Vows by Labour and the Conservatives to protect the NHS from spending cuts will require tax hikes or cuts to other areas, a new report shows.

Promises to “ring-fence” health spending in the lead-up to the next election — to be held before June — might lead to cuts of about 8 percent in other departments over the next six years, say researchers at the King’s Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Alternatively, sizeable tax hikes could be in store as the next government tries to tackle the largest public deficit since the Second World War.

The deficit, forecast to rise to 175 billion pounds this year, has put public spending at the forefront of political debate.

In its equation, researchers posit that the government would have to raise the equivalent of 340 pounds for each family in the country if it were to restrict spending cuts to other departments to 2 percent, while freezing the NHS budget.

Despite being in the midst of a deep recession, the two main political parties have said they will “ring-fence” most spending.

Does this make sense in the current economic climate? From which departmental budget would you cut public spending?

The residents of Bundanoon in Australia, a picturesque tourist destination southwest of Sydney, have voted to rid their town of bottled water to reduce their carbon footprint. Tap’s good enough, they say.

Organizations like conservation group WWF have long campaigned against bottled water, saying resources are wasted in packaging and transporting a product which may be no safer or healthier than tap water while selling for up to a thousand times the price.

But the industry, not surprisingly, disagrees. A ban would reduce consumer choice and possibly tempt the thirsty masses to start drinking less healthy alternatives if all they could buy in the chilled cabinet of their local shop was sugary stuff like colas.   

“The environmental footprint of one bottle of locally produced water is much smaller than a tin of canned tomatoes imported from overseas, some imported cheese, or French champagne,” says a spokesman. “We need to keep it in perspective.”

Do you think a ban would work, or be desirable, in Britain?

London's transport bosses are telling travellers on the tube system to beat the heat by carrying a bottle of water with them when they venture underground.

But how many of us are refilling our bottles with tap water rather than pouring money down the tube -- not to mention the cost of recycling the plastic bottles -- by buying a new bottle of water each day?

Cue the National Hydration Council whose eye-catching advertising campaign to encourage people to buy more "naturally sourced bottled water" -- on health grounds -- featured prominently on the underground network earlier this year.

The worrying thing for the bottled water lobby is not that people are doing what would appear to be the most sensible thing and refilling their bottles from the tap, but that Britons are replacing bottled water with sugary drinks instead.

We're told that sales of bottled water fell by 7 percent last year, with 71 percent of that decline the result of people buying sweet drinks instead. Good news for the soft drinks industry perhaps, but a worry for health officials.

Meanwhile, beneath the streets of London, the hot and flustered faces of fellow tube passengers shows just how dire it is on board the capital's underground trains when the mercury rises.

With a decent air-conditioning system on most lines a distant prospect, Transport for London (TfL) could show it cares by offering each of its cash-strapped passengers a free TfL water bottle and the opportunity to refill them at its stations.

Chief Medical Officer Liam Donaldson has recommended that the government should sharply raise the price of alcohol  to try to combat Britain’s chronic drinking problem.

His annual report calls for a minimum price of 50 pence per unit of alcohol sold, which would nearly double the price of some discount beer and wine. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have also shown interest in minimum pricing.

But the government is under no obligation to accept any such recommendation and is aware of the unpopularity of raising alcohol prices in a recession and not so far away from a general election.

Gordon Brown rejected the proposal outright.

The Conservatives say it is important to deal with people’s attitudes to drinking, not just supply and price, while the Liberal Democrats support putting an end to “pocket-money priced” alcohol.

What do you think? Does price play much of a part in Britain’s binge-drinking culture?

Are more women choosing to have a Down’s Syndrome baby despite learning from a prenatal scan they are carrying a child with the condition?

The Down’s Syndrome Association charity believes this is the case. Its conclusion has been widely followed in press reports, including in the Daily Mail, Independent and the Times.

But research data published in response by the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR) in London suggests otherwise. It says that the rate of terminations of unborn Down’s Syndrome babies has remained constant since prenatal screening became widely available in 1989.

The Down’s Syndrome Association says its help desk has been receiving an average of two calls a week from expectant mothers who have received a positive scan for the condition who say they are continuing their pregnancy, a much higher rate than two to three years ago.

And it points to figures from the NDSCR showing that more Down’s Syndrome babies are now being born in England and Wales than before the start of widespread prenatal screening — there were 749 births in 2006, the latest year figures are available, compared to 717 in 1989 and a low of 563 in 1995.

The number of Down’s Syndrome births as a proportion of all live births has also increased by around 15 percent since 2000.

Carol Boys, the chief executive of the Down’s Syndrome Association said in a press release she was surprised by the numbers.

“It seems to show that more parents are thinking more carefully before opting for prenatal screening and termination –- that being born with Down’s syndrome is being seen in a different light today.”

Together with the BBC, the Association conducted a survey of parents of children with the condition to find out “why more women are opting to go ahead with their pregnancies”.

The findings suggest that attitudes to people with the condition or other disabilities have changed for the positive. Some 35 percent of the parents asked said they felt life and society had improved for people with Down’s Syndrome.

But an examination of birth and termination data cited by the Association and compiled by the NDSCR fails to show that more mothers are indeed pressing on with their pregnancies.

NDSCR Research Director Professor Joan Morris, based at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London, told me she had issued a release of her own in response to the charity’s claim.

The release says: “92 percent of women who receive an antenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome decide to terminate the pregnancy. This proportion has not changed since 1989.”

“I’m pretty annoyed with the Down’s Syndrome Association that seem to have totally the wrong end of the stick,” she said.

“The story as we see it is massive increases in the number of Down’s Syndrome pregnancies, due to maternal age increasing, and a lot more screening going on.

“That is causing a lot of the pregnancies to be diagnosed prenatally and women decide to have terminations.

“These two big increases are matching against themselves … and the end result is that the number of births is increasing very slightly. But it’s nothing to do with women deciding to keep their pregnancies.”

[Picture shows Down's Syndrome performer Hu Yizhou from the China Disabled Peoples Performing Art Troupe conducting at a rehearsal for a concert in Seoul in this March 2004 photo. REUTERS/You Sung-Ho]

Imperial College withdrew its offer of a place to study medicine to an 18-year-old when it found out he had been convicted of burglary three years ago.

Majid Ahmed won the place after turning his life around and achieving straight A grades at A level. The conviction was spent but he had to disclose it for a criminal records check for Imperial.

The decision, which comes as the government is considering a new strategy to encourage elite universities to take more students from less wealthy backgrounds, has been widely criticised. Ahmed should not have to bear the consequences of a youthful indiscretion for life and should have been given the chance to fulfil his ambition to become a doctor, critics say. 

Imperial College says it was right to bar him and that decision had been made to uphold trust in the medical profession.

What is your opinion? Is Imperial being too harsh?   

It’s “national no smoking day”, and stubbing out could help your wealth as well as your health. The 1.1 million Britons who quit a year ago have collectively saved more than 1 billion pounds by not feeding their nicotine habit, according to Yorkshire Bank. Meanwhile, the 13 million people who’ve carried on puffing since “no smoking day” last March have seen almost 12.5 billion pounds-worth of potential savings go up in smoke.

“It’s all too easy for long term smokers to forget just how expensive their habit actually is, but those smoking just 10 cigarettes a day could easily save almost 1,000 pounds during the course of a year,” says Gary Lumby, Yorkshire Bank’s head of retail. “By putting the money they’d normally spend on cigarettes in an ISA (individual savings account) or high interest savings account, smokers will soon see those savings adding up, particularly if there is more than one smoker in the household.”

And there are more savings to be made. Insurance companies consider ex-smokers to be ‘non-smokers’ a year after they have given up. And that could see your life and critical illness cover premiums fall by 50 percent. The monthly premium with Norwich Union for a 60-year-old male smoker wanting 100,000 pounds worth of life cover over 20 years is 181.30 pounds, while a non-smoker of the same age will pay just 84.30 pounds — 1,164 pounds per year less — according to figures from price comparison Web site Moneynet.co.uk.

In addition to the financial benefits, there’s a long list of other good reasons to kick the habit — having more energy and looking and feeling younger as the premature ageing effects of smoking are stopped in their tracks. Those who give up should also have lower stress levels, whiter teeth and an improved sense of taste and small, according to the “no smoking day” Web site.

But, as people addicted to the dreaded weed will no doubt testify, it’s a hard habit to break. And they can take some comfort in one little-known benefit to smoking. People with medical conditions and those who are likely to suffer poor health — such as smokers, the obese or those with a history of poor family health — generally achieve higher annuity rates. Their life expectancy might be shorter, but their pension pot will buy them a higher annual income in retirement.