Health is going to dominate today. Nurses at the RCN conference in Liverpool are due to hold a vote of no confidence in Andrew Lansley this morning. Ed Miliband is holding a press conference on health this morning, David Cameron and Lansley are holding a round-table discussion on the health reforms themselves this morning and this afternoon Lansley is going to Liverpool to hold a Q&A with nurses (but not to address the main conference). William Hague is co-chairing a meeting of the Libya Contact Group in Doha. On the Today programme earlier, he was more explicit than he has been before about the removal of Colonel Gaddafi now being the aim of the war. I'll post a proper summary soon.

First, though, here's a full list of what's coming up.

9am: Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, launches a new national arts campaign headed by the Art Fund.

9.15am: No to AV launches a new advertising campaign.

9.30am: Yes to Fairer Votes launches its own new advertising campaign.

9.30am: Unemployment figures are released.

10am: Ed Miliband holds a press conference about the health bill.

10am: Ed Davey, the business minister, launches a consumer empowerment strategy.

12pm: David Willetts, the universities minister, holds a briefing on student support arrangements for 2012-13.

At some point we're also due to get a statement from Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, about travellers occupying unauthorised sites and an announcement from Norman Baker, the transport minister, about street permits for roadworks.

As usual, I'll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and an afternoon one at about 4pm.

William Hague started his interview on the Today programme with a sly swipe at the BBC. John Humphrys spoke to Jeremy Bowen, the BBC's Middle East editor, just before the Hague interview started and Bowen suggested that there was no sign of the Gaddafi regime crumbling. Hague then said that Bowen was giving "the view from the regime". Humphrys did not pick him up on it, but he seemed to be coming close to suggesting that Bowen was a stooge.

As for the rest of the interview, here are the main points. I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

• Hague suggested that getting rid of Colonel Gaddafi was now the aim of the war. Ministers have always said that regime change is not the official goal of the operation, although they have always made it clear that this was an unofficial war aim because they have said that they cannot imagine Libya having a stable future with Gaddafi still in charge. Today Hague was even more explicit. Asked how the war would end, he replied: "It's more difficult to say when it will end. It will end at some stage with the departure of Colonel Gaddafi, with a political process in Libya that is a more inclusive proves."

• Hague refused to say how long the war would continue. At one point, when asked to say how sanctions could bring down a regime, he said that this had happened with South Africa.

• He defended the decision to allow Moussa Koussa to leave the UK. Koussa had not been arrested, Hague said. Whether he was arrested was a matter for the prosecuting authorities. Hague went on: "What we've said to Moussa Koussa. 'You've got no immunity at all. You've come to the United Kingdom…you are at risk of the legal processes. You are not actually under arrest, you are free to move around.'"

• Hague suggested he would like other members of the coalition to do more to support Britain, France and America in enforcing UN security council resolution 1973. "There is scope for some of [the other countries] to move some of their air defences into ground strike capability. That would increase our ability to intercept those forces – regime forces – that are killing the civilian population in Libya," he said.

Here are the key points from the unemployment figures.

• Unemployment fell by 17,000 in the three months to February to 2.48m.

• The number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance increased last month by 700 to 1.45m.



• Average earnings increased by 2.0% in the year to February, 0.3% down on the previous month.

Here is the Office for National Statistics summary of the figures. And here is its bulletin with the full details (pdf).

I'm just heading off to Ed Miliband's press conference now. He set out his thoughts on the health bill in a speech two weeks ago. You can read it here, and a summary of it on my blog at 12.12pm here.

Today, I expect, he will be trying to find some way of increasing the pressure on the government over this. We'll find out soon.

It's the old dossier trick. Labour are releasing a 16-page dossier setting out "the hidden reality of David Cameron's health reforms".

It identifies five main flaws in the bill. This is what they are, according to Labour.

1. There would be nothing to stop NHS hospitals going bust.

2. Hospitals would be subject to EU competition law, which means they could be fined up to 10% of turnover by the regulator.

3. There would be less accountability in relation to NHS services, which means NHS units could be closed without any consultation.

4. Hospitals would be allowed to give priority to private patients.

5. GPs would have the right to charge for services.

Some of these claims are strongly contested. For example, Andrew Lansley has said the health bill does not extend the scope of EU competition law. But he's going to have to provide a full rebuttal.

The press conference should be starting soon.

Here's the key quote from Ed Miliband.

If the prime minister wants to listen, he should listen not to his deputy, but to the nurses, patients and others. He appears to believe that people don't like his bill because his government hasn't explained it properly. But the opposite is true. The more people understand and hear about these proposals, the less they like them. It's not a problem of public relations. It's a problem of principle.

Ed Miliband is here now. He says that he thinks David Cameron has not grasped the full scale of the challenge he faces.

People are opposed to the bill because it undermines the principles of the NHS.

He says the five points identified by Labour (see 10.03am) have been "largely hidden" from the public. They are all changes that would put the interests of patients last.

The Labour dossier should be on there website soon, but it's not their yet. Tory HQ have already sent me an email asking for a copy so that they can prepare a rebuttal.

Liz Kendall, a shadow health minister, is speaking now. She says that cancer test waiting times are already starting to rise and that cancer charities have said that services would suffer more under the plans in the bill.

John Healey, the shadow health secretary, is the third speaker. He says there is a "growing crisis of confidence" in relation to the bill. Labour has been expressing concerns about the bill for months, and now other groups are speaking out too.

David Cameron did not tell the public about his plans before the election, he says. That means the government has no mandate for its plans.

There are five clauses in the bill setting up GP commissioning, but 85 clauses setting up a free market in the NHS.

If Cameron wants a free market in the NHS, he should say so. If not, he should change the bill.

Healey sets out a series of demands, including dropping the section of the bill creating a free market, the return of mandatory waiting time targets and a ban on GPs paying themselves bonuses.

The NHS is starting to go backwards. Waiting times are rising.

The NHS is becoming Cameron's biggest broken promise, he says.

Miliband is taking questions now.

Q: Why are you accusing Cameron of being ideological?

Miliband says that the government wants to create the kind of market that applies to the privatised utilities within the NHS. But that is wrong. It makes sense to stop electricity companies collaborating against the consumer. But doctors need to cooperate with each other.

Under Labour, there would have been a tight financial settlement for the NHS. But what the government is doing is making it worse, he says.

Even if you thought the reforms were a good idea, a reorganisation now would make "no sense", Miliband says.

Q: What would Labour do?

Miliband says there have to be national standards in the NHS. Waiting times are slipping because those standards have gone.

He also criticises the competition provisions in the bill. They need to go, because the NHS relies upon an ethos of collaboration.

Q: Should Andrew Lansley resign?

Miliband says Lansley's position is "difficult". But it is David Cameron's bill. He commissioned these reforms. He cannot "do a Spelman" on Lansley (ie, abandon the plan and blame the minister).

Q: Wouldn't the cuts have gone ahead under Labour too?

Miliband says there would have been "difficult financial pressures" on the NHS under Labour. But the upheaval makes things worse. The estimated costs - £2bn to £3bn - are probably conservative, he says. The re-organisation could cost more, he suggests. But these figures do not measure the pressure imposed on people working within the NHS by the changes.

Q: Would there have been job cuts in the NHS under Labour?

Miliband says that "of course there would have been difficult decisions". But Labour would have been able to maintain patient care. This is not happening now.

In the past, the NHS has been able to make efficiency savings.

Healey says some of the cuts are taking place because managers are so uncertain about the future. They are cutting now, because they do not know what will happen next.



Q: Are you scaremongering on GP charges? Andrew Lansley has said repeatedly the NHS will remain free at the point of delivery.

Miliband says that he believes David Cameron when he says he wants to keep the NHS free at the point of use. But Cameron therefore has to explain why the bill gives GPs greater power to imose charges.

The more you look at the bill, the more "anxiety" it causes, he says.

Q: Didn't EU competition law apply under Labour too? And can you provide legal advice showing that it will be extended under the bill?



Liz Kendall says that when the bill was in committee, Simon Burns, the health minister, was quite explicit about the fact that EU competition law would apply increasingly under the provisions in the bill.

She says politicians won't have the final say. Lawyers will end up deciding.

John Healey quotes a government minister saying EU competition law will "increasingly become applicable" under the bill. At the moment health is a public service, which limits the extent to which competition law applies. That changes under the bill as more private firms get involved with the provision of services.

Ed Miliband says the bill explicity gives Monitor, the regulator, a role in maintaining competition.

Q: If you win the election, will you undo these reforms?

Miliband says he gets asked this question a lot. His view is that it is best to stop the changes before they happen.

This bill is in "intensive care". The idea that there is a "natural pause" in proceedings is "balooney". He says he wants to "kill it off".

In response to a question from Macer Hall from the Daily Express, Miliband says that, on this issue, Labour and the Express are at one in their opposition to EU competition law.

Q: Was David Miliband right last night on Newsnight to say he would never be prime minister?

Miliband says his brother is making an important speech about Afghanistan. His brother still has "a lot to contribute", Miliband says.

Q: Will you join forces with other parties in the Lords to oppose this?

Healey says Labour has already been briefing peers about the bill.

Mlliband says the SDP "gang of four" has re-united as a "gang of two" because David Owen and Shirley Williams are strongly opposed to the bill.

Actually, it's a "gang of three", says Healey. Norman Tebbit is strongly opposed too.

That's it. The press conference has finished.

More or less on cue, just as the Labour press conference ends, the Press Association reports that nurses attending the Royal College of Nursing conference in Liverpool have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion saying they have "no confidence" in Andrew Lansley's management of NHS reforms.

According to the BBC, only six nurses voted in favour of Lansley. Another 478 supported the no confidence motion, and 13 abstained.

According to the BBC, one nurse who spoke in the debate on Andrew Lansley this morning at Liverpool came to England from the US. She said that the health reforms would kill the NHS.

If this goes forward the NHS is dying. I come from a country with private health care. Don't go there.

I'll post more on the debate when I get it.

And I'll post more more the Labour claims when I've had time to look at them in detail. Sometimes politics is just about taking an almighty whack at the other side. We didn't really learn anything new about Labour health policy, but Miliband has come up with some big questions which need a considered response from Lansley. Some of his five "hidden flaws" (see 10.03am) have already been addressed in the public debate about the bill. Ministers claim that giving GPs control over commissioning will actually increase accountability, because they are not going to stop buying services from a local hospital if patients value it. There has also been some argument about the competition provisions in the bill. But several journalists at the news conference were surprised to learn that the bill would allow GPs to charge for services. The press attention is likely to focus on this.

Now I'm heading back to the office. I'll post again after 11.30am.

Andrew Lansley has defended the health bill. It's not entirely clear from the Press Association copy, but this seems to be a comment he gave before the no confidence vote came through. This is what he said:

This is a once in a generation opportunity to give patients greater control of the decisions being made about their care ... greater opportunities for those in the front line of the NHS not only to have resources get to the front line but responsibility and freedom to use those resources better to improve care for patients. That's why actually the professions supported it, it's why 90% of GPs' surgeries across the country have stepped forward and say we want to be pathfinders, showing how we can do this. It's not that the professions aren't keen to do it, what they're all keen to do I think is to make sure we get this legislation right and I think we share that. We've already amended the bill and we will amend the bill further in order to make absolutely certain that some of the myths that are being propagated are dealt with, some of the misconceptions are dealt with.



Lansley also said that the changes to the bill that would be made after the two-month pause would be substantive. "Of course they're substantive changes because otherwise it would be trivial," he said. This is interesting because on Monday, at the Number 10 lobby briefing, the prime minister's spokesman refused to say that the changes would be "substantive", even though this is a word that Nick Clegg has used.

Labour's 16-page dossier about the health bill is now on its website (pdf). The press notice is here.

At the Labour press conference one journalist tried to get Ed Miliband to demand Andrew Lansley's resignation. Miliband sidestepped the question, saying that David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the health bill. In a BBC interview afterwards he was more explicit about Lansley's future not being the issue. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he said:

I really don't think this is about Andrew Lansley, or the personality of Andrew Lansley. This is about a much deeper issue about the government getting it fundamentally wrong on the NHS, and they need to go back to the drawing board.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg attended a round-table event this morning with charities to discuss the health bill. At the event, which was attended by organisations like Asthma UK, WhizzKidz, Mencap and Marie Curie, Cameron said he would like charities to help the government to persuade people that the bill was not about privatisation.

I think there is a fear out there that any reform or change is somehow privatisation - it isn't. It's absolutely not what we're talking about, it's about making sure there's good provision giving people what they need. And I think your organisations, which are hugely trusted and understood by the public and by the users of your organisations, can help us to make the argument that change, that choice, that diversity, is not about privatisation, it's about actually improving healthcare.

And at the same event Nick Clegg said that his late grandfather Hugh Clegg, a GP who edited the British Medical Journal, would have approved of the NHS reforms.

I reckon that he would have recognised a lot of what we're talking about. The NHS was always supposed to be a service which is quite diverse, which involves communities, which involves people like you, which draws on the community and volunteering spirit. And in many ways I think we're almost trying to return some of what to do with the NHS to some of its original aspirations.

Andrew Lansley has accused Ed Miliband of "scaremongering" and of being "deliberately misleading" about the health bill. This is the statement he's just put out in response to the claims Miliband made at his press conference.

Ed Miliband is being deliberately misleading. It is wholly inappropriate for him to use the NHS as a political football like this. Labour have admitted there is widespread support for the principles of our plans. They recently said the plans were consistent, coherent and comprehensive. Now they are attempting to rewrite history for cheap political ends. Labour have no vision for our NHS except to cut the budget. Their constant scaremongering on the NHS has to stop.



In response to the RCN no confidence vote, Lansley has also said that he is "listening" to the concerns expressed about the bill.

Nurses want further nurse involvement in decisions. So do I. I understand their concerns. We are listening to nurses and will make improvements. But there isn't an option to do nothing if we want to sustain the NHS for future generations. Any government would be faced with the same challenges, only it would have been far worse under Labour because they wanted to cut the NHS budget, whereas we are investing an extra £11.5bn into the service.

The Tories have now sent out a news release claiming that all five points Labour made about the health bill (see 10.03am) are "entirely unfounded and deliberately misleading".

I'll post a proper summary of the claims and counterclaims soon.

With one side producing a dossier, and another sending out a rebuttal within hours, this feels a bit like an election. The 16-page Labour attack document, Underming the NHS (pdf), is unusually thorough, as these things go. It focuses on just five supposed flaws in the health bill (see 10.03am), but there are eight pages of footnotes backing up the claims. The Tories have sent out a shortish rebuttal note (which is not on their website yet), although they are promising to produce a more detailed version later.

Here's my analysis of the claims and the counterclaims.



1. There would be nothing to stop NHS hospitals going bust.

The bill would allow an NHS hospital to go bust. Labour (in note 3) quote an interview that Andrew Lansley gave to Eddie Mair on this. Asked if there was any mechanism in the bill to stop all NHS hospitals going bust, Lansley could not identify one, but he suggested it was an absurd proposition because the bill is designed to strengthen the NHS. Labour also quote from the explanatory notes to the bill which describe how the affairs of a failed hospital trust could be wound up "in the best interests of its creditors".

The Tories are not denying any of this. But they say Labour's foundation trust hospital legislation also allowed for the possibility of a hospital going bust, and that insolvency regime powers were introduced in the Health and Social Care Act of 2003.

Verdict: Introducing competition into the NHS inevitably creates the possibility of a hospital that people don't want to use going bust. But Tony Blair did not want this to happen when he set up foundation hospitals and Lansley, who is taking the principle much further, hopes it won't happen too.

2. Hospitals would be subject to EU competition law, which means they could be fined up to 10% of turnover by the regulator.

In note 9, Labour quote from clause 95 of the bill, which explicitly talks about Monitor, the new regulator, being given the power to impose fines worth 10% of turnover. The Tories are saying explicitly that the bill "does not extend the application of EU competition law at all, nor does it extend the application of domestic competition law."

But, as Labour point out in note 4, Simon Burns, the health minister, gave a more revealing answer in response to a written question about this last month. This is what Burns said.

The health and social care bill itself does not extend the applicability of current United Kingdom or European Union competition law to the health sector of England. However, as national health service providers develop and begin to compete actively with other NHS providers and private and voluntary providers, UK and EU competition laws will increasingly become applicable.

Verdict: It's hard to imagine Monitor wanting to fine a hospital 10% of turnover. But, as ministers have found in other cases, once lawyers or the European court of justice gets involved in a policy area, all sorts of unintended consequences can happen.

3. There would be less accountability in relation to NHS services, which means NHS units could be closed without any consultation.

Labour say that, under the bill, it would be easier for managers to close services because there would be fewer "designated" services with protected status. In note 13, they quote Simon Burns suggesting that some A&E services in London would not have to be "designated", because there are other A&E services in the capital, although in Cornwall A&E services would be designated.

The Tories say there would be more accountability under their plans. "The truth is there will actually be much more accountability under our plans," they say. "All providers - whether they are NHS, voluntary or private sector - will be exposed to scrutiny by local councils. Currently, local councils only have power of scrutiny over NHS providers."

Verdict: This is essentially a row about different types of accountability. The Tories want less top-down accountability, because they believe making the NHS more responsive to patient pressure will prove to be more effective. Labour aren't so sure, and place more faith in designation.



4. Hospitals would be allowed to give priority to private patients.

The bill will remove the limit on the amount foundation hospitals can raise from private patients. In note 15, Labour quote from the bill's impact assessment saying "there is a risk that private patients may be prioritised above NHS patients resulting in a growth in waiting lists and waiting times for NHS patients. This is the eventuality that the cap was originally introduced to prevent."

The Tories are not denying this. But they say the primary legal purpose of foundation hospitals will remain providing services to NHS hospitals.

Verdict: This is another area where there is a genuine philosophical difference between the parties. The Tories believe that if hospitals are allowed to raise more money privately, they will use that to benefit their NHS patients. Labour are sceptical.



5. GPs would have the right to charge for services.

Labour say that clause 7 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 gives the health secretary the power to decide what charges should be levied within the NHS and that clause 22 of the health bill gives this power to GP consortia.

But the Tories say that any charges to NHS services would have to be introduced by primary legislation under the original NHS Act of 1946.

Verdict: Ed Miliband himself said at his press conference this morning that he accepted that Cameron "has no intention of undermining the principle of providing healthcare free at the point of delivery". But there does seem to be a loophole in the bill.

(UPDATE AT 3.30PM: A Tory policy adviser has just been in touch to say that, as far as the government is concerned, there is no loophole. That's because the clauses cited by Labour cannot overrride section 1 of the NHS Act of 1946, which is now incorporated in section 1 of the NHS Act of 2006. This says that NHS services "must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed". This still takes priority, and it means parliament would have to approve any decision to introduce new charges, he says.)

Here, a little later than usual, is a lunchtime summary.

• The Royal College of Nursing has overwhelmingly backed a motion expressing no confidence in Andrew Lansley, the health secretary. This is one of the most serious blows Lansley has suffered since the revolt against his health bill erupted, although Labour, keen to focus attention on David Cameron, has not been demanding his resignation. Lansley will be meeting nurses at the confererence this afternoon, although not he will not be speaking in the conference hall. Responding to the RCN vote, Lansley said: "Nurses want further nurse involvement in decisions. So do I. I understand their concerns. We are listening to nurses and will make improvements."



• Ed Miliband has urged Cameron to "junk" the health bill. At a news conference, he published a dossier exposing the "hidden reality" in the bill, including clauses giving GPs the power to charge patients for services. "The more people look at the detail, the more profound and worrying the implications appear to be for the NHS." Lansley accused Miliband of being "deliberately misleading". (See 12.54pm.)



• There has been a modest drop in the headline unemployment total. Joblessness fell by 17,000 in the three months to the end of February, to 2.48 million, although there was a small rise in the claimant count in March. As Graeme Wearden reports, youth unemployment has remained at near record levels with more than one in five young people out of work.

• William Hague has been co-chairing a meeting of the Libya contact group in Doha to discuss the next step in the campaign against Colonel Gaddafi. As Ian Black reports, Arab and western leaders are discussing creating an international fund to help the Libyan opposition in the east of the country. Hague has also made it clearer than ever that getting rid of Gaddafi is now a goal of the coalition. (See 9.09am.)

• Downing Street has announced that Cameron is travelling to Paris for talks on Libya with President Nicolas Sarkozy this evening.

• Theresa May, the home secretary, has announced that every domestic murder in England and Wales will be automatically reviewed to ensure that the authorities have not made mistakes. "From now on where someone has been killed by their current or former partner, a review takes place so that lessons can be learned to prevent future tragedies," she said. "Domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse - with some victims suffering for years at the hands of an abusive partner - this is one of the many actions we are taking forwards to help end violence against women."

• The yes and no campaigns in the referendum on the alternative vote have both held campaign events. The yes camp have unveiled some new posters which are available here. The no team have named some sports stars backing their campaign.

• Ed Davey, the business minister, has announced a plan "to give more power to consumers in their relationships with business".

• Cameron has been strongly criticised by a senior Oxford figure for his comment this week about the university's record on admitting black students. "I deplore the ill-informed and damaging comments made by the prime minister about his own university, giving the impression that either it discriminates against black candidates or that it is not doing enough to attract them," said Lady Deech, a former principal of St Anne's College, Oxford, and independent adjudicator for higher education between 2004 and 2008 on a blog. "In no other country would a senior politician speak like this about a top national university."

• David Willetts, the universities minister, has announced that maintenance grants for students will be increased in 2012-13. That's the first increase for three years.

• Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has launched a review of Labour's anti-social behaviour policy.



• The Welsh Liberal Democrats have launched their manifesto for the Welsh elections. As the BBC reports, Kirsty Williams, the Lib Dem leader in Wales, said: "It's clear to me that the Welsh people wanted devolution to work, want more powers for the National Assembly, but they want it to work better."

A Tory policy adviser has just been in touch to say that, as far as the government is concerned, there is definitely no loophole in the health bill that would give GPs the power to charge for services. (See 12.54pm) That's because a section in the NHS Act of 1946, now incorporated in the NHS Act of 2006, explicitly says parliament would have to approve any decision to introduce new charges. This takes precedence over the clause identified by Labour in the current legislation that apparently would give GPs the right to levy new charges, he says.

Lord Prescott raised phone hacking at the Council of Europe earlier today. It came up a couple of hours ago when Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, was answering questions about his annual report.



Is he aware that in the UK the Murdoch press has committed thousands of breaches of human rights on many British citizens by commissioning criminal acts of mass-scale phone hacking? Will he now investigate that, and report back in his report on this breach of human rights and the British government's claim that it has nothing to do with media policy and criminal rights, and threatening to leave the Council of Europe if we don't agree?

Hammarberg said he was now giving more priority to human rights problems in relation to the media. He also wanted to look into the issue of media diversity, he said. A document would be published in October, he said.

I'm about to finish for the day. There's not a lot to add since the mammoth summary I posted at 1.57pm, but here's an afternoon summary anyway.



• Andrew Lansley has started his Q&A with nurses in Liverpool. My colleague Michael White is there and he is posting about it on Twitter. Five minutes ago he posted this:

Am watching Andrew Lansley chat with nurses. I believe in the NHS. We want the same thing. Sorry if I screwed up the message, he says. Sad

• Anne Milton, the health minister, has said she is "disappointed" by the RCN's decision to pass a vote of no confidence in Lansley. "I think I am a bit disappointed because this is the chance, where we have got a pause in the legislation, for people to tell us how they think that the changes in the NHS can be made better to work for both patients and staff," she told the World at One.

• Lord Prescott has urged the Council of Europe to investigate the "mass-scale phone hacking" by the Murdoch press. Commenting on the phone hacking affair on Radio 4, John Whittingdale, the Tory MP who chairs the Commons culture committee, said: "I am angry that it was going on. It is plainly unacceptable to have law-breaking on a major scale by the biggest selling newspaper in the country. I am pleased that they have now acknowledged that and are trying their best to pay compensation and make amends." (3.42pm.)

That's it for today. Thanks for the comments.