About a million people are expected to march through the capital this afternoon to promote equality and diversity and raise awareness of discrimination and the issues and difficulties affecting the lives of LGBT people around the world.

The march is the culmination of a two-week festival that has taken place across London.

Gordon Brown said:

“Pride London is one of the highlights of the London summer and I’m pleased our capital will host one million LGBT marchers from across the country and around the world.

“I’m very proud of all that this Government has achieved on LGBT rights these last 12 years - often in the face of fierce opposition. From equalising the age of consent, lifting the ban on military service, introducing gay adoption and creating civil partnerships to scrapping section 28, introducing the Gender Recognition Act and banning discrimination at work and in the provision of goods and services, we’ve taken massive strides towards equality.

“More recently, we have taken action to tackle homophobic bullying in schools, made incitement to homophobic hate a crime, secured unprecedented lesbian fertility rights and introduced the Equality Bill. These are great achievements that marchers will be celebrating today. With warm best wishes for a great Pride.”

Writing in a blog for the Huffington Post, the Prime Minister called for the country’s leaders to release political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi to mark Ban Ki Moon’s arrival.

Mr Brown and his wife Sarah have actively campaigned in recent weeks for Burma’s ruling military junta to release the pro-democracy campaigner, who is facing trial for allegedly breaching the terms of her house arrest.

He said:

“[Aung San Suu Kyi's] refusal to buckle in the face of tyranny is an inspiration. I call on the regime to mark Ban Ki Moon’s arrival by immediately halting her trial, which makes a mockery of justice, and ending her detention which undermines their credibility in the eyes of the world.

“But while hugely significant, this alone would not be the sole measure of progress. Only agreement to release all political prisoners, start a genuine dialogue with the opposition and ethnic groups will give any credibility to the elections in 2010. I hope that Ban Ki Moon can convince the Generals to take the first steps.”

Read the full blog post

Previous story: Sarah Brown calls for release of Aung San Suu Kyi

Previous story: 64 words for Aung San Suu Kyi

Read the blog post

When UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon meets the military dictatorship in Burma today he will have the whole world with him.

His mission, to persuade the junta to release all political prisoners and engage with democracy, is critical to the future of the Burmese people.

But it is also a crucial moment for the international community.

In recent weeks, we have seen an extraordinary consensus around the world in support of all those forced to suffer under the Burmese regime.

The UN, the EU, and ASEAN have all made clear the need for urgent change. More than 45 Heads of State have added their voices to the call.

How we respond to the injustices in Burma will send a message about our resolution to tackle similar abuses across the globe.

Political and humanitarian conditions in the country continue to deteriorate.

When over 140,000 were killed and millions made destitute by Cyclone Nargis last year the world’s efforts to help were resisted, a peaceful uprising by monks in 2007 was violently quashed, ethnic minorities are persecuted and under armed attack.

The media are muzzled, freedom of speech and assembly are non-existent and the number of political prisoners has doubled to more than 2000.

As Secretary-General Ban arrives, the most high profile of them - Aung San Suu Kyi - faces further persecution from the Generals as her sham trial resumes.

She has long been a symbol of hope and defiance during her 14 years as a prisoner of conscience.

She is a most courageous woman. In those long years, she has barely seen her two sons - yet is resolute in her faith in democracy and the Burmese people.

Her refusal to buckle in the face of tyranny is an inspiration.

I call on the regime to mark Ban Ki Moon’s arrival by immediately halting her trial, which makes a mockery of justice, and ending her detention which undermines their credibility in the eyes of the world.

But while hugely significant, this alone would not be the sole measure of progress.

Only agreement to release all political prisoners, start a genuine dialogue with the opposition and ethnic groups will give any credibility to the elections in 2010.

I hope that Ban Ki Moon can convince the Generals to take the first steps. A serious offer is on the table: the international community will work with Burma if the Generals are prepared to embark on a genuine transition to democracy.

But if the Burmese regime refuses to engage, the international community must be prepared to respond robustly.

We should not rest until Aung San Suu Kyi - and all those who share her commitment to a better and brighter future for Burma - are able to play their rightful role in it.

The Burmese people have been condemned to nearly half a century of conflict, poverty and isolation. It is time to give them the chance of a new beginning.

The regime can choose to ignore the clamour for change. Or it can choose the path of reform as the region, and the world, have urged.

Today can be the start.

Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, was killed with 18-year-old Trooper Joshua Hammond, of 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, in Helmand province on Wednesday.

The men were travelling in an armoured vehicle which was hit by an improvised explosive device.

Speaking during a visit to Manchester, Gordon Brown praised the bravery of both men and sent his condolences to their families.

He added:

“I think the whole country will be mourning today the deaths of Lt Col Rupert Thorneloe and Trooper Joshua Hammond. They were very professional soldiers, they were serving in Afghanistan in the most difficult terrain. Lt Col Thorneloe was someone I know, someone I worked with, someone I admired.”

Lt Col Thorneloe is the most senior British Army officer to be killed in action since the Falklands War.

Ms Suu Kyi is accused of violating the terms of her house arrest and could face a further five years in prison.

Sarah Brown has joined fifty First Ladies, Nobel Laureates and leaders from the world of politics, human rights and the arts to issue a 64 word message.

Read the message:

“Aung San Suu Kyi inspires us all. In recent weeks regional leaders have led demands for her freedom and for reform in Burma. Today we - women from all around the world - add our voices to that call. Until she, and the thousands of other political prisoners in Burma, are released we must keep the spotlight on their plight. The world must not stand by.”

Leave your own 64 word message

Previous story: Film screening marks eve of Aung San Suu Kyi’s birthday

Previous story: PM “deeply disturbed” by Aung San Suu Kyi charges

Royal Mail

Asked what the Prime Minister thought needed to be done about Royal Mail’s pension black hole, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) said that, as Lord Mandelson said yesterday, the pension remained a matter for the company and the pension trustees.  The Government had been clear about the basis on which we would be prepared to take on the pensions deficit and it was not our intention to cherry pick the implementation of the bill.

Asked what that meant in practical terms, the PMS said that it meant we were not going to cherry pick the bill and that we had to take into account the interests of taxpayers.  As Lord Mandelson had been saying, the Government could not be expected to take responsibility for the pension deficit if the other challenges that faced Royal Mail were not also addressed.  It was important to look at these problems as a whole, as Hooper recommended, which included issues such as investment, restructuring and modernisation.  It was the Government’s view that we needed to look at the Hooper package as a whole when market conditions improved, which would allow scope for finding private investment.

Put that the taxpayer was ultimately liable for the deficit, the PMS said that the pension remained a matter for the company and the pension trustees.  We had been clear about the basis on which we would be prepared to take on the pensions deficit.

Asked what the situation was concerning the bill, the PMS said that we were not intending to take forward legislation until we were in a position to implement that legislation and we would not be in a position to implement that legislation until market conditions improved. 

Put that the whole thing had been shelved, the PMS said that that was not a phrase we would use; it remained our intention to implement the Hooper recommendations and the legislation that we had taken through the Lords when we were able to implement it.

Asked what the difference was between market conditions now and when Lord Mandelson outlined his original plans in December 2008, the PMS said that we had seen a deterioration in the economic circumstances in the first half of this year, not only in this country but in the rest of Europe.

Put that when the original plans were outlined we had not expected the deterioration to be so sharp, the PMS said that we had been able to test the market since we introduced the legislation and it was clear that economic conditions had deteriorated in the last six months.

Put that Cabinet Ministers had been indicating that the economy would be getting better by the beginning of next year and asked if we could expect the bill to be back on track by then, the PMS said that people could expect it to be back on track when market conditions improved and we were in a position to be able to find a private investor.  We would not give a forecast on the market for private investment in postal services.

Asked if the decision to delay the bill had had anything to do with internal opposition from Labour MPs, the PMS said that Lord Mandelson had set out the basis for the Government’s decision in the House of Lords yesterday.

Put that people had been told that it was only the first quarter of this year that would be bad and that things would pick up in the second quarter, the PMS said that no one would argue that the sum total of what had happened over the first six months of this year represented a deterioration in economic conditions when compared to the end of last year.

Asked if there was a plan to do something similar with Royal Mail to what had been done with the banks this year, the PMS said that in terms of nationalised banks, as with the Post Office, we wanted to ensure that we got best value for money for the taxpayer.

Asked what the Prime Minister thought of the proposed strikes in London, the PMS said that the Prime Minister felt that the Royal Mail needed to change and modernise in order to turn itself around.  Therefore, in his view, he did not think that planned strike action was necessary and that the unions and companies should work together in order to change and modernise Royal Mail.

Put that the Royal Mail was part of the Government’s responsibility and Ministers could get involved in the sell-off if they wanted to, the PMS said that we had set out the conditions on which we would be prepared to take on the pension deficit but it was not a blank cheque.  Strike action and modernisation was the responsibility of the management of Royal Mail and we would hope and expect the unions to work with the management in order to help modernise Royal Mail and turn its fortunes around.

Asked if there were any alternatives to a part-sale, the PMS said that the Government’s view was that the best approach was as set out by Hooper and that was the approach we would continue to pursue.

Standards Legislation

Asked if the Prime Minister was still confident that the standards legislation could do the job it was intended to do, the PMS said yes; the issue on which the Government lost the vote yesterday was not central to the core of the bill, which was about allowances and expenses and the move from self to independent regulation.  The bill remained on course.

Put that the bill had been put through too quickly without enough thought for legal ramifications, the PMS said that the Prime Minister felt it was important that we moved from self-regulation to independent regulation and that, given the degree of public concern and the lack of confidence in the political system, it was important that we did this as quickly as possible.

Crossrail/Public Spending

Asked if the Guardian was right to say that there was a question mark over crossrail going ahead, the PMS said that the Government remained committed to crossrail and the position had not changed.

Asked if that meant that there was no basis to the story, the PMS said that we had not yet announced the transport budget beyond 2011 because we had not yet conducted the spending review for that period yet.

Put that Transport was one of the departments that would be giving money to the Department for Business, the PMS said that there was a transfer of money from Transport to Communities and Local Government for social housing, but that was for this spending review period (2009/10 and 2010/11).  The story in the Guardian was about what would happen beyond 2011.  In any case that particular transfer of money from Transport reflected underspends in the department, which was money that had been freed up because the PFI market was unfrozen and therefore the Government needed to set aside less money to support PFI projects.

Asked when crossrail would start, the PMS said that crossrail remained on course and our position had not changed; the previously announced timetable remained.

Put that projects like crossrail would get sidelined because money was being taken out of certain departments, the PMS said that we were also planning to engage on an ambitious programme of asset sales, which aimed to raise £16 billion that would be additional money available for gross public investment.

Asked if that would be enough money to make up the gap, the PMS said that we had not yet set the spending envelope for the next spending review period.

Put that capital expenditure was currently at 3% of GDP and would go down to 1.25% of GDP, the PMS said the Treasury had set assumptions for the period beyond 2011, which formed the basis for their projections for the period beyond 2011.  The Treasury had not yet set the spending envelope for capital expenditure for the period beyond 2011.

Asked how you could make 1.25% of GDP from 3% of GDP by selling £16 billion worth of assets, the PMS said it depended on the timescale over which we sold the assets.  We were not setting the spending envelope now.  The journalist was trying to present this as a fixed Government spending envelope beyond 2011, but what was clear in the Budget was that these were assumptions that underpinned projections. 

Put that other transport plans like electrification and high-speed rail were dead in the water, the PMS said that the remark was not justified because we had not yet set our spending plans beyond 2011.  When we did set our spending plans for beyond 2011 it would be on a fully costed basis.  You would be able to reach conclusions about which projects would be going ahead at that point.

Asked if there was going to be a cut in the Ministry of Defence’s budget, the PMS said that we set out our spending totals for the Ministry of Defence as we had done for all departments, up until 2011.  We had not yet set out the spending total for the period beyond 2011.

Asked how the £16 billion of asset sales would cover the gap in the Whitehall budget if local councils kept their money, the PMS said that we had not set spending totals for the period beyond 2011, but simply wished to point out that we had £16 billion of asset sales that was based on a thorough piece of analysis by independent reviewers on the run-up to the Budget.  The £16 billion was additional money that was available for public sector gross investment.  Local authorities invested capital resources, as did central government, so this potentially made more money available to local authorities and central government.  We were not making decisions now about the allocation of resources or the total of resources available beyond 2011.

Misc

Asked if the Prime Minister was embarrassed by the fact that two of the big decision that had been announced yesterday on Royal Mail and on nationalisation were made by unelected Cabinet Ministers who could only be scrutinised properly in the Lords, the PMS said that the Prime Minister was not embarrassed; there was a statement in the House of Commons by Transport Minister Sadiq Khan, who also attended Cabinet when transport was on the agenda, so there had been a chance for the House of Commons to scrutinise the National Express announcement.  We had a Government of all the talents, which enabled us to bring in people with expertise and experience into the Cabinet; that strengthened the Cabinet.

Asked if MPs would be given the chance to question a Business Minister in the House of Commons, the PMS said that there would be plenty of opportunities for MPs to cross-examine the Business Minister Pat McFadden, who also attended Cabinet.

Asked about the situation in Iran, the PMS said that the Foreign Office had put out a statement last night, which confirmed that of the four Embassy staff who had previously been in detention, two had been released over the last two days.  We were also seeking confirmation following Iranian reports that a further member of staff was released yesterday.  It remained our top priority to get all British Embassy staff released as soon as possible.

Put that the German Finance Minister had said that there was reluctance from Britain to regulate the banking industry, the PMS said that we were determined, as were all members of the G20 including Germany, to implement the G20 conclusions and that was what we were doing in relation to financial services.  We would be publishing our proposals to reform regulation of the financial services soon.  Germany had done this with its announcement of a third fiscal stimulus in recent days and we were sure that all other countries would also push ahead with implementation of the G20 conclusions. 

Asked if we were on the same page as Germany, the PMS said that there had been very constructive discussions at the European Council on these matters recently.

Plans to crack down on persistent rogue traders and to ban unsolicited credit card cheques were announced today as the Government published its Consumer White Paper.

Read more about the white paper

The Prime Minister met debt advisers and their clients in Yorkshire to discuss the white paper as he continues his journey around the country to explain more about the Government’s plan for Building Britain’s Future.

The document also proposes measures to give consumers better advice to stay out of debt and to help them if they get into financial difficulties.

The PM said:

“I think it is right that we act on behalf of all consumers to make sure that financial institutions cannot act irresponsibly against them and we root out sharp practices in the industry.”

Proposals include:

• A ban on unsolicited credit card cheques
• New powers for the courts to ban persistent rogue traders
• A consultation on significant reforms to the regulation of credit and store cards
• A review by the Office of Fair Trading of the market for high cost credit
• The appointment of a new Consumer Advocate responsible for coordinating work to educate consumers and to help them get their money back when things go wrong
• The creation of a national specialist team to tackle internet scams

He took part in a question and answer session with a local Citizens Advice Bureau and Credit Union about the proposals this afternoon.

Earlier today, Gordon Brown was joined by Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne and Regional Economic Development Minister Rosie Winterton in Leeds to meet business leaders.

Mr Brown said he appreciated the difficulties businesses are experiencing as a result of the economic downturn, and discussed some of the help for them in the Building Britain’s Future plan.

This includes measures to support low carbon industries and create a digital Britain, the establishment of a new £150 million Innovation Fund, and investment in the creation of more jobs and training for young people.

He also made a surprise visit to a family-run fishmongers in Leeds after one of the owners quizzed him on a radio phone in about the help available for small businesses.

The PM visited the Thomas Hayes and Sons stall, in Kirkgate market, to talk about what the Government is doing for businesses after owner Michelle Hayes spoke to him on BBC Radio Leeds this morning.

Visit the Building Britain’s Future website

Read more about the first leg of the PM’s journey

Public Spending

Asked if the Prime Minister had made a mistake at PMQs this morning when he said that there would be a 0% rise in public spending, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) said that the Prime Minister had meant to refer to a 0.7% rise in current spending, which was clear when you looked at his second answer.  The transcript showed clearly that the Prime Minister had meant to refer to a 0.7% rise in current spending, at which point he got interrupted and was unable to finish what he was saying.  The Prime Minister then replied to the second question from David Cameron by saying that current spending would rise.

Put that the Prime Minister misspoke, the PMS said that that was correct and that the Prime Minister did not have an opportunity to correct what he had said because it was noisy in the Chamber and he was interrupted.  However, when he replied to the second question he had an opportunity to clarify what he had said and made it clear that he had been referring current spending.

Asked to clarify the percentages that were talked about at PMQs, the PMS said that they were assumptions that changed and had changed in every Budget and Pre Budget Report (PBR).  The assumptions that the projection for spending for the period beyond 2011 were based on was an assumption that public sector current expenditure would grow at 0.7% on average in real terms from 2011/12 to 2013/14.

Put repeatedly that that didn’t explain why the Prime Minister had said 0% rather than 0.7%, the PMS said that the Prime Minister had been talking about a rise and the rise he referred to was the rise in current expenditure, which he made clear when he had an opportunity to reply to the second question when he said that he had told Mr Cameron previously that current spending would rise.

Put that the Prime Minister was not interrupted and that he misspoke, the PMS said that when the Prime Minister was talking about 0.7% he was referring to current spending.  The first opportunity he had to clarify that current spending was what he had been referring to was during his answer to the second question.  The interruption meant that he didn’t have a chance at that point to finish what he had been saying.

Asked if the figures that the percentages were based on were the same figures the Prime Minister gave at PMQs three weeks ago, the PMS said that they were all based on the assumptions that were set out in the Red Book.

Asked what the difference was between an assumption and a projection, the PMS said that we made projections on the basis of assumptions and we made assumptions about individual components.  The difference was that we had set an envelope for total spending for the period up to 2010/11 but we had not yet set an envelope for the period beyond 2010/11; we would do that at the time of the spending review when we were in a better position to be able to forecast debt interest and social security benefit for unemployment.

It was important to remember that projections could change, for example in the 2009 Budget the assumption for public sector current expenditure was a growth of 0.7% and in the 2008 PBR public sector current expenditure was projected to grow at 1.2%.  Assumptions moved around from PBR to Budget but they only got set when we did the spending review and set the total limits on public spending and the division between departmental spending and other spending.

Asked what an envelope was, the PMS said that an envelope was the total limit of expenditure, which we set at the time of spending reviews. 

Asked what the assumptions were based on, the PMS said that they were based on the forecasts that were set out at the time of the Budget, which were also assumptions that underpinned the public finance projections.  It was all interrelated as we based public finance projections on the basis of assumptions about growth, which changed as well.

Asked when the spending review would happen, the PMS said that it was a matter for the Chancellor.

Put that the Government’s assumptions assumed that total spending would in real terms be static, the PMS said that the figures were set out in the Red Book; these were assumptions that changed between Budgets and PBRs.

Put that the assumptions showed that there would be cuts, the PMS said that we had always made clear that we set our spending totals up to 2010/11.  The period beyond that was a matter for the Chancellor and the spending review.

Put that there were no spending figures to rely on after 2010/11, the PMS said that we hadn’t set the spending totals beyond 2010/11 and we had been clear that this would be the wrong time to have a spending review.

Put that there was no point saying the Government hadn’t set out spending for beyond 2011 because the Prime Minister read out figures in the House of Commons three weeks ago, the PMS said that the Prime Minister read out the projections that were in the Red Book.  We had not claimed that the figures the Prime Minister read out would determine what the spending review was going to be; we said at the time that we would not be setting the spending review.  If you look back at the practise of all the previous spending reviews there was always a clear moment when we set out the total spending envelope and that was normally done in a Budget or a PBR.

Put that the figures had not come out of the Red Book and it was the first time anyone had heard them, the PMS said that they could be derived from the Red Book.  We had not set the envelope for the total spending for the period beyond 2010/11.

Asked for some examples of the assumptions, the PMS referred journalists to the Budget, page 218, paragraph C4, Annex C, which set out the assumptions that underpinned the fiscal projections.

Post Office

Asked if it was possible to progress with the bill and then action it once market conditions were right, the PMS said that we wanted to legislate when we were in a position to implement.   Lord Mandelson had said that we would not cherry pick different parts of the legislation. 

Asked if that meant that the bill was being delayed until a sale was possible, the PMS said that Lord Mandelson had said that when market conditions changed we would return to the issue.

Put that the bill would not go through the House of Commons at all, the PMS said not to make that conclusion; when market conditions changed we would return to the issue.

Misc

Asked why the Prime Minister had not been involved if a request had been made by the Opposition to see information on public spending, the PMS said that we knew nothing about this subject; the first we knew about it in Downing Street was yesterday.  The Prime Minister had not been involved or consulted at all, nor had anybody else in Downing Street.

Put that there had been a breach of the guidance, the PMS said that the guidance was a matter for the Cabinet Secretary.