At least Lord Coe is up to speed | Victoria Coren

Sebastian Coe does not like the idea of gymnasts going to raves. He doesn't want them getting E'd off their faces in fields. He doesn't want synchronised swimmers slipping off their nose clips to wang a line of charlie. He doesn't want to see archers on speed.

With all this concern, it sounds like the London Olympics are going to be quite the party.

Michael Stow, head of science and medicine at UK Anti-Doping (the agency responsible for drug testing in British sport) has suggested relaxing the rules on recreational drugs in time for 2012. Good news for the nightclubs of Hackney, if not the street cleaners.

Athletes currently receive an automatic two-year ban if they are found using prohibited stimulants. Mr Stow thinks this penalty is a little draconian when the stimulants are not always intended for cheating.

"More often," he says, "it's a case of them being used in a social setting." That's a charming use of language. A "social setting"? One pictures an array of athletes taking tea on the lawns of a stately home, their muscles rippling under lace gowns and boaters.

"May I offer you a cucumber sandwich?"

"Very kind. Might I pass you the crack pipe?"

"Thank you, I won't. But I wouldn't say no to a spot of LSD and perhaps another slice of that wonderful Dundee cake."

Michael Stow argues that "social" drugs should not necessarily result in the same ban as the cheating type. Retired Olympian Steve Cram says he might be right.

Enter Lord Coe.

"There is no ambiguity," he roared. "You want to be part of this project then don't take drugs. Full stop. There is no place for drugs. You can't mix the message up. It is the morality of the knacker's yard."

Thrilling! I love his certainty, I love his rhetoric; I love his strong, clear, emphatic statement of principle. There is something incredibly seductive, in these nervous, non-committal and focus-groupy times, about a person who knows his own mind and is not afraid to say so.

Most of us feel confused, indecisive and slightly fraudulent as we scurry around pretending to be grown-ups. Lost, flawed and desperate for guidance (or is that just me?), we're suckers for someone who appears to know what's what.

We love the crisp, Tannoyed voice of an airline pilot, the busy sternness of a hospital doctor, the ethical clarity of a vicar or the technical know-how of a visiting builder – all of whom probably feel equally confused and fraudulent underneath, but God bless them for pretending otherwise. Someone in this mess has got to be mother. That's why, however strong the arguments for electoral reform, the British will never go for it because the one thing we don't want is an uncertain coalition. Lucky we haven't… oh.

Reading Michael Stow's arguments, I drifted in my usual fog of moral relativism (Sportsmen should be role models, shouldn't they? Or is that an unjust burden? Drugs ruin lives and bodies, don't they? Or is that hysterical? I'm allowed an opinion, aren't I? Or am I too drug-ignorant to be qualified? Should I wait until I stop waking up in the night in tears for everything I might be screwing up in my own life, holding on to heartfelt faith but doubting my own hopeful actions and inactions, staring my errors and fears and faults and massive life-gambles in the face, praying daily that this bumpy and winding path leads home, before I start judging other people?) until Seb Coe's fearless absolutism burned through like a shaft of sunlight.

For Lord Coe, it's simple. Bend the rules for Olympic athletes? That way, he knows, lies the coke-snorting, drunk-driving, tart-shagging, spit-roasting, injunction-shopping lifestyle of the footballer. No dice. That's one problem solved. Hurray!

Then I turned the page and read that activists are putting posters up all over east London which say "Shariah Controlled Zone: no alcohol, no gambling, no music or concerts, no form of prostitution, no drugs or smoking". I assume these are not intended solely for the incoming athletes.

And I thought: no drugs, I like that. No smoking: bit harsh, I wish they'd just kept it to restaurants. No alcohol: wouldn't be a big problem for me, might feel a bit sorry for those who love a pint, I'd be delighted to compromise on "No drunkenness". No prostitution: unrealistic, better to legalise and tax it for the workers' protection. No gambling: that would be bearable as long as people understood the moral and practical differences between poker, sports betting and casino gaming, which they don't. No music or concerts: don't be so bloody stupid.

And I realised: 1) politically, we all know exactly what we believe, even we limp-liberal relativists who like to see all sides; we cheer strong opining only when it's the expression of what we secretly or unconsciously think already, stated more bravely than we'd dare ourselves.

2) Governments operate exactly like we do, their certainties a boringly predictable product of their environment and experience. Being increasingly made up of career politicians straight out of university, they are rather particular: they do drink, they don't smoke, they fear drugs, they like music, they're deeply conflicted about prostitutes and they don't know the first thing about gambling.

So, I tell myself and anyone with a similar weakness: beware the yearning for clear leadership, for as long as Parliament is so stubbornly homogeneous. It's comforting at home. But until a wider range of social types is in that house, be grateful for every vagueness, every uncertainty and every law they don't make.

Having said that, Sebastian Coe is still right. Obviously the drug rules for athletes should not be softened up. I mean, like, duh.

www.victoriacoren.com

View the original article here

A letter to … Dad, who needs to start living again

I want to say sorry. Only in these last few awful months have we realised that Mum was ill and life should not have been this way. We were young when she started the indoctrination. My sister and I found it fun; a girly gossip about your family. We bonded through our dislike of your relatives; Mum always keen to tell us some new treat of information that would be layered on our already warped picture of our aunt, your only sibling, and her children.

We lived far away and had no real experience of them. Mum was keen to paint their lives: every detail and decision used by her to show us how wrong they were, that their values were not ours. We started seeing them as a group, never allowed to know them as individuals.

When we were growing up, it was easier for you not to see it. You went along with Mum's plans in exchange for a painless life, not noticing how little contact you had with your family. The times we did see our cousins, our minds were primed only to see the differences, my sister and I picking up each new morsel of shocking behaviour and bringing it back to her like a gift.

Mum wanted you to sever your family ties; not to see your own sister, your nephews. We closed ranks. If only you knew how much hate your wife had and how she was passing that hate on to us.

When your sister died too young, Mum got what she wanted. No more visits. Our cousins almost adults, no more strained family reunions. It was then that she started on you. It was the small things at first; a night out when you had a little too much to drink, an awayday where you bought the wrong tickets at the train station. All compiled in Mum's head, then passed on to my sister and me as clear evidence of your uselessness. She started not going out with you, blaming you for causing her to live like a hermit.

When you retired and started to do all the things you wanted to, she stepped up the campaign. Your cookery lessons were giggled over. Imagine a 65-year-old wanting to learn how to cook! You rekindled a passion for Spanish, but she would not let you carry on, convincing you that it was stupid and pointless. I saw you trying so hard to make her happy, only to be hurt and confused by her constant criticism and icy condemnation.

Mum's breakdown at Christmas caused us to start painfully talking to each other. You were unused to, and unsure of, opening up to your grown-up daughters, initially hesitant to lay blame, reticent about telling us of how sometimes you had feared getting up in the morning in case you did something wrong. A book placed on the wrong shelf, a pan left to bubble over for a second would spell the end of your day, cursed by Mum's disapproval.

And now we know that Mum's mind is ill, and her treatment has begun, we need also to reinstate your life. It took us all so long to see that she had an illness. Dad, I need to you find your love of life again, to play music and sing out loud, to discover new passions and enjoy long forgotten ones, or even just to let the pan boil over. Lots of love, Anna

View the original article here

Public sector workers need 'discipline and fear', says Oliver Letwin

Oliver Letwin says he is determined to 'instil' fear among public sector workers to push productivity. Photograph: David Levene

Oliver Letwin, the coalition's policy minister, has revealed the government's determination to instil "fear" among those working in the public sector, who he claimed had failed for the past 20 years to improve their productivity.

Letwin, architect of the coalition's plans to reform public services, told a meeting at the offices of a leading consultancy firm that the public sector had atrophied over the past two decades.

In controversial comments angering teachers, nurses and doctors, he warned that it was only through "some real discipline and some fear" of job losses that excellence would be achieved in the public sector.

Letwin added that some of those running schools and hospitals would not survive the process and that it was an "inevitable and intended" consequence of government policy.

"You can't have room for innovation and the pressure for excellence without having some real discipline and some fear on the part of the providers that things may go wrong if they don't live up to the aims that society as a whole is demanding of them," he said.

"If you have diversity of provision and personal choice and power, some providers will be better and some worse. Inevitably, some will not, whether it's because they can't attract the patient or the pupil, for example, or because they can't get results and hence can't get paid. Some will not survive. It is an inevitable and intended consequence of what we are talking about."

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCSU), reacted angrily to Letwin's comments, describing them as "nonsense".

He added: "Public sector workers are already working in fear – fear of cuts to their job, pension, living standards and of privatisation. Far from improving productivity, the cuts are creating chaos in vital public services."

Letwin was speaking at the launch of a liberal thinktank's report at the London headquarters of KPMG, one of the biggest recipients of government cash, which won the first contract for NHS commissioning following the decision to scrap primary care trusts and further open the health service to private companies.

Letwin's recent white paper on public sector reform had been dismissed as watered down earlier this month amid speculation that the Liberal Democrats had vetoed radical change. But Letwin said on Wednesday that he believed he was prosecuting "the most ambitious set of public service reforms that any government in modern Britain has undertaken", adding that productivity had improved across the economy except in the public sector in the past 20 years.

A spokesman for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said he did not know where Letwin had sourced his figures. However, an ONS analysis that works back to 1997, shows that productivity in public services fell on average by 0.3% a year between 1997 and 2008 because the level of inputs, such as staff and equipment, increased faster than the output, such as operations performed and numbers of pupils taught.

Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, said last night that she did not recognise Letwin's portrayal of the public sector. "Death rates in hospitals have been falling, satisfaction levels have been rising," she said. "What hasn't changed is the Tories' antipathy to public services. And the idea that the way to improve public services is to put fear into those who provide them is absolutely grotesque."

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "It is widely acknowledged that there is a problem with productivity in public services. The government's policy is to improve it and provide the best value for the taxpayer."

View the original article here

Knife crime on rise as youth services cut

Knife crime in London has increased by almost 10% in the past year as local authorities cut youth services. Photograph: Katie Collins/PA

UK cities should brace themselves for a summer of gang and knife violence as the impact of cuts to youth services takes hold, experts are warning.

Youth violence is already increasing in London. Figures given to the Guardian reveal that serious youth violence increased by 4% year on year across the capital, with a 9.6% hike in knife crime.

There are fears that deep reductions in youth service budgets, particularly to programmes that divert inner-city youths away from gangs and knife crime, could have a devastating impact on crime levels.

Professor John Pitts, who advises several London local authorities on gangs and violent crime, warned that inner cities were likely to experience increased crime as the holidays begin.

"If you cut summer activities for young people as night follows day you will see an increase in crime," he said. "My anxiety is that those gang members who were in school will now be on the streets. Coupled with cuts to the services they use and fewer youth workers who can mediate, those streets will be a lot more dangerous and I would expect the level of crime and violence to rise."

Gang violence, including peer violence against girls and young women, is increasing, he said. "It is getting worse, it is becoming more embedded and more serious – this is not the time to be pulling the plug."

Eight teenagers have died in London already this year, including Negus McLean, 15, who was chased by seven youths on bicycles before being stabbed. Earlier this month Yemurai Kanyangarara, 16, died after being stabbed in the neck – two 15-years-old youths and a 14-year-old boy have since been arrested.

According to Scotland Yard the number of recorded knife-crime injuries in London went up from 941 to 1,070 in the three months between February and April this year compared with the previous three months; victims in the 13-24 age group injured during knife crime increased by more than 30% between 2008-09 and 2010-11.

Youth services, particularly those that prevent gang violence, have been savaged by local authorities because of government-imposed cuts. More than ?100m was removed from local authority services for young people up to March this year, according to the Confederation of Heads of Young People's Services, which surveyed 41 of their members. Budget cuts imposed at the start of the financial year averaged 28%, but some local authorities were cutting 70%, 80% or even 100% of youth services, it said. Almost 3,000 full-time staff who work with youths have been lost.

Universal services such as youth clubs have been hit hardest: 96% of the 41 heads of youth services who responded said club activities would be either reduced or stopped altogether by April next year.

MPs on the education select committee warned parliament last month that "disproportionate budget reductions" could have "dramatic and long-lasting" consequences. Graham Stuart, the select committee's chairman, said the current situation was "damaging" and an increase in crime was "inevitable". He said: "Tim Loughton [the children's minister] has said that cuts to children's services are disproportionate and we agree."

Youth services have been cut in every area of the country. According to the union Unison, Norfolk, Suffolk, Buckinghamshire and Manchester part of a "growing number of local authorities planning to get rid of the youth service altogether". Birmingham is likely to reduce youth services by 50% over the next three years; Haringey and Hull local authorities have cut 75% of its their youth services; Warwickshire is facing an 80% cut; the prime minister's Witney constituency, in Oxfordshire, has closed 20 out of 27 youth centres – there is not a youth service in the country that remains untouched.

At the same time London Councils – a lobbying organisation that promotes the interests of the 32 London boroughs, the City of London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority – has warned about the consequences of slashing funding to youth-offending teams by as much as 30% in some boroughs.

And the Youth Justice Board is to be scrapped, leading MPs to warn that the move could prove costly if crime rates rise.

The government hopes the voluntary sector will play a bigger role in tackling the youth violence, announcing ?18m of funding earlier this year to help charities tackle knife, gun and gang crime after Brooke Kinsella, the actress turned knife crime campaigner whose brother Ben was killed in 2008, released a report.

Some charities argue this is not new money, and with 70% of voluntary organisation funding coming from already squeezed local authorities, according to the union Unison, some in the sector fear charities will be unable to provide a comprehensive system.

Smaller charities, while doing positive work, can be unco-ordinated and much effective inter-agency work will be lost, warned Mick Hurley, an adviser to Greater Manchester police on serious youth violence, who was awarded an OBE last year for services to young people.

View the original article here

Problem solved

My seven-year-old daughter weighs 32kg (five stone). She is not fat, but is tubby and can be greedy. She is my build – overweight, but not grossly so. I don't want to give her a phobia about being overweight but, on the other hand, I don't want her to eat herself into a miserable, fat adulthood with all the related illness that obesity brings. I tell her she needs to eat healthily and should not overeat. I do not ban sweets and crisps, but I do monitor them. Friends say I am far too worried about it and will give her a complex if I tell her not to eat too much. She exercises – dancing three times a week and walks and swims.

What am I to do? If I let her eat what she likes, she will be fat; if I tell her not to eat too much, I will give her a complex.

F, via email

If you go to http://tinyurl.com/3kt8af4 you can input your daughter's age, height and weight to find out her BMI, which will tell you if she is overweight. You will then have a much better idea of whether you have cause to worry.

Then, you can act on this by yourself, or ask your GP for a referral to a nutritionist. I think it is great that you want to your child to be healthy, not overweight, while remaining mindful of not giving her a complex. It is a difficult line to tread but try to make talking about food factual, not emotive.

I spoke to three specialists about your letter. Carlos Gonzalez, a paediatrician, Helen Crawley, reader in nutrition policy at City University, London, and Toni Steer, a public health dietician who works for the Medical Research Council.

All agreed that it is important not to have unhealthy snacks in the house, so the temptation to eat them is not there. Gonzalez and Steer suggested keeping a food diary for a few days, to see what your daughter is eating and when. Steer recommended you note any difficult times of day and plan strategies accordingly. So if your daughter comes in feeling really hungry after school, have some healthy snacks ready. Steer also recommended not being too strict or too permissive, but "authoritative": give your daughter a controlled choice. So, for example: would she like an apple or a banana?

You may also need to look at what, and how, you eat. There is no point telling your daughter to eat healthily if you don't. Do you all sit down to eat together? Do you buy lots of prepared foods (which can contain hidden sugar and fat); do you eat watching TV so that you're not mindful of what you are eating? What size are your portions?

I think it is unrealistic to cut out all sweets and crisps, but try to make healthier choices (high-cocoa rather than milk chocolate, for example). Or go for smaller portions – buy one small bag of crisps not a big family bag.

It is also a good idea to get your daughter involved in all aspects of food: learn about good nutrition together so it is not about "good" or "bad" food; let her choose new fruits and vegetables while shopping, or grow some together. She is also at an age where she can help with cooking. Don't make mealtimes stressful – enjoy the experience. Once your kitchen is full of healthier food, I hope you'll be more relaxed. Make sure she isn't taking in excess calories from fruit juices (fine in moderation) or soft drinks that have little nutritional value.

I note that she is exercising, but don't forget about everyday activities, too: use stairs instead of lifts, walk or cycle to school if possible.

Other than in extreme circumstances, it is never a good idea for a child to lose weight. You simply want them to catch up with their weight so their BMI is in a healthier range. Finally, remember to compliment your daughter, too. I appreciate that you are coming at this from a health point of view, but you don't want your child to think her worth is in her weight, or lack of it.

Two helpful websites are www.nhs.uk/change4life and cwt.org.uk.

Contact Annalisa Barbieri, The Guardian, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU or email annalisa.barbieri@mac.com. Annalisa regrets she cannot enter into personal correspondence

View the original article here

Cameron accused of breaking pledge on NHS

In their manifesto, the Tories promised to increase health spending every year. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty

David Cameron was accused of breaking his biggest pledge at the general election – a guarantee that health spending will increase every year in real terms – after Treasury figures showed a fall in spending in the coalition's first year in government.

Labour accused the government of burying figures in a Treasury document which show that spending on the NHS was cut in real terms to ?101.9bn in the coalition's first year in office from ?102.7bn in Labour's last year in government.

John Healey, the shadow health secretary, said: "David Cameron has broken his NHS pledge. He put up posters pledging to cut the deficit, not the NHS, but we see now that the Tory-led government has already cut spending on the NHS in its first year.

"On top of this cut, Cameron's reckless NHS reorganisation is set to cost ?2bn, money which could be better spent treating patients. And there are more cuts forecast in future years. This proves again what people have seen before: that you can't trust the Tories with the NHS."

Labour criticised the government after figures in the Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) for this month showed a cut in NHS spending in real terms from ?102.7bn in 2009-10 to ?101.9bn in 2010-11. The Tories opened their NHS section in their general election manifesto with the words: "We will back the NHS. We will increase health spending every year."

In a question and answer session on 14 June the prime minister said: "I want to make this clear, you know we are not cutting spending on the NHS, we are increasing spending on the NHS. This government took a very big decision, given that the NHS is one of the biggest budgets there is in the country, we took a decision to increase by more than inflation in each year NHS spending."

The Institute for Fiscal Studies gave a cautious endorsement of the Labour interpretation of the figures. It said that "NHS (Health)" spending had increased in cash terms but had fallen, or at the very least been frozen, in real terms.

Rowena Crawford, of the IFS, said: "In reality whether the NHS gets plus 0.0% or minus 0.0% growth in a year makes very little real difference. While one 'breaks the pledge' and the other doesn't, the NHS still essentially faces a real freeze in its budget which it will find very constraining given increases in demand for healthcare and the large real increases in spending it has enjoyed for the past decade or so."

George Osborne hit back last night. He said that the year identified by Healey as the coalition's first year in office – 2010-11 – was in fact the final year of Labour's 2007 spending review.

The chancellor said that he had decided to stick to the Labour plan because he came to office just over a month into the 2010-11 financial year. In his first spending review, outlined in November last year, Osborne said that health spending would increase every year from April 2011.

Osborne said: "This is a massive own goal from Labour – attacking their own NHS spending plans. Under Labour spending plans, NHS spending fell, under this government's spending plans it is projected to rise – people can draw their own conclusions about who they trust on the NHS."

Labour hopes that the apparent breach of the Tories' election pledge will put further pressure on the government, which was forced to pause its NHS changes in the spring. But the IFS said it was not surprised by the fall.

Crawford said: "That NHS spending may be lower than it was last year in real terms I'm not sure is particularly surprising. I think the Treasury have previously indicated that they were expecting an NHS underspend in 2010-11."

View the original article here

Public sector workers 'frogmarched' into strike action over pensions

Unions say public sector workers are being forced into further strike action after the details of pension contribution increases were announced. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP

Leaders of teachers, nurses, civil servants, firefighters and other public sector workers claimed they were being "frogmarched" into co-ordinated strike action after the Treasury took the surprise step of setting out in detail how much individuals will have to pay in contributions to their pension schemes from next April.

The overall cost of ?1.2bn is broadly as expected, but senior union sources said "we had no warning of this co-ordinated announcement for each scheme, or that it would be leaked to the Telegraph and the Sun laced with the usual rhetoric about 'gold-plated pensions'."

Union leaders said they were convinced some ministers, including Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude and health secretary Andrew Lansley, remain committed to a negotiated settlement before the new regime is introduced next April, but they questioned whether Treasury ministers were only interested in cash savings.

There was frustration at a recent Liberal Democrat away day for MPs that the party, including Treasury chief secretary Danny Alexander, had found themselves cast in the role of bearer of bad news to the public.

Brian Strutton, national secretary for public services at the GMB union, and one of the negotiators in recent talks, said Alexander had "spiked" the discussions for the second time in two months. "Is the government trying to negotiate or frogmarch us into a dispute?"

He added: "In the past, if somebody had asked me, it was 50/50 whether we solved this through negotiation or not. That balance has now significantly changed and it is 60/40 against us being able to reach a negotiated outcome, which makes the prospect of industrial action in the autumn much more likely."

Alexander said the proposals protected low-paid workers, and ensured a better balance between what taxpayers and workers contributed. Around 750,000 workers should pay nothing extra and another one million should pay no more than 1.5% extra. Talks on specific schemes, such as those in local government and the NHS, will lead to more proposals by the end of October on how further savings of ?2.3bn in 2013/14 and ?2.8bn in 2014/15 can be made.

Under the proposed changes to be introduced next year, nurses and classroom teachers earning ?25,700 will pay an extra ?10 a month for their pension, an NHS consultant on ?130,000 will pay an extra ?152 a month, while civil servants will see their contributions rise by between ?20 and ?140 a month.

Teachers in the most typical pay band – ?32,000 to ?39,999 a year – will see their contributions rise from 6.4% to 7.6%.

"It has nothing to do with the affordability or sustainability of teachers' pensions, it is a tax on teachers to pay for the mistakes of others," said Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers.

Higher up the income scale, teachers earning ?50,000 would be expected to pay an additional ?696 a year, civil servants ?684 and those working in the NHS would be set for a ?768 hike.

Highest earners would face increases of up to ?284 a month – ?3,400 a year more.

In the ?100,000 bracket, civil servants would pay an extra ?2,100 annually, doctors almost ?2,000 and teachers ?1,752.

In the main firefighter pension scheme members would face rises from 11% to 14%, and to 17% for fire officers. The pension age will also rise to 60. The Fire Brigades Union general secretary Matt Wrack said preliminary arrangements for a strike ballot were being prepared. He said: "This pensions robbery is a crude smash-and-grab raid on firefighter pension rights to help pay for the budget deficit. It is nothing to do with long-term sustainability or affordability."

The greatest savings for the taxpayer will come from the NHS scheme (?530m), followed by the teachers' scheme (?300m) and the civil service (?180m).

Unison leader Dave Prentis accused Alexander of "crude and naive tactics", urging ministers to "stop treating these talks like some kind of playground game".

Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said: "The unions have absolutely known that this process was going on. The idea that anyone is taken by surprise by this is nonsense."

He said strikes would be "very disappointing" because the government was committed to ensuring that public sector pensions were "among the very best available", adding: "There's still a lot to talk about for the future long-term design of the scheme but there will continue to be, unlike most pension schemes, defined benefit with a guaranteed pension level so no investment risk and they'll be good pensions."

View the original article here

Buying a sisal bag can make a real difference to Africa's starving millions | John Sentamu

A mother carries sisal on her head along with her baby. Growing a cash crop makes a real difference to communities in Africa. Photograph: Dan Chung for the Guardian

We have all seen reports of tens of thousands of Somalis in desperate search of food and water. Somalia's foreign minister, Mohamed Ibrahim, has warned that more than 3.5 million people may starve to death and the UN estimates that more than 1.5 million Somalis are internally displaced by hunger – most of them in Mogadishu, but also in neighbouring Kenya and Ethiopia.

Images of children starving, of militant regimes and of refugee camps seem an all too familiar and deeply frustrating reoccurrence. Yet again, dozens of experienced local aid organisations are forced to confront "compassion fatigue" as many ask whether Africa is just a bottomless pit into which endless aid is poured, with little to show for it in the end.I have long argued that we need not only to tackle global poverty through charity, but also through practical measures that enable people to help themselves. Is it actually possible to see real progress towards sustainability and a better life for the world's most vulnerable people?

The problems of east Africa are complex, and require a far greater degree of co-ordination than has so far been possible. The political will of national governments, the support of the international community, the engagement of non-governmental organisations, private sector investment and grassroots initiatives are all critical to the success of development.

All too often the international community, or more specifically, the former colonial powers, get blamed for interference, and for the destabilisation and disincentivisation of local initiative in these regions. And yet when children are dying, and food and water need to be provided fast, it is often the international community that is best equipped for a rapid response.

In Britain, we can be encouraged by the swift response from the Department for International Development, and it is my hope that governments of other nations respond as generously – especially countries of the African Union. They cannot vicariously leave it to Kenya and Ethiopia.

But this is not the only response, and not, ultimately, what is needed to secure a better future for the region. In eastern Kenya, the people in most desperate need are often those outside the refugee camps. They see the refugees inside benefiting from World Food Programme handouts, while they struggle to feed themselves and keep their goats and cattle alive. Despite the horrors of life in the camps, there is real security there – the promise of food, water and some medical care.We should not forget there is a real need to ensure that those living on the edge, who year after year must eke out an existence in those dry and barren landscapes, are not forgotten. It is also crucial that people get support locally so that they don't have to make such perilous journeys to find aid.

To those who want to give up on east Africa, I want to say that progress is indeed being made, and much more progress is within reach. It is amazing how much of a long-term difference a small amount of money makes to these local self-help groups. Small, relatively low-cost initiatives can radically alter the future for local communities. Advances depend largely upon local initiative, as churches, co-operatives, NGOs and other institutions equip local people to organise and address the intense challenges.

For example, the Anglican diocese of Mbeere is planning to install water run-off tanks on tin-roofed churches and schools throughout the diocese. Local farmers dig trenches and lay pipes to bring water to their communities. North of Mount Kenya, in the more arid areas, communities must be helped to construct dams and dykes where there are dry river beds, to catch and retain the flash floods when they come. In the very dry areas boreholes and wells provide water for the livestock of nomadic farmers, while churches foster more stable residential communities around their centres where the young and the very old find security and learn some basic horticulture. Along with this goes the challenge of changing the food habits of generations as pastoralists make the shift from cattle to goats, which are better able to withstand drought, and farmers exchange maize for millet or sorghum, more suited to semi-arid conditions.

And yet for the time being there is a continued need for food aid. Currently I hear schoolchildren in these semi-arid areas are faced with being sent home two weeks before the end of term as the schools have no more maize. Maize has more than trebled in price in recent months, and there is simply not enough to go around. Parents don't want their children out of school because they have no food at home either. As the price of maize rises, so the price of meat falls, as the condition of goats and cattle deteriorates with the extreme drought. It is no use trying to sell your goat to buy maize. The economics of survival are tough. We have a responsibility to help.

There are imaginative solutions coming from within Kenya, often piloted by women's co-operative groups. Recognising that more effort must go into ensuring that people in semi-arid areas can use their land for the best, these women's groups have planted sisal to make bags and other items. This is a cash crop which can help to raise their capacity to organise their own lives and plan for the education of their children.

If only we could ban all plastic bags and replace plastic with sisal in as many contexts as possible. Already many are trading their way out of poverty and hunger – there is scope for far more to do so. I would like to see UK supermarkets buying more sisal products from Africa. Sisal grows in very dry conditions and has great potential to raise local income. This would be better for the environment, and better for everyone. I challenge our designers and buyers – for the sake of the hungry, think sisal! Such a small change in behaviour could make a massive difference.

The one unspoken question is what happens if the rains do not fall this October, and if they fail next year too? Climate change is presenting the Horn of Africa with some stark choices. People are dying unnecessarily of hunger and preventable diseases – that is a scandal. But the fact that some choose to ignore the contributing underlying problems is an even greater scandal. It is amazing how much difference local people can make to sustainable development if trusted to put their ideas into practice. Let us be part of a global community in supporting the people of east Africa as they take a series of small steps to raise themselves out of poverty.

The archbishop of York visited Kenya in the post-election crisis in 2008, where hundreds of people were killed and 300,000 people forced from their homes to refugee camps. His chief of staff, the Rev Malcolm Macnaughton, has recently returned from visiting Kenya in July with the Peter Cowley Africa Trust and the Friends of the Diocese of Mbeere. Last Thursday, the archbishop of Canterbury launched an urgent appeal for donations to emergency relief activities in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia.

View the original article here

Bias against obesity 'cost me fight for gastric band'

Tom Condliff says the NHS stigmatises obese people more than smokers. Photograph: Dorling Kindersley/Getty

A 22-stone diabetic who could have just months to live after his health authority refused to pay for him to be fitted with a gastric band has attacked British society for stigmatising obese people more than smokers or heavy drinkers.

Tom Condliff, a 62-year-old former police officer who lives in Talke, Staffordshire, became the first man in Britain to take legal action against his primary care trust under the Human Rights Act.

Condliff argued that North Staffordshire PCT had an obligation to take into account article eight of the act – the right to a private and family life – when making decisions about whether to fund the ?5,500 operation, which has been shown to be more than 80% successful in treating diabetes. The government's Office of Health Economics says the operation pays for itself in a year.

However, three law lords sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice last week rejected the argument. The supreme court also declined to hear an appeal.

"I feel very disappointed by the verdict of both the PCT and the courts," Condliff said in his first interview with a newspaper since the judgment was handed down. "The operation represents very good value for money for the NHS and will save at least ?20,000 a year, given that there is a very good chance it would cure my diabetes."

Condliff became obese because of the drugs he has taken to treat his diabetes, rather than through overeating, according to his lawyers. "It makes me feel very angry," he said. "Until five years ago, I was a fit and healthy man. I have always been about 15 stones and I am 6ft 2in. It wasn't until I started suffering from diabetes that I put on all this weight. I don't overeat; I only have about 500 calories a day.

"In any event, it shouldn't matter. PCTs regularly treat people who have hurt themselves doing dangerous sports, falling over when drunk or after they have smoked all their life. It is ridiculous that obesity is stigmatised in a way that other illnesses aren't."

Condliff's case has shone a light on regional variations in the provision of NHS treatment. Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence stipulate that if a person has a body mass index of 40 or more and has sleep apnoea or type 2 diabetes, they should qualify for the operation on the NHS. Condliff's BMI is 43, but North Staffordshire PCT says it is too low to qualify under its own guidelines.

"It makes me feel very angry and upset," Condliff said. "I live less than a mile from Stoke-on-Trent PCT, which follows the Nice guidelines. If I lived there, I would have had this lifesaving operation years ago. I understand there is a postcode lottery, but I think all PCTs should follow the Nice guidelines. What is the point in having Nice if PCTs don't have to pay any attention to it?"

Medical experts who assessed Condliff in April said he had a year to live if he did not have the operation.

"His quality of life is going downhill rapidly," said Oliver Wright, his solicitor. "He's trapped inside his home and in a lot of pain. He can't sleep and can't take painkillers because his kidney function is so bad. A pain consultant said he should be on morphine."

"I have been holding out hope that somehow I would be able to have the operation that will save my life," Condliff said. "I have been battling with the PCT for years and all of the stress has had a big impact on my health and family life. I am very upset that the courts have rejected my case. I also feel very let down by the NHS. I have paid tax all my life, worked hard in service of my country, in the navy and the police, and now the NHS won't pay ?5,500 to save my life."

Condliff acknowledged that his case would have had important consequences for other people seeking treatment on the NHS if he had been successful. "This case was first and foremost a battle to save my life, but my wife and I were also hopeful that other people might benefit from social factors being taken into account when the NHS considers who to treat," he said.

Paying for private treatment is not possible because only an NHS teaching hospital has the skilled staff to carry out the operation, given his worsening condition. "I don't have the money and I cannot work because I am too ill," Condliff said. "I have tried to borrow the money, but it was simply impossible."

Wright held out the prospect of an appeal to the European court of human rights, but acknowledged that time was against them. "We are very disappointed. He's going to die unless he somehow gets the treatment," he said. "There is no longer uncertainty. The law is very clear. Social factors don't have to be taken into account."

View the original article here

Somali refugees brave fighting in Mogadishu in hope of UN food aid

Despite continued fighting in Mogadishu, thousands of refugees from Somali's drought-hit south are arriving in the capital. Above, refugees queue for food in a camp in the suburbs. Photograph: Mustafa Abdi/AFP/Getty Images

Hit by the worst drought in 60 years, tens of thousands of people are leaving the rural areas of central and southern Somalia for the war-ravaged capital, Mogadishu, where last week the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) started an airlift operation to deliver to 20 feeding centres.

Despite continuing fighting, with troops of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and African Union-led forces battling the Islamic militants of al-Shabaab, more and more people are coming into the city, hoping to find relief from a drought that is affecting 11 million in Somalia alone.

The WFP said it has been able to provide 85,000 meals a day in Mogadishu but with mortar shells frequently hitting civilian areas the TFG military offensive that started last week is likely to hamper the delivery of food.

The UN declared a famine in two southern regions of Somalia on 20 July, but Abdirahman Omar Osman, the Somali government's spokesman, said the emergency is even more serious. Every day about 3,000 people arrive in Ifo, Dagahaley and Hagadera, the three camps at Dadaab in Kenya, which now have more than 380,000 refugees, 100,000 of whom arrived this year.

Barack Obama has said the emergency in east Africa has not had the attention it deserved in the US. Speaking during a meeting with the presidents of Benin, Guinea, Ivory Coast and Niger on Friday, Obama asked Africa to play a bigger role in assisting the people affected by the drought.

The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has predicted that famine will spread to all of southern Somalia, parts of which are controlled by al-Shabaab, which banned foreign aid in 2009.

After talks with relief organisations, al-Shabaab has allowed some food to be delivered in the past weeks but so far no regular supplies have reached the areas controlled by the Islamist militants, who are linked to al-Qaida.

Djibouti, eastern Ethiopia and northern Kenya have been badly hit as well. The scale of the crisis has even prompted long-time refugees in Dadaab to join the relief efforts. Mosques and Islamic associations in the camps are collecting food and clothes to give to the newcomers.

"We have also asked the population to give priority to the new refugees at the water points," says Mahmoud Jama Guled, who chairs a section of Ifo camp. He said that in his area one water tank is now serving more than 6,500 families.

View the original article here

Glasgow's Big Issue sellers document their lives

Underneath a bridge over the River Clyde, Daniel, a vendor for the Big Issue, takes pictures of places he used to sleep. He is one of six vendors from the street paper who took part in a week-long photography workshop. Photograph: Matteo Cardin/Photographers for Hope

View the original article here

A chilling and cruel tale of two cities | Kevin McKenna

In Escape From New York, John Carpenter's malevolent and under-rated 1981 classic, Manhattan has become a walled penitentiary where America's most violent criminals are deposited and then forgotten. What social structure that exists is administered with extreme prejudice by the Duke, the meanest, baddest, smartest "mutha" in the joint. When the president's plane crashes inside the city limits, Kurt Russell, a Purple Heart hero gone bad, is given 24 hours to rescue his unappreciative leader.

Many who have been enthralled by Carpenter's dystopian vision of law and order in a dim future have observed all sorts of social and apocalyptic messages in the film. Sometimes, though, it's best simply to sit back and enjoy 99 minutes of stygian menace, grotesque humour and the coolest soundtrack in Hollywood history.

Then another set of statistics is released indicating that the north-east of Glasgow has been cast adrift from civilisation and I think of Carpenter's vision. Polite society seems carefully to be walking backwards away from this area of Glasgow in the manner of one who has just encountered an unleashed rottweiler. Last week, we learned that more than a third of people in this benighted area do not have a single school qualification between them – the lowest rating in the UK. Indeed, every one of Glasgow's constituencies was placed below the British average while every Edinburgh constituency appeared in the top third for academic attainment.

Part of the SNP's great four-year confidence trick on the Scottish public is the way it has perfected the art of the vapid and supercilious responses even in the face of a genuinely catastrophic social revelation such as this. "The Scottish government is committed to raising attainment and ambition across the board." Translated, this simply means: "Who cares?"

In each of those countries affected by the Arab Spring, we are told that the people are fed up with corruption, low wages, scarcity of goods and the violence of the security forces. Yet in Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Algeria, adults will live 10 years longer than in parts of Glasgow.

The SNP, though, is simply the latest Scottish and British administration which has disengaged from the problems of this neighbourhood. In the last 30 years, Glasgow's East End has reached a point where it now always records the worst score in every social indicator of poverty and deprivation. Worklessness, life expectancy, cancer, heart disease, knife crime, educational attainment, drug abuse, single-parent families, people claiming benefits – Glasgow's East End is dying a very slow and painful death.

Meanwhile in Edinburgh, there is an edifying vignette of stories that will help us all mind the poverty gap. A couple of publicly funded heritage groups are squabbling over a multimillion redevelopment of one patch: Charlotte Square. It seems that some mews cottages are in the line of fire and this has shaken the Barbouratti to the very depths of their foundation garments. Round the corner, an artist is putting the finishing touches to a 10-year project to depict biblical scenes out of matches and wastepaper. The council has contributed ?120k to this. And down the road (Edinburgh is a very small city), the royal family is preparing to annex the Canongate for a private wedding ceremony of someone who is about 10th in line to the throne. This is expected to cost us around ?500k.

The Edinburgh international festival will begin in earnest next week and will soak up another ?6m of public funds while generating incalculable economic benefits for one of the richest cities in Europe. Scotland's three national galleries, every one of them in Edinburgh, will attract the gaze of many of the festival tourists.

I stand in no one's shadow when it comes to my admiration and love for our capital city and, indeed, I am already organising a couple of wee peregrinations to the Shortbread City for the purposes of getting cultured during the festival. Rarely in the civilised world will you find a community epitomising blight, deprivation and death living so close to one that represents privilege, wealth and beauty. It must be a core responsibility of government to seek ways of bridging this chasm between Scotland's haves and have-nots.

Here, though, is what has been engaging the SNP government while this obscenity on its doorstep has gradually been revealed: a 40-point plan that will jail poor people for singing off-colour songs; fighting the Crown Estates for more revenue and expressing outrage that the Electoral Commission may be put in charge of the independence referendum.

In the weeks ahead, we will encounter more public sector strikes following the announcement of a plan to make workers pay more and work longer for their pensions. We will also be told how the economy of Scotland, and Glasgow in particular, has been gelded by the existence of such a large public sector and its "index-linked" pensions, as if no one is entitled to such a thing these days. We have such a large public sector because many people in Scotland, and especially in Glasgow, are in need of state intervention. They are poor, infirm and live in bad places. The circumstances of poverty and deprivation in many neighbourhoods going back 150 years are congenital. Most of those killed in our two world wars were poor and working class and Glasgow had more of these than most as they had flooded in to satisfy the demands of the ship, steel and coal industries. For decades, they had endured slave wages, crowded slums and no paid holidays.

Their privations funded the lifestyles of the merchant class and built the military hardware that defeated a kaiser and a fuhrer. Generations of poor people who live beyond Glasgow Cross have been viewed as expendable by our governments; it has been no great mischief when they have fallen. There were never any war reparations or rebuilding programmes to make amends for the years of sacrifice of these people and the generations of torture they endured at the hands of those whose fortunes they built.

We have been building a wall around the north-east of Glasgow and soon it will be so tall that we will be spared sight of their squalid little lives. If this government held a poverty summit and ceased its worthless sectarian posturing, and if the plight of our urban poor was made an urgent priority, then it will be entitled to have its independent Scotland.

View the original article here

Rogue landlords flourish as would-be buyers forced to rent

Slum landlords of the type that enjoyed a boom in the 1980s are again doing brisk business because of major changes sweeping the property market, say housing experts.

Millions of people are being priced out of buying a property as mortgage availability becomes scarce and they struggle to raise a deposit. Latest figures suggest mortgage lending is now a third of what it was at the height of the boom in 2007.

A dearth of social housing, which is under acute pressure as local authority budgets are cut, is also contributing to a lack of affordable accommodation. An increasing number of people have no option but to rent, creating intense competition in the private rental market.

There are now 3.4 million households living in the private rented sector in England, a 40% rise over the past five years and the biggest increase on record, according to new analysis by Shelter. The trend has alarmed the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) whose officers are charged with ensuring the nation's housing stock meets adequate standards.

"People who are in relatively secure jobs but can't afford to buy are moving into the rented sector," said Stephen Battersby, president of the CIEH. "People who have traditionally used the private sector will drop further down the ladder into the hands of the more exploitative, neglectful landlords, if not those who are downright criminal."

The government claims three quarters of private tenants report they are happy with their accommodation, but experts point out that this leaves some 800,000 who have concerns, many with the way they are treated by their landlords.

In the past year, Shelter says it has seen complaints about landlords increase by 23%. Almost nine out of 10 environmental health officers say they have encountered landlords harassing or illegally evicting tenants from their homes. And almost all environmental health officers say they have encountered landlords who persistently ignore their responsibilities, with half believing they do this to make as much money as possible

"A chronic shortage of social housing and more people priced out of the housing market means that renting is fast becoming the only option for thousands of people in this country," said Campbell Robb, the chief executive of Shelter. "Yet our figures show a worrying increase in the number of people seeking help regarding problems with their landlord. It would appear that rogue landlords could be cashing in on this growing market."

Housing charities warn there is very little policing of landlords and the condition of their properties. In 2009, the English Housing Survey identified 1.5m homes in the private rented sector as "non-decent". Of these, 970,000 failed the Decent Home Standard. This has led the CIEH to call for a national register of landlords. "It's a public health issue that affects us all," said Battersby. "The NHS is spending ?800m a year because of poor housing, factor in social costs and it's ?1.5bn."

Environmental health officers working for Local Housing Authorities (LHAs) are responsible for monitoring standards in private properties rented out to benefit claimants. But, according to new evidence obtained by the CIEH under the Freedom of Information Act, four fifths of LHAs have never carried out a prosecution of a landlord.

Cutbacks have prompted fears that this situation is unlikely to improve given the amount of time and manpower a prosecution involves. But experts fear the need to tackle the issue of rogue landlords in the private sector will become more urgent in the coming months. The localism bill currently before parliament allows local authorities to discharge their duties to homeless people by using private rented accommodation, rather than social housing, without the applicant's agreement. Changes to the amount of housing benefit paid to claimants will also have an impact.

"With cuts to housing benefit and changes to the homelessness safety net, we are concerned there will be an influx of people pushed to the bottom end of the private rented sector which will lead to an imbalance between supply and demand for properties," Robb said. "This could see some rogue landlords exploiting the lack of accommodation, with the most vulnerable tenants left with little choice of who to rent from."

View the original article here

'Kidflation' leaves children counting the cost of rising prices

Sweets, chocolates and soft drinks prices have risen over the last three years, while some families have reduced pocket money. Photograph: Valentin Flauraud

Children have been among the biggest losers in the economic recession because of a huge rise in the cost of items they buy and a reduction in pocket money.

The rate of inflation on goods bought by children, "kidflation", has risen 68% more than retail price inflation over the past three years. While the retail prices index (RPI) has increased 8.5%, kidflation has gone up 14.3%, according to research by Santander and the educational charity Personal Finance Education Group (pfeg).

Children's typical purchases include sweets and chocolates, which have seen a 24% price hike, soft drinks up by 16.2% and the price of children's clothing has risen by 17.4%. Nearly half of children listed sweets, snacks and drinks as the most common things they bought, while one in three named going out with friends or family as a regular use of their money. One in four spent money regularly on games for games consoles such as PlayStations, Nintendo and Wii, which are up by 27%. Telephone costs, which include mobile phones and text messages, have increased by 10.4%.

Nici Audhlam-Gardner, director of banking at Santander, said: "Inflation is generally considered to be something that only affects adults, but it's evident from our research that children have been impacted too while inflation has been creeping up over the past few years.

"Children are seeing the costs of their everyday purchases rising at a very worrying rate, and parents are also being affected by the costs of children's items apparently increasing by more than the standard adult measure of inflation."

To make matters worse, almost half the parents questioned have either reduced or stopped the pocket money they give to their children, or have started making them earn it through work in their home. One in 10 have reduced their children's pocket money, and 2% have stopped it completely. A further 13% have reduced the pocket money they give and now make them work for it, while 21% are making their children earn the money but have not reduced it.

Out of the 500 children who were surveyed, the average amount of pocket money among 10- to 16-year-olds is ?5.50 a week, amounting to ?286 a year. Children aged 10 receive the least amount of pocket money at ?163 a year, while 15-year-olds receive nearly ?400 a year. In 2007, the average pocket money was ?8.01 per week.

Despite this, the research found that nearly 42% of 10-year-olds regularly put their money into a piggy bank or a savings account at a bank, building society or Post Office, but this figure halves to 23% by the time children reach the age of 16.

Gary Millner, director of operations at pfeg, said: "The report emphasises the extra inflationary burden faced by our children in managing their finances and whether we like it or not our children are exposed to more financial decision making now at an earlier age than their parents."

However, recent research by consumer organisation Which? Money has shown that children's attempts to save may be pointless, with many children earning tiny amounts of interest on their savings accounts. Half of banks paid 1% AER or less, with an average rate at 1.01%. The lowest interest was with First Trust Bank's Junior Saver account, which paid just 0.05%- 50p for every ?1,000 saved.

View the original article here