The ‘Big Society’ & the Chinese Voluntary Sector

The Tory-led government’s cuts to the voluntary sector are ignorant, ideological and incompetent and will impact on those in most need in the Chinese community

Chinese communities have been resident in the UK since the latter part of the 1800s, and remain the third largest minority in the nation. Over this period an extensive Chinese voluntary sector has built up in the UK, with Chinese Associations, Schools and Women’s Groups across the country. These organisations provide a range of services to young people and older people (including lunch clubs, assistance with accessing public services, welfare services, advice and counselling) as well as promoting Chinese language education and Chinese culture.

As a community, the Chinese face some particular challenges, including language barriers, isolation and a lack of social support, so these services are vital. It has been estimated that 70–80 per cent of first generation Chinese immigrants do not speak English. Mainstream services tend to be underused due to language. Many carers cannot always communicate with service providers, and are not always aware of the services available. Moreover, the help that is available tends to be inadequate, and not specific enough to meet their needs.

The stereotype of Chinese people in the UK directly shapes the service provision services for them. Chinese families are seen as being hardworking, self-reliant, keeping themselves to themselves and preferring to ‘care for their own’. This is despite the reality of changing family structures. Geographical dispersal and lack of political organisation mean that few Chinese people deal with their problems on a community basis, or actively promote their interests as a community. Consequently, many first generation Chinese are not fully integrated into the social mainstream and require specialist support services provided by the Chinese voluntary sector.

The Tories have been rather unsuccessfully being trying to promote their vision of a ‘Big Society’ and to boost 'mutual responsibility' by supporting a new culture of volunteering and encouraging people to take an active role in their communities.

A recent ‘Big Society poll’ (conducted by social action network i-volunteer) of over 1,000 members of civil society has found that 42 per cent believed that ‘Big Society’ is ‘politically rebranding existing community action’. A further 21 per cent saw the Big Society as a ‘cover for cuts’. A recent Harris poll for the Financial Times shows that only 25 per cent of the British public believe they should be ‘encouraged to give up some of their time to help support public services’ compared to 42 per cent in the US.

However, it is clear that the ‘Big Society’ is playing second fiddle to Chancellor Osborne’s deficit fetish and the toxic mix of policy agendas is proving to be extremely risky with potentially disastrous consequences.

Planning for the ‘Big Society’ to fill the empty space left by the retreating state is hard at the best of times; trying to do it whilst urging them to innovate, to conduct structural reform and to oversee massive funding cuts is going to be impossible. Reductions in direct and infrastructure funding to the voluntary sector combined with cuts to local authority funding are threatening the survival of many these organisations. Even transferring services between providers is time consuming, costly and expensive.

Numerous service contracts between voluntary sector and public sector bodies will end in March 2011. Voluntary sector organisations are increasingly fearful of their future, uncertain about sources of future funding and on their ability to maintain staffing levels. They are being forced to draw on their reserves, limit or reduce service provision and delay plans to invest in projects. Partnerships are crumbling and experience is being lost.

Up and down the country as NHS trusts and local authorities are searching for rapid, unstrategic short term cuts. Provider organisations are being asked to renegotiate contracts mid-year; some have been asked to submit new funding bids to meet short deadlines, to rapidly reduce or increase provision, or to form new delivery partnerships in unrealistic timescales. The smaller, local voluntary sector providers such as Chinese Associations and their service users are directly in the firing line.

The voluntary sector is easily ignored, its commitment to its beneficiaries easily exploited. But at a time when demand for these vital services is increasing, it will be our most excluded people and communities that this Tory-led government will be putting at risk.

Alleged Chinese cyber-spies penetrate Foreign Office computers

Whislt I agree that c

yber-attacks

are on the increase I have to remind (16 pints )

William Hague that it is not just China alone that is using cyber-attacks what about the hard truths that all countries are in it togther.

William Hague speaks during the International Conference on Security Policy in Munich.

China has penetrated the Foreign Office's internal communications in the most audacious example yet of the growing threat posed by state-sponsored cyber-attacks, it emerged tonight.

William Hague told a security conference in Munich that the FO repelled the attack last month from "a hostile state intelligence agency". Although the foreign secretary did not name the country behind the attacks, intelligence sources familiar with the incidents made it clear he was referring to China. The sources did not want to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

In his speech Hague was reflecting growing anger and concern within the government about the increasing threat posed by cyber-espionage – states, as well as individuals, using cyberspace to steal defence, diplomatic and commercial secrets.

"It is a new development. The UK is prepared to admit the attacks were state-backed," said Alexander Neill, head of the Asia programme at the Royal United Services Institute thinktank.

The foreign secretary said the FO attack came in the form of an email sent to three of his staff "which claimed to be about a forthcoming visit to the region and looked quite innocent". "In fact it was from a hostile state intelligence agency and contained computer code embedded in the attached document that would have attacked their machine. Luckily, our systems identified it and stopped it from ever reaching my staff," Hague said.

In another attack last year, the foreign secretary said Britain's defence industry was "deliberately" targeted. "A malicious file posing as a report on a nuclear Trident missile was sent to a defence contractor by someone masquerading as an employee of another defence contractor," Hague told an audience of western officials and businessmen. "Security meant that the email was detected and blocked, but its purpose was undoubtedly to steal information relating to our most sensitive defence projects."

Hague admitted that a third attack, apparently criminal, had succeeded in evading Britain's defences, with a version of the Zeus malware widely used to extract banking information and other personal details from targeted computers.

"In late December a spoof email purporting to be from the White House was sent to a large number of international recipients who were directed to click on a link that then downloaded a variant of Zeus," Hague said. "The UK government was targeted in this attack and a large number of emails bypassed some of our filters. Our experts were able to clear up the infection, but more sophisticated attacks such as these are becoming more common."

The foreign secretary said government was spending £650m on its cyber defences against such attacks, and working with the private sector. But he added that the international response was "fragmented and lacks focus".

Speaking to journalists later, Hague said: "We're witnessing an exponential rise in the misuse of cyberspace. In a decade, this could be out of control, and we have to start to do the thinking now."

He said Britain was offering to host an international conference this year aimed at establishing global standards.

"Many countries do not share our view of the positive impact of the internet, and others are actively working against us in a hostile manner," he said.

"However as liberal democracies we also have a compelling interest in supporting democratic ideals in cyberspace, and working to convince others of this vision."

General Sir David Richards, chief of the defence staff, last month said the UK needsed its own Cyber Command, similar to that set by by the US defence department. He said that the advance of cyber technology would lead to a "cultural change" in warfare which the UK must be prepared for."We must learn to defend, delay, attack and manoeuvre in cyberspace, just as we might on the land, sea or air and all together at the same time".

Violent battles in cities across Egypt

Yesterday I watch the television with horror to see Violent battles in cities across Egypt and a young child who is innocent running from the scene of violence to safely.

His only crime is that he is hungry and his only hope of the future is to see or dream of freedom of expression in Egypt one day. Thousands of children in Egypt life depends on whether there will be a Islamic state or a coalition, or a democratic elections where the citizens of Egypt can choose who they want to run the country. Lets not forget that the children are the future of tomorrow therefore free and democratic elections must prevail.

Egypt's pro-democracy revolution descended into violence and bloodshed overnight as President Hosni Mubarak's regime launched a co-ordinated bid to wrest back control of city streets, crush the popular uprising, and reassert its authority.

Bursts of heavy gunfire rained into Tahir square just before dawn today and there were reports that three more people had been killed. Protest organiser Mustafa el-Naggar said he saw the bodies of three dead protesters being carried toward an ambulance, while another witness spoke of 15 people being wounded.

Clashes had continued into the early hours even though the pro-Mubarak supporters had been pushed back to the edge of the square and explosions – possibly from gas canisters – echoed around the area.

There were extraordinary scenes in the centre of Cairo as anti-government demonstrators fought running battles with organised cohorts of Mubarak supporters, exchanging blows with iron bars, sticks and rocks.

At one point pro-Mubarak forces rode camels and horses into central Tahrir Square, scattering opponents. At least three people were killed yesterday and up to 1,500 injured according to medical sources.

A palm tree and a building caught alight while fires were burning outside the historic Egyptian museum as petrol bombs were hurled back and forth between the two opposing factions.

The violence was immediately condemned by David Cameron, the Obama administration, and Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, who condemned what he described as attacks on peaceful demonstrators. The White House warned that if any of the violence was instigated by the government it should stop immediately, and also strongly criticised the beating of local and foreign journalists, including a CNN reporter.

But after Mubarak's announcement that he would not seek another term at elections due in September, the regime appeared to be in no mood to listen – and determined to regain control after a week of near anarchy.

The strident tone was illustrated by a startling public rebuff to Barack Obama. Rejecting his overnight demand that the promised political transition and reforms begin without delay, the Egyptian foreign ministry said bluntly that meddling by "foreign parties" was unacceptable and was "aimed to incite the internal situation".

Speaking in an exclusive interview with the Guardian, opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei said: "Today's violence is again an indication of a criminal regime that has lost any commonsense. When the regime tries to counter a peaceful demonstration by using thugs … there are few words that do justice to this villainy and I think it can only hasten that regime's departure." Mubarak's announcement had been "an act of deception", he said. "But after today people are realising just what they're dealing with."

The trouble began when tens of thousands of anti-government demonstrators in Tahrir Square ignored orders from the army to disperse. The army's move marked a change in tactics from previous days, when it declined to intervene, describing the protests as legitimate, and troops were feted by protesters.

At the same time Mubarak supporters, who had taken no part in events, began to gather, travelling in cars or by foot, numbering in the tens of thousands. Some said they had been bussed in from the countryside by the regime and claimed they had no intention of initiating a confrontation. Others said they had recently swapped sides, saying Mubarak had made enough concessions and he should have time to usher in change.

Initial sparring between rival groups quickly turned into running battles. Then, just before 2pm, armed with clubs, bats, knives and even homemade spears, a pro-Mubarak demonstration that had been gathering for several hours 800 metres from Tahrir Squareon the Nile Corniche, outside the state television station, charged in.

Guardian journalists in the square – close to both sides – witnessed pitched battles that turned the square into a warzone as anti-Mubarak protesters tried desperately to hold their ground and both sides tore up paving stones to use as weapons. Among those singled out for attack were journalists including Anderson Cooper of CNN and two Associated Press correspondents. A Belgian journalist – Maurice Sarfatti, who uses the byline Serge Dumont – was reportedly beaten, arrested and accused of spying.

At one stage tanks attempted to move between the two groups but did little to stop the escalating clashes. In one incident soldiers moved out of the way to permit pro-Mubarak demonstrators to reach their opponents. By late afternoon, groups of men were on roofs in Champollion Street, a few hundred metres away, hurling missiles down on those beneath them.

At just after six o'clock automatic weapons fire was heard. Some pro-Mubarak forces appeared to be plainclothes police, while others involved in the assault in Tahrir Square were said to have been paid by the regime. The interior ministry denied the reports, while the army denied firing on protesters.

In other cities the regime fought back strongly. In Alexandria, Mubarak supporters staged a furious counterprotest in a square that has seen protests for nine days, sparking violent arguments and altercations between rival groups.

The violence increased fears in western capitals that the crisis, far from being defused, was taking a more sinister turn. David Cameron said: "If it turns out that the regime in any way has been sponsoring or tolerating this violence, that would be completely and utterly unacceptable."

BBC editor Craig Oliver replaces Andy Coulson

David Cameron yesterday marked a break with the era of Andy Coulson by appointing a senior BBC TV news editor with no links to the Murdoch empire as the new No 10 communications director.

Craig Oliver, who made his name revamping the News at Ten and who ran the BBC's general election coverage last year, will be paid £140,000 a year and will act as a political special adviser.

The recruitment of a senior BBC figure shows that Cameron and George Osborne, who met Oliver over the weekend, recognise that they need to place some distance between Downing Street and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

Coulson announced his resignation on 21 January after concluding that the swirl of allegations about illegal phone hacking from his time as News of the World editor had made his job impossible. Coulson has always denied knowledge of any wrongdoing.

Downing Street said that No 10's relations with News Corp had nothing to with the decision to hire a BBC executive. One source said: "Craig was simply the best candidate."

Fears of offending the Murdoch empire were highlighted yesterday when Tom Baldwin, Oliver's Labour counterpart, asked members of the shadow cabinet to show restraint on phone hacking and not to attack one newspaper group "out of spite".

In an email sent on his behalf, which was leaked to the New Statesman, Baldwin also called on shadow ministers not to link allegations of phone hacking with questions about News Corp's bid to take control of BSkyB.

The email said: "On phone hacking … this is not just an issue about News International. Almost every media organisation in the country may end up becoming embroiled in these allegations … We must guard against anything which appears to be attacking a particular newspaper group out of spite."

Further evidence that hacking was used regularly by the News of the World emerged yesterday when new details of the case brought by Nicola Philips, the publicist who is suing the newspaper, were published. Philips alleges the tabloid obtained a story about an affair between actor Ralph Fiennes and a Romanian singer by hacking into her mobile phone.

Philips, who was then working for celebrity publicist Max Clifford, brokered a deal between the singer, Cornelia Crisan, and the Sunday Mirror and the Mail on Sunday, to sell her story for £35,000. She says the News of the World learned of the story by listening to her voicemail messages. The paper tracked down Crisan and published details of her relationship with Fiennes on the same day as its rival titles.

The recruitment of Oliver was Coulson's last act before he left Downing Street on Monday. Coulson telephoned Oliver towards the end of the last week and arranged for him to meet Cameron and Osborne over the weekend.

Cameron said: "I am very pleased that Craig Oliver is to become the new director of communications at 10 Downing Street. Craig has formidable experience as a broadcast journalist. He will do an excellent job in explaining and communicating the government's programme."

Oliver, who voted Conservative at the general election but is not a party member, said: "I'm delighted to be joining David Cameron and his team at such an exciting and challenging time. It's difficult to leave the BBC after a fascinating few years, but this is an opportunity I can't turn down."

Oliver, 41, has been the controller of English at BBC Global News since June 2010 and was the BBC's general election editor last year. He has also worked as editor of BBC News at Ten and News at Six.

From 2002 to 2006, he was the head of output at ITV News. Before that he was output editor at Channel 4 News and at ITV News. He was educated at a Scottish comprehensive and studied at the University of St Andrews. He is married to the BBC News presenter Joanna Gosling, with whom he has three young daughters.

Oliver came to Cameron's attention – via Coulson – in the runup to last year's general election. Coulson broke ground by bypassing the press and giving stories straight to News at Ten.

Big society tsar Lord Wei 'doesn't have enough time to perform role'

Lord Nat Wei has no private income to fall back on, and is cutting his voluntary hours to earn more money and see more of his family.

It could become the allegory of the "big society" age. The man appointed by the prime minister to kickstart a revolution in citizen activism is to scale back his hours after discovering that working for free three days a week is incompatible with "having a life".

Lord Wei of Shoreditch, who was given a Tory peerage last year and a desk in the Cabinet Office as the "big society tsar", is to reduce his hours on the project from three days a week to two, to allow him to see his family more and to take on other jobs to pay the bills.

A common criticism of the plans, under which the government hopes that communities will take over the running of local services such as schools and charity projects, is that people don't have time to run a public service on top of holding down a job and seeing their families.

Wei has told friends he is cutting his hours to allow him to earn more money and "have more of a life". He originally worked three full days a week and will now work two days, with the hours split over three, while taking on more non-executive directorships with private companies.

The role is voluntary and Wei had to to give up jobs in the charitable sector when he was appointed to avoid a conflict of interest. Whitehall sources said that when he was invited to take the role he had expected it to be remunerated but was told only the night before that it was a voluntary post and there would be no salary. Other unpaid coalition advisers include Lord Heseltine and the "digital champion" Martha Lane Fox – both millionaires.

Much of Wei's work has focused on how to free ordinary people from the daily grind to give them more time to do voluntary work and involve themselves in their communities under the big society plans. Since taking the post, Wei has had a relatively low profile and there have been suggestions that he has not made enough impact on the public understanding of 'big society'. The scheme is reported to be facing Whitehall resistance and the stretched capacities of local authorities.

Wei, 34, is a former management consultant who has no private income to fall back on. He was a member of Teach First's founding staff team, then worked for Ark, one of the biggest sponsors of academies, before setting up the Shaftesbury Partnership, a social entrepreneurial company.

A Cabinet Office spokesman suggested that Wei had worked extra hours in the early phase of the programme. "The government remains committed to devolving power to citizens and supporting a big society," he said.

• This article was amended on 2 February 2011. The original described Lord Wei as one of the founders of Teach First.

Voting Reforms May End In The House Of Lords

A coalition plan to end debate with a ‘guillotine’ motion would have been defeated by crossbenchers. Photograph: Tim Graham/Getty

A two-week standoff in the House of Lords between Labour and the coalition over a constitutional reform bill was partially resolved today when ministers agreed to a key opposition demand on shrinking the House of Commons.

Labour agreed to abandon a filibustering campaign, which had forced peers to sleep on camp beds in committee rooms during overnight sessions, after the government announced that it would allow limited public inquiries when parliamentary constituencies are redrawn.

Ministers climbed down after it became clear that the government could not deliver on a threat made at the weekend to break convention in the House of Lords by bringing 15 days of debate to an end through a "guillotine" motion.

David Cameron, who had been spoiling for a fight with Labour, was advised that such a motion would be defeated after Baroness D'Souza, leader of the non-party crossbench peers, had said that peers "might as well go home and cease to exist" if a guillotine was imposed. D'Souza tabled a compromise amendment today which prompted Labour to say that it would allow the bill to complete its committee stage by Wednesday evening.

But Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the former lord chancellor, said Labour could not guarantee that the bill would reach its third and final reading stage in the House of Lords by a deadline of Monday 14 February because the party was still demanding more concessions. "This is not the end of the cold war, it is more like detente," he joked tonight.

The parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill, which is one of the most important elements of the coalition's constitutional reform programme, contains key elements for the Lib Dems and the Tories. It is designed to pave the way for a referendum on an alternative vote, due to be held in May, which was the main Lib Dem win in the coalition negotiations last year. It is also designed to deliver a key Tory manifesto pledge by reducing the House of Commons from 650 to 600 MPs by equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies to around 76,000 voters.

The government had been prepared to take the unprecedented step of imposing a guillotine motion in the House of Lords because the legislation needs to reach the statute book by 16 February to allow a referendum on AV to be held by May. The Boundary Commission also needs early notice to redraw parliamentary boundaries to take account of a smaller House of Commons.

The government abandoned its attempt to curtail the debate after all sides accepted the amendment from the crossbench peers. This will allow a public inquiry to be held on the redrawing of a parliamentary constituency if the Boundary Commission declares that one is necessary.

But Labour is still threatening to block the bill during its next stages unless the government gives ground in two further areas by agreeing to:

• Vary the size of the new parliamentary constituencies by 10% above or below the electoral quota size of around 76,000 voters. This would mean that constituencies could vary in size from 83,600 voters to 68,400 voters. Under the government's plans, constituencies can only be varied in size by 5% either way of the 76,000 quota. This means that a constituency should contain no more than 79,800 voters and no less than 72,200 voters.

• Establish a commission to make an assessment after the passage of the bill as to whether 600 is the right size for the House of Commons.

Falconer, who described the possibility of a guillotine as "an abomination", told peers that Labour needed the extra concessions to guarantee the bill's progress.

"Focusing only on the key issues on report, and employing the economy and focus your lordships will expect at report and later at third reading, the further timetable depends on further agreement on substantive issues between the parties. The crossbenches have played a critical part in getting us to the good point we are on the substantive issues. We commit ourselves to work hard now to try to reach the necessary further agreement."

Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader of the house, told peers: "The government will be bringing forward a package of concessions at report stage of the bill and I'm sure that the whole house will welcome that. We are in the welcome position of having an agreement to complete committee stage by the end of Wednesday this week.

"But equally I am sure that I have no need to remind the house that we need to return this bill to the Commons by the end of Monday 14 February – this is two weeks today – if the referendum is to be held on May 5. From the soundings I have taken I feel confident the majority of members in all parts of the house share this aim."

The crossbench peers withdrew their amendment after the government accepted its premise.

D'Souza told peers: "It is perhaps unusual for a crossbencher to intervene at this late stage of a bill, particularly in a bill which has become so politicised. Crossbenchers are, in fact, independent and not politically aligned.

"However, something of an impasse had been reached towards the end of last week and I was encouraged by one or two people to see if there was any way in which we might play a useful role. I do so with great humility. The other thing that perhaps has moved me, certainly, and a number of other crossbenchers was the shadow or the threat of anything approaching a 'closure motion' in this house."

The agreement showed weaknesses on both the coalition and Labour sides. The coalition backed down after it became clear that opposition among its own peers and the crossbenchers meant that the guillotine motion would not pass. But Labour had to give ground and reach a deal because crossbenchers were losing patience with its aggressive tactics.

Article By Sonny Leong When you have a friend like Cameron, who needs enemies?

As we usher in the new lunar year, the Year of the Rabbit, Chinese families everywhere will be gathering for their reunion dinner to forgive each other and pay respect to our elders.

Will China forgive Cameron for his foolish rant about ‘authoritarian capitalism’?

In his recent speech in Davos, David Cameron launched an extraordinary attack on 'authoritarian capitalism' as he warned businesses investing in those countries at their peril. Though he did not refer to China and Russia directly, observers were left in little doubt which countries he was referring to in his attack on 'authoritarian capitalism'.

'If you're looking to set up a headquarters abroad, are you going to invest where your premises can be taken away from you? Where contracts are routinely dishonoured?

Where there's the threat of political upheaval? Or are you going to invest where there are property rights, the rule of law, democratic accountability?

Is this a case of sour grapes? China attracted record levels of foreign capital in 2010. The country's Ministry of Commerce revealed inward investment totalled $106 billion (£66 billion) last year, an increase of 17.4 per cent on 2009. In December alone, foreign direct investment (FDI) into China stood at more than $14 billion.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on his trip to China last October,

Cameron said:

“[The trip will] provide a further step forward in UK-China relations, adding momentum to our commercial relationship and cementing an economic and political partnership that can help to deliver strong and sustainable growth and greater security for us all in the years ahead.

“On this visit alone, Britain is set to sign new contracts worth billions of dollars involving companies across the UK and cities all over China.”

Apparatchiks in Beijing will not take lightly to Cameron’s Davos statement. On one hand he wants to do business with China, coupled with warm words encourage Chinese businesses to invest in Britain and with the other slaps China in her face. There is a well known Confucius saying, “If you drink with a friend, a thousand cups are too few; if you argue with a man, half a sentence is too much”. China must be feeling so.

A former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said, Western countries should be coming to terms with China: "(A) drift into escalating reciprocal demonisation" would be the worst outcome for Asia's long-term stability as well as for the China’s relationship with developed economies China has done more than any other economy to pull the world out of recession, and may remain an important engine of global growth for some years to come.

According to the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015), China will shift from export-led and investment-driven growth to a more balanced pattern of economic development. As a result, China's growth rate may be significantly lower, but more sustainable. At the same time, the rest of the world can expect China to play a more active role in areas such as fighting climate change, poverty alleviation, global infrastructure development, and reform of the international monetary system.

The essence of liberal capitalism is its propensity towards universalism. In the pursuit of profit, capitalism pushes beyond local boundaries, whether village, town, region or country. The rise of modern capitalism in the late nineteenth century erupted into the international conflict that dominated much of the twentieth century.

Capitalist development has a long history in China. Prior to the early modern period China’s embryonic capitalism was far more developed than that of Europe. China’s capitalist development took place within the context of a powerful state that, in periods when the system functioned well, shaped the pattern of capitalist development in numerous ways to meet common social interests. This was the foundation of its hugely impressive long-run economic and social development. Confucianism nurtured a deeply developed concept of ‘duty’ which was the foundation of collective action and social prosperity.

Confucianism was a complete philosophy. It combined a carefully thought out system of morality for rulers, bureaucrats and ordinary people with a comprehensive analysis of concrete ways of both stimulating and controlling the market. When the system worked well the government attempted in anon-ideological, pragmatic fashion to solve practical problems that the market could not solve.

The need for ‘constructive engagement’ is more profound now than ever. ‘Destructive engagement’ will lead to disaster. Has the global financial crisis hastened the ending of globalised capitalism?

In the search for solutions to the multiple threats there is no alternative other than to work together across national frontiers, cultures and levels of development, to find a pragmatic, non-ideological, cooperative way to overcome these threats.

Cameron might come to regret his words when China holds back on buying any future UK gilts or worse starts selling UK government bonds. As this is a period for forgiveness, let’s hope China treats his silly comments as coming from a silly boy.

Unions have not ruled out strikes over pension cuts

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said this was the issue on which the big unions were most united.

But he vowed the campaign against "deep and rapid" spending cuts would go on, with a mass protest on 26 March.

Ministers have not ruled out new laws to prevent co-ordinated strikes as a "last resort".

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude said any "general strike" would, in any case, be illegal.

He said the government wanted a dialogue with unions but they had to recognise that public spending had to be reduced, he added.

'Huge event'

Mr Barber said: "No one is talking about a general strike, but of course these attacks on our members could well give rise to industrial action around specific disputes.

"Today's meeting showed a clear determination for unions to work together on industrial issues including, as a last resort, industrial action when members support it."

He said the government had agreed to talks with unions over the future of public sector pensions and ministers had "now accepted that they will not force through changes in the March budget".

---

Union leaders may talk tough over strikes but privately they know the risks are huge.

However angry their members may feel, union bosses are acutely aware that in hard times low-paid workers will be very wary of losing money by coming out on strike.

There is a fear too of the likely media and public reaction, and a recognition any campaign of industrial action could simply alienate public opinion.

The legal difficulties in calling strikes are also immense and risk playing into the government's hands by paving the way for fresh anti-union legislation.

Despite all that, the leaders of most of the big public sector unions believe they have no option if they are to show the government they are serious. To quote Mrs Thatcher, they believe "there is no alternative".

But he added: "These will be difficult negotiations as public service workers will not allow their pensions to be hammered. We hope that the talks can make progress, but we cannot rule out industrial action taking place on this issue."

He said the planned demonstration in London on 26 March - three days after Chancellor George Osborne's budget - will be "a huge event at which the British people will come together to show their opposition to the government's chosen course".

Some sources have predicted a campaign of strikes beginning in the spring - but that now appears less likely after the TUC negotiated an agreement with ministers to hold off implementing any changes until June.

Some smaller unions are calling for a more cautious strategy designed to build support among other groups, such as charities, who are affected by the cuts.

'Debt legacy'

Mr Maude told the BBC that public sector workers were not to blame for the UK's budget deficit but spending did need to be cut.

"We want to engage with the unions, and we are doing so, to try and get the best result for their members," he told the BBC. "We do not want a political fight with the unions and some union leaders are sounding as if that is what they want.

"We want to engage to get the right outcome for all taxpayers that is fair for future generations so they do not have to bear these terrible costs of Gordon Brown's debt legacy."

The prospect of further industrial action has led some senior Tory figures, including Mayor of London Boris Johnson, to call for changes to trade union law to ensure that strike ballots can be lawful only if 50% of union members take part.

Mr Maude downplayed this possibility but did not rule it out.

"We think the laws work pretty well as they are and any changes to the law would be very much a last resort," he said.

The issue has risen up the political agenda following a series of high-profile strikes, including walkouts by London Underground staff and refuse collectors working for Birmingham City Council.

Unions have not ruled out strikes over pension cuts

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said this was the issue on which the big unions were most united.

But he vowed the campaign against "deep and rapid" spending cuts would go on, with a mass protest on 26 March.

Ministers have not ruled out new laws to prevent co-ordinated strikes as a "last resort".

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude said any "general strike" would, in any case, be illegal.

He said the government wanted a dialogue with unions but they had to recognise that public spending had to be reduced, he added.

'Huge event'

Mr Barber said: "No one is talking about a general strike, but of course these attacks on our members could well give rise to industrial action around specific disputes.

"Today's meeting showed a clear determination for unions to work together on industrial issues including, as a last resort, industrial action when members support it."

He said the government had agreed to talks with unions over the future of public sector pensions and ministers had "now accepted that they will not force through changes in the March budget".

---

Union leaders may talk tough over strikes but privately they know the risks are huge.

However angry their members may feel, union bosses are acutely aware that in hard times low-paid workers will be very wary of losing money by coming out on strike.

There is a fear too of the likely media and public reaction, and a recognition any campaign of industrial action could simply alienate public opinion.

The legal difficulties in calling strikes are also immense and risk playing into the government's hands by paving the way for fresh anti-union legislation.

Despite all that, the leaders of most of the big public sector unions believe they have no option if they are to show the government they are serious. To quote Mrs Thatcher, they believe "there is no alternative".

But he added: "These will be difficult negotiations as public service workers will not allow their pensions to be hammered. We hope that the talks can make progress, but we cannot rule out industrial action taking place on this issue."

He said the planned demonstration in London on 26 March - three days after Chancellor George Osborne's budget - will be "a huge event at which the British people will come together to show their opposition to the government's chosen course".

Some sources have predicted a campaign of strikes beginning in the spring - but that now appears less likely after the TUC negotiated an agreement with ministers to hold off implementing any changes until June.

Some smaller unions are calling for a more cautious strategy designed to build support among other groups, such as charities, who are affected by the cuts.

'Debt legacy'

Mr Maude told the BBC that public sector workers were not to blame for the UK's budget deficit but spending did need to be cut.

"We want to engage with the unions, and we are doing so, to try and get the best result for their members," he told the BBC. "We do not want a political fight with the unions and some union leaders are sounding as if that is what they want.

"We want to engage to get the right outcome for all taxpayers that is fair for future generations so they do not have to bear these terrible costs of Gordon Brown's debt legacy."

The prospect of further industrial action has led some senior Tory figures, including Mayor of London Boris Johnson, to call for changes to trade union law to ensure that strike ballots can be lawful only if 50% of union members take part.

Mr Maude downplayed this possibility but did not rule it out.

"We think the laws work pretty well as they are and any changes to the law would be very much a last resort," he said.

The issue has risen up the political agenda following a series of high-profile strikes, including walkouts by London Underground staff and refuse collectors working for Birmingham City Council.

Students and TUC set to join in city protests

Protests are due to be held in London and Manchester against rising student tuition fees and public spending cuts.

The National Union of Students and TUC are joining forces for a march and rally in Manchester.

In London, there is likely to be a heavy police presence as protesters march through Trafalgar Square and Whitehall before gathering at Millbank.

Officers will hand out leaflets telling demonstrators what actions will be taken if violence breaks out.

Last month, MPs voted to raise tuition fees in England to up to £9,000 a year.

Ministers say increasing tuition fees is essential to secure the future of the universities.

In Manchester Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, will accuse ministers of prioritising billions of pounds in tax breaks for business as they triple the cost of university and axe funding for college students and help for the unemployed.

"From sacking lollipop ladies and closing youth clubs to axing college grants and trebling tuition fees, this is a government at war with our young people and therefore at war with our future," she will say.

"It is betraying an entire generation."

TUC assistant general secretary Kay Carberry will tell the rally that young people should not pay the price for the government's "reckless gamble" with the economy.

Ms Carberry will say: "In the City, bankers are popping champagne corks and celebrating their bonuses.

"It's business as usual for them, while young people up and down Britain are being forced to pick up the tab for a financial crisis and recession that they didn't cause."

'Degree of anger'

Saturday's rallies will be the latest in a series of demonstrations by students.

On the day MPs voted to raise fees, there were angry scenes on the streets of London as thousands of students marched through the capital.

“Start Quote

I am very confident this'll be an entirely peaceful demonstration”

End Quote Brendan Barber TUC general secretary

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber says he is not expecting a repeat on Saturday.

"I am very confident this'll be an entirely peaceful demonstration," he said.

"But I don't think that means we can't get across very powerfully the degree of anger there is about these terribly damaging changes the government are trying to force through."

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said the trade unions needed to understand that the youth unemployment challenge facing this government was a "direct consequence of the failings of Labour".

"We have inherited a legacy of 600,000 young people who have never worked since leaving school or college," he said.

"We think young people deserve better - that's why we're investing in apprenticeships to create long-term jobs and are developing work experience opportunities so that young people get the skills and experience they need to successfully compete in the labour market."

Osborne Unions are 'forces of stagnation

The Chancellor has said he is as determined to fight "the forces of stagnation", including the unions, as he is to tackle the budget deficit.

George Osborne told BBC News he vowed to reshape the British economy and to be "bold" promoting economic growth.

But he accused the unions and Labour of standing in the way of efforts to get the economy moving again.

The unions have refused to rule out co-ordinated strike action over cuts to public sector pensions.

Following talks between the leaders of biggest unions at the TUC earlier, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: "No-one is talking about a general strike, but of course these attacks on our members could well give rise to industrial action around specific disputes."

Squeezed families

The government has also stressed that it wants to continue talking to the unions - but has not ruled out new laws banning co-ordinated strike action as a "last resort".

Mr Osborne, speaking to BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, rejected union calls to change course following this week's "disappointing" growth figures.

"If we did that we would be plunged back into where we were a few months ago with people raising very serious questions about Britain's ability to pay its way in the world, and that will provide no platform for growth going forward," he said.

He said he was "acutely aware" that British families were feeling the squeeze over rising prices - and again refused to rule out curbs on fuel duty increases in his March budget.

But he said the UK economy had to be rebuilt with less emphasis on financial services and more on business investment and exports - and he claimed there were signs this was starting to happen.

"We have got to be as bold in promoting growth and removing barriers to business expansion, and fighting the forces of stagnation, as we have been in dealing with the deficit," he said.

'Stagnation'

But he said governments were being held back by people who oppose efforts to "create more competitive markets".

In the UK, the trade unions and opposition had opposed "controversial" changes to employment tribunals, he said, and were opposed to other "difficult" decisions aimed at promoting growth.

"I regard these people as the forces of stagnation, when we are trying to get the British economy competitive again, moving forward again."

Prime Minister David Cameron earlier vowed to "see through" the government's plan for deep spending cuts despite fears of their impact on economic growth.

He said cutting the deficit would be "tough" but the economy would "bounce back" if the UK stuck to its course.

Labour have accused ministers of "arrogance" for proceeding with what they say are £20bn of cuts this year.

After figures released earlier week showed the UK economy contracted by 0.5% in the last three months of 2010, Labour leader Ed Miliband said the government's cuts were "hurting but not working".

The coalition has been accused of lacking a "pro-growth" strategy, with outgoing CBI boss Sir Richard Lambert saying key decisions affecting business had been taken for political reasons and there was a "lack of vision" about the long-term shape of the economy.

Tory MP removes 'gay lesson' blog entry after complaint

I have to concur with James Asser, co-chair of LGBT Labour when he says "It is astonishing in this day and age that a Tory MP is complaining about giving our children a realistic vision of Britain today.

In today's UK of Multiculturalism people should be more tolerant of the diversity that we have in different communities with the rate of hate crime taking place not just confine in the Black Community its a issue that needs to all communities. For far too long it was seen as white against blacks I would like to dis spell this myth and say that if affects all communities and what about the untold stories of hate crimes against disable people & LGBT which is not talked about.

As for the member for South Dorset should know better with comments that he said in his blog as he is seen as a pillar of the community representing his constituents in the Commons.


An MP has had to rewrite an entry on his blog after saying plans to teach children about homosexuality would impose "questionable sexual standards".

Conservative Richard Drax said a state-funded plan to use maths, geography and science lessons to instruct about same-sex relationships was "ludicrous".

He later removed the posting following a complaint, saying he had not "intended to be homophobic".

But Labour said the MP's views were "astonishing".

Mr Drax, MP for South Dorset, wrote the original entry in response to a recent article in the Sunday Telegraph which said the lesson plans had been drawn up as part of LGBT History Month - an initiative designed to encourage teaching about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transexual issues.

The initiative, due to run next month and funded by the Training and Development Agency for Schools with a £35,000 grant allocated under the previous government, is voluntary and it is up to schools whether to make use of it.

'Political correctness'

The lessons, written by teachers, will be available for schools to download from the website of Schools Out - the body running the initiative.

In response, Mr Drax wrote: "Yes, if you can believe it, homosexuality will be on the curriculum for students studying maths, geography and science."

"This plan is ludicrous and pushes political correctness to new bounds," he added.

"I would have thought raising educational standards and teaching our children to read, write and add up is far more important than imposing questionable sexual standards on those too young to understand their equality czars."

However, Mr Drax later took down the entry and posted a new message on the subject.

"Following a call from a member of the public about a recent blog, I have decided to re-write my comments to ensure there is no misunderstanding," he wrote.

"My point was not intended to be homophobic but sprang more from a concern that young children should not be taught a subject they simply would not understand."

He said the focus should be on improving the teaching of maths, geography and science given the "lamentable state" of UK standards in these subjects compared to other countries.

'Realistic vision'

The Sunday Telegraph reported the lessons could include using gay characters to explain maths problems, encourage pupils to design symbols linked to the gay rights movement and study the transformation of an area of San Francisco into the world's first "gay neighbourhood".

Mr Drax is not the first MP to criticise the plans - fellow Conservative Craig Whittaker recently called the idea "nonsense".

But the BBC's Adam Fleming said Mr Drax's views had been criticised elsewhere in the party, with one gay Tory MP describing him as a "lone voice" and "educationally challenged".

Schools Out has said the initiative is not about "tub-thumping" but is designed to "remind teachers" that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transexual people are part of the population.

Reacting to the MP's comments, the organisation's co-chair Sue Sanders said: "Schools lie by omission when they do not include the stories of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transexual people.

"Anyone who finds our work problematic needs to realise they are giving comfort to homophobics. Homophobia kills and is expensive."

Labour said it had been "standard practice" for many years to use references to same-sex relationships in the mainstream curriculum.

"It is astonishing in this day and age that a Tory MP is complaining about giving our children a realistic vision of Britain today," said James Asser, co-chair of LGBT Labour.

Britain's Future Is In Investing In The Future Generation

The arrogance of this Con-Dem government in pushing through unpopular and unjustifiable changes to our health service is matched only by its brazen willingness to justify its behaviour through blatant lies.

David Cameron's wild claim that any delay of what he calls "essential reform" will cause huge sums to be lost to the NHS is unjustifiable.

The principal cause of financial loss to the NHS is government policy and the most prominent manifestation of this is the Con-Dem coalition demand that the health service bring in £20 billion of savings - cuts in other words.

Once again, the government is using the financial crisis triggered by banking sector adventurism to implement the kind of assault on the public sector that the Tories have always dreamed of carrying out but have known that voters would have refused to back.

And that is precisely the case now. Neither Cameron nor his new best friend Nick Clegg gave any indication of a looming crisis at the NHS before the general election.

Indeed, Cameron did a remarkable impersonation of his hero Margaret Thatcher, who lied before the 1979 general election that the NHS would be "safe in our hands," promising that there would be no major reorganisation of the health service.

This reorganisation is not about efficiency.

It is about dismantling a structure that works and substituting a vast bureaucracy that the Tory-led government touts as a means of putting health professionals, especially GPs, in the driving seat, but which in reality will provide a bonanza for private health-care companies.

The Tories were opposed to the establishment of the NHS and have never been reconciled to its existence.

As with education they have always believed that wealth should be the deciding factor in the quality of service provided. But public hostility to private medicine has always prevented them from making this policy preference a central part of their manifesto.

However, a combination of hysteria over the government's budget deficit and the disgusting willingness of Clegg's Liberal Democrats to sell their principles for the chance to warm their backsides on the government benches have presented the Tories with a prime opportunity.

As usual when there is some dirty deal afoot, Cameron has been able to cite the record of new Labour to suggest that there is nothing unremarkable or extremist taking place.

He claims that Blair discovered that delaying public-service "reform" leads to "institutional inertia" against change.

What united NHS staff and teachers in state schools against the so-called reforms driven through by Blair and Gordon Brown was not institutional inertia but the well-grounded awareness of professionals dedicated to their public service that the reforms were a backward step.

Brown was a single-minded advocate of private finance initiatives to fund new hospitals, schools, prisons and other public institutions, even though they were expensive, inefficient and undermined public ownership.

But Brown's ulterior motive was that PFI schemes did not show up on the balance sheet as public borrowing, as the more cost-effective and accountable Treasury loans would have done.

Public-service workers were told that there just wasn't the money available for Treasury loans or for rail renationalisation and then Brown set aside £1.3 trillion to bail out the banks.

The Tories are taking this process one step further, using Brown's borrowing as the false justification for privatisation of our public services.

They must be stopped.

VAT cheats should be jailed

Traders who charge VAT when they are not registered and pocket the tax should be jailed, an MP has said.

Ian Liddell-Grainger, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Taxation Group, described the scam as "blatant fraud".

He said the penalties for cheating on VAT are currently very low - usually no more than double the tax charged.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) said it was well aware that VAT numbers could be used for illegal purposes and monitored their use closely.

'No deterrent'

Mr Liddell-Grainger, the Conservative MP for Bridgwater, told BBC Radio 4's Money Box: "Everyone knows it is going on but it is hard to detect. Now VAT has gone up to 20% it will become much more high profile."

And he called on the government to increase the penalties.

“Start Quote

Sourcing your tradesman through a recognised trade association is a good way to dramatically reduce the risk of hiring someone dishonest”

End Quote Rick Crees Association of Plumbing and Heating Contractors

"Double the tax is no deterrent. If you've got a tax bill of £30, that is £60. In the worst cases it needs to be a custodial sentence, and certainly up to 10 times the tax," he said.

"This is blatant fraud. You are going into people's homes, lying and using your position to extort money out of people. In any other walk of life you would be jailed."

The fraud is simple. A trader either does not register for VAT or, if they are registered, they deregister for VAT. But they still add 20% onto the bill and call it VAT. Instead of passing that amount on to the tax authorities, they pocket it themselves.

Building firm boss Nigel Leck told the BBC that such practices were growing and he now checks every invoice he gets from contractors.

Mr Leck, who runs Property Presentation Services in Warwickshire, said: "Twice we have discovered people trying to charge our customers VAT when they are not registered, or they have deregistered.

"They know they are not registered and they're still charging the VAT."

Mr Leck says he now always checks all the paperwork from every company.

He uses a European Union website, which checks a VAT number and shows whom it is registered to. Although intended for businesses doing cross-border business, it will provide the answer instantly to anyone.

Alternatively, individuals can call an HMRC helpline - 0845 010 9000 - to check registration. There is also an HMRC hotline to report fraud on 0800 595 000.

'Damaging industry'

Mr Liddell-Grainger recommends using these services rather than challenging someone who is in your home and expecting payment for a bill showing VAT.

"People can check on the website to see what the situation is, and report it to HMRC. That hotline should be used," he said.

Rick Crees, a spokesman for the Association of Plumbing and Heating Contractors, said the practice was not widespread.

"Any sole trader, whatever their business, could be trying this trick. It is perfectly possible that plumbing and heating engineers are among those trying it. This kind of dishonesty is damaging to our industry," he said.

"Sourcing your tradesman through a recognised trade association is a good way to dramatically reduce the risk of hiring someone dishonest."

Any trader whose turnover exceeds £70,000 must register for VAT. Those with lower turnovers can do so, but do not have to.

"HMRC is well aware that VAT numbers can be used for illegal purposes and we monitor their use closely," a spokesman for HMRC told Money Box.

"We have a range of penalties, including criminal prosecution available to tackle any abuse."

Article By Sonny Leong Chinese For Labour

I am in total despair. Every time Michael Gove opens his mouth, extravagant foolishness and ignorance spews from it.

In a recent Telegraph article, he says.

I was in the Far East last month, to see what I could learn …. where I am happy to confess I’d like us to implement a cultural revolution just like the one they’ve had in China. Like Chairman Mao, we’ve embarked on a Long March to reform our education system.

His ignorance of history is baffling and a cause of concern. Where do we get these politicians?

The Cultural Revolution was a violent mass revolution resulting in social, political and economic upheaval with over 30 million deaths. Mao singled out his enemies – landlords, rich peasants, intellectuals. In the fight against “class enemies” and “bourgeois reactionaries,” teachers, people with a college degree were targeted. Entire schools of elite musicians and teams of athletes were sent to labour camps. Intellectuals were kept in prisons.

In the Cultural Revolution, learning was a crime. The crackdown on teachers, professors and intellectuals was particularly nasty. In secondary schools students humiliated and denounced their teachers. In high schools, teachers wore dunce caps and spent the whole day reciting “I am a demon” in front of classrooms filled with mocking students.

Is this what Gove is advocating?

If this is a case of “metaphorically speaking”, then his analogy is pure contempt for the Chinese in Britain. Many have loss relatives and family during that period in history, and many are just coming to terms with the horrific memories of that period. The frequent usage of Chinese analogies by politicians recently is nothing short of repugnant and gut-wrenching to listen to.

Having spent only a few days in the Far East does not make Gove such an expert on education there. Like Manuel in Fawlty Towers – he knows nothing!!

Yes, teachers and students in Shanghai and Singapore have to be congratulated in coming out tops in a recent leading global study of secondary school performance in maths and science. This is no surprise at all – to really understand why – one needs to look inside a Chinese family.

The pressure on these kids to perform well comes from wthin the family, school and society. Chinese students work extra long hours on school days and continue to have classes on weekends and holidays. These children are victims of a test-oriented education system. Failures in such tests bring shame to themselves and families leading to the high suicide rates amongst them.

Whether it is maths or reading, the more you practice, the better you can get. They are taught to memorise, parrot fashion and regurgitate what they have studied for exams. Any analysis, discursive or exploring other concepts or ideals are alien to their learning processes.

These students fail abysmally at non-standardised tests – open-book; open-notes; Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs); and True/False assessments. Why? Because they do not know how to pass exams that they have not practiced for. Their incapability to apply knowledge acquired in a classroom to real life or non-standardised exams is a cause of concern for many parents and educators.

Students grow up lacking social interaction; interpersonal; teamwork and communicating skills because they have not been allowed to acquire or develop these skills. All their waking hours are spent on memorising and more memorising.

In Singapore, from the strict design of pedagogies and curriculum to the series of standardised examinations, students are moulded into productive units of labour for the future. The introduction of more testing and streaming for younger students is leading to an overheated pressure cooker further damaging their youth and future generation. The recent deaths of two junior college students have once again highlighted the primary ramification from a highly-competitive and rigid education system: tremendous stress and pressure.

Another cost worth considering is the dearth of creativity like research among Singaporean students. The other problem which almost never gets any attention is the complete lack of development of critical thinking skills among Singaporean students. They are unable to read texts critically, offer interpretations, construct good arguments, and communicate clearly.

As a Chinese father, I would not be happy at all in schooling my four year old daughter in Singapore or Shanghai. I wouldn’t want my child to go through the ‘pressure cooker’ educational system where she is taught just to pass exams and incapable of any further comprehension.

We should all take pride in our schools and teachers. Yes, we need to do more to raise standards and expectations in our schools. Yes, we need to encourage our students to take up sciences. Yes, we need to invest more in our children’s future. Yes, we need educators who are motivated and yes, we need a fairer system where children have access to good schools in their communities.

To all educators, teachers, head teachers and governors out there, do not allow Michael Gove any where near your school. Stop this dangerous political vandalism in our school and education system before we start counting the number of suicides amongst our children.

China comes bearing gifts for better understanding

China’s Vice Premier, Li KeQiang arrives in Britain for a four day visit, the last leg of his European tour following his earlier visits to Spain and Germany. It signed nearly £6 billion of business deals in Germany, £5 billion in Spain and reaffirmed his country will buy Spanish government bonds.

What will China invest or buy in Britain? So far, it has signed deals worth £2.6 billion, far less than those signed in Spain and Germany.

Cui Hongjian of the China Institute of International Studies told the People’s Daily newspaper:

“Britain needs China because it needs international investment and overseas markets to solve its economic problems – such as the low purchasing power as a result of its tightened monetary policy.”

While Liu Xiaoming, China’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, wrote in The Daily Telegraph:

“China is doing what a Chinese proverb says about ‘sending charcoal in snowy weather’.”

China will no doubt sign business deals whilst the Vice Premier is in the UK and Cameron will announce such deals as a success of UK-China talks. Is there all there is to it – business deals?

Before 2008, China would not even consider prioritising solving the West’s financial or economic problems. It needs to prioritise its own economy. China is in the middle of a huge redeployment of its economy and needs to get employment and social balance right. This is what China’s leaders wake up thinking about – all day and night.

China shares her borders with fourteen countries, she needs to focus on her neighbours who will fundamentally affect China’s stability and security. China has a long history of peaceful development, her people both long for a happy and peaceful life and enjoy harmonious relations with her neighbours. World peace is an important condition for China to achieve moderate prosperity, and China’s development in turn is conducive to world peace.

China is experiencing some tensions with Japan, the Korean peninsula and the South China Sea, not least the Kashmir border. These are issues China needs the world to come together and not leave China isolated.

Britain needs to look at its China policies again, it is not only just trade or business deals. Those who make human rights the sole determining issue, muddy the waters. China’s reaction to the Nobel Prize was heavily criticised by the West without any basic understanding of different values, she is unlikely to move much closer to Western values.

China is building a society where her people can receive education, get paid through work, have access to medical services, old-age support, decent housing, enough food and clothing and lead a well-off life. This is paramount and any distractions to achieving those basic needs are ignored.

The West can try to understand them as they are and work with them. Finger pointing does not work, sharing experience is a much better approach, and usually much acceptable.

China seeks equal political partnership and mutual respect, economic partnership of mutual benefit and common development, cultural partnership of dialogue and mutual learning, and strategic partnership of close collaboration in international affairs.

China, as a major country, does not shirk its responsibilities. In recent years, it has arranged billions of dollars of debt relief for developing countries and it has contributed its share of peacekeepers. It has acceded to nearly 100 multilateral international conventions. It has made contributions to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, the International Monetary Fund bail-out programme, the reconstruction of Afghanistan and disaster relief. China will remain a conscientious global player in fulfilling international responsibilities.

Businesses do want better relations with China to enable more access to the Chinese market, they will, nevertheless, find their own subtle ways to build businesses with China.

Every country wants a bigger share of the Chinese market, China will accommodate them. Countries which share China’s growth with political parity, respect and trust will be the beneficiaries. Britain needs to be one of those countries.

---

英国从中国副总理来访得到什么：礼物，还是更好的沟通

作者：梁辛尼 出版人和英国华人工党主席 2011年1月

中国副总理李克强抵达英国进行为期四天的访问。英国是继李克强率团访问西班牙和德国之 后，作为此次出访欧洲的最后一站。此前中国在德国签署了将近60亿英镑的商业协议，在西班牙签下50亿英镑的大单，并且重申中国将会购买西班牙国债。那么 中国将给英国带来什么样的投资或者贸易机会呢？ 到目前为止，中英签署了价值３０亿英镑的协议，大大少于此前西班牙和德国与中国的贸易额。　。

《中国日报》引用中国国际问题研究所研究员崔洪建的话评价说，”英国需要中国因为她需 要国际投资和海外市场来解决自身的经济问题，比如由于英国实行紧缩的货币政策而导致的低购买力。” 中国驻英国大使刘晓明在《每日电讯报》上撰文指出，”像一句中国谚语说到的那样，中国正在做的事情就是’雪中送炭’。”

毫无疑问中国副总理访英期间会签署商业合作协议，而且卡梅伦也会宣布类似的合作协议以证明中英会谈的成功。但中国来访的意义仅在于此吗？

在2008年以前，中国甚至不会优先考虑解决西方的金融或者经济问题。 因为她需要优先考虑自身的经济状况。中国正处于重新调整经济的重大部署当中，需要平衡好就业和社会发展目标。这才是中国领导人殚精竭虑昼思夜想的问题。

中国和14个国家接壤。她需要专注于解决好从根本上对中国的稳定和安全产生影响的邻国 关系。中国有这长期和平发展的历史，她的人民也向往快乐和平的生活以及睦邻友好和谐周边的外交关系。 世界和平是中国取得稳定繁荣的一个重要条件，所以中国的发展从根本上对世界和平是有积极意义的。

目前在与日本、朝鲜半岛关系以及南海地区和克什米尔边界问题上中国正面临的紧张局势，需要国际社会和衷共济，而不是让中国独自面对。

英国需要重新审视自己对中国的外交政策，不应该仅仅专注于贸易和商业协议。 那些把人权作为唯一决定因素的人起到的作用只会是搅浑水。中国对诺贝尔奖的反应，曾遭到西方世界严厉批评。然而那些对不同价值观缺乏基本认识的批评者们，其实不可能接近真正的西方价值观。

中国正在致力于建设一个勤者有其学、劳者有其酬、病者有其医、老者有其助、居者有其屋，丰衣足食的小康社会。这是中国目前至关重要的发展目标，任何偏离这个基本需要的因素都要忽略不计。

要想理解上述目标和价值观，西方世界应该求同存异，努力与之共处。 指指戳戳是不管用的，交流和共享经验才是更好的途径，而且通常是更容易为对方所接受。

中国在国际事务当中，寻求平等和相互尊重的政治伙伴关系，合作共赢经济伙伴关系，交流互鉴的文化伙伴关系，以及紧密合作的战略伙伴关系。

而且作为一个大国，中国并没有逃避自己的责任。最近几年来，她为发展中国家安排了数十 亿美元的债务削减，积极参与维和行动。她加入近100多个多边国际公约。对联合国的千年宣言发展计划，国际货币基金组织的救助项目， 阿富汗的重建和消除危机都作出了积极贡献。在全球事务当中，中国承担着认真谨慎负责履行国际义务的角色。

尽管生意人总能曲径通幽，找到和中国做生意的门道。但是为了进一步拓宽进入中国市场的途径，商人们当然希望本国进一步改善与中国的关系。

任何一个国家都想在中国市场这块大蛋糕上分得更大的份额，对此中国是来者不拒的。但是只有那些和中国在政治上平等尊重互信的国家才会和中国共同成长，成为真正的受益人。英国需要做的，就是成为其中的一分子。

LCID Parliamentary Reception with Harriet Harman

Please come along and join LCID for an evening reception with the Labour Shadow International Development team

The evening will include a speech from Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, and will be a chance for you to meet and ask questions with the new Shadow team.

You'll also be able to meet our new Honorary Presidents - we're very excited to have them on board and will be revealing all very shortly!

And it will also be a opportunity to find out more about LCID's work over the last year and it's upcoming plans.

Please RSVP to eilidh@lcid.org.uk.

Cameron spin chief resigns

Andy Coulson quit as David Cameron's spin chief today over the continuing row surrounding phone hacking when he was editor of the News of the World.

In a personal statement issued by number 10 Mr Coulson said: "Unfortunately continued coverage of events connected to my old job at the News of the World has made it difficult for me to give the 110 per cent needed in this role."

Mr Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World in 2007 after the paper's former royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for phone hacking.

Although he took responsibility, he has always denied knowledge of the illegal activities.

But a number of famous figures are still taking civil legal action against the newspaper and documents disclosed in those cases have led to new developments.

The timing of the resignation sparked claims that the government was "burying bad news" coming as former prime minister Tony Blair was giving evidence to the Iraq inquiry and with the spotlight still on shadow chancellor Alan Johnson's resignation.

Labour MP Tom Watson, who has been pursuing the allegations against Mr Coulson and the News of the World, accused him of sneaking out the statement.

"This is the second job that Andy Coulson has resigned from for something he claims to know nothing about," he said.

"His departure creates serious questions over the Prime Minister's judgement and points to the need for a deeper investigation into the affairs of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

"It's a mark of the man that he would sneak out a statement on a Friday morning on a busy news day."

In the Commons former minister Denis MacShane demanded that Mr Cameron come to the chamber to make a statement on Mr Coulson's resignation.

In a point of order he said: "I believe it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come to the Commons to explain why this is happening and give the public the full details here in the House of Commons, rather than bury this news on a day when, frankly, there's an awful lot of other news taking place."

But Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle said it was "nothing to do with this House" if a member of the Prime Minister's staff had resigned.

Makeover time for Miliband

Does Ed Miliband need a makeover? The coalition is about to vandalise the NHS after undermining education. But Miliband isn't really dominating the stage.

Are his Commons performances showing enough passion? Is he winning over the audience?

Since the Labour leader announced last year that he was starting with a "blank sheet of paper," Miliband has faced growing criticism of his leadership style.

So maybe he needs the treatment Natalie Portman gets in her latest movie The Black Swan.

Does Labour need to hire some Svengali to whisper into his ear "The only person standing in your way is you!" Someone to come over all moody and intense like Vincent Cassel, putting Miliband through his paces with throaty exhortations that "this is your moment, Ed. Don't let it go. You could be brilliant, but you're a coward."

I don't know what Miliband's new spin doctor Tom Baldwin has been telling him, but you could see him borrowing some phrases from The Black Swan to pep up his parliamentary performance - "Come on! Forget about control, Ed! I wanna see passion! Come on! Reach! You're stiff! Stiff like a dead corpse! Let it go! Let it go! Let it go!"

And there is no doubt that David Cameron will be at least temporarily fuddled if the next time he looks over the despatch box Miliband is in full Portman-mascara-mode, while Gordon Brown weeps in the background: "This role is destroying you! Where is my sweet former special adviser?"

But the real problem isn't about presentation, it is about politics. Ed M is a prisoner of new Labour. Loads of the old "new" gang are in the shadow cabinet, reflecting the way loads of David Miliband supporters fill the Labour benches.

The impresarios behind light-touch banking regulation, NHS contracting-out, "crackdowns" on disability benefits, military adventures and other absurd dances new Labour staged before the audience booed them off still sit as Labour MPs.

And they are all stopping him making dramatic moves against Cameron. Even when Miliband has a go at Cameron over bankers' bonuses, NHS privatisation or student loans, Cameron can point to the Labour roots of these policies.

And his own shadow cabinet agrees. Alan Johnson, when not embarrassing himself and his party with his ignorance, is pushing a "cuts are good, tax is bad" line.

Douglas Alexander is talking about being "tough and sustained" on spending - not on the banks.

All this leaves Miliband Mili-bland. There is nothing wrong with having slicker PR, but Miliband really needs more substantial politics.

He won the leadership in a partial rejection of new Labour, but Provisional New Labour wants to drag him back to the right.

Labour won in Oldham because of issues that protesters pushed to the fore - student loans, bankers' bonuses, Tory cuts. But the shadow cabinet wants him to talk the same old new Labour - tough on spending, soft on big-business stuff.

Some praise in liberal circles for our new Home Secretary Ken Clarke. In part this shows how bad Jack Straw was - new Labour's punitive stance makes Clarke's plans to close prisons look good.

But a lot of the praise is being sung because commentators don't understand the real madness of Clarke's probation plans.

The Home Secretary wants to free prisoners, but he also wants to create a market in crime, with criminal futures turned into tradeable bonds sold on the world's exchanges.

Clarke wants fewer people in prison, which is good, but he wants to hand them over to privatised probation services, which is very bad.

In the foreword to his white paper, Clarke proposes the widespread privatisation of probation services, saying: "We expect that independent providers, backed up by ethical investment, will support the early stages of this rehabilitation revolution."

This will be run on "payment by results" - but don't think that this means money will be saved.

Private providers will have to front up the cash for probation. They will then be paid depending on how many or few of their clients commit crimes.

However, because they are putting the money up in advance, they can demand a higher rate of return - up to 8 per cent.

This "social impact bond" model, which is also going to be used in workfare and welfare, is a new version of PFI, where supposedly "efficient" private companies and banks run public services for long-term profits.

I got a glimpse of these plans at the last Tory conference in a meeting paid for by private contractor Group 4.

Prisons Minister Crispin Blunt claimed that these new bonds were exciting, "rather like privatisation in the '80s we may find something that leads the world."

Blunt admitted that there were dangers, including the possibility that "investors end up taking the public sector to the cleaners because they find a model that always pays out."

However, given that Blunt was speaking on a Group 4 platform next to its "offender management" boss Jerry Petherick, the minister seemed unconcerned about the long record of private-sector failure in this field.

Blunt argued that the public needed to change its "attitude to risk" to make these schemes work. Blunt said that "one theme I want to pick up, it's risk," saying that the "extremely risk-averse attitude to safety and security" was a problem and that "we must delegate and not overcomplicate it with public accountability or we will throttle it."

Blunt suggested that if he could attract big investors, these City geniuses would, through the magical efficiency of the money men, be able to hire the best rehabilitation experts.

The model was a group of financiers investing in faith-based charities to rehabilitate prisoners - the financiers got a profit, the charity gets to spread its word and society gets to solve the crime problem.

This bizarre dream is more likely to turn into a nightmare where already threadbare probation services are closed while privatisation leads to rip-off profits for the City men and amateur fanatics looking after ex-prisoners.