.

I remember my dear late father (RAF, retd.) telling me about the first time he came across eastern Europeans coming to the UK, doing jobs that should have been done by Englishmen. They were flying Hurricanes and Spitfires, and in May 1940 we were rather glad of them; even more than when their grandchildren came back to fix our radiators.

It is of course crass and ahistorical for the BNP to expropriate images from the second world war in support of their cause. That was a war fought by men and women of many races, religions and nationalities, against the Nazis’ vision of a totalitarian state enslaving the non-Aryan peoples of Europe, and murdering all the Jews until there were none left.

As far as I recall, people with views like Nick Griffin’s were not asked to join in the allies’ fight. They were locked up under the defence of the realm act. As our knowledge of the Holocaust increases, as more and more documentary evidence is amassed, as the last voices from the war are recorded and archived, we gain a greater understanding of the politics and organisation of Nazi Germany and its allies.

That’s what the ‘no platform’ policy is all about. ‘No platform’ says there are people, views and organisations which are not part of the spectrum of opinion that exists within a democratic politics. They are beyond the pale. They should be treated differently, because they have the whiff of Belsen about them. ‘No platform’ says politics is not an extension of the Oxford Union; it is a matter of life and death. You can’t ‘debate’ with people who are not playing by the same rules.

I was schooled in the ‘no platform’ policy. At Salford University in the 1980s, we didn’t have a debating club. We had a Labour Club. We threw eggs at Margaret Thatcher, picketed Kenneth Baker and got charged by police horses, and the idea of sharing a platform with a fascist was impossible to contemplate. There was only one active Tory on campus (he’s currently standing to be the next Tory MP for Reading.).

The electoral success of the BNP, following its deliberate strategy of obfuscation and concealment of its true credo, makes ‘no platform’ more, not less, important. To treat the BNP like an opponent to be debated with totally vindicates Griffin’s strategy. He can say to his own internal hard-liners: look it’s working. Jack Straw is debating us on national television. I’m landing punches.

The Labour party should not have reversed its position on ‘no platform’. That was a stupid tactical error which strengthens the fascists’ hand. It creates a precedent that every other political programme editor will be able to cite. It undermines local Labour candidates fighting BNP candidates for the council or parliament. It creates the same mistakes that the French political class made when they thought they could out-argue Le Pen and the Front National, before they won millions of votes in the 1984 Euro-elections.

Or, dare I say, the mistakes made by the German political class when confronted by Hitler.

Bonnie Greer reveals what she really thought of Griffin

The Evening Standard has some fascinating snippets from Bonnie Greer, the playright and British Museum trustee who sat next to Nick Griffin on Question Time last night. She calls the experience "probably the weirdest and most creepy experience of my life":

"It was the strangest thing because as I came out of my dressing room prepared for combat, it was as if he'd been waiting for me in the corridor". "I was the last to emerge and when he saw me, he turned and smiled his greasy smile and clumsily half extended a hand. I ignored it and thought to myself: what are you about? Are you forgetting I'm black? Are you forgetting you called me a black history fabricator? Are you trying to show me you aren't racist?"

"We were seated next to each other and as we were having our microphones attached, he leaned towards me like I was his new best friend and tried to make small talk. "Bonnie, how many times have you been on?" he asked. "Bonnie, do you find it scary?" I looked him straight in the eye. "No," I replied sharply, "but you might."

"I spent the entire night with my back turned to him. At one point, I had to restrain myself from slapping him. But it was worth it because he was totally trounced. I had thought we'd face a formidable orator, somebody who knew his facts and had his ducks in a row but the guy was a mess! From the moment the audience began shooting questions, it was a case of the Emperor's new clothes. He was completely exposed as an evasive liar who couldn't even stand up his own quotes and looked like a buffoon."

Greer also talks about her background in Chicago, and her father's experience of coming to Britain as part of Patton's army during the Second World War.

Read the full article here.

Copenhagen: There Is No Plan B

Gordon Brown spoke to the Major Economies Forum this morning, calling for ambitious action in Copenhagen to avert a global climate change "catastrophe" - and warned this could be the world's last chance to act together to make a difference.

The PM told environment ministers from 17 countries - who together are responsible for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions:

"In every era there are only one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history, because they change the course of history. Copenhagen must be such a time. There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late."

He continued:

"The extraordinary summer heat wave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths. On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades' time...and within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe. In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods.

"We cannot compromise with the earth. We can not compromise with the catastrophe of unchecked climate change; so we must compromise with one another...I urge my fellow leaders to work together to reach agreement amongst us, recognising both our common and our differentiated responsibilities – and the dire consequences of failure."

Labour Must Urgently Change The Game

Parliament is back but for Labour and the wider centre-left it feels like nothing has really changed. Certainly the opinion polls haven't. Labour urgently needs to change the game and in this context its own party conference can only be seen as another wasted opportunity.

Faced with the looming prospect of a Conservative Government, the response of every minister has been to read a list of government achievements and declare the fightback has begun. The list - as we heard in Gordon Brown's conference speech - is impressive and contains a lot of achievements that have made Britain a better place: tax credits, the minimum wage, devolution, Sure Start the list can go on.

But as a campaigning device outside of Labour's narrowing ranks it simply doesn't work. There is a tumbleweed moment as ministers on platforms or the media go through it. There are a number of important reasons why it's so unpersuasive: voters take government action for granted; there are too many inconsistencies such as the 10p tax debacle; much of it was done by stealth; few trust what Labour says anyway because of all the spin (not least on Iraq); there is little idea of what overarching vision it adds up to; there is no "forward offer" and crucially no sense that the people themselves were ever part of it. It's not their list.

Ultimately it's not whether Labour ministers or even Compass declare that it's a good list and makes the Party worthy of re-invention - it's whether people feel it is and communicate that belief to others. The problem with the New Labour project was it never built an enduring progressive coalition of believers, activists and supporters.

This is all a bit frustrating, to say the least, because something has changed in the last few weeks. The Tories have now revealed themselves as a party that is not agnostic about the state but hostile. David Cameron's whole conference pitch was against ‘big government' - to be replaced not by better government but by either much smaller government or preferably no government at all. Public spending would be slashed not just because of the deficit but because government is bad per se. We know this because the other theme of his speech was the role of individual responsibility as a replacement for the state.

This is where Labour should be tearing the Tories apart. It was not big government that got us into the economic mess but reckless companies - namely big banks - led by people with scant regard for their wider responsibilities to society, driven solely by self-interest.

Last year Cameron talked of a day of reckoning for bankers, but with no real action even this big talk rings hollow. Where is the bankers' responsibility to their customers facing rip-off interest rates, or the cleaners in hospitals who will now lose their jobs or have their pay frozen?

Let us be clear the Tories are getting away with murder: Britain is not bankrupt, the deficit - caused mostly by the bank bailout and reductions in tax revenues - does not have to be paid off now (indeed it is worth noting that our debt as a percentage of GDP is lower than both France and Germany and significantly lower than Italy and the US); Britain is not a highly taxed nation and the financial crisis was not caused by big government - it was caused by big banks, those very same banks that would have gone bankrupt without government intervention. Therefore it is particularly disappointing that in recent days Labour appears to have capitulated to the Tories on the debate over public spending and the need to cut the deficit.

With Britain still in recession the government should be loudly and clearly making the case of the need for more, not less government action. With unemployment expected to continue rising for some time and the catastrophic state of youth unemployment in particular - worse now than under Thatcher - why aren't there bolder moves to invest vaster sums in a Green New Deal to help create new jobs for the future? Why is there no move to equalise the minimum wage for our young people? With over 5 million on the housing waiting list, why is the government instructing local authorities to sell off land at the bottom of the market, instead of using that land to build the new homes so desperately required and creating construction jobs in the process? Bailing out ordinary working people, securing and creating new jobs for the future should be Labour's top priority.

Despite all the opportunities, Labour is struggling to fight back. It was Labour's regulatory regime that allowed the banks to be so reckless in the first place, providing the framework that fostered an economy over-reliant on growth in financial services. At the same time the state has not been modernised; rather it's been centralised and privatised.

And Cameron was able to land a hammer blow on Labour by telling us that Britain is a more unequal society now compared to 1997 - because shamefully it is. Of course things would have been much worse under the Tories and will be if they get back into power - but it is Labour's fault if the nation is not persuaded of that and reading out the list of past achievements in a louder voice without spelling out any clear vision for the future isn't going to change any minds.

We must be under no illusions the stakes are now very high. It's not just that Labour might lose the next election and all that entails for our people, our planet and our democracy but this could be the very last Labour Government - as revealed in the report we published last month.

If they win, the Tories will reduce the number of seats in Parliament and their election could trigger Scottish independence with the loss of even more Labour MPs. This, combined with new rules on party funding, could destroy Labour's chances of effective recovery.

That is why the decision not to hold a referendum on changing the electoral system on election-day was such a huge mistake - both in terms of principal and tactics. It is a major issue that puts Cameron on the defensive and can inspire progressive voters to get out and swing back to Labour.

Compass will campaign to keep the Tories out and help Labour present itself in a way that rebuilds a winning electoral coalition. The Conservatives present no answers to the problems facing our country and they must be stopped from gaining power. That is why we will:

* Take the fight to the Tories - exposing how wrong and weak their thinking and polices are.

* Carry out a report on how to re-socialise banking with a research project that in part our members helped pay for.

* Fight for a referendum on election-day on the introduction of electoral reform.

* Launch a major report on taxation and spending before the Pre-Budget Report.

* Continue the campaign for a High Pay Commission - to ensure that never again can greed at the top turn so quickly into pain at the bottom.

* Present an alternative manifesto of policy ideas that would transform our country - making it more democratic, equal and sustainable.

* And continue to shift the terms of debate about a good society in which we collectively become the authors of our lives.

Osborne's maths are as bad as his morals, says Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne.

Yesterday, George Osborne comprehensively failed the credibility test – and a basic test of fairness. His plans fail to meet Labour’s pledge to halve the deficit over four years. He claimed “we are all in this together” – but his first priority remains a tax cut for the richest families.

The Credibility Test

People expected George Osborne to set out by how much he would cut the deficit, just as the Government has done by committing to cut it in half over four years. We heard nothing of the sort.

The Tories told us that George Osborne’s speech would set out clearly how they would pay for their long list of unfunded tax and spending commitments - “by this time tomorrow you should know just about everything”, Eric Pickles said on Monday.

But the speech doesn’t even pay for itself, let alone make any progress on their irresponsible plans for tax and spend, or matching the Government’s plan to halve the deficit over four years.

First, people were expecting the Conservatives to drop the tax and spending pledges they have already made – just six of which were estimated in The Independent to cost £54bn. Yet all the uncosted pledges stayed.

Second, the Tories were expected to drop their pledges on inheritance tax and marriage tax allowance. Yet it stayed.

Third, Osborne’s new idea to reverse the dividend tax credit change would cost £3-5bn a year – far more than the concrete savings he outlined. Fourth, Osborne’s plan for a tax cut for small business, announced last night, that would undercut existing firms, remained unfunded – in fact it wasn’t even mentioned in yesterday’s speech.

Worse, their plans on raising the retirement age completely unravelled.

Last night George Osborne briefed that he would save £13bn a year by raising the retirement age for men and women to 66 by 2016. But the Shadow Chancellor’s new policy has already been downgraded, by David Cameron, to an independent review without even a chair to put a name to it. And the firm 2016 date for implementation has disappeared for women and been watered down for men.

Even before the u-turn it was clear the savings figure didn’t stack up. And even once they’ve got their costings right, the change still won’t raise a penny in the next Parliament when we are halving the deficit. To get anywhere near £13bn of savings would require much faster increases in the retirement age for everyone, including women. If that is the Tories' plan they should come clean on it.

The Fairness Test

Mr Osborne’s fairness failure was even worse. His credibility failure left him simply attacking the middle class to pay for the Tory tax cut for the richest few. He stuck by his plans for an inheritance tax cut of £200,000 for the richest 3,000 families, for which the mainstream middle will have to pay. His plans would mean:

* 900,000 children would miss out on Child Trust Funds. Providers would stop offering accounts at all in some cases. For families earning over £16,040 with two children they would lose £1,000 in direct payments for their children.

* The removal of tax credits from those over £50,000 would hit 130,000 families and only raise £40m – the Tories' promise to save £400m would mean affecting families on much lower incomes than £50,000.

So, bad maths. And worse morals.

After Stephen Fry's letter yesterday, leading gay rights campaigner Ben Summerskill boycotted the first ever Tory Pride event at the last minute...

Ben Sumerskill, the head of gay rights group Stonewall has pulled out of speaking at the Tories' first ever Pride event - due to be held on Canal Street tonight - as a result of Michal Kaminsky's appearance at Conservative conference.

Summerskill told Channel 4 News:

"There is no doubt the progress that has been made in the last couple of years has genuinely been historic. It would churlish of anyone not to welcome the apology a couple of months ago over Section 28. But the event tonight has been overshadowed by the presence, not just at conference but on the same platform as some senior members of the party, of people of such extreme and offensive views. And certainly there are people I've spoken to at the conference today, not just gay people but Jewish delegates as well, who share that viewpoint."

Labour Party Conference Arrangements Committee Elections 2009

If Want Change, "Yes You Can"

The reason why I am re-standing for the (CAC) is I believe in the democratic process which enables participation.

Conference is the governing body of the Labour Party and not for the few who address themselves as spin-doctors.

Conference should be allowed to have proper debates; too often debates are grounded and controlled by the few, year in and year out.

Conference must be allowed to choose what contemporary motions will make it to the policy forum to form part of the Labour Party policies for the next local, general, and European elections. Not by the few who continually produce knee jerk reaction policies which caused us to lose by-elections.

From it’s policies the party must be able to attract new, young members, who can be the future generation of the party.

Members want a Labour Government to win a fourth term in government however, more can be done to improve on policies not just on Climate Change, but also on Decent Housing, National Minimum Wage, Decent Public Services, Immigration, Economic Down Turn, and International issues .

We are faced with a dilemma, either we change the way how conference operates, or continue to lose valuable members who want to make a difference, not just at Party Conference but also at the ground level, they must feel valued and be heard by the leadership.

Members are the bed rock of the community they are best placed to provide policies that reflects on the 21st century and not risk going back to the old days when in house fighting between the left versus right of the Party continue to dominate the agenda which made us unelectable.

I strongly believe that I have the skills to address conference, and Conference Arrangement Committee. As a Co-operative and Co-op Party, Chinese For Labour, and BAME Labour Compass, Progress, and Fabian society member I believe in the values and principles which underpin the labour values.

I believe that conference should be open, honest, transparent and accountable to all the delegates, and throughout the Labour Party and I will make myself available to first time delegates.