.

To receive Look Left in your inbox before it appears on the website, sign up to the Left Foot Forward email service

• The pressure on the government over their links to Rupert Murdoch continues to grow, with David Cameron forced onto the defensive today over the Tories’ closeness to Murdoch amidst reports culture secretary Jeremy Hunt had misled Parliament.

Hunt, aka “JH”, dubbed a “cheerleader” for the Murdochs, faces the sack if found to have breached the ministerial code, with many commentators suggesting the only reason he’s still in his post is to act as a ‘firewall’ for Cameron and George Osborne; if Hunt goes, who knows whose head’ll next roll…

The story’s dominated the media – well, that is to say all networks and papers except for one – while SNP leader Alex Salmond, as well as Hunt and Cameron, is in the firing line for his cosiness to Rupert and James Murdoch, of which we’ll have more on Left Foot Forward tomorrow.

1. Guess which front page fails to lead on Leveson? Shamik Das

2. It’s all about turnout – if the many vote, together we can Sack Boris Gary Dunion, Common People

3. Krugman: “Keynesians have been completely right, Austerians utterly wrong” Shamik Das

4. London 2012: Rio Tinto and the ethics of corporate sponsorship Tony Burke, Unite

5. UK double-dips for first time in 37 years; Balls: Government’s economic credibility “in tatters” Shamik Das

• The Leveson revelations came on top of the latest disastrous news on the economy, that the UK is now officially back in recession. Thanks to George Osborne’s never-ending austerity story Britain has double-dipped.

The economy shrank 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2012, following a 0.3 per cent contraction in the fourth quarter of 2011. Since Osborne’s spending review in 2010, national output has declined by 0.2 per cent. It is the first UK double-dip since 1975.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman said of the figures “Keynesians have been completely right, Austerians utterly wrong”, with one look at the US economy showing exactly why: Obama’s stimulus has seen 2.2% annualised growth in Q1 2012, a 0.55% quarter-on-quarter rise, in stark contrast to the Osbornian double-dip.

Since the Tories took the reins of our economy, it has shrunk 0.2%; over the same period, the US economy has grown 2.8%. Furthermore, the US economy is now 1.3% above its pre-crisis peak; the UK economy is 4.3% below.

As Cormac Hollingsworth wrote on Left Foot Forward this week, Osborne’s ideologically-driven austerity economics have utterly failed, and “we’re all paying the price”, with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) once again getting their growth projection wrong. The chancellor’s expansionary fiscal contraction has tanked.

• On Thursday voters go to the polls across Britain in local and mayoral elections and referendums, with the biggest battle taking place in the capital for the Mayor of London.

As Left Foot Forward reported, turnout will be key to determining whether Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone wins. As this map shows, in 2008, the more a ward supported Boris, the greater the turnout; he won by being better at getting his voters to the polls.

As the Sack Boris campaign wrote on Left Foot Forward this week:

“Keep in mind that Boris won by just 150,000 votes [in 2008] – if we get even a fraction more voters to the polls in Hackney or Harrow, Whitechapel or Walthamstow, Tottenham or Tulse Hill, he’s done for…

“If you can help in any way, visit the Sack Boris website at www.sackboris2012.com or contact us at help@sackboris2012.com, or on Twitter at @sackboris2012.”

And we’ve more on the race for City Hall and the London Assembly here; the Newcastle Mayoral referendum here; and a look at the Mayoral referendums more generally here.

Progressive of the week:

Welsh health minister Lesley Griffiths, who this week stood up to George Osborne over his plans for regional pay, which she described as “Tory code” for slashing the pay of the poorest NHS workers. Griffiths called it “ideologically-driven” and a “negative step for health services and nurses in Wales”, adding “I suspect Wales would suffer badly”.

Read more here and in the Week Outside Westminster below.

Regressive of the week:

International development secretary Andrew Mitchell, who has once again caved in to right-wing Tory backbenchers and failed to push through the 0.7% target of GDP on foreign aid onto the statute book. The legislation committing Britain to the target by 2013 has disappeared from the forthcoming order of parliamentary business and looks set to be absent from the Queen’s Speech.

Read more here.

Evidence of the week:

Cancer Research UK’s report on “The packaging of tobacco products”, making the case for plain packaging. Currently 157,000 UK 11- to 15-year-olds start smoking every year, enough to fill 5,200 classrooms, attracted in part by glitzy packaging and branding, and an image Big Tobacco wants to project to the world, cool, mature, popular. A quarter of deaths from cancer are caused by tobacco.

Read more on the report and the campaign, including shocking video footage of 6- to 11-year-olds talking about cigarette packets, here.

The Week Outside Westminster by Ed Jacobs:

Northern Ireland

A device more powerful than that which devastated Omagh in 1998 was discovered and defused by security forces in Newry on Friday night. The 600lb bomb was “fully primed”, and twice as big as the bomb that exploded outside Newry courthouse two years ago.

PSNI Ch. Supt. Alasdair Robinson said:

“If this had exploded it would have caused devastation. To put it in perspective, anyone within 50m of this device would have been killed and anyone within 100m, seriously injured…

“Many police services would struggle to get an international border road closed in this time frame There was some residual traffic following the closures and, while we made the public aware of the road closures and advised them to avoid the area, a few cars ignored our advice.

“We do everything in our power to protect human life.”

While Ulster Unionist MLA for Newry and Armagh, Danny Kennedy, said if the bomb had exploded it would have caused serious destruction:

“It had the potential to cause lethal damage. A 600-pound device at the road side waiting for a police patrol. It is just unthinkable.”

Elsewhere, a preliminary hearing took place in Belfast over the case being brought by Northern Ireland’s Attorney General against Peter Hain for allegedly undermining the justice system in his memoirs, with an editorial in the Guardian declaring “inappropriate prosecutions… do not come sillier” than this.

Scotland

As Left Foot Forward reported on the ever closer links that emails released by the Leveson Inquiry showed between Alex Salmond and the Murdoch empire, under the headline “Bad smell at Bute House”, an editorial in the Daily Record on Wednesday argued:

“At face value, Labour’s Johann Lamont is right – this just stinks, Mr Salmond…

“This flimsy defence will not clean off any mud and does nothing to answer the big question – why would the first minister want to co-operate with Tory politicians to assist a right-wing tycoon whose papers despise the progressive, left-of-centre politics Salmond claims to represent.”

Scottish Labour Leader Johann Lamont also launched a strongly-worded attack on the SNP over independence, accusing it of “deceit”, calling on Scotland to reject the nationalists’ “student politics”.

Speaking to the Scottish TUC’s annual conference in Inverness she told delegates:

“My Scottish Labour Party is a crusade – to fight poverty, inequality and injustice… [The SNP] are a government who tell us they are radical about childcare but we must wait seven years before – maybe, perhaps – it will be delivered.

“They trumpet new investment for four months after they have been told it has been withdrawn. They accuse others of lying when we expose the obscenity of NHS patients sleeping without blankets.”

Wales

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood, spent the week trying to woo Welsh Labour into forming a new progressive alliance with Plaid.

Writing for the Bevan Foundation’s website she argued:

“In Wales, the Conservatives could have responded differently, but instead their leader in the Assembly has fully endorsed the UK Coalition’s programme and has taken the Welsh wing of the party further to the right. Tory values are incompatible with Plaid Cymru values.

“The success of the One Wales government was largely based on the fact that both Plaid and Labour could agree on a set of core principles and values which formed the basis of our coalition government.

“Some say that Plaid suffered as a result of its decision to go into coalition with Labour but ultimately Wales won, because it was governed by a strong, progressive government which further extended Wales’s ability to protect itself.”

Health minister Lesley Griffiths, meanwhile, criticised Westminster’s plans for regional pay as “Tory code for cutting the pay of NHS workers in Wales”, as the Welsh government launched a new campaign to recruit and retain doctors in Wales.

Council by-elections:

There was one by-election this week:

• Waterside Ward, North Norfolk District Council: LD hold.

– LD 494 (32.2%, -2.7%); Con 420 (27.4%, -8.5%); Lab 246 (16%, +1.6%); UKIP 233 (15.2%, +0.4%); Green 73 (4.8%, +4.8%); Ind 69 (4.5%, +4.5%). Swing of 2.9% from Con to LD since 2011.

The World Outside Westminster by Ben Phillips:

In the United States, the final stages of the Republican primaries saw Mitt Romney sweep a further five states in the American northeast on Tuesday, thus all but confirming him as the Republican nominee for the presidency. He can now count on the votes of 900-odd convention delegates.

Newt Gingrich, the last remaining major player in the race, effectively conceded on Wednesday. Speaking in Cramerton, NC, he admitted it was “pretty clear” Romney is “ultimately going to be the nominee”.

Gingrich’s last hurrah was an attempt to cause an upset in the Delaware primary, with his cash-strapped campaign focusing all its efforts on the state. Romney won it regardless, taking 56% of the vote against Gingrich’s paltry 27%. The former Speaker of the House is now expected to endorse Romney sometime next week, as is Rick Santorum; his campaign says the transitional details are being worked out.

This just leaves Ron Paul in the field alongside Romney. The Guardian have an interactive map of the GOP primaries here.

***

Presumably seeking to capitalise on the presumptive Republican nominee’s slightly dour reputation, President Obama stepped up by appearing on Jimmy Fallon’s show, receiving a rapturous reception as he slow-jammed the news.

Obama proved his musical credentials back in February at a White House function, taking a star turn on the blues standard ‘Sweet Home Chicago’ alongside B.B. King and others. Given his latest move elicited this response from Romney, we can safely assume the presidential race has found a fresh battleground, and dread whatever light entertainment the ensuing campaigns bring forth.

***

A new book by Roger Draper sheds light on the origins of much of the political and legislative deadlock that has characterised Obama’s first term in office.

“Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the US House of Representatives” includes details of a meeting held by senior Republicans in the days surrounding Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, which yielded a resolution to take back the House in the 2010 midterms and subsequently hobble Obama’s presidency by blocking legislation.

“We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign,” Draper quotes Californian Congressman Kevin McCarthy as insisting, stubbornly oblivious to the basics of democracy. “If you act like you’re the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority.”

***

In France, the first round of the presidential election has passed off, with the far-right Front National candidate Marine Le Pen eliminated. The two places for the second round run-off will be occupied by the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the Socialist challenger Francois Hollande. The two scored 27.08% and 28.63% of the vote respectively.

Yet the knowledge that nearly one in five French electors voted for the far-right (Le Pen took 18% of the vote), combined with the exceedingly narrow margin by which Hollande beat Sarkozy in this round, has provoked anxiety and doubt about what the run-off will produce.

***

In Spain, figures released on Friday show the country as having the worst unemployment figures in Europe: 5.6 million people – a staggering 25% of the population – are out of work; 1.5 million of those have now been unemployed for the past two years.

The foreign minister, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, said:

“The figures are terrible for everyone and terrible for the government. Spain is in a crisis of huge proportions.”

***

In Norway, as the Anders Behring Breivik trial continues, around 40,000 Norwegians gathered near the Oslo court building for a massed rendition of “Children of the Rainbow”, a Norwegian translation of Pete Seeger’s “My Rainbow Race” – a song referred to by Breivik as Marxist propaganda.

As The Guardian notes, while Breivik’s testimony has seen him use “chillingly graphic language to describe his killing spree”, it is his comments on Seeger’s 1971 protest song that appear to have” touched a nerve in a country that prides itself on a tradition of tolerance and justice”.

***

And in Syria, a suicide bombing in Damascus has killed at least ten people amidst continuing violence across the country. With Kofi Annan’s peace mission ongoing, the French foreign ministry, seeking a tougher stance, has suggested it will wait no later than May 5th before pushing for a punitive Security Council resolution against the Assad regime.

Meanwhile, Daniel Serwer, the former US envoy to Bosnia, writes that Annan’s mission needs to be given time, though at least two senior officials in Obama’s administration do not appear to agree.

.

Look Left, our weekly round up of the week’s news, will be going out shortly – with a new look.

This week everyone’s been talking about Leveson, double-dip recessions and the upcoming May 3rd elections. We’ve also got our regular progressive, regressive and evidence of the week, and from this week onwards, the Week Outside Westminster, the week’s local council by-election results and the World Outside Westminster, looking at the top stories from throughout the UK and around the world.

Sign up to receive it by email before it appears on the website.

.

A week today voters go to the polls in London to elect their Mayor and Assembly; Chris Terry, co-founder of Britain Votes, previews the elections

No British election will receive quite as much coverage as the London mayoral election on May 3rd this year, and deservedly so; the Mayor of London has the second largest directly elected mandate in Europe, beaten only by the French president.

Overall, London is marginally left-of-centre. Labour beat the Tories by 2 points in London in the 2010 general election, even as they faced national meltdown. Inner city and ethnic minority areas, in particular, tend to lean strongly towards Labour.

Still, this is not Wales, and Labour is not an unbeatable hegemon. More sub-urban seats tend to go Conservative; Kensington and Chelsea was, until 2010, one of the safest Conservative seats in the country. Boris’s 2008 victory owed in part to a ‘doughnut strategy’ of getting out the vote in these areas.

London is electorally important for all parties on several levels. Firstly, the city has 73 Westminster constituencies: a good performance bodes well for the future. Secondly, it will receive the lion’s share of media coverage on May 4th. Yet for the Conservatives in particular, it may have more personal ramifications.

Credible rumours persist that Boris Johnson eventually plans a return to the Commons, and to take over the leadership of his party when Cameron ends his time in Downing Street. If he wins, it will give him further credibility as an electable politician with significant executive experience. If he loses, it may speed up his return to Westminster, where he could cause headaches for Cameron on the backbenches.

On paper, Labour should have the advantage. The city’s tendency to lean towards the party, and differential turnout effect – in which opposition supporters tend to be more motivated to turn out and vote than government ones – should theoretically favour the party.

Nonetheless, it is worth remembering that the nature of the mayoral system makes this unlike any other election in the UK. With electors voting for candidates and not parties, it is uniquely personalised. As such, it tends to attract a maverick array of character politicians as opposed to more traditional party heavyweights.

• It’s all about turnout – if the many vote, together we can Sack Boris 24 Apr 2012

• Livingstone looks to shift focus back to policy as ‘disgraceful’ attacks intensify 13 Apr 2012

• Boris and Ken clash over tax dodge claims 3 Apr 2012

• Ken vows to ‘ease the squeeze’, saying Boris has ‘betrayed’ Londoners 14 Mar 2012

• Pound for pound, you’re better off with Ken 13 Mar 2012

Boris Johnson is also a wilier politician than many think. His comments on government policy sometimes place him to the right of the government, as on tax and regulation of the city, and sometimes to its left, as on housing benefits and immigration. In doing so Johnson styles himself as more cosmopolitan than Cameron’s shire Toryism.

Moreover, his time in power in London is notable for its lack of controversy. On the whole, Boris has largely continued the policies of his predecessor with relatively minor adjustments. Few criticisms of him have gained serious traction.

By contrast, Ken Livingstone faces serious questions regarding his serial gaffing – in particular, his infamous comments on Jews - as well as questions surrounding his tax avoidance. While he remains very popular in some parts of London, and his manifesto is very populist, he is certainly the underdog in this contest. Polling crosstabs show a significant number of Labour supporters supporting Boris for this election.

The Liberal Democrats have never really had a strong foothold in London. In the last mayoral election their candidate, Brian Paddick, achieved a meagre 9.6% of the vote. Being the Lib Dem candidate in London this year was always going to be difficult. Fighting for the mayoralty is a long and gruelling process for any major party candidate, but when your party has a very low chance of winning at the best of times, and is extremely toxic nationally, the opportunity appeals even less.

For a long time, the only Lib Dem running was Lembit Opik, a prospect so frightening to his party that they extended the nomination deadline by a year to give other candidates a chance to jump in. Ultimately Paddick won the battle of the not-Lembits, but he is generally seen as a poor media performer – a poor attribute to have in a personality led contest. Paddick’s poll ratings put him in the 6-7% range, which is probably what counts as the Lib Dem core vote in London.

The Greens are running Jenny Jones, whose lack of charisma makes it unlikely that she will match her predecessor Sian Berry’s 3.15% of the vote. UKIP are running the anonymous Lawrence Webb, while the BNP’s Carlos Cortiglia is mostly getting attention for originating in Uruguay.

UKIP has taken the odd choice to use the ballot descriptor ‘Fresh Choice for London’; this makes it unlikely that Webb will be able to gain much from high UKIP poll ratings. The BNP appears to be essentially moribund. It is difficult to see either candidate impressing.

Then there is Siobhan Benita. Certainly, there is a buzz about Benita in the broadsheets and on Twitter; the trouble is that the buzz extends little further than that. Those I know who have met her say she is engaging, intelligent and empathetic. Yet she is running an anti-elitist campaign – a mysteriously well funded one – after 14 years in the civil service. It is hard not to feel that this is a very middle class anti-elitism.

It is also hard to believe that many normal Londoners actually know who she is, since the buzz is entirely restricted to outlets read by the highly politically engaged. Without a party machine behind her, she loses out in terms of election broadcasts and has to build an ad hoc activist ground force. Some have suggested that she could surge from nowhere. That would seem unlikely, if not impossible. Still, it may not be the last we hear from Benita, in the likely event that she loses.

While the mayoral election will grab most attention, it is worth remembering that the London Assembly is also being elected. The Assembly is composed of 25 seats, 14 elected by FPTP in massive ‘super-constituencies’ and 11 elected from lists, using the Additional Member System. Voters have one vote for both types of seat.

In a sense, the Assembly is the more psephologically interesting election. Electors will be voting for parties rather than individuals: this means that personality politics will not obscure people’s support for parties at the national level to the same degree. This is likely to provide a much better clue to the standing of parties in London.

What polling there is for the Assembly is scant and of unknown reliability, but seems to suggest that Labour is ahead. What is particularly interesting is the size of the gap. If Labour is only a few points ahead in the Assembly election, that would suggest that Labour is still not in a particularly good position throughout the capital, or that Boris has succeeded in detoxifying Conservatism in London.

If there is a big gap – above 5% would qualify – and yet Boris wins, that suggests that the Ken vs Boris show obscures Labour’s true support in the capital.

For the smaller parties, the question is whether they can pass the 5% threshold necessary to win list seats.

Lib Dems in the Assembly outperformed Paddick in 2008 by about 2 points, and it seems likely they will out-perform him again. They are probably safe. The Greens have been represented in every elected Assembly, but this time a YouGov poll has shown them below the threshold. Thanks to Jenny Jones’s poor campaign, they have had much less attention than usual, but for now, predicting that they will lose out on representation entirely is possibly a little far-fetched.

One party that almost certainly will lose out is the BNP, having just edged a seat in 2008 with 5.1% of the vote (their AM, Richard Barnbrook, subsequently left during the party’s ensuing power struggles).

UKIP are harder to predict. The party had two AMs after 2004, although they subsequently defected to Veritas, ultimately setting up the ‘One London’ party once Veritas imploded. The party is polling well nationally, but it tends to do less well in London. YouGov shows it on 5% in the Assembly vote which would put it just on the edge of securing representation.

Overall, London is likely to produce a mixed result for Labour, with a likely defeat in the mayoral election counterbalanced with gains in the Assembly.

In the press, this will be interpreted as a blow to Labour. Giving the impression of lost momentum, that will be worse for the party. If this is combined with a loss in the Glasgow City Council election, it will be interpreted as a bad night for the party, even if it gains hundreds of council seats across England and seats in the London Assembly.

The Lib Dems’ cycle of decline is likely to continue, but it will not be disastrous; they are likely to retain third party status in the Assembly, and London as a whole. The picture is more mixed for other parties, but a strong showing by UKIP may demonstrate that recent poll ratings are not simply hot air.

.

By Simon Jeffrey, Events Officer, Progress

The battle for the centre-ground will decide the next election.

On May 12th, Progress Annual Conference, which Left Foot Forward is media partnering, will provide the opportunity for members of the shadow cabinet, local government leaders, members, trade unionists and and an array of pollsters, commentators and members of the think tank community to examine what the notion of a ‘new centre-ground’ means, and how Labour can win it.

Labour’s leader, Ed Miliband, will give the keynote speech to the conference, which takes place at the TUC Congress Centre, 28 Great Russell Street, London, WC1B 3LS.

The morning sessions will focus on the question of, in a time of shrinking budgets, what policies Labour can offer that hold true to our progressive values and help the people we seek to represent. What does this massively constrained spending mean for welfare, public services, business and the role of the state?

In the afternoon the politics of winning will be the centre of attention. Does the likely success of Francois Hollande and Barack Obama suggest the tide could be turning for the centre-left? How will the results of the upcoming local elections, especially those in the south, affect the build up to 2015? And what should a modern union link look like?

• It’s all about turnout – how to turf the Tories out of City Hall 24 Apr 2012

To have your say in the debate, book your place at www.progressonline.org.uk/pac12. If you aren’t a member of Progress, entry to the conference is free when you join at www.progressonline.org.uk/join. Left Foot Forward is a media partner for the event, and if you can’t make it on the day, follow Left Foot Forward’s coverage of the conference here.

You can view the full line-up of the conference here:

10.15am: Opening plenary

• Is there a new centre-ground – and how does Labour win it?

Liam Byrne MP, shadow work and pensions secretary; Phil Collins, columnist, The Times and former chief speechwriter to the prime minister; Peter Kellner, president, YouGov; Mary Riddell, columnist, The Daily Telegraph; Chair: Andrew Adonis, chair, Progress.

11.15am: Morning breakout sessions

• Economic credibility: Are we all fiscal conservatives now?

Chris Leslie MP, shadow city minister; Meg Hillier MP, public accounts select committee; Anthony Painter, author and critic.

• Restoring the contributory principle: Whither equality?

Stephen Timms MP, shadow employment minister; John Mann MP, Treasury select committee; Alison Garnham, chief executive, Child Poverty Action Group; Maurice Glasman, academic and Labour peer.

• Value for money: How should progressives reform the public sector?

Stephen Twigg MP, shadow education secretary; Liz Kendall MP, shadow minister for care and older people; Andy Harrop, general secretary, Fabian Society; Hopi Sen, Labour blogger.

• Sustainable growth: How should progressives reform the private sector?

Chuka Umunna MP, shadow business, innovation and skills secretary; Tim Hames, BVCA; Kitty Ussher, associate fellow, Smith Institute.

• The role of government: Is the era of the big state dead?

Ivan Lewis MP, shadow secretary international development secretary; Cllr. Steve Reed, leader, Lambeth council; Paul Richards, author and Progress columnist; David Walker, contributing editor, Guardian Public.

12.30pm: Lunch

1.30pm: Keynote speech

Ed Miliband MP; Chair: Alison McGovern MP.

2.30pm: Afternoon breakout sessions

• From Hollande to Obama: Towards a social democratic recovery?

Douglas Alexander MP, shadow foreign secretary; Denis MacShane MP; Matt Browne, visiting fellow, Centre for American Progress; Axelle Lemaire, Parti Socialiste candidate, Northern Europe.

• After 3 May: Where next for Labour in London?

David Lammy MP; Lewis Baston, Democratic Audit; Cllr. Claire Kober, leader, Haringey council; Cllr. Wes Streeting, Redbridge council.

• Chronic discomfort: Where is the southern revival?

John Denham MP, PPS to Ed Miliband; Cllr. Sharon Taylor, leader, Stevenage borough council; Joan Ryan, former MP, Enfield North; Bobby Duffy, Ipsos MORI.

• Three years to go: What will the electoral landscape be in 2015?

Mary Creagh MP, shadow environment, food and rural affairs secretary; Andrew Adonis, chair, Progress; Steve Van Riel, political consultant and former head of policy at the Labour party.

• Labour and the unions: What should a modernized link look like?

Nita Clarke, IPA; Phil Collins, columnist, The Times and former chief speechwriter to the prime minister; John Hannett, general secretary, Usdaw.

3.45pm: Break

4pm: Closing Plenary

• Progress Question Time

Caroline Flint MP, shadow energy and climate change secretary; Gisela Stuart MP; David Aaronovitch, author and columnist, The Times; Jacqui Smith, former home secretary; Chair: Simon Fanshawe.

5pm: Close

.

To receive Look Left in your inbox before it appears on the website, sign up to the Left Foot Forward email service

• The budget continued to unravel this week, with increasing opposition to the ‘granny tax’, ‘pasty tax’, ‘church tax’, ‘caravan tax’ and ‘charity tax’.

On the ‘granny tax’, new research this week revealed that, far from hitting only better off pensioners as ministers had claimed, well over half those affected will be below the average taxpayer income.

As Left Foot Forward reported on Thursday:

George Osborne’s ‘granny tax’ will hit new pensioners on a personal or occupational pension of just £67 a week.

The House of Commons Library (pdf) have calculated that, in order to be adversely affected by the changes to age related allowances announced in the budget:

• Those turning 65 after 5 April 2013 would need minimum additional taxable income of approximately £3,472 – £67 a week;

• People aged 65-74 on 5 April 2013 would need minimum additional taxable income of approximately £4,767 – £92 a week;

• People aged 75+ on 5 April 2013 would need minimum additional taxable income of approximately £4,927 – £95 a week.

While Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rachel Reeves explained on Left Foot Forward how the ‘granny tax’ was taking money away from pensioners to give to the super rich via the cut in 50p tax rate:

We need to remember the situation most pensioners face, which is that they don’t have ways of making up for a loss of income by going out and finding work. As a result they are particularly vulnerable to rises in the cost of living and unanticipated changes to their financial circumstances. Indeed, this is why old age relief was introduced by Winston Churchill in 1925.

Moreover, pensioners have already been hard hit by this government.

The Winter Fuel Allowance has been cut; pensions have been indexed to a lower measure of inflation; the increase in the state pension age for women has been brought forward; and last year’s VAT rise added £275 to the costs faced by an average pensioner couple.

Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms that as a result of tax and benefit changes implemented by this government, pensioner households have seen their incomes fall by 1.4 per cent. Most have little prospect or opportunity to make up that loss.

Cuts to vital services like the NHS, social care and local transport also hit older people harder. Distributional analysis of the 2010 Spending Review showed that, on average, pensioner couples were set to be hit by cuts to services they use amounting to £1,275 a year, or 6 per cent of their household income, while single pensioners stood to lose services worth £1,305 a year, or 11 per cent of their income.

Concluding:

The only people insulated from the impact of this government’s unfair choices and economic failures are the wealthiest. For the prime beneficiaries of this, the biggest revenue raiser in the budget, won’t be poorer pensioners, or families with children, or young people looking for work. Nor is the money being used to reduce government borrowing.

Instead the money is being spent on a £3 billion tax give-away for the richest one per cent of our society – another measure Labour sought to stop in Parliament this week. The fact the government were said to be surprised by the anger this has aroused shows just how out of touch they are with the tough reality faced by most people today, and how far they have strayed from the values and priorities of the British people.

Also this week, Richard Wilson, Joan Bakewell, Prunella Scales and Larry Lamb wrote to the government urging a rethink on the tax.

1. How DWP’s incompetence cost taxpayers and disabled people Neil Coyle, Disability Alliance

2. Tory MEPs vote for gender identity to be on list of mental and behavioural disorders Shamik Das

3. Liverpool MP reiterates anger at comic’s “stupid and grossly offensive” Hillsborough comments Shamik Das

4. How plain packaging on cigarettes will work Martin Dockrell, Action on Smoking and Health

5. We need a firm limit on the time we are prepared to tolerate anyone being unemployed Graeme Cooke, IPPR

• The latest unemployment figures this week were encouraging, with a headline fall of 35,000, and a rise in employment of 53,000 – though the underlying story remains poor.

As Left Foot Forward reported on Wednesday, the stats (pdf) show worrying signs of continuing weakness in the labour market:

• The claimant count measure of unemployment (which only counts those actually claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance) rose by 3,600 in March 2012 to 1.61m, its highest since October 2009 and up 145,200 over the past year;

• Youth unemployment remained above the one million mark and the number of long term unemployed people rose by 38,000 on the quarter;

• The rise in employment was driven by a rise in part-time work, with the number of people in full-time work down by 27,000;

• There was another rise in ‘under-employment’ with an additional 89,000 people working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job;

• A record 1,400,000 people are now in this position, whilst 627,000 are currently on short term contracts but want a permanent one.

On Tuesday on Left Foot Forward, IPPR’s Graeme Cooke took a deeper look at the problem of long-term unemployment:

Long term unemployment has more than doubled since the start of the recession. As Graph 1 (jpg) shows, the number of people out of work for more than a year has risen from around 400,000 in 2007 to reach 855,000 in the three months ending in January 2012.

The majority of people who lose their job find another one fairly quickly, even in a recession – but those who suffer a prolonged period of unemployment risk losing touch with the labour market and face permanently reduced work and income prospects, not to mention the detrimental health and social impacts of being without work.

Adding of potential solutions to the problem:

The big worry is whether, when stronger job growth does return, people who have experienced long term unemployment will be able to take advantage. Our society is still grappling with a disastrous legacy of this kind from the 1980s and 1990s recessions: high levels of worklessness, poverty and benefit spending.

There is already some evidence a similar problem might be being stored up again. Before the recession about one in five unemployed people had been out of work for a year. That proportion is now up to a third (during a period when the denominator in that equation has been rising rapidly).

And while there has rightly been a strong focus on youth unemployment, it is worth noting that more than two-fifths (43 per cent) of the over-50s who are out of work have been unemployed for more than a year.

The government’s response to this problem is its flagship Work Programme. It is too early to tell how effective this policy is being, though there is no obvious dent in the unemployment numbers despite provider contracts being up and running for many months now.

Concerns have already been raised about the likely effectiveness of the Work Programme and even under the best possible performance scenarios, less than half of people going through it will find sustained employment.

So what happens to those who don’t?

At the very least, the government should introduce a job guarantee for those reaching then end of their Work Programme placement without a job, who would at that point have spent three years out of work.

This should provide 25 hours of paid employment, combined with on-going support and job search, which individuals would have to take up or face losing their benefits. It would effectively create a time-limit on JSA.

As Graeme concluded, action must be taken:

As we learn more about how well providers are getting on, the debate about the best way to prevent the human and economic tragedy of long term unemployment will sharpen; IPPR believes that while the state, private and charitable sectors all have a vital role in supporting people into work, society should place a firm limit on the amount of time we are prepared to tolerate anyone being unemployed.

Also on Left Foot Forward this week on the economy, read our latest monthly economic update, looking at how the coalition’s failures have put Britain in the global growth slow lane.

• In less than two weeks’ time, voters in the capital go to the polls to elect the Mayor of London.

As polling day approaches, the campaign has become ever more negative. For just one example, take a look at the spin from the Boris Johnson campaign following Thursday’s Sky News Mayoral debate.

The Tories issued a document titled “the lies of Ken Livingstone”, which, unfortunately for them, was full of, erm, what’s that word again? Read the rebuttal here.

Boris doing what he does best then, throw around some accusations, try to rattle the opposition, ruffle one’s hair, tell a few jolly gags, wave your arms about, basically do anything other than talk about your record, debate policies or outline your vision, which has been the template for his re-election campaign.

As Alistair Campbell blogged today:

There are two questions that matter: of the two men who have been London Mayor, who has done more for London? And who is best placed to be Mayor for the near future?

And as Lord Adonis wrote midweek:

London would not be hosting the Olympics in 100 days had we not invested in its transport system. With the mayoral campaign dominated by the row over whether we have to choose between investment or cutting fares, Londoners should recall who is really responsible for the current improvements: Ken Livingstone…

Over the years, Ken has called all the big transport issues right. He was right to invest in buses and the Tube, to introduce the congestion charge and Oyster card, and to launch Crossrail and London Overground. And he’s right this time about a fare cut and new investment in our transport network.

Quite; the questions that count, once all’s said and done, are about London, who’s most shaped its past, who’ll deliver for the present, and whose policies will best shape the city’s future – a Mayor for the rich or a Mayor for the many?

Progressive of the week:

Tony Blair, who this week made an impassioned case for philanthropy, as the government’s ‘charity tax’ plans came under renewed attack from all quarters.

Addressing the Global Philanthropy Forum Annual Conference in DC on Monday, he said:

“This is absolutely the right moment for government to do all it can to promote philanthropy; and certainly nothing to harm it.”

Adding:

“Change can happen through committed people in government and some change can only happen through government. When I think, in my own 10 years in office, of reforms in health, education, law and order; advances in civil rights; peace in Northern Ireland – these changes required the power of government.

“However, 10 years taught me something else; the limitations of government. This is where desire and strategy get blocked by the politics of vested interests; by bureaucracy; by the innate tendency to inertia of a system designed to manage the world not change it.

“Government in this guise, loves process. It rewards caution. It disdains risk and distrusts creativity. It thinks in a linear way and challenges that don’t fit neat government definitions or which stretch across boundaries, disappear into the machinery never to re-emerge and certainly not as solutions.

“When acute crisis threatens, government can act with speed. But otherwise it ponders endlessly and then proceeds at a glacial pace. It is into this space – not as a substitute but as a complement to conventional government and politics – that the philanthropic sector has marched.”

Blair also appeared on Newsnight to outline the adverse impacts of the coalition’s plans and the importance of philanthropy; as shadow Cabinet Office minister Gareth Thomas wrote on Left Foot Forward last week:

“David Cameron’s latest attack on philanthropists has put another nail in the coffin of the Big Society. Not content with undermining the voluntary sector, he has now taken to insulting people who give generous donations to charity. It shows staggering arrogance.”

Regressive of the week:

Right wing TV historian David Starkey, no stranger to controversy, who this week compared Scottish first minister Alex Salmond to Hitler.

At an event hosted by the Bow Group in Parliament on Wednesday he said:

“If you think about it, Alex Salmond is a democratic Caledonian Hitler, although some would say Hitler was more democratically elected.

“[For him] the English, like the Jews, are everywhere.”

As you can imagine, it provoked quite the backlash – Left Foot Forward’s Ed Jacobs has all the reaction to his remarks here.

Evidence of the week:

Gordon Brown’s “Education in South Sudan: investing in a better future” review (pdf), published this week as his office launched a campaign to get one million children into school in South Sudan.

Amongst the findings of the report are:

• Six years after the end of the Sudanese civil war, more than one million children remain out of school;

• Of the 134 countries for which secondary education enrollment data are available, South Sudan currently ranks last;

• Less than five percent of 13 year-old girls in South Sudan have completed primary school;

• In some parts of South Sudan, the ratio of students to trained teachers is more than 200 to one.

While its recommendations include an emergency ‘education catch-up’ plan for South Sudan, through classroom construction, teacher training and targeted incentives to encourage parents to send their children to school, particularly girls.

Gordon Brown’s plan would get another 1 million children into school by the end of 2015.

At the launch of the report, he said:

“Headline figures for the cost of the proposed programme have to be considered against the potential flow of benefits, as measured by the number of children in school, the expanded opportunities for learning, and the renewed hope that will come with progress in education.

“The US$400m a year for four years that is required may seem unaffordable. The question that has to be asked is whether the world is willing to stand-by while 2.5 million children lose their chance for an education that could lift them out of poverty, create jobs, build a more peaceful and resilient society, and support economic growth.

“Failure to expand opportunities for education will increase the risk of more conflict, which will in turn leave donors facing the prospect of increased humanitarian aid costs. Viewed against this alternative, the cost of implementing the actions proposed in this report – around US$5 per child – is a small price to pay for a very high return.”

Please sign the Avaaz petition to put pressure on the World Bank to adopt the plan.

This weekend on Left Foot Forward:

Saturday:

• Beatrix Campbell writes about the legacy of collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the security services in Northern Ireland.

• The Week Outside Westminster – sign up to receive it by email here.

Sunday:

• Craig Berry looks at the left and right of happiness.

• The World Outside Westminster – sign up to receive it by email here.

.

Look Left, our weekly round up of the week’s news, will be going out shortly.

This week we’ve got the latest on the ‘granny tax’, a look at the scourge of long term unemployment, the race for London Mayor entering the final fortnight and more, including our regular progressive, regressive and evidence of the week.

Sign up to receive it by email before it appears on the website.

.

Philip Gould’s “When I Die: Lessons from the Death Zone” was published yesterday. Lord Gould, the Labour peer and strategist, passed away last November, aged just 61.

To coincide with the launch, “When I Die”, a short film documenting Philip’s final days as he battled with oesophageal cancer, has also been released. Filmed during the last two weeks of his life, the eight-minute intimate portrait reveals his quest to find purpose and meaning in what he called “The Death Zone”.

Here it is:

And here are Philip’s heartbreaking, but also inspirational, words:

“In six weeks’ time I will be dead, I will be cremated, I will face huge fear but it is an extraordinary experience.”

“This is the most exciting, the most extraordinary journey of my life. My only regret is, it ends. I would like to be on this journey with you, alomst forever and a day.”

“It’s only when they say, you know, “Philip Gould, you’re going to die, get used to it, and this is going to happen in weeks, or months”, it’s only when that happens you’re aware of death. And only when that happens, also, that suddenly life screams at you in its intensity.”

“I saw my children born, I saw them born, and I saw the incredible, massive potential of that moment, and when my father died, the air left his body, it was as powerful as the air entering the body of my, my daughters.”

“And I knew that the purpose here now was to give as much love as I could to people who mattered to me, even though I was dying, and, my life became death, it gained a kind of quality and a power it had never had before, it entered a new zone, which was, the death zone.”

“Only when you accept death can you free yourself from it, can you deal with it, can you move forward from it, so acceptance is the absolute key, at that moment, you gain freedom, and you gain power, and you gain courage.”

“You sort of think, God, I’m a scared, I’m a coward, I thought I was a coward, I was the kind of guy who was too frightened to kind of go too fast, on a bike, in the evening time, you think “I can’t do this, I can’t do chemotherapy, it’s too painful, it’s too horrible”, but you do it, and they say, “by the way mate, you’re not gonna have a stomach, and you’ll never eat normally again, ever again”, and you kind of get used to it, and, then you sort of think, actually, every single thing they throw at you, is handleable, you can do it.”

“I had my wife and my children there for me, at this moment, because I am defining myself now, through death, I’m giving meaning to myself, through death, without that, I do not know what I would do, I rely upon them enormously, almost completely, I try and lead them, I try and inspire them, I try and show strength.”

“I had a couple of really tough nights, my breathing was bad, my coughing was bad, everything was bad, and Gail was in a bad state too, and then I just lay there and thought, OK, this is bad, but this is death, and as long as I look death in the eye, and as long as I accept that I can choose the death that I seek and the death that I choose, I have some freedom, I have some power, I have some possibilty to shape for myself my own death, and at that moment, I have a kind of freedom.”

“I feel very calm, I feel very at rest, I have found the experience of the last few weeks to be as good as it’s possible to have an experience to be, since I have entered this so-called death zone.”

“I have had more moments of happiness in the last five months than in perhaps the last few years, more moments of a kind of private ecstasy, than really for many years, when I just feel at one with the world.”

“The thing I’d like to say to my daughters is, I love them, and the thing I’d say to, I’d like to say to my wife is, “I’m sorry I let you down, but my God you’re fantastic, and I’m not letting you down now, and you will have the best life afterwards, I believe.” I love the them all, that’s what I wanna say to them.”

• Philip Gould: 1950–2011 7 Nov 2011

All proceeds from “When I Die: Lessons from the Death Zone” will go to the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Fund, and donations can be made at justgiving.com/nogcf. Donations to the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity can be made at royalmarsden.org/philipgould.

.

Liverpool MP Steve Rotheram expressed renewed anger today at Alan Davies’s semi-apology for his ill thought out remarks on Hillsborough, insisting the comic still “doesn’t comprehend the magnitude of Hillsborough and its aftermath”.

Last week, in a podcast, Davies had said:

“Liverpool and the 15th – that gets on my tits that shit. What are you talking about, ‘We won’t play on the day’. Why can’t they?… Do they play on the date of the Heysel Stadium disaster? How many dates do they not play on? Do Man United play on the date of Munich? Do Rangers play on the date when all their fans died in that disaster whatever year that was – 1971?”

Adding of Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish:

“Every interview he’s given this season he looks like he wants to head-butt the interviewer. This tight-mouthed, furious, frowning, leaning-forward, bitter Glaswegian ranting, ‘Liverpool FC do not play on April 15th’.”

Davies’s initial rant prompted Rotheram to write to him explaining how offensive his remarks were; he revealed today:

“In my original correspondence I included a copy of Hansard from the Parliamentary debate on October 17th 2011 and a video link to the debate.

“I had hoped that this would give him the opportunity to read (or watch) what had been said that evening in the House of Commons, so that he could fully understand the magnitude of the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath. I truly wonder whether he even took the time for a cursory glance at either.

“In my letter I tried to strike a balanced note, which I am not sure he fully appreciated. I was in no way aiming to be patronising to Mr Davies about his understanding of Hillsborough, but hoped that he might read up on it to ensure that he was availed of the full facts. I hoped my intervention might have acted as a would-be olive branch to help dampen heightened feelings on both sides.

“By his own admission Mr Davies’ podcast is not scripted, nor is it planned. Therefore, these comments are a genuine response to the subject being discussed – a comedic stream of consciousness.

“This must be how he genuinely feels about Hillsborough, Liverpool FC and the way in which the tragedy is commemorated. That is deeply disturbing.”

• Hillsborough ‘Thatcher briefings’ will bring truth a step closer 25 Aug 2011

Rotheram’s letter, and the general backlash against him, prompted Davies to write (£) yesterday:

“What a week that was: death threats, character assassination and turning off the entry phone because our two-year-old was becoming frustrated with our refusal to answer the front door. The week culminated with a letter from the House of Commons.

“Steve Rotheram, MP for Liverpool Walton, wrote that he had read my comments about Liverpool FC refusing to play on April 15, the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, with incredulity…

“Mr Rotheram wrote that I could only hold the view I do, that Liverpool could sometimes play on April 15, because I am ignorant of the events at Hillsborough. It is the belief of some in Liverpool that people outside that city are unaware of the circumstances of the disaster.”

Concluding:

“At no point did I “mock the dead”, as I am accused. What I have been subjected to is alarming. Vile and hateful messages by the hundred. Death threats to me, my wife and children.

“Menacing warnings and threats to maim. I am worse than a serial rapist, than a paedophile. And some people are rejoicing that my mother is dead. It’s difficult to contemplate anything I could say on any subject to generate a similar furore…

“There is a loss of perspective and a distortion of genuine emotion over Hillsborough. Those attacking me with such hatred don’t speak on behalf of the dead and should be ashamed to claim that they do.

“Perhaps Mr Rotheram could now write to those people, possibly his own constituents, who want me to contract cancer so my “children will never enjoy Christmas”, who want to urinate on my mother’s grave, who would take pleasure in seeing my wife sexually assaulted, and suggest that it is they who have truly caused offence.”

Rotheram today did just that, saying:

“Alan Davies and his family came in for some totally unjustifiable and disgraceful comments – and were even subjected to threats to their lives… I absolutely condemn any threats against Mr Davies and his family and as requested I will write to any constituents from Liverpool Walton if he provides details of who they are and what they said.”

The MP added, however, that “all of this is academic and really misses the point”, and “it is obvious that he is a very different animal to the persona portrayed on TV that we all recognise”:

“Alan Davies undoubtedly said something stupid and grossly offensive. Yet he doesn’t comprehend the magnitude of Hillsborough and its aftermath to this very day in the daily lives of those having to correct stupid, offensive, and often throw-away comments by people like him.”

.

Glasgow Labour Party this week launched its 100-point manifesto (pdf) amidst what will be the fiercest fight outside London on May 3rd.

Key pledges include:

• The provision of free public Wi-Fi internet access across the city;

• A London-style Oyster transport card;

• A “Glasgow guarantee” to provide everyone aged between 16 and 24 with support in the form of an apprenticeship, training or work;

• A promise every child will be able to access 15 hours of free childcare at the start of the term in which they turn three;

• Reinstating the scrapped Glasgow Airport railway plan;

• Continuing the Scottish government’s council tax freeze and the introduction of a “happy hour” at council-run five-a-side pitches, providing under-16s with free access.

In formally presenting the party’s manifesto, Labour’s leader of Glasgow City Council, Gordon Matheson declared:

“Labour has the record, the vision and the team to win the council election in Glasgow.

“I am going to spend every waking hour between now and then fighting for what I believe in: a city that fights poverty, creates jobs, that gives chances to the next generation, looks after the elderly, and has respect and decency for every single person who is blessed to live here.

“Ours is the only major city where unemployment fell last year. Youth unemployment is rising at a fraction of the Scottish and UK averages, and more school leavers are going to university than ever before.

“This didn’t happen by accident but because the people of Glasgow have made this city what it is today.”

Despite the rhetoric, however, Labour faces a tough challenge to retain Scotland’s largest local authority, one seen as a fortress for the party but which is now being considered by some as Ed Miliband’s next Bradford West.

• Mr Miliband goes to Scotland 30 Jan 2012

• Scottish Labour needs a full redesign 19 Dec 2011

• Iain Gray warns Scottish Labour successor of “poison” being levied at them 30 Oct 2011

• Douglas Alexander outlines harsh truths for Scottish Labour 13 Oct 2011

• Scottish Labour needs a new Donald Dewar 26 Sep 2011

The question marks over Labour’s ability to regain control of the council come after a spate of internal spats which has seen it divided and ultimately lose its majority.

In February, the party secured its budget by just 2 votes, reducing Labour’s notional 47 seats to 40 as a number of the its councillors decided to jump ship altogether and vote against the proposals in protest over decisions made to de-select them.

In a sign of the bitterness and rancour felt within the council group, Govanhill councillor Anne Marie Millar, one of those who resigned from the party, explained before the budget vote in February in an interview with STV:

“A letter has been sent to the Labour Party this morning. It has been prompted by the actions of the central Labour Party in stopping the Govan Labour Party from exercising its right in choosing its own candidates for the local election in 2012.

“I believe the decision was made under the dual influence of party officials from London and cliques within the Labour Party in Glasgow who have set out to make space for followers of particular dynasties, but knew that leaving the choice to the local parties would not deliver the required result.”

Whilst a spokesperson for the Scottish Labour at the time argued the party’s case for Scotland would now be “put forward by a new generation of Labour candidates proud of and passionate about Glasgow”, by the middle of last month, the news of the suspension then resignation from the party of  Shaukat Butt saw Labour formally lose its majority followed just weeks later by the announcement a  ninth councillor, Ellen Hurcombe, would also be resigning, a year after being de-selected by her local party.

With the SNP having already declared the Labour Party in Glasgow to be in complete “meltdown”, the nationalists now have high hopes of what would be a remarkable victory by taking full control of the authority.

Speaking to the SNP conference in the city last month, the party’s deputy leader and MSP for Glasgow Southside, Nicola Sturgeon, declared:

“We are not like Labour, we take nothing for granted, we will work hard for every vote.

“The people who will decide the election here in Glasgow and in every part of Scotland are the voters. But we face here a Labour Party that is crumbling before our eyes, a Labour Party that is discredited, that is losing councillors hand over fist.

“We are working hard in Glasgow and we are working hard right across our country. We are fighting hard to win the local elections in every single part of Scotland.”

The party further argues victory in Glasgow would represent a significant stepping stone towards a successful “yes” vote in a referendum on Scottish independence.

Losing control of Glasgow, a council they’ve had an iron grip on for more than 40 years, would be an embarrassment for Labour to say the very least, particularly given the party’s leader in Scotland, Johann Lamont, is herself MSP for the Glasgow Pollock seat whilst shadow Scottish secretary, Margaret Curran, shadow Scotland Office minister, William Bain, and Scottish Labour’s deputy leader, Anas Sarwar, all represent Glasgow seats in the House of Commons.

But don’t just take our word for it; as the fiercely Labour supporting Daily Record has declared of the party:

“If they can’t win outright in Glasgow, then it not only raises a question over whether they can defeat the independence campaign, but also over whether Ed Miliband is the leader who can win the United Kingdom for Labour.”

Expect Labour to throw everything into Glasgow as it seeks to regain lost ground and momentum in the wake of the shock of Bradford West.

.

Homelessness in 2012 London, still here, still shocking; Tola A. Ositelu interviews Mike Nicholas, communications manager for homeless charity Thames Reach

Thames Reach runs a scheme called ‘London Street Rescue’ which operates across more than 20 London boroughs.

Each night, staff and volunteers work in shifts looking for rough sleepers. Rather than focus merely on the immediate needs of a bed for the night, London Street Rescue aims to get to the core of the person’s needs and get them off the streets for good.

The issue of homelessness is notoriously contentious, eliciting ample compassion in some and recrimination in others. Nicholas and the team understandably prefer to take a non-judgmental approach to their work.

He insists:

“I wouldn’t want to stigmatise the homeless.”

However, in his nearly ten years with the organisation, Nicholas has noticed certain recurring causes of privation. Mental health problems and substance abuse are two of the most prominent. The average death of intravenous drug users living on the streets is a depressingly young 31, according to one reputable GP.

Nicholas is especially concerned about the widespread availability of very strong and very cheap alcoholic drinks:

“Super strength lager and ciders are now responsible for killing more homeless people than crack cocaine and heroin.”

Various homelessness organisations are calling on the government to increase taxation on these products.

• MSPs back plans to tackle Scotland’s alcohol timebomb – but Labour abstain 15 Mar 2012

• Out in the cold on Christmas day: The growing homelessness crisis 22 Dec 2011

• Labour launches concerted effort to tackle Scotland’s alcohol “time bomb” 13 Sep 2010

• Is a minimum alcohol price now more likely? 18 Jan 2010

• Calling time on cheap booze 7 Dec 2009

Nicholas believes people’s drinking habits are often determined by price:

“We’re not anti-alcohol per se, but we don’t think cider and beer should be between seven and a half and nine per cent of strength and so cheap. I think [these drinks] are aimed at people with alcohol problems.

“A single can of Tennent’s Super or Carlsberg Super (non re-sealable can) exceeds the recommended daily intake of alcohol.”

It’s not all bad news, however.

Successive governments have taken some measures to address this issue through legislation. Towards the end of their last administration Labour were preparing to introduce a minimum price-per-unit on alcoholic drinks, while last month the coalition outlined plans for a minimum price for alcohol in England and Wales, following the Scottish Parliament’s vote in favour of minimum pricing.

Says Nicholas:

“The policy caught all drinkers; the pint in the pub. It caused an outcry and they [Labour] lost support for it. What they should have done is tackle the super strength white ciders specifically.”

In the recent budget, the government increased the price of super strength lagers by 25 pence, a good start, says Nicholas, but there’s still a long way to go:

“We’d call on the drinks industry itself to behave more responsibly too. We also have concerns that increasingly unregulated wholesale companies are flooding the market and promoting these drinks very aggressively to local corner shops.

“Who’s monitoring these wholesalers?”

Yet there are signs the tireless campaigning of Thames Reach and other homelessness charities is having an impact even on the drinks industry.

Nicholas gives an example of a recent small but significant victory:

“Following a visit to one of our homelessness hostels Heineken took their super strength ciders off the market. It was great to see. We wish other drinks manufacturers would follow suit.”

Another demographic often affected by rough sleeping are those of uncertain immigration status. Over the past decade the expansion of the European Union has seen an increase in rough sleepers originating from central and eastern Europe. Amongst the many success stories there are a minority who do not manage to find steady employment.

If they have not worked enough to make sufficient National Insurance contributions they have no recourse to funds. With few prospects for them in the UK but no means of returning home, some individuals fall through the cracks. Many of them, again, resort to using substances in order to cope.

Thames Reach’s ‘London Reconnection Project’ is geared towards assisting migrants stuck in limbo – Nicholas estimates it has so far helped 1500 such cases return to their country of origin:

“They can go back to their homeland with dignity, hope and the chance to turn their lives around, to their families and loved ones or to the services which could provide them with support.”

Are they ever reluctant to go back?

Nicholas is pragmatic:

“If you can’t get benefits or shelter options are limited.”

It is evident when speaking to Nicholas that he is keen to dispel a few media-fuelled misconceptions while he is at it:

“A lot of commentators have tried to link the spending cuts in with rough sleepers’ numbers but what we see on the ground doesn’t correspond with that.”

Mike doesn’t rule out the possibility of a connection, but feels it is too soon to say.

The number of those sleeping rough in the capital rose 8% from 2009/10 to 2010/11.

Looking ahead, though, the London Delivery Board (LDB) – set up under the aegis of Mayor Boris Johnson in 2009, the result of several different agencies, including various homelessness charities and the police, joining forces to alleviate homelessness in London – looks to have begun to bear fruit.

Nicholas explains the outcome thus far has been impressive:

“Since April 1st 2011, 70 per cent of all rough sleepers have not spent a second night out. In London there have been extra resources made available by the LDB to tackle the issue. How long people have been on the street is what matters.

“There’s a different type of support for long term rough sleepers than those who have just arrived.”

Nicholas also describes as an ‘urban myth’ the perpetuated image of some of the unemployed middle class suddenly finding themselves turfed out onto the streets.

He finds this narrative particularly misguided:

“I think editors will drive stories which would tie in with their readers’ fears. We’ll hear about middle class homelessness but it’s not what we’re seeing on the ground.

“When we talk to our outreach workers it’s usually people from the same troubled backgrounds. The idea that you are one pay cheque away from homelessness is not very accurate or helpful. Those we’re seeing wouldn’t have had a mortgage.

“If people distort who is really vulnerable to rough sleeping then the funding goes to the wrong place.”

He continues:

“People want to talk about youth homelessness as a big issue too but previous governments have tackled that with legislation. In the last year only five under 18s were found to have been sleeping rough.”

The work of Thames Reach has thus far soldiered on relatively untroubled by the recession thanks in no small part to an increase of funding from the GLA, though Nicholas does admit that these austere times affect the charity sector in other ways:

“It’s more competitive and challenging in terms of hanging onto funding as there are lots of organisations bidding for it. I don’t want to say there’s been no impact at all.”

Nonetheless Nicholas prefers to concentrate on the silver-lining:

“More than a quarter of [Thames Reach] staff has experienced homelessness… People can escape it. It should only be a temporary blip in their lives.”