text
stringlengths 502
25.5k
| labels
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|
Tutu's Guantanamo release call
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for the release of the remaining inmates at Guantanamo Bay and terror suspects detained without trial in the UK.
His comments follow news that all four Britons held by the US in the Cuban camp will be freed within weeks. The South African archbishop said detentions without trial were "unacceptable" and "distressing". Twelve foreign nationals are being held indefinitely without trial in the UK under anti-terror laws. Referring to the detentions in Cuba, Archbishop Tutu told BBC News: "It is utterly unacceptable. "The rule of law is in order to ensure that those who have power don't use their power arbitrarily and every person retains their human rights until you have proven conclusively that so-and-so is in fact guilty."
Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, and Martin Mubanga, Richard Belmar and Feroz Abbasi, from London, have been held by the US at Guantanamo Bay for almost three years. On Tuesday Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Commons that the US had agreed to release the four after "intensive and complex discussions" over security. The Britons were detained as part of the US-led "war on terror". The archbishop added: "Whilst we are saying thank you that these have been released, what is happening to those left behind? "We in South Africa used to have a dispensation that detained people without trial and the world quite rightly condemned that as unacceptable.
"Now if it was unacceptable then how come it can be acceptable to Britain and the United States. It is so, so deeply distressing." Following Mr Straw's announcement, lawyer Louise Christian, who represents Mr Abbasi and Mr Mubanga, said the government should have acted sooner. Foreign nationals detained in the UK are being held at Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. In December the House of Lords, the UK's highest court, ruled that the anti-terror measures broke human rights laws. But the men are still behind bars.
Archbishop Tutu criticised the measures, saying: "I am opposed to any arbitrary detention that is happening, even in Britain." Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, has called on the government to "practise what it preaches" and either free or charge the detained men. But the Home Office defended the measures. A spokesman said: "These individuals cannot currently be prosecuted because some evidence, such as that provided by third parties, cannot safely be disclosed in criminal proceedings without putting others at risk. "It is also currently the case that intelligence gained from covert intercepts cannot be used in a court of law." | politics |
Blair's hope for Blunkett return
The events leading to David Blunkett's resignation must not "swept under the carpet", the Tories have warned.
On Wednesday Tony Blair said he hoped the former home secretary would serve again in government in the future. Mr Blunkett quit in December after a probe linked him to the visa application of his ex-lover's nanny. Mr Blair said he left "without a stain on his character" but Tory Dominic Grieve branded the way Mr Blunkett's office operated as "scandalous". Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I know David very well and I believe him to be a man of real integrity and real ability and I was very sad for him as to what happened."
He said Mr Blunkett still had an immense amount to offer the country but he was not making any "guarantees or definitive statements" about future jobs. But shadow attorney general Mr Grieve said: "While I don't rule out the possibility that Mr Blunkett may return as a minister, I don't think it's something that can simply be brushed under the carpet." Senior Labour backbencher Martin O'Neill, who chairs the Commons trade committee, said he believed the prime minister would want one of his "praetorian guard" - a reference to the elite body guard of Roman emperors - back alongside him. But colleague Ian Gibson, who chairs the science and technology committee, said there was a "question mark" as to whether Mr Blunkett could serve at cabinet level again. | politics |
February poll claim 'speculation'
Reports that Tony Blair is planning a snap general election for February 2005 have been described as "idle speculation" by Downing Street.
A spokesman said he had "no idea" where the reports in the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph had come from. The papers suggest ministers believe the government could benefit from a "Baghdad bounce" following successful Iraq elections in January. A British general election was last held in February in 1974. In that election, Edward Heath lost and failed to build a coalition with the Liberals. Harold Wilson took over and increased his majority later in the year in a second election
The latest speculation suggests the prime minister favours a February poll in order to exploit his current opinion poll lead over Conservative leader Michael Howard. But that strategy could prompt criticism he was seeking to "cut and run" after less then four years of a parliamentary term. The papers report that Alan Milburn, Labour's head of elections strategy, has played a key role in the plan for a February election, which would include a New Year advertising blitz. New Labour's campaign, both newspapers said, would be centred around the slogan "Britain is Working". A Labour Party spokesman said the election date was ultimately a matter for Mr Blair, but he was unaware of anything to suggest it would be in February. Most commentators have been expecting an election on 5 May. The last election was in June 2001. | politics |
Gurkhas to help tsunami victims
Britain has offered to send a company of 120 Gurkhas to assist with the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, Downing Street said.
The deployment would involve troops from the 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles, based in Brunei. Discussions have begun with Indonesia on the exact timing and location of the deployment, but the government said the offer was aimed at the Aceh province. Downing St said a similar offer might be made to the Sri Lankan government.
However a spokesman pointed out that there were particular logistical difficulties in Indonesia which the Gurkhas might be able to help with. The spokesman said: "Following this morning's daily coordination meeting on the post-tsunami relief effort, the government has formally offered the Indonesian government the assistance of a company of British Army Gurkhas from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles around 120 personnel and two helicopters. "This is in addition to the ships and aircraft we have already committed to the relief operation in the Indian Ocean."
Indonesia was by far the country worst affected by the tsunami, with 94,000 of the 140,000 confirmed deaths so far. International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said the assistance offer would most likely focus on the northern province of Aceh. "We have offered the Gurkhas to help in the process of scaling up the relief effort, particularly in Aceh which is undoubtedly the hardest hit area in the Indian Ocean at the moment," he said. "We've also had RAF aircraft flying in equipment which the UN desperately need in order to set up a truly effective relief operation on the ground in Aceh province as well." The offer comes as the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw arrives in Indonesia for a special summit meeting on the disaster. | politics |
Abbas 'will not tolerate' attacks
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has said he will not tolerate attacks such as last Friday's suicide bombing in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv.
In an interview ahead of a meeting in London to discuss Palestinian reforms, Mr Abbas said such attacks were against Palestinian interests. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was exerting "a 100% effort" to end the violence, Mr Abbas added. The attack, which killed five, was the first of its kind since he took office. Mr Abbas confirmed Israel shared information with the PA in the hunt for the organisers of the attack. The Israeli government refuses to accept Syria's denials that it was implicated in the nightclub bombing. Israeli officials gave an intelligence briefing to foreign ambassadors on Monday, explaining Syria's alleged involvement. British foreign minister Jack Straw said there had been a "continuing stream" of information suggesting Palestinian militant groups were operating from within Syria.
In an email interview in the British newspaper the Independent, Mr Abbas said: "We believe peace is possible now and we are ready to negotiate with Israel to reach a true and lasting peace based on justice and international legitimacy." He added: "We have an opportunity and it would be irresponsible if we, the Israelis, or the world allow it to slip away." Tuesday's meeting on Palestinian reform is being hosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Also due to attend are US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, World Bank officials and foreign ministers from 23 European and Arab countries. The conference was a "vital step" in renewing the peace process, Mr Straw said. "It's a high-level attendance, which reflects the sense of momentum and opportunity created by recent events," he added. A spokesman for Mr Blair said the Prime Minister expected the conference to discuss "a comprehensive, co-ordinated and, above all, practical work plan for both the Palestinian Authority and the international community". Israel will not attend, but is said to be closely watching the outcome. | politics |
Thousands join strike in Wales
Thousands of civil servants were on strike across Wales on Friday in protest at planned job cuts.
A range of services in Wales were affected as civil servants in Wales joined the UK-wide strike. The strike, called by the Public and Commercial Services Union, was the biggest by civil servants in a decade. The action follows Chancellor Gordon Brown's announcement in July that 104,000 jobs would be cut, with around 6,000 of those expected in Wales. The worst-affected area in Wales will be the Department of Work and Pensions where 2,000 jobs are threatened. Across Wales, pickets were held by striking civil servants with protests in towns and cities including Cardiff, Bangor, Aberystwyth and Wrexham. Gordon Brown issued a defiant statement about the strike, saying the action would not affect the government's "determination" to make savings in order to increase investment in healthcare, education, transport and the fight against crime. "Our decisions mean more police, more teachers, more doctors and more nurses," he said. "We will provide help with information, relocation and retraining to help staff move into frontline work within the public sector, but we will not be diverted from these necessary changes so that we can make this essential investment." The UK-wide action hit Jobcentres, benefit agencies, pensions offices and driving test centres. The strike also affected the Welsh assembly building in Cardiff Bay, where only pass-holders were allowed in.
Pickets were in place across Wales, with protests around the country. PCS Union spokesman Jeff Evans said: "In Wales the civil service is major employer, there are more civil servants employed in Wales proportionately than in any other part of the country. "Our protest is about defending jobs and also local services across the country. "Parts of Objective One areas and Welsh-speaking areas will be particularly affected by these cuts." The chancellor has said that the cuts will allow funding for more teachers and police. Piers Freelove is senior benefit officer on the picket line at Companies House, in Cardiff. He said: "The majority of people have decided not to come in because of the threat to their jobs. "I joined the civil service to provide services as well as get a decent pension, as we thought, and pay, and it's those services that are being threatened as well as our jobs. "People like pensioners need a face-to-face service not an impersonal service on the phone which is what they want to impose." PCSU deputy general secretary Hugh Lanning, who was on the same picket line, said: "We're asking for them to negotiate not just to make announcements. "There's a sensible way to do things and at the moment they're not even talking about how to go about it sensibly." "The ballot was for one day's action. No further action is anticipated without a further ballot of staff." The Welsh Assembly Government said: "This is a strike about national civil service issues. It is not about specific issues local to Wales or the assembly. | politics |
Top judge clashes with ministers
The UK's top judge has revealed he has clashed with ministers about how the heads of public inquiries are chosen.
Lord Woolf said he was determined his current veto on whether a judge should chair an inquiry should continue as a guard for judicial independence. But he told MPs the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, was insisting he should have the final say in such cases. Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly sparked debate about who should run inquiries.
The government says the lord chancellor would be unlikely to go against Lord Woolf's wishes. Lord Woolf, who is Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, was giving evidence to the Commons public administration select committee's inquiry into public inquiries. He said he had not been involved in the choice of Lord Hutton, who as a law lord did not come under his jurisdiction. But he argued he should have a veto on whether judges generally should chair a particular inquiry and if so, which judge it should be. In written evidence to the committee, Lord Woolf said: "I have, so far, failed to reach an agreement with the lord chancellor on this issue ... I intend to maintain my position and will press for this safeguard to be in any future legislation."
Judges should think carefully before heading an inquiry into a highly political issue, such as the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he said. He argued: "The subject matter of the inquiry may be so political that it would be damaging to the judiciary for a judge to be involved. "In addition, the question of whether there should be an inquiry at all may be highly controversial and if a judge is appointed, the judiciary, as a result of the appointment, may be seen as siding inappropriately with the government." He told the MPs: "Anything that tends to undermine the confidence of the public in the judiciary worries me."
Lord Woolf said the current rules were not written down but it was inconceivable in practice that the lord chancellor would overrule his concerns. But that situation could change with new legal reforms. The issue had been "overlooked" when a new agreement was drawn up about those responsibilities and the dispute had emerged in later discussions. "What I am asking for is a situation where if the lord chancellor cannot obtain my agreement [on appointing a judge], it doesn't happen," he said.
Lord Woolf said he did not think there would be difficulties but he wanted to establish the principle. A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman said Lord Woolf and Lord Falconer agreed about what happened in practice. "Their disagreement is about whether the legislation should include a requirement for consultation or concurrence - a very narrow dispute, in Lord Woolf's words," she said. "As Lord Woolf also acknowledged, it is highly unlikely that the lord chancellor would appoint a judge against the wishes of the lord chief justice. "Judges are free to decide for themselves whether to accept positions as inquiry chairs." Parliament will examine the issue next year when it debates a new bill about public inquiries. | politics |
Tory expert denies defeatism
The Conservatives' campaign director has denied a report claiming he warned Michael Howard the party could not win the next general election.
The Times on Monday said Australian Lynton Crosby told the party leader to focus on trying to increase the Tories' Commons presence by 25 to 30 seats. But Mr Crosby said in a statement: "I have never had any such conversation... and I do not hold that view." Mr Howard later added there was not "one iota" of truth in the report. The strategist helped Australia's PM, John Howard, win four elections. Mr Howard appointed Mr Crosby as his elections chief last October. Mr Crosby's statement said: "The Conservative Party has been making an impact on the issues of lower tax and controlled immigration over the past week." It added: "The Labour Party will be wanting to do all they can to distract attention away from the issues that really matter to people." | politics |
Lib Dems target the student vote
Students can decide the fate of MPs in some seats at the next election, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has claimed.
The party says the votes of students can win it 27 new seats at the poll. The figures assume all students will vote in their university town. In fact, some may vote where the parents live. The Lib Dems say scrapping university fees wins them student support. But the Tories would also end fees and Labour says both would cap people's ambitions.
The Lib Dems have named the 14 seats where there are enough students to take the Lib Dems from second place to beat Labour, and the 13 where they could go from second to beat the Tories. Launching his campaign to win students' votes at the London School of Economics, Mr Kennedy urged students to "make their mark". He underlined Lib Dem plans to scrap university fees and reintroduce maintenance grants of up to £2,000. He said: "Top-up fees put students off university, especially those from a poorer background. "And is it really right that so many young people are starting out in life with mortgage-style debts hanging round their necks?" Mr Kennedy also said students want action on the environment and see the Iraq war, which his party opposed, as a defining issue.
Labour has pushed through plans to let universities charge fees of up to £3,000 a year, with the poorest students eligible for non-repayable support of up to £3,000. Ahead of Mr Kennedy's launch, a Labour spokesperson said: "Like the Tories, the Liberal Democrats would restrict access to higher education and put a cap on aspiration, closing the door to students with good grades and restricting their life ambitions. "They are committed to abandoning Labour's targets of getting 50% of 18 to 30-year-olds going into higher education and under Lib Dem plans students would even have to study near home." The Conservatives say they would abolish university tuition fees and instead offer large student loans at commercial rates of interest.
They say the Lib Dem policy would leave universities wholly dependent for their income on the "goodwill" of the chancellor.
Shadow education secretary Tim Collins is on Thursday setting out a new scheme of vocational grants for 14 to 16-year-olds to tackle what he says are "crippling skills shortages". The Lib Dem analysis of the difference students could make to its election chances is based on all students being registered to vote near their university, not in their home towns. Although the expected 5 May election would be during term time, students can vote by post. The Electoral Commission and National Union of Students are worried students in halls of residence can find it hard to register to vote. Some hall wardens are reluctant to register students because of data protection fears - but students can get themselves registered. If the election is on 5 May, voters need to register by 11 March.
- The seats where the Lib Dems say student votes can swing the election for them are: Bristol West, Cardiff Central, Leeds North West, Cambridge, Manchester Gorton, Sheffield Central, Oxford East, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central, Liverpool Riverside, Holborn and St Pancras, Oldham East and Saddleworth, Manchester Withington, Islington South and Finsbury, Birmingham Yardley, Surrey South West, Taunton, Orpington, Haltemprice and Howden, Eastbourne, Isle of Wight, Dorset West, Bournemouth East, Wells, Canterbury, Cities of London and Westminster, Bournemouth West, Westmorland and Lonsdale. | politics |
Custody death rate 'shocks' MPs
Deaths in custody have reached "shocking" levels, a committee of MPs and peers has warned.
The joint committee on human rights found those committing suicide were mainly the most vulnerable, with mental health, drugs or alcohol problems. Members urged the government to set up a task force to tackle deaths in prisons, police cells, detention centres and special hospitals. There was one prison suicide every four days between 1999 and 2003, MPs said. The report, which followed a year-long inquiry by the committee, found the high death rate "amounts to a serious failure to protect the right to life of a highly vulnerable group".
Many of those who ended up taking their own lives had "presented themselves" to the authorities with these problems before they even offended, the report said. It questioned whether prison was the most appropriate place for them to be kept and whether earlier intervention would have meant custody could have been avoided.
Increased resources and a reduction in the use of imprisonment was needed to address the issue in the longer term, the report said. Committee chairman Labour MP Jean Corston said: "Each and every death in custody is a death too many, regardless of the circumstances.
"Yet throughout our inquiry we have seen time and time again that extremely vulnerable people are entering custody with a history of mental illness, drug and alcohol problems and potential for taking their own lives." "These highly vulnerable people are being held within a structure glaringly ill-suited to meet even their basic needs. "Crime levels are falling but we are holding more people in custody than ever before. The misplaced over-reliance on the prison system for some of the most vulnerable people in the country is at the heart of the problems that we encountered. "Until we change our whole approach to imprisoning vulnerable people we cannot begin to meet our positive obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and meet our duty of care to them."
The committee also highlighted "deeply worrying" cases of children and young people taking their own lives. Between 1990 and 2004, 25 children have taken their own lives in prison and two have died in secure training centres. It picked out the case of Joseph Scholes, who hanged himself from the bars of his cell in Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution in March 2002, and urged the home secretary to hold a public inquiry. It revealed that two weeks before his court appearance for a series of robberies, the 16-year-old was depressed, exhibiting suicidal tendencies and slashed his face with a knife about 30 times. Even though the trial judge had been alerted to his experience of sexual abuse and mental illness, he was sentenced to a two-year detention and training order. Nine days into his sentence, Joseph hung himself from the bars of his cell window with a sheet. | politics |
New rules tackle 'sham weddings'
New rules on marriage for foreign nationals living in the UK are coming into force.
From Tuesday, most non-EU citizens will need Home Office approval to marry. The Home Office says the new rules are aimed at reducing the number of sham marriages, of which there are estimated to be up to 15,000 a year. But immigrants' group the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) says the rules breach human rights law and it may mount a legal challenge. When the changes were unveiled last year, immigration minister Des Browne said: "Our aim is to avoid unnecessary disruption of genuine marriages, while providing firm controls to prevent abuse." Under the previous regulations anybody wishing to get married in the UK only had to produce evidence they had been resident in the country for a week and give 15 days notice of the wedding at the local register office.
But from Tuesday all non-EU nationals, apart from citizens of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland or Norway, intending to wed in the UK must either obtain a visa allowing them to get married before they enter the country or apply for a Home Office 'certificate of marriage approval'. To get a certificate, costing £135, applicants will have to send proof that they have a legal right to be in the UK. Those without a settled status, such as asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their application, will have no right to marry in the UK.
Once they have the necessary documentation, those subject to immigration controls wishing to get married in England or Wales must register their intention to marry at one of 76 specially-designated register offices. They can, however, marry at the register office or church of their choice. Rhian Beynon of the JCWI said the new rules were "not proportionate" and "discriminatory".
"These rules means in some cases the Home Secretary is going to be a marriage registrar of last resort. "We're currently taking a legal opinion on this. We'll be looking for people whose right to marry is breached and we'll be looking at taking a case on this to the Human Rights Court," Ms Beynon said. The new rules have also been called into question by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. In a report published last July the cross-party committee stated there was a "significant risk" the new procedures were incompatible with the right to marry because they introduced restrictions which were "disproportionate". The committee believed the new laws might be incompatible with the Human Rights Act on the grounds of religion, belief and nationality, the report added.
Over the last year immigration service operations against marriages of convenience have been stepped up resulting in a growing number of convictions. In January 25 people who took part in a sham marriage network based in Leicester were jailed for a total of 35 years. And last November Samuel Amoah, a Belgian national who set up two sham weddings for couples who wanted to remain in the UK, was jailed for three years. Several other cases are currently going through the courts. The role of registrars who under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 were obliged to report suspected sham marriages to the Home Office, has been key in many prosecutions. Registrars' spokesman, Mark Rimmer, said they welcomed the new marriage regulations and believed they would be an significant deterrent. "They will effectively remove most of the blatant cases. Certainly those who are illegals in this country, of which we had quite a few, will no longer be getting married," Mr Rimmer said. Mr Rimmer, the service director for registrations of marriages at Brent Council in north-west London, said he did not consider the new law to be an infringement of civil liberties. "It may be seen to be far more draconian than it has been but certainly it's still not as difficult to marry in the UK than it is to marry, for example, in Holland, Germany or France. "I think it's a proportionate response by government to what was a very large problem," Mr Rimmer said. | politics |
Ministers 'naive' over phone-taps
The government is being naive by refusing to allow phone-tap evidence in court, a senior EU politician says.
Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief, says phone-tap evidence works in the courts of other European countries. Human rights groups, top police officers and many MPs say allowing the evidence would remove the need to detain terror suspects without charge. But Home Secretary Charles Clarke says the evidence would not make much difference to these cases. Mr Solana told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme: "[Phone-tap evidence in court] works, it is normal that it is done, it would be naive not to do it. "It would be naive not to use this technological thing that we have at our disposal." Mr Solana's comments come the day after Sir Ian Blair, the newly-appointed Metropolitan Police commissioner, said he was in favour of phone-tap evidence.
Under the Anti-Terrorism Crimes and Security Act 2001, foreign terror suspects can be detained in British jails without trial or charge. Several suspects have been detained under these powers because evidence against them was deemed too sensitive to be heard in court.
Some of this evidence is believed to be telephone intercepts. Human Rights group Liberty has argued that if intercept evidence could be heard, these detainees could be brought to trial. But critics of phone-tap trials say the evidence is often weak and can expose the methods of the security services. The home secretary says intercepts would not make much difference because cases against terror suspects frequently rely on other kinds of surveillance. But Mr Clarke has been forced to change the regime of detention without trial after Law Lords ruled it illegal. He has opted for a system of "control orders" whereby suspects, both British and foreign, can be held under house arrest or surveillance. These orders will again involve a UK opt-out of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights. While accepting that people "have to be prepared" for a possible terrorist attack, Mr Solana said he had "qualms" about the home secretary's new plans. "We have to fight terrorism with all our means, but not so far as to change our way of life," he said. | politics |
Schools to take part in mock poll
Record numbers of schools across the UK are to take part in a mock general election backed by the government.
Some 600 schools have already signed up for the Y Vote Mock Elections 2005 run by the Hansard Society and aimed at boosting interest in politics. Pupils in the schools taking part will learn the skills of speech writers, canvassers and political candidates. Schools Minister Stephen Twigg said engaging young people's interest was "essential" to the future of democracy.
He added: said "Young people who are engaged and motivated by the political process are essential to the future health of our democracy. "The mock elections initiative provides an opportunity for pupils to develop their own understanding of how the democratic process works and why it matters. "By experiencing the election process first hand - from running a campaign to the declaration of the final result - we hope that young people will develop the enthusiasm to take part in the future." The Hansard Society, the Electoral Commission and the Department for Education and Skills are running the programme. Pupils will stand as party candidates, speech writers and canvassers. Michael Raftery, project manager at the Hansard Society, said: "The Y Vote Mock Elections for schools mirror the excitement and buzz of a real election, raising awareness of citizenship, and the benefits of active democracy." The mock votes will take place around 5 May, widely expected to be the date of the general election. Information packs, including ballot papers and manifesto guides, with elections happening in early May were sent out to the 3,000 schools invited to take part. | politics |
Blair dismisses quit claim report
Tony Blair has dismissed reports he told Gordon Brown he would quit before the next general election.
"You don't do deals over jobs like this," the prime minister told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme. According to a new book, Brown's Britain, Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004. Mr Blair said the claims were "reheated from six months ago" and that he was concentrating on running the country. Mr Blair said: "I've dealt with this six months ago. I said then you don't do deals over jobs like this - you don't.
"What both of us are actually concentrating on are the issues that concern the country." The book, by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston and serialised in the newspaper, said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other.
It claims Tony Blair felt by November 2003 he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war and that he was no longer an asset to the Labour Party. And that at a dinner hosted by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott he told Mr Brown of his intention to stand down. According to Mr Peston the prime minister said: "Help me to get through the year and I will then stand down." But he then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, according to the book.
Mr Peston told BBC News: "My understanding is that they are not nearly as close or as friendly as they once were. "What the book says is there is now a pretty profound mutual mistrust, mutual animosity. "I think in public you see this double-act pretending everything is alright, but in private I don't think the relationship is good because Brown, understandably, feels deeply betrayed - particularly over this issue of the leadership." But, in a wide-ranging BBC interview covering issues such as the Asian tsunami disaster, the Middle East peace process and Northern Ireland, Mr Blair said: "When you get to the top in politics you get this huge swell around you. "All sorts of people make all sorts of claims and counter-claims." He admitted to a "sense of frustration" about the allegations which he said had been made "countless times".
There has been fresh speculation of a rift recently, following their separate responses to the Asian tsunami. These rumours were fuelled by Mr Blair's decision to hold his monthly media conference at the same time as a long-planned speech by Mr Brown on UK plans to tackle global poverty with a new "Marshall Plan" for Africa. There was speculation the pair were trying to outdo each other's response to the disaster. But the prime minister said he had discussed these claims with the chancellor and dismissed them as a "load of nonsense". Former welfare minister Frank Field MP said the prime minister should sack Mr Brown, but did not believe Mr Blair was strong enough to do so.
Tory leader Michael Howard accused the prime minister and Mr Brown of "squabbling like schoolboys". He told Sky News' Sunday with Adam Boulton: "This is the politics of the playground and Britain really does deserve better." The Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said the personal ambition of Mr Blair and Mr Brown was "getting in the way of good government". "Either they need to grow up and put their squabbles to one side or they cannot expect the electorate to support a divided government at the next election." During the interview Mr Blair also said the former home secretary David Blunkett would play a "big role" at the general election. | politics |
Jamieson issues warning to bigots
Scotland's justice minister has warned bigoted soccer fans that she wants to hit them "where it hurts most" by banning them from matches.
Cathy Jamieson said exclusion orders are one of a series of measures being considered in the Scottish Executive campaign against sectarianism. She praised Celtic and Rangers for their work in tackling the problem. However, the minister said stopping sectarian abuse associated with Old Firm matches is a key objective. Ms Jamieson was speaking ahead of the third round Scottish Cup clash between the Glasgow clubs at Parkhead on Sunday. The sectarianism long associated with sections of the support from both clubs has become a significant target for the executive. Last week Ms Jamieson and First Minister Jack McConnell met supporters' representatives from both clubs to discuss the issue.
They plan to hold an anti-sectarian summit next month with officials from the clubs, church leaders, senior police officers and local authority chiefs among those to be invited. Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Sunday Live programme, Ms Jamieson described Friday's meeting as "very productive" and said putting the squeeze on the bigots would be a key aim. Ms Jamieson stressed that sectarianism has not been confined to football but it can act as a "trigger" for tensions and violence. Clubs have taken action in the past to ban troublesome fans and supporters' groups expressed their desire to ensure that the game is no longer tainted by the problem.
Ms Jamieson said the executive should have a role in tackling the soccer troublemakers. She said: "We can't get away from the fact that in some instances some of the religious hatred that some people try to associate with football boils over into violence. "That is the kind of thing we want to stop and that's the kind of thing supporters' groups are very clear they don't want to be part of either, and they will work with us to try and deal with that."
Ms Jamieson praised the police for their action and said: "The police do want to identify whether there are particular individuals who are going over the top and inciting hatred or violence - they will crack down very effectively on them. "We have of course already indicated that we will consider the introduction of banning orders to give additional powers to where there are people who are going over the top, who have made inappropriate behaviour at football matches, to be able to stop them attending the games. "That's the kind of thing that will hit those kind of people where it hurts the most in not allowing them to attend the games," she said. Praising Celtic and Rangers for their efforts, she said: "I don't think there is any doubt that we have seen some positive moves from the clubs. "Both Rangers and Celtic football clubs have been involved in working with the executive to produce, for example, an educational pack for young people." | politics |
Clarke plans migrant point scheme
Anyone planning to move to the UK will have to pass a test to prove they can contribute to the country, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said.
He is proposing a points system similar to Australia's but would avoid the quota system planned by the Tories. Mr Clarke, who will unveil his plans on Monday, said economic migration helped the UK but "needed proper policing". The Lib Dems say they will look at his plans, but Tory Liam Fox said his party offered a "clear choice" on the issue. The Conservative Party Co-Chairman said the British electorate had a choice between a Labour government that had "done nothing for eight years and will not set a limit" on immigration and a Tory one that would impose quotas.
The home secretary said, by 2008, he wanted everyone given a visa and entering the UK to have their fingerprints taken, to "ensure we can know everybody who is in the country". Speaking on BBC One's Breakfast with Frost, he said "economic migrants are of great value to this country", but stressed that proper policing was needed to ensure that they do not become a "burden on society". He said: "We will establish a system ... which looks at the skills, talents and abilities of people seeking to come and work in this country, and ensures that when they come here they have a job and can contribute to the economy of the country."
The home secretary, whose five-year blueprint for immigration and asylum is expected to be published on Monday, also rejected claims that the immigration debate encouraged bigotry. "The issue of who does come into this country, and whether they are entitled to be in this country, who does settle here, how we have border controls, is a perfectly legitimate aspect of public debate," he said. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "Whilst it is good that Labour has rejected the Tory idea of quotas on asylum, the jury is still out on the Home Office's ability to deliver a fair and efficient asylum system."
Mr Howard has said Britain should take its fair share of the world's "genuine refugees". But he claims the current asylum system is being abused - and with it Britain's generosity. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, called on Mr Clarke to denounce the suggestion Britain's hospitality was being tested by immigration. "Tell that to the 44,000 doctors in the NHS and the 70,000 nurses without whom we would really see what pressure on the health service means," he said. "Ditto the teachers, from South Africa, Australia, Jamaica, who are reducing the sizes of our classes and schools." The Refugee Council said Mr Howard's proposals would mean there would be no safe haven in the UK. | politics |
Clarke defends terror detentions
The home secretary has defended his decision not to release foreign terror suspects despite a legal ruling their detention breached human rights laws.
House of Lords law lords ruled against the detention measures last week. They said it was wrong to have one set of laws for foreign suspects and another for British suspects. New Home Secretary Charles Clarke said he would carefully consider the ruling and would return to Parliament early in the new year with proposals.
He insisted that he would not be rushed into judgement but would examine the law lords' findings in detail. "My duty is to look at first of all the security of this country and in so doing to consider very carefully the precise legal measures that there are." Mr Clarke's comments came in response to an emergency question from Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman David Heath. Mr Heath said the judgement contained "unprecedented condemnation and could not have been more unequivocal". He said he accepted the difficult balance between the nation's security and human rights but questioned why the home office had made "no contingency plans for the present circumstances".
"These detainees should be prosecuted and tried. Simply renewing the present deeply unsatisfactory legislation is not an option." Shadow home secretary David Davis said it was not possible to overstate the importance of the judgment and urged the government to move as fast as "competently possible" to sort the problem out in the interests of natural justice. "If you do, we will give you every support." The law lords' ruling came on Charles Clarke's first day as home secretary last Thursday following David Blunkett's resignation. In a statement on the same day, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year. "In the meantime, we will be studying the judgment carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords."
But the government was widely criticised for insisting the detentions would continue following the ruling last week. Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law." The detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge. The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US. | politics |
Voters 'reject EU by two to one'
British voters would reject the European constitution by two to one, according to a poll posing the question the government will put to the country.
The Daily Telegraph poll suggests that 45% of people would vote against the constitution and 24% in favour. However the YouGov poll, which questioned 1,943 British adults online, found 25% did not know how they would vote if forced to decide tomorrow. Only 51% of those polled had made up their minds about the constitution. Another 7% said they would not vote at all. The poll is believed to be the first to pose the question which the government has chosen for the upcoming referendum, expected in 2006. The constitution will be incorporated into UK law if there is a yes vote.
Ballot papers in the poll will ask: "Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?" The government unveiled the question which will be asked earlier in the week.
The treaty was signed by all 25 current EU members in Rome last October and is due to come into force in November 2006, providing it is ratified by all member states - several of which will hold a referendum. Critics say the constitution is a further step towards a federal Europe, but advocates say it ensures effective operation of the enlarged 25-state EU. "If we reject this treaty, Britain will be isolated and weak in Europe," said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, after the question was unveiled. Mr Straw, along with the rest of the Cabinet, will back a "yes" vote. Meanwhile, Conservative shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said the referendum question "seems straightforward". But he accused the government of trying to confuse the issue by putting the EU referendum question in the same bill as the ratification of the constitution, when they should be treated as "two separate issues". | politics |
Kennedy questions trust of Blair
Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said voters now have a "fundamental lack of trust" of Tony Blair as prime minister.
He said backing his party was not a wasted vote, adding that with the Lib Dems "what you see is what you get". He made his comments at the start of a day of appearances on Channel Five in a session on The Wright Stuff programme. Questions from callers, a studio audience and the show's presenter covered Lib Dem tax plans, anti-terror laws and immigration.
Mr Kennedy said during his nearly 22 years in Parliament he had seen prime ministers and party leaders come and go and knew the pitfalls of British politics. "1983 was when I was first elected as an MP - so Tony Blair, Michael Howard and myself were all class of '83 - and over that nearly quarter of a century the world has changed out of recognition," he said. "We don't actually hear the argument any longer: 'Lib Dems, good people, reasonable ideas but only if we thought they could win around here - it's a wasted vote'. "You don't hear that because the evidence of people's senses demonstrates that it isn't a wasted vote." But he said Mr Blair had lost the trust of the British people. "There is a fundamental lack of trust in Tony Blair as prime minister and in his government," he said.
"What we've got to do as a party - what I've got to do as a leader of this party - is to convey to people that what you see is what you get." Mr Kennedy also used his TV appearance to defend his party's plans to increase income tax to 50% for those earning more than £100,000, saying it would apply to just 1% of the population. He said the extra revenue would allow his party to get rid of tuition and top-up fees, introduce free personal care for the elderly and replace the council tax with a local income tax. Mr Blair has already spent a day with Five and Michael Howard is booked for a similar session. | politics |
Terror detainees win Lords appeal
Detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, the UK's highest court has ruled.
In a blow to the government's anti-terror measures, the House of Lords law lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by nine detainees. Most of the men are being indefinitely held in Belmarsh prison, south London. The law lords said the measures were incompatible with European human rights laws. The men will stay behind bars while ministers decide how to react. The ruling creates a major problem for Charles Clarke on his first day as home secretary following David Blunkett's resignation. The Liberal Democrats say Mr Clarke should use the fact he is new to the job to take issue with a law established by his predecessor, David Blunkett. Belmarsh prison has been dubbed Britain's Guantanamo Bay by civil rights campaigners opposed to the use of emergency anti-terror laws.
The detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge. The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US. Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported. However those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland.
On Thursday, senior law lord Lord Bingham said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status". Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law. "It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford."
He said the weakness for the government's case was that it was trying to justify detention without trial for foreign suspects - but not for British suspects. Lord Hoffmann said: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." But Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, the one law lord to oppose the appeal, said the anti-terror laws contained important safeguards against oppression.
In a statement, detainee 'A' in Woodhill Prison said: "I hope now that the government will act upon this decision, scrap this illegal 'law' and release me and the other internees to return to our families and loved ones." The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case. Ben Emmerson QC, representing seven of the detainees, said the men had already been in custody for nearly three years. He said they had been given no idea when, if ever, they would be released, had never been formally interviewed and there was no prospect they would ever be put on trial. When the men were first held, they took their cases to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). The commission ruled on 30 July, 2002 that the anti-terror act unjustifiably discriminated against foreign nationals as British people could not be held in the same way. But that ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeal who said there was a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation. | politics |
Blair to face MPs amid feud talk
Tony Blair faces his first prime minister's questions of 2005 after a week of renewed speculation about his relationship with Gordon Brown.
Meanwhile, the chancellor is leaving Britain on a high-profile tour of Africa to highlight poverty issues. But before doing so, he insisted he still trusted Mr Blair, despite claims to the contrary in a new book. Labour MPs have warned against disunity and Tory leader Michael Howard may well take up the theme in the Commons. The Tories have already accused the prime minister and his chancellor of behaving like "schoolboys squabbling in a playground".
Michael Howard is likely to want to capitalise further on the spat when he goes head-to-head with the prime minister in the Commons. At a campaign poster launch on Tuesday, Mr Brown was joined by Alan Milburn, who Mr Blair controversially put in charge of election planning in place of the chancellor.
Later this week the prime minister is due to set out the themes of his party's next election manifesto, which for the past two polls have been drawn up by the chancellor. Mr Brown, meanwhile, is visiting Tanzania, Mozambique and Kenya to highlight the plight of many Africans hit by Aids, war and famine - issues which Mr Blair has also spoken out on. The prime minister and chancellor faced backbench discontent at Monday's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party over claims made in journalist Robert Peston's new book. Mr Blair told MPs and peers: "I know from everyone here, in Cabinet and government, nothing is going to get in the way of a unified Labour Party with a unified position and winning the third term people desperately need." Labour's Paul Flynn said the pair had had a "scorching" from MPs.
On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Prescott told BBC News: "They told us very clearly, it was the troops telling the leaders: get in line." The new book claims Mr Prescott hosted a dinner in November 2003 where the prime minister told Mr Brown he would stand down before the next election because he had lost trust over the Iraq war. Mr Blair then changed his mind in June 2004, after Cabinet allies intervened and amid suspicion the chancellor was manoeuvring against him, writes Mr Peston. In Mr Peston's book Mr Brown is alleged to have told the prime minister: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe." | politics |
Tories unveil quango blitz plans
Plans to abolish 162 quangos have been unveiled by the Conservatives as part of their effort to show how government red tape can be cut.
Six government units would also be scrapped under proposals which the Tories say would save more than £4.3bn. Among the targets are strategic health authorities and the new fair access regulator for universities. Tory frontbencher John Redwood said Britain needed a slimmer government and lower taxes to be competitive.
The plans would abolish regional assemblies and other regional bodies, such as boards tackling industrial development and housing. Their powers would be returned to elected local councils or national government. The Tories say the strategic health authorities are not needed as it is better that local people, rather than officials, run hospitals and surgeries.
Announcing the plans, Mr Redwood said: "Mr Blair has forgotten the interests of taxpayers, and has broken the pledges he made. "Far from improving public services, spending taxpayers' money on quangos has led only to more bureaucrats, more regulation and higher taxes." His party leader, Michael Howard, argued a change in direction was needed to get a grip on spending. "Labour are creating Two Britains: the Britain of the forgotten majority and bureaucratic Britain," he said. "In the real world, people are working harder just to stand still. They've seen their pensions knocked for six. "They're being squeezed by extra taxes. The forgotten majority are paying the price of bureaucratic Britain." The government has announced plans to cut 100,000 civil servants as part of its efficiency drive. The Liberal Democrats have said they would cut the number of Whitehall departments to make sure money reaches frontline services. | politics |
Clarke faces ID cards rebellion
Charles Clarke faces his first real test as home secretary on Monday with a possible backbench rebellion over the controversial ID cards bill.
Up to 30 Labour MPs could oppose the scheme during a Commons debate. Mr Clarke, who took on the post on Thursday after David Blunkett quit, has rejected calls to "pause" on the bill. Tory leader Michael Howard also faces a possible rebellion after deciding to back identity cards. The Liberal Democrats oppose the plans.
Mr Clarke, writing in The Times, accused some critics of "liberal woolly thinking and spreading false fears" by claiming ID cards would erode civil liberties. He writes that it is actually a "profoundly civil libertarian measure because it promotes the most fundamental civil liberty in our society - which is the right to live free from fear crime and fear". Mr Clarke is expected to try and win over opponents to the scheme by saying officials who secretly accessed information they were not allowed to see would face up to two years in jail. He is also expected to cut the £85 cost of the card and passport, for the elderly and those on lower incomes.
Mr Howard last week said his front bench team had reached a "collective view" to back ID cards after holding a "good discussion", but admitted it was "not an easy issue". He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration. But former shadow attorney general Bill Cash said there was still "very deep" disquiet about the plan among senior Tories. He told BBC Radio 4's Today the government was "intensely authoritarian" and was creating "increasingly a Big Brother society". Critics argue that introducing the cards would be a costly scheme with no specific aim.
Ministers say it would help the fight against terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime. But opponents say that similar schemes in other countries have not prevented attacks like the Madrid rail bombing. On Sunday, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy repeated his call for a "pause" in considering the legislation.
He told BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme that Mr Clarke had a "real opportunity" on Monday following the departure of Mr Blunkett. "If you were running a family or a business would you have the second reading of the Identity Cards Bill tomorrow or would you pause to reflect and see what you might do about it in the New Year? "That is the sensible way to go about it but I think this government has got itself so much into tram lines now that it is not behaving sensibly at all." The first cards would be issued in 2008 and, when he was introducing the bill, Mr Blunkett suggested Parliament could decide in 2011 or 2012 whether to make it compulsory for everybody to own the cards, although not to carry them. The new bill would also create new criminal offences on the possession of false identity documents. | politics |
Labour pig poster 'anti-Semitic'
The Labour Party has been accused of anti-Semitism over a poster depicting Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin - who are both Jewish - as flying pigs.
Prospective Tory candidate Andrew Mennear, whose Finchley constituency contains a large Jewish community, branded it "tasteless" and offensive. The poster shows the two men's faces superimposed on winged pigs and says "the day the Tory sums add up". Labour said the poster was "not anti-Jewish, but anti-Tory".
It is one of four designs e-mailed to Labour members, who were asked to vote for their favourite. Mr Mennear, who was sent the e-mail by a friend, said he had been "shocked" by the image and had shown it to friends who were similarly horrified. He said there was nothing more distasteful for a Jewish person than to be associated with a pig. "I am not suggesting there is any deliberate intent, but these sort of things can cause great offence. It clearly wasn't thought through. "It is possible the posters were designed for maximum impact, but this one clearly overstepped the mark and should be withdrawn."
The campaign was particularly insensitive as it had come out at the same time as Holocaust Day, a "difficult" time for many Jewish people, Mr Mennear added. A Labour spokesman denied the campaign was anti-Semitic. "As we said at the time the James report (the Tory backed inquiry into possible public spending savings) was published pigs will fly before the Tory's sums will add up. This poster is making a serious point," he said. A Conservative Party spokesman said: "While the Conservatives are concentrating on the issues that matter to people, such as lower taxes and controlled immigration, it is clear to see that the Labour Party is not. People will not be fooled." | politics |
Iraqis win death test case probe
The family of an Iraqi civilian allegedly killed by UK troops have won a challenge against the government's refusal to order a full inquiry.
The High Court ruled on Tuesday that Baha Mousa's death in British custody in Iraq fell within the European Convention on Human Rights. And the judges paved the way for an independent inquiry by saying previous investigations were inadequate. But judicial reviews into five other deaths in southern Iraq were ruled out. Their families will be appealing against the judgement.
The families' solicitor Phil Shiner described it as "a historic day for human rights and the rule of law in the UK". Father-of-two Mr Mousa, 28, a hotel receptionist, was arrested with eight men seized at a hotel in Basra in September 2003. He was allegedly beaten to death while in the custody of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. The Iraqi families' lawyer argued that failing to adequately investigate the death breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
Ministry of Defence lawyers argued the UK-controlled area of southern Iraq was outside European jurisdiction. But Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Forbes ruled that UK jurisdiction could extend to a UK-run prison, but did not apply "to the total territory of another state". They said as Mr Mousa was in custody when he died, his case came within the UK's jurisdiction. The other five Iraqis did not die in custody, so their cases had to fail, they said.
And it was difficult to say that the investigation which had already occurred "has been timely, open or effective", the judges said. After the ruling Carla Ferstman, legal director of the human rights organisation Redress, said: "It is not enough for the military to investigate behind closed doors. "There must be an effective public investigation by an independent official body. Only such an investigation could reveal what really happened and who might be responsible." Other allegations involving British soldiers included the shooting of an Iraqi police commissioner and the shooting of four Iraqi civilians in May 2003. Both sides were granted permission to appeal.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "Obviously we will need to study this detailed judgment. I would point out, however, that a separate criminal case is currently being considered by the army prosecuting authority. "I can't say anything further for obvious reasons. The MoD are considering whether to appeal." But former British Commander Colonel Bob Stewart said : "Anyone at the top [of the military] will be saddened by the verdict that has taken place but will say: 'If there's a case to answer, let's have it out. Because we don't want people thinking that British soldiers beat up civilians and get away with it'," he said. "The Ministry of Defence does everything in its power to try to prove we act ethically and properly under the rules of war." | politics |
Burglar defence guidelines issued
Householders who injure or even kill intruders are unlikely to be prosecuted - providing they were acting "honestly and instinctively", new guidelines say.
The law also protects those who use "something to hand" as a weapon. The leaflet, published by police and prosecutors, aims to combat confusion about current legislation, which lets people use "reasonable force". The guidance, relating to England and Wales, follows a recent decision by ministers not to change the law. Doing what you "honestly and instinctively" believed was necessary would be the strongest evidence of acting lawfully, the guidance said.
And the law protects those who use "something to hand" as a weapon, said the leaflet published jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).
As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and fear felt, the more force can be used lawfully in self-defence, it said, adding that householders do not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves. But knocking someone unconscious then killing them or hurting them further, or setting a trap for an intruder without involving the police were given as examples of "excessive and gratuitous" force. The Tories have called for a change in the law so householders are only prosecuted if they use "grossly disproportionate" force. Their demands have been backed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens. Tory frontbencher Patrick Mercer is now pursuing the proposal through a private member's bill in Parliament.
The government instead mounted a publicity campaign to clear up public uncertainty after a review concluded no law change was necessary. Home Secretary Charles Clarke said: "I believe in that old adage 'an Englishman's home is his castle'. That's exactly what should be the case and I believe the current law provides that." An "informal trawl" of CPS records found 11 people had been prosecuted after attacking intruders in the past 15 years, five of whom were convicted. They included a man who laid in wait for a burglar on commercial premises in Cheshire, before beating him up, throwing him into a pit and setting him on fire.
A CPS spokesperson said the figures were not definitive because prosecutions are not listed according to whether they were committed by a householder on an intruder. In one of Britain's highest profile cases, Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was jailed for life for murdering 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras, in 1999. The conviction was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal and the sentence cut to five years. Mr Martin was freed from prison in July 2003. The guidance published on Tuesday, said the police had a duty to investigate all incidents involving a death or injury. In cases involving householders attacking intruders prosecutors and police were "determined" they would be dealt with "as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible", it said. | politics |
Woolf murder sentence rethink
Plans to give murderers lighter sentences if they plead guilty have been watered down.
There was an outcry three months ago when the Sentencing Guidelines Council - led by Lord Woolf - published its proposals for England and Wales. It had suggested judges should reduce sentences by a third for murderers who confessed at the earliest opportunity. But that has now been changed to one-sixth, with no reduction for those killers given a "whole life tariff". At the time Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, had said the one third reduction would only be in extraordinary circumstances - for example, if people gave themselves up before their crime had even been detected. The guidelines were to recognise the need to spare victims and witnesses the trauma of going to court where possible, by allowing lighter sentences for guilty pleas and co-operation, he said.
But director of the Victims of Crime Trust, Norman Brennan, accused Lord Woolf of having an "arrogant contempt for victims of crime and the law-abiding public". The National Association of Probation Officers said the move would be "political suicide". In revised proposals from the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC), the section on murder said possible reductions would have to be "weighed carefully" by a judge so they did not lead to "an inappropriately short sentence". Where it was appropriate to reduce the minimum term having regard to a plea of guilty, the maximum reduction would be one sixth, and should never exceed five years, it said.
In a statement issued on Wednesday Lord Woolf said: "I have no doubt that being able to call on the diverse backgrounds and experiences of all those that serve on the SGC has vastly improved the final guidelines. "I am confident, as a result, that judges will be better placed to deliver sentences which are effective both as punishments and deterrents to offending and reoffending." Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, who sits on the SGC, said the principle of discounting sentences to offenders for early guilty pleas is set down by parliament. "What the new guideline on reduced sentences for guilty pleas does is increase the chances of convicting the guilty by bringing clarity to this process. "It represents a tougher regime than existed previously, because the discount is automatically reduced if a guilty plea is not made at the first available opportunity," he said. | politics |
Probe launched on Ken Nazi jibe
An investigation by the Standards Board is under way following allegations that Ken Livingstone has brought his office into disrepute.
The probe follows the London mayor's comments to a Jewish journalist comparing him to a concentration camp guard, after a party about a week ago. The local government watchdog also said the allegation related to a failure to respect others. It has the power to suspend or bar Labour's Mr Livingstone from office. A complaint was made to the body by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Commission for Racial Equality.
Speaking after the investigation was announced Bob Neill, leader of the London Assembly Conservatives, said: "He has behaved in a manner unbecoming of his office and in so doing, has shown extraordinarily poor civic leadership. "His administration is now in crisis." On Sunday, Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron told the BBC's Politics Show she believed the Mayor of London would say sorry on Tuesday for offending the wider Jewish community. The Prime Minister Tony Blair is among those who have called for an apology but so far the mayor has refused.
The mayor accused Oliver Finegold, of the Evening Standard newspaper, of "doorstepping" him at a "predominately gay event" held for MP Chris Smith. Ms Gavron said she thought Mr Livingstone's comments were "inappropriate" but she did not believe the mayor was anti-Semitic. She said: "I work very closely with Ken so I can speak of what he's like in his guarded and unguarded moments and... he is in no way anti-Jewish, I wouldn't for a moment work with him if he were. "On the other hand, I think his remarks were inappropriate and I believe it is important, and I believe he will, come to the point where he says, 'I regret that I have caused offence to the wider Jewish community'. "I hope he will do it soon and it is mooted that he is going to make some sort of statement on Tuesday." | politics |
'Few ready' for information act
Thousands of public bodies are ill-prepared for the Freedom of Information Act, due to come into force next month, because of government failures, say MPs.
From next month anyone will have the power to demand information from a range of public bodies - from Whitehall departments to doctors' surgeries. But an all-party committee said it was "not confident" many would be ready. It blamed the Department for Constitutional Affairs for a "lack of consistent leadership".
The Act comes into effect in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, on 1 January while similar measures are being brought in at the same time in Scotland. It provides the public with a right of access to information held by about 100,000 public bodies, subject to various exemptions.
But the government department responsible for implementing the change suffered from an "unusually high turnover" of staff within the department, which had "seriously interfered" with its work, said the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. It said, despite four years of preparations, some local authorities and parts of the health sector were still not ready. The DCA had "failed" to provide early guidance on technical matters and shown a "lack of consistent leadership", the MPs found. Committee chairman Alan Beith said: "The DCA has had four years to prepare for freedom of information, but with less than a month to go it appears that some bodies may not be well enough prepared. "Our report shows that in the past support and guidance from the DCA, which has overall responsibility for guiding the public sector through the process of implementation for the freedom of information regime, has been lacking." A spokesman for the DCA said: "The DCA has provided - and will continue to provide - strong, clear leadership. "It has delivered a simple, liberal fees regime, guidance on the Act which has been widely praised, and expert networks of staff working on freedom of information implementation." | politics |
Blunkett unveils policing plans
People could be given the mobile phone number of their local bobby under an overhaul of policing in England and Wales unveiled by David Blunkett.
The plans include a dedicated policing team for each neighbourhood and a 10 point compulsory customer charter. The home secretary said targets would be put in place to ensure that the public got a good response from police. Local people would also be able to "trigger" action on specific problems if they felt nothing was being done. Local councillors would have to show certain conditions had been met before invoking the power. And police could refuse the request if the complaints were frivolous, would only cause annoyance or would pose too heavy a burden on resources.
Mr Blunkett said a new three digit number would be created for non-emergency phone calls to police. The best performing police services would get more cash and extra freedoms, he said, but he would not shirk from stepping in where the public was being failed. The home secretary's powers to suspend or sack chief constables are being reviewed after Mr Blunkett's battle with Humberside chief David Westwood over intelligence failures on Soham murderer Ian Huntley.
Opposition parties also want more local policing to tackle nuisance behaviour and other crime but they accuse ministers of tying the police up with paperwork. Tory spokesman David Davis said the proposals were "little more than a taxpayer-funded PR exercise" ahead of a general election predicted for next May.
Police forces were already "buried" under existing government initiatives and there was little in the latest plans to reassure them," said Mr Davis. Earlier Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the government was right to want to increase the links between local people and the police. "But these measures will only work if they're matched with a cut in the amount of paperwork - and investment in modern equipment to keep the police out on the streets."
Before delivering a statement to MPs, Mr Blunkett was joined by Tony Blair at Welling School, in south east London, which is at the heart of a community policing initiative. Mr Blunkett said he wanted "to go back to a time when I was very young, when you expected the police to be part of the community and the community to be part of policing and where people were joined together in partnership making it work". The prime minister said the law-abiding citizen should be in charge of the community and "not the minority who want to cause trouble".
Mr Blunkett already boasts about producing record police numbers. He has also started to recruit 25,000 Community Support Officers (CSOs) and the new plans would allow all police forces to give them the power to detain suspects. An extra £50m was promised on Tuesday so 2,000 new CSOs can be recruited now rather than next year. Within two years, every force will be expected to keep to a "coppers' contract" on what kind of service the public can expect. A Mori poll this summer suggested policing, unlike health and education, was the one major public service where people were less satisfied the more contact they had with it. The plans also include the idea of allowing people join police forces at different levels rather than the traditional way of making everybody spend specific amounts of time as a constable before being promoted. There will also be "specific exercises" to encourage black and Asian people to join the police at senior ranks. | politics |
Lib Dems' new election PR chief
The Lib Dems have appointed a senior figure from BT to be the party's new communications chief for their next general election effort.
Sandy Walkington will now work with senior figures such as Matthew Taylor on completing the party manifesto. Party chief executive Lord Rennard said the appointment was a "significant strengthening of the Lib Dem team". Mr Walkington said he wanted the party to be ready for any "mischief" rivals or the media tried to throw at it.
"My role will be to ensure this new public profile is effectively communicated at all levels," he said. "I also know the party will be put under scrutiny in the media and from the other parties as never before - and we will need to show ourselves ready and prepared to counter the mischief and misrepresentation that all too often comes from the party's opponents. "The party is already demonstrating on every issue that it is the effective opposition." Mr Walkington's new job title is director of general election communications. | politics |
Jack Cunningham to stand down
Veteran Labour MP and former Cabinet minister Jack Cunningham has said he will stand down at the next election.
One of the few Blair-era ministers to serve under Jim Callaghan, he was given the agriculture portfolio when Labour regained power in 1997. Mr Cunningham went on to become Tony Blair's "cabinet enforcer". He has represented the constituency now known as Copeland since 1970. Mr Blair said he was a "huge figure" in Labour and a "valued, personal friend".
During Labour's long period in opposition, Mr Cunningham held a number of shadow roles including foreign affairs, the environment and as trade spokesman. As agriculture minister he caused controversy when he decided to ban beef on the bone in the wake of fears over BSE. He quit the government in 1999 and in recent years has served as the chairman of the all-party committee on Lords reform and has been a loyal supporter of the government from the backbenches. | politics |
Kilroy unveils immigration policy
Ex-chatshow host Robert Kilroy-Silk has attacked UK policy on immigration saying Britain's open door approach is hitting low wage "indigenous" workers.
The Veritas leader said the only people to benefit from immigrants from places like Poland were employers, landlords, members of the 'metropolitan elite'. The MEP said his party would only admit foreigners who were required because they had specific skills to offer. And he argued asylum cost £2bn a year for 14,000 successful applicants.
Mr Kilroy-Silk said that worked out at £143,000 per successful asylum seeker. He said Veritas wanted to grant an amnesty for all those in Britain claiming asylum and who have children and deport everyone else. Britain should take its fair share of asylum seekers under the United Nations Convention on Human Rights, he argued. And Mr Kilroy-Silk said he wanted to spend an extra £500m a year to help provide for refugees abroad. | politics |
Regiments' group in poll move
A regiments' campaign group is to target nine marginal Labour seats at the General Election.
Save the Scottish Regiments will also field a candidate against Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram in East Kilbride. The group, which is unhappy at defence merger plans, is endorsing opposition candidates in nine seats. The marginals are Aberdeen South, Dumfriesshire, Dundee East and West, South West Edinburgh, Ochil, Stirling, East Renfrewshire and Western Isles. The campaigners unveiled a huge poster featuring Black Watch soldiers fighting the war in Iraq before they announced their election plans.
Former Scots Guardsman Allan Hendry will challenge Mr Ingram. The group said it is well organised, with 350 volunteers, and will be announcing at least one other candidate later. It added that it can only be stopped from inflicting serious damage on Labour if the government reverses its plan to merge the six Scottish regiments.
Scotland's only Conservative MP Peter Duncan said the Save the Scottish Regiments had done a "superb job" in fighting against defence cuts. He added: "Their actions have reflected the pride that most people in this country have in our troops, and have shown a steely determination to make Labour pay for their betrayal. "I have been honoured to speak at their rallies throughout Scotland." Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said it had received a "big boost" from the campaign's decision to endorse SNP candidates in four marginal seats.
"Labour's arrogance has been their undoing. In trying to get rid of Scotland's historic regiments, Labour MPs will end up being scrapped themselves," he said. However, Labour MP George Foulkes said the campaigners would not make any difference to the outcome of the election and would not win the argument. "A serving soldier knows that what Labour is proposing is right," he said. As well as their election move, Save the Scottish Regiments will join other campaigners at a rally in London in the spring. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon announced last year that Scotland's regiments would be combined into a single unit. The move was part of overall Army reforms. | politics |
Row over 'police' power for CSOs
The Police Federation has said it strongly opposes giving Community Support Officers (CSOs) the power to detain suspects for up to 30 minutes.
The powers - piloted in six areas - were extended to all police forces in England and Wales on Thursday. The federation said CSOs do not have the experience, training and safety equipment to deal with "potentially confrontational" situations. But the government said the move would help police "build safe communities". Police Federation chairman Jan Berry said civilian officers should act as "eyes and ears" for the police.
"They should not be placed in potentially confrontational situations - which detaining someone clearly is," she said. CSOs can now use reasonable force to detain suspects for up to 30 minutes while they wait for police officers to arrive. The powers will be granted by chief constables of local forces. Ms Berry said this "dramatically changes" their original purpose - to be a visible presence combating low-level crime and anti-social behaviour. She said more powers would mean more paperwork and less time on the street.
But Home Office minister Hazel Blears defended the move saying it would give the civilian officers "just that little bit of edge". She denied their role was changing and said the new powers would not take them away from the streets.
"The powers that we are bringing in are things that they need to do when they are out patrolling," she said. The Home Office has produced its own report on CSOs which it describes as "encouraging". Ms Blears said the study shows CSOs are "making a real difference" in the fight against crime. But the report also showed that the public is having difficulties distinguishing between a civilian officer and a proper officer.
Shadow home secretary David Davis said the research appeared to acknowledge that CSOs were having no discernible effect on crime figures.
"While the answer is a lot more real police, the government wants to recruit 25,000 people who can't arrest anyone," he said. BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the research is inconclusive. There are about 3,500 CSOs in England and Wales but the government intends to have 25,000 on the streets by 2008 at a cost of £50m. They already have powers to hand out fines for a wide range of offences. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill proposes extra powers to search suspects, enforce licensing offences, direct traffic and deter begging. | politics |
Sport betting rules in spotlight
A group of MPs and peers has called for a tightening of regulations controlling betting on sport.
The Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming held a substantial inquiry into betting last year. It followed fears that a massive increase in betting on sport, such as that done using the internet and mobile phones, has led to more cheating. The all-party group recommended 15 ways to protect punters and improve the integrity of sports betting. They include a proposal for raising the maximum jail sentence for gambling cheats above the current two years. Lord Condon, head of the International Cricket Council's anti-corruption unit, who originally made the call for longer prison sentences, said the two-year penalty was "derisory". "You could get a bigger sentence for failing to pay your hotel bill criminally than you could for corruption in major sports. "Symbolically, a higher penalty, perhaps as the Bill passes through the two Houses, might be appropriate."
The report recommended the governing bodies of sports have a say in the type of bets offered to punters, and for bookmakers to set up "audit trails" - something the new betting exchanges already do - to allow suspicious betting patterns to be traced.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who chaired the inquiry, said: "Whilst we accept that the greater part of sports betting is neither corrupt nor unfair to punters, the evidence convinces us that the growth of betting exchanges - because of the facility they provide to bet against a result - has increased the potential for corruption. "It is important that the government works with sporting administrators to review the difficulties faced by governing bodies in convicting the guilty and penalising them appropriately." The panel's aim was to try to define what constitutes cheating, assess how much might be going on and suggest what the government might do to put it right. As well as the growth of internet and mobile phone betting, there has been the creation of betting exchanges which allow punters to fix odds between themselves. Betting exchanges allow punters to back (to win) but also lay (to lose) a horse. This means they can control their odds at winning by placing their money both ways. | politics |
Councils prepare to set tax rises
Council tax in Scotland is set to rise by an average of about 4% in the coming year, BBC Scotland has learned.
Authorities will decide final figures on Thursday when projected increases will be more than twice the rate of inflation, which is currently 1.6%. The finance minister has urged councils to limit increases but they have warned that they will struggle to maintain services unless funding is increased. They say much additional government money is for new initiatives. Scottish Finance Minister, Tom McCabe MSP, said: "Last week in parliament I announced an additional £419m for core expenditure to local government in Scotland. "That's a 5.5% increase and sits against an inflation rate of 1.6%, so I think we have quite rightly said to councils this year that we would at the very least ask them to exercise restraint." Mr McCabe is also looking for local authorities to become more efficient and save money in coming years. He told BBC Radio Scotland's Sunday Live programme: "Here in Scotland we have 32 councils who all have their own individual collection systems for council tax, they have their own payroll systems and their own human resource systems.
"We think there has to be opportunities there for rationalisation and using the money saved to reinvest in frontline services." The councils' umbrella organisation Cosla, which provided BBC Scotland with the indicative figures for next year, warned that councils would face a continuous struggle to maintain services. Mr McCabe has promised them about £8.1bn next year. "However, most of the increase is targeted to new initiatives and councils will experience difficulties in maintaining core services," a Cosla spokesman said. Cosla says that it is willing to work with the executive on finding efficiency savings but that these will not be enough to maintain services. They say the funding plans for the next three years will see councils lose more of the share of public spending. The Conservatives accuse the Scottish Executive of using the council tax to raise funds because it is too afraid to raise income tax.
The Tory finance spokesman, Brian Monteith MSP, said: "Its a form of disguise... yet again we see that council tax is being used as a way of passing on costs. "Scared of actually using its three pence income tax that it could put up, what we've seen over the years is more and more burdens being put onto local authorities and the council tax payer having to pick up the bill." There are also warnings that unless funding to councils is increased in the next few years then services may have to be reduced. Linda Knox, Director of the Scottish Local Authority Management Centre at Strathclyde University, said: "With this current settlement the increase is slowing. At the same time, the burdens on councils are greater than they were. "The settlement figures don't include pay increases and the executive is also requiring a substantial figure - in the area of £325m - in efficiency savings across the settlement period." Education will be protected from any cuts but Linda Knox says this will mean other services will suffer. She said: "In practice, that will mean a 4-5% cut for other services. On the face of it the settlement looks like an increase of about 9.7% but by the time you take into account other factors its probably only about 1% in real terms." | politics |
Whitehall shredding increasing - Tories
Civil servants have drastically stepped up the shredding of official documents, figures compiled by the Tories suggest.
Some government departments had doubled the number of documents being shredded ahead of the Freedom of Information Act's implementation on 1 January. Departments for defence, environment and trade, which had all increased file destruction, said they were following rules governing public records. But the Tories want the information commissioner to investigate. The Freedom of Information Act will for the first time give members of the public access to government records previously kept secret for 30 years. But BBC Political Correspondent James Hardy said the prospect of outsiders poking their noses into the inner workings of Whitehall appeared to be causing jitters among the mandarins.
Liberal Democrat Alan Beith - who chairs the select committee which monitors the Department of Constitutional Affairs - said if the claims were true, Whitehall was "acting entirely against the spirit of the new Act". "Both the information commissioner and the select committee will have to keep this issue under very close scrutiny." Fellow Lib Dem Norman Baker said the episode painted an "unflattering picture of the inner workings of government". "It is clear that the government's initial enthusiasm for open government has turned to self-serving cynicism." Dr Julian Lewis, the Conservative spokesman for the Cabinet Office, said he had discovered a huge acceleration in shredding from a series of parliamentary answers.
The Department of Work and Pensions destroyed nearly 37,000 files last year - up 22,000 on four years ago when the Act was passed. The number of files destroyed by the Ministry of Defence and the departments of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Trade and Industry has also risen dramatically. Dr Lewis has called for an investigation by the information commissioner Richard Thomas. Earlier this week, Mr Thomas said he was looking into Cabinet Office orders telling staff to delete e-mails more than three months old. He said he "totally condemned" the deletion of e-mails to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information laws coming into force on 1 January.
Government guidance said e-mails should only be deleted if they served "no current purpose", Mr Thomas said. A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said the move was not about the new laws or "the destruction of important records". The Freedom of Information Act will cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland from next year. Similar measures are being brought in at the same time in Scotland. It provides the public with a right of access to information held by about 100,000 public bodies, subject to various exemptions. | politics |
MPs assess Scots fishing industry
A group of MPs are on a two-day fact-finding mission to Scotland to gather evidence for a report into the UK's fishing industry.
Members of Westminster's environment, food and rural affairs committee will be touring fish markets and talking to fish processors. They will also talk to Fisheries Minister Ross Finnie and scientists. MPs are deciding whether to recommend a new system of "community quotas" to conserve fish stocks. The aim is that fishing ports like Peterhead or Fraserburgh would be allocated a quota and local people would decide how to fish it. The scheme is a variation on the local management committees already being established by the European Union.
Details are contained in a Royal Commission report for the UK Government, along with the more controversial idea of closing some mixed fishing grounds completely. Six members of the committee will be in Scotland to seek views from fishermen and processors in Aberdeen and Peterhead. They will also speak to Mr Finnie, representatives of the Royal Society and the Sea Fish Industry Authority. Committee chairman Austin Mitchell said some way has to be found of harvesting mixed fisheries without wasting stocks. | politics |
Research fears over Kelly's views
Scientists have expressed concerns that new education secretary Ruth Kelly's religious views could hamper vital scientific research.
Ms Kelly, who is Catholic, is reported to be "pro-life" and has opposed embryo research. Medical Research Council Professor Nancy Rothwell said Ms Kelly's views mattered as she was responsible for training future scientists. The Department for Education and Skills would not comment on the concerns.
A spokeswoman said: "It is not news that Ms Kelly is a Catholic but we are not going into any details on this." But she added that claims Ms Kelly was in charge of a £1bn university research budget were not true. It was down to the Higher Education Funding Council and the research councils to decide on universities' research allocations. British law is open to the cloning of human embryos to create stem cells, master cells that can develop into all the body's tissue types. This cloning activity is not permitted for reproductive purposes - only for research into new disease treatments. However, it is controversial because it involves the destruction of embryos.
Professor Rothwell, who is also vice-president of research at Manchester University, told the Times Higher Education Supplement it would worry her "a great deal" if ministers were anti-stem cell. She said: "The views of ministers in the DfES do matter as they are responsible for training the next generation of scientists. "You can't have a higher education policy that is at odds with the government's science policy." Head of developmental genetics at the National Institute of Medical Research, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, said he had witnessed the confused situation in the US where many religious groups opposed the practice. He said: "If someone as senior as Ruth Kelly is not going to favour stem cell research we will end up with a similarly schizophrenic system in this country. It is very worrying." But fertility expert Lord Winston said he thought it was "rather good" ministers held ethical views. Concerns have also been raised by "pro-choice" organisations that Ms Kelly's views might affect sex education policy in schools.
Family Planning Association chief executive, Anne Weyman, said teaching pupils about contraception and abortion were key. "Young people must be informed about all the issues within sexual health, which include contraception and abortion. "I think it is very important that the government maintains its commitment to the teenage pregnancy strategy." Currently, individual schools devise their own sex education policies based on a framework provided by the DfES. Ms Kelly has not set out her detailed views on either issue yet, but has said she intends to put parents first in education policy. This would include the quality of teaching, classroom discipline and academic standards in schools, she said. | politics |
Army chiefs in regiments decision
Military chiefs are expected to meet to make a final decision on the future of Scotland's Army regiments.
A committee of the Army Board, which is made up of the most senior defence figures, will discuss plans for restructuring regiments on Monday. The proposals include cutting Scotland's six single-battalion regiments to five and merging these into a super regiment. The plans have faced stiff opposition from campaigners and politicians alike. The committee's decision must be ratified by Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is expected that it will be made public next week. When ministers announced a reorganisation of the Army it drew a question mark over the futures of the Black Watch, the Kings Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots, the Royal Highland Fusiliers and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. In October, the Council of Scottish Colonels proposed the merger of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers into a single battalion.
Under their vision, it would be one of five in the new super regiment. The proposals to either merge or amalgamate the six regiments into a super regiment sparked a political outcry, with Labour backbenchers and opposition politicians opposing the plan. They felt the timing was insensitive because the Black Watch was in the frontline in Iraq, suffering casualties. The Save the Scottish Regiments campaigners were so angered they threatened to stand against Labour at the next general election.
Speaking ahead of the expected Army Board meeting, a spokesman said: "The government and the Army Board have spent the past four months attempting to trick serving soldiers and the public into thinking their planned changes for the Scottish regiments are for the good of the Army and for that of the serving soldier. "They are very much not for the good and will destroy Scotland's regiments by moulding them into a single super regiment which will lead to severe recruitment problems, a loss of local connections to those regiments and a loss to Scotland of an important part of her heritage and, most importantly, her future - the regiments are the envy of armies around the world." An alternative blueprint had been put forward by Labour MP Eric Joyce, who proposed going ahead with the merger while preserving the other regiments. For a brief time, there was speculation the prime minister might consider the plan, but that now seems unlikely. Speaking in Scotland last week, Mr Blair said the aim was to preserve tradition but introduce a more effective structure and hinted that a super regiment was likely. He said: "They don't want to get rid of the history or the traditions of the regiment or the local connections - far from it, all they want to do is make sure they can transfer people easily across regiments and deploy them more flexibly." The prime minister said he hoped campaigners' concerns would be taken into account but the need for effective change had to be paramount. | politics |
Student 'inequality' exposed
Teenagers from well-off backgrounds are six times more likely to go to university than those from the most deprived areas, a report says.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England said more people went to university between 1994 and 2000. But the percentage of poorer students "hardly changed at all", said its chief executive, Sir Howard Newby. Increasingly more women than men went to university, while tuition fees and student loans made no major difference.
The Hefce report, drawing on child benefits data, said teenagers in the richest areas could expect a better than 50% chance of going to university, while in the poorest neighbourhoods it was 10%. Participation at constituency level ranged from 69% in Kensington and Chelsea, 65% in the City of London and Westminster and 62% in Sheffield Hallam, down to 10% in Bristol South and Leeds Central and 8% in Nottingham North and Sheffield Brightside.
Sir Howard said the report highlighted the "entrenched divisions" between rich and poor areas, but added it was a social as much as an educational problem. He told BBC News: "We know, once children from deprived backgrounds get into university, they do very well. In fact surprisingly more go into postgraduate study than those from more affluent backgrounds. "The issue is, I think, one of raising aspirations amongst those families and those communities that university is something for them and not for other people."
He said by the time universities traditionally dealt with pupils, between the ages of 16 and 18, it was too late. Instead they should be reaching out to communities and schools much earlier, even down to primary school level, to persuade them a university education was something they could aspire to, he said. But while the report revealed stark inequalities and exposed the extent of the challenge, there were some encouraging findings, he added.
Tuition fees and student loans in England and Wales - and the different fee regime in Scotland - did not seem to have affected the choices of young people, even the poorest. The report also showed women were 18% more likely than men to enter higher education in 2000 - up from 6% in 1994. In the poorest areas, the gap was 30% in women's favour and growing faster than anywhere else. The Higher Education Minister, Kim Howells, said: "We are working in schools to raise the attainment and aspiration of young people in disadvantaged areas." Higher standards in schools would lead to greater participation in higher education. From 2006 upfront tuition fees in England would be removed, with grants for the less well off. The shadow education secretary, Tim Collins, said: "It is clear from this report that children from disadvantaged areas are far more likely to have encountered poor standards in their secondary education. "Tackling these must be the top priority for any government looking to improve university access." The group which represents university vice-chancellors, Universities UK, said the new system of deferred fees in England, due to start in 2006, with grants and bursaries for poorer students, would encourage more of them to go into higher education. The National Union of Students argued the opposite - that the situation was "likely to get much worse, with poorer students being restricted in choice and having to make decisions based on their financial situation rather than aspiration".
The tables below show the participation rate for each Parliamentary constituency in Britain: | politics |
Kennedy to make temple address
Charles Kennedy is set to address 2,000 people at a Hindu temple as part of an appeal to ethnic minority voters.
The Liberal Democrat leader will visit the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Temple in Neasden, north west London. He will say Labour "can no longer lay exclusive claim to the votes of Britain's ethnic minorities". Mr Kennedy will also highlight the anger among people of "all races" over the Iraq war and call for a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism. Saturday's speech comes days after the Lib Dems launched their ethnic minority mini-manifesto. Mr Kennedy is to tell the audience: "Many people in Britain, of all races, cultures and religions, were angry about the way we were taken to war in Iraq. "And they saw the principled stand the Liberal Democrats took at the time."
He will also say that the Lib Dems want to "restore Britain's reputation on the world stage" by fighting international poverty and climate change, and protecting human rights. Mr Kennedy will say that a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism would mean "tough measures to make Britain safe - but not at the expense of people's fundamental legal rights like has happened at Belmarsh". He will say it also means acting through the United Nations on terrorism. Mr Kennedy held talks with Tony Blair on Friday over government plans to hold terror suspects under house arrest. He said afterwards that the Prime Minister had offered some "movement" to address his concerns. The plans face trouble in the Lords if Conservative and Lib Dem opposition continues. | politics |
David Blunkett in quotes
David Blunkett - who has resigned as home secretary - built his reputation as a plain-speaking Yorkshire man.
I fell in love with someone and they wouldn't go public and things started to go very badly wrong in the summer, and then the News of the World picked up the story. "I tried for three years to make something work."
"Trust, plain-speaking and straight talking is something which matters so much to me as a politician and as a man that I have decided, of my own volition, to request an independent review of the allegations that I misused my position."
"I don't think anyone can say I have said one thing in public and done another in private." "It would be dangerous territory if I wasn't practising what I preach which is to always accept responsibility, always accept the consequences of your actions.
"None of us believe countering terrorism is about party politics."
"I accepted by necessity we have to have prevention under a new category which is to intervene before the act is committed, rather than do so by due process after the act is committed when it's too late," he said in reference to new anti-terrorism measures.
"Our work with the French government...has been hugely successful," said Mr Blunkett. "The number of illegal immigrants detected in Dover has dropped dramatically."
"Strengthening our identity is one way or reinforcing people's confidence and sense of citizenship and well-being."
"I foolishly thought as this was a celebrity edition it would be more relaxed than normal."
"You wake up and you receive a phone call - Shipman's topped himself. You have just got to think for a minute: is it too early to open a bottle?" | politics |
No election TV debate, says Blair
Tony Blair has said he will not take part in a TV debate with his political rivals ahead of the next election.
"We answer this every election campaign and, for the reasons I have given before, the answer is no," he said at his monthly news conference. In October Tory leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair would be running scared if he refused calls to go head-to-head. In recent years the leader of the opposition has always called for a debate, although it has never happened. Before the 2001 election, plans for a debate between Mr Blair, William Hague and Charles Kennedy collapsed. In 1997 a debate between Mr Blair and John Major was also cancelled when a format could not be agreed. Televised debates have become the high point of the US presidential election campaigns. | politics |
What the election should really be about?
A general election is the best chance most pressure groups get to make a real impact on government policy. Here is how six leading lobbies plan to make sure their cause is being debated ahead of an expected Spring poll.
We've called for the state pension to be increased from £79.60 to the pensioner credit guarantee level of £105.45. That's what we're calling for. Many pensioners are disadvantaged by the current system. If we've got one in five pensioners below the poverty line, we've got to make it more generous or have these people living in poverty.
We've drawn up a pensioners' manifesto. This will be sent to each of the candidates in the 659 constituencies. They will be asked which of the top five issues, including the pension issue, they would support. Once we've got their responses we will publish the results within the constituencies and nationally as well. It's our way of putting the politicians on notice. We are trying to get across the fact that there are 11m voters over 60 in the country, they are more likely to vote than other sections of society and thirdly they are true swing voters. Before 1997 most pensioners voted Conservative. In 1997 and 2001 they voted Labour. But there is no guarantee they will vote for a Labour government this time around. They cannot take that vote for granted.
Pensions generally will certainly be a big election issue even though the government has postponed the publication of Adair Turner's full report into the issue. He said the UK had one of the least generous pensions systems in the developed world.
That the government takes seriously the impact of aviation on the environment.
We haven't worked out specific plans but I imagine we will lobby political parties and incumbent MPs. Various local groups will do that in their particular areas and we will provide a national briefing. We don't have any large demonstrations planned but they can't be ruled out.
It is hard to say whether we will be successful. We have got the issue in the public consciousness to an extent, but it is difficult to say whether an election will raise its importance in the public mind or whether it will be pushed out by big issues like Iraq.
Repealing the Hunting Bill.
We are challenging the use of the Parliament Act 1949 in a High Court action. We are hoping to hear in the New Year. Whichever way the court rules the other side will appeal so we expect it to fall plumb in electioneering time. When the ban comes into force on 18 February we will be going to the European Court because no compensation is being paid. So there's a lot of legal territory to go. We are trying to engage with the ministers by demonstrating and talking. Whatever intelligence we get we will try to turn up and speak to whoever it is. (Rural affairs minister) Alun Michael has avoided us and cancelled engagements so that makes it difficult. It is not intimidatory - on the whole it is groups of angry housewives. Of course there is an element of shouting because people are angry but there is no violence because that does not achieve anything.
It will fall plumb in the run up to the most important general election Tony Blair will ever face. It's exactly what the prime minister did not want. He wanted the issue off the table until after the election.
People using live animals as targets for sport both here and abroad. The reason for including abroad is because of trophy hunting. It is another sort of form of shooting for sport. The principle is the same whether it's a tiger or a pheasant.
We will widely publicise what's happening in relation to trophy hunting. We will publicise the darker aspects of the target animal industry the UK. We will seek to get pledges from individual MPs and would-be MPs saying that they are against the use of animals as targets for sports. We would like the support of political parties but I think a general election is very much to do with pledges MPs make to their electors. With hunting we had many MPs who were happy to say they were against it.
I think what we will get is a very real climbing up the agenda. Whether or not we will get a ban I am not sure. But it will mobilise public opinion. Everything we do will reduce animal suffering and in time that will lead to a ban.
The issue that we think is the most important for this election is choice. The language of consumerism is very commonplace in government and across the political spectrum. Choice as an ideology is beginning to be the privatisation of this decade. It's become an issue in itself but what's really missing from the debate is the consumer's choice in that. Choice is not choice at all if all you have to choose from is two failing schools. We have seen so many pensions mis-selling scandals and in the pensions industry there's a maximum of choice but a minimum quality in that. We want choice on the consumer's terms - that means clear and accessible information to operate that choice.
Firstly, we have our website. It features our campaigns and changes every day. Secondly through our 700,000 members who communicate with us. Thirdly through the media and also what we will be doing is holding a pre-election conference. We will invite the opinion formers, MPs, journalists and others. The idea is that we open up communications between members of the public and the politicians.
I think we will be successful. It's very much the language being used by the main political parties. Politicians on all sides are very sensitive to this issue they want to be seen to be responding to this issue.
Fuel duty is a large part of operational costs for road haulage workers. We have been hearing about this proposed increase of 1.92p per litre that Gordon Brown has been postponing and postponing. Tuppence does not sound like a great deal but every year if you operate one vehicle that's an increase of about £750. If you're running 10 vehicles it's obviously 10 times that.
If fuel duty does rise we will be absolutely horrified. There will be a huge effect throughout the industry and I would not be surprised if you see widespread demonstrations. What it will mean is there will be a number of firms going out of business.
We will continue to do what we have always done we keep the issue in the trade press. Regrettably it's one of those stories that it is getting harder to get into the national press. Whatever we do, the public don't like lorries - they see us as a complaining minority. But they don't realise that when you see a car on the road it is probably going to work, when you see a lorry it's already at work. | politics |
Brown and Blair face new rift claims
For the umpteenth time, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are said to have declared all out war on each other.
This time the alleged rift is over who should take the credit for the government's global aid and debt initiatives, particularly in the wake of the tsunami disaster - an issue many hoped and believed was above such things. It dominated the prime minister's monthly news conference, which saw Mr Blair start in full irritation mode as he was forced to bat away question after question about his relationship with his neighbour. As he told journalists: "I am not interested in what goes in and out of newspapers. There is a complete unity of purpose." And he again heaped praise on Mr Brown saying he was doing a great job, and would continue doing it - although he would not commit to any job for Mr Brown after the election.
So why did he arrange his press conference at the last moment so it coincided with Mr Brown's long-arranged keynote speech on aid and debt, he was asked? By now Mr Blair had moved from irritation mode to his barely disguised fury setting. He snapped back that the hacks knew very well what the operational reasons were for the timing of his press conference. Well, not really, as it happens.
And he repeated what a great man Gordon was and how united they were, before again sneering that he took absolutely no notice of what went in and out of the newspapers, preferring to get on with the job of doing the best for the country and the world. Although in the next breath he declared: "I get increasingly alarmed by what I read in the newspapers" before catching himself on and quickly adding: "In so far as I read them of course." He probably had good reason to be alarmed because the newspapers had been full of stories about the claimed open warfare between the two men.
As far as the timing of the prime minister's press conference is concerned, there are two options. The first is that it was a calculated attempt to upstage the chancellor and seize back the initiative on the big issue of the moment. If that is the case it suggests that even the fear of seriously negative newspaper headlines is not enough to stop the squabbling. The second option is that it was an unavoidable coincidence, which would suggest the government has lost its once-famed ability to strictly co-ordinate announcements - through the infamous Downing Street grid - to avert just such allegations.
Either way, the effect was the same - to overshadow the big announcements of government policy on a hugely pertinent issue. And there had been previous suggestions that the new year had started with a fresh outbreak of the warfare between the two men. Firstly, the prime minister insisted on Wednesday that he had been intimately involved in the development of the proposals to get G8 countries to freeze debt repayments from the tsunami-hit countries. It was claimed he had been embarrassed by the fact that Gordon Brown appeared to have taken the initiative over the government's response to the disaster while Mr Blair was still on holiday in Egypt.
Then, as if to pour fuel on the flames, both men separately spoke about working on tsunami or wider aid and development policy with their cabinet colleagues Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Aid minister Hilary Benn and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott - without mentioning the other. All this came amid fresh claims that Mr Brown was still seething that he had been excluded from a prominent role in general election planning and had, as a result, started to set out his own platform. The fact that he used an article in the Guardian newspaper to set out what he believed "should" be in the manifesto, has embarked on a mini tour of Britain to set out his aid plans and will next week visit Africa on the same mission - often seen as the prime minister's "turf" - has only added to the impression of rival camps operating entirely independently of each other. The prime minister denied all that as well, repeating his insistence that it was inconceivable the economy and the chancellor would not be at the centre of the election campaign. But the big fear with many on the Labour benches now is that, unless a lid can be put on the speculation over the rivalry, it may even threaten to undermine the election campaign itself. | politics |
Blair 'said he would stand down'
Tony Blair promised Gordon Brown he would stand down before the next election, a new book about the chancellor claims.
But the prime minister changed his mind following intervention from allies in the Cabinet, according to the book. The book by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other. The book, Brown's Britain, said Tony Blair felt by November 2003 he had lost voters' trust.
The author's sources, all unnamed "allies" of Mr Blair and Mr Brown, said the prime minister felt the Iraq war had undermined him and that he was no longer an asset to the Labour Party.
The book, serialised in the Sunday Telegraph, alleges that Mr Blair told the chancellor at a dinner hosted by deputy PM John Prescott in November 2003 of his intention to stand down. "At that stage he saw Gordon Brown and said, 'look you are the next most influential member of the government, I need your help to get through the next year," Mr Peston said. "I myself recognise that I'm going to have to stand down before the election but help me to get through the year and I will then stand down.'" But he changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, the book claims.
Mr Peston told BBC News: "My understanding is that they are not nearly as close or as friendly as they once were. "What the book says is there now a pretty profound mutual mistrust, mutual animosity. "I think in public you see this double act pretending everything is alright but in private I don't think the relationship is good because Brown, understandably, feels deeply betrayed - particularly over this issue of the leadership." There has been fresh speculation of a rift recently, following their separate responses to the Asian tsunami. Rumours of a rift were fuelled by the sudden decision to hold Mr Blair's monthly media conference at the same time as a long-planned speech by Mr Brown on UK plans to tackle global poverty with a new "Marshall Plan" for Africa. There was speculation the pair were trying to outdo each other's response to the disaster.
Former welfare minister Frank Field MP criticised the reported rivalry between the pair on GMTV's Sunday Programme.
"What sort of model does it give to the nation when the two most important political leaders do nothing but fight it out together or use their aides to fight it out?" the Labour MP for Birkenhead asked. He said the prime minister should sack Mr Brown, but did not believe Mr Blair was strong enough to do so. Conservative policy co-ordinator David Cameron, MP for Witney, added: "If it wasn't so serious it would be funny. "But it is serious - you've got the two most senior people in the government not concentrating on fighting crime, poverty or dirty hospitals - they are fighting each other." Carol Walker, BBC News 24 political correspondent, added: "There is a real concern that this could undermine the general election campaign. "And clearly it is very bad news for the government at a time when it is trying to explain what it is doing to respond to the terrible problems thrown up by the tsunami disaster." | politics |
Blair dismisses quit claim report
Tony Blair has dismissed reports he told Gordon Brown he would quit before the next general election.
"You don't do deals over jobs like this," the prime minister told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme. According to a new book, Brown's Britain, Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004. Mr Blair said the claims were "reheated from six months ago" and that he was concentrating on running the country. Mr Blair said: "I've dealt with this six months ago. I said then you don't do deals over jobs like this - you don't.
"What both of us are actually concentrating on are the issues that concern the country." The book, by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston and serialised in the newspaper, said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other.
It claims Tony Blair felt by November 2003 he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war and that he was no longer an asset to the Labour Party. And that at a dinner hosted by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott he told Mr Brown of his intention to stand down. According to Mr Peston the prime minister said: "Help me to get through the year and I will then stand down." But he then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, according to the book.
Mr Peston told BBC News: "My understanding is that they are not nearly as close or as friendly as they once were. "What the book says is there is now a pretty profound mutual mistrust, mutual animosity. "I think in public you see this double-act pretending everything is alright, but in private I don't think the relationship is good because Brown, understandably, feels deeply betrayed - particularly over this issue of the leadership." But, in a wide-ranging BBC interview covering issues such as the Asian tsunami disaster, the Middle East peace process and Northern Ireland, Mr Blair said: "When you get to the top in politics you get this huge swell around you. "All sorts of people make all sorts of claims and counter-claims." He admitted to a "sense of frustration" about the allegations which he said had been made "countless times".
There has been fresh speculation of a rift recently, following their separate responses to the Asian tsunami. These rumours were fuelled by Mr Blair's decision to hold his monthly media conference at the same time as a long-planned speech by Mr Brown on UK plans to tackle global poverty with a new "Marshall Plan" for Africa. There was speculation the pair were trying to outdo each other's response to the disaster. But the prime minister said he had discussed these claims with the chancellor and dismissed them as a "load of nonsense". Former welfare minister Frank Field MP said the prime minister should sack Mr Brown, but did not believe Mr Blair was strong enough to do so.
Tory leader Michael Howard accused the prime minister and Mr Brown of "squabbling like schoolboys". He told Sky News' Sunday with Adam Boulton: "This is the politics of the playground and Britain really does deserve better." The Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said the personal ambition of Mr Blair and Mr Brown was "getting in the way of good government". "Either they need to grow up and put their squabbles to one side or they cannot expect the electorate to support a divided government at the next election." During the interview Mr Blair also said the former home secretary David Blunkett would play a "big role" at the general election. | politics |
Could rivalry overshadow election?
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are desperately trying to stuff the genie of their rivalry back into the bottle.
Along with any number of senior cabinet colleagues, they are insisting their only job is to win the next election and govern in the best interests of Britain. It is a message they are aiming directly at their backbenchers who are becoming irritated and even unnerved by the continuing claims and counter claims surrounding this alleged rift. Ian Gibson, for example, urged the two men to stop squabbling, declaring: "For goodness sake, sometimes you have to rise above petulance and make sure that you do your job as effectively as you can." Those with slim majorities are particularly fearful that the rift could hit their own hopes of re-election. Tony Blair will seek to reassure Labour MPs on Monday evening at their first meeting of the new year at Westminster - a behind-closed doors meeting which Gordon Brown is thought likely to also attend to show unity.
Meanwhile the likes of Health Secretary John Reid and Labour peer Lord Haskins are warning of the electoral dangers of allowing this soap opera to continue. And they have both warned the rival camps to stop spreading the poison. Lord Haskins even suggested Mr Blair should reinstate Mr Brown as the central figure in the election planning.
But this particular genie is unusually reluctant to return to captivity and many fear it is simply too late to repair the damage. They believe they will be fighting the next election with the sounds of open warfare between the two men ringing in their ears. And it matters little whether the rift is real or, as some try to suggest, simply the product of newspaper headlines and Westminster gossip. Few in Westminster actually believe that, simply because the evidence appears to contradict it.
For example, the weekend's attempts by both men to play down the divisions failed to do the trick. Even as they were both insisting on their unity of purpose and claiming they would not be swayed by newspaper stories, they still managed to stir the speculation with their comments.
Mr Blair talked about the "New" Labour manifesto - a move which seemed calculated to irritate the chancellor, who has long rejected the label. And Mr Brown pointedly refused to deny claims the prime minister had reneged on a deal to hand him the premiership last year. That claim was repeated in Robert Peston's book, a book which amply demonstrates this corrosive Downing Street soap opera is nowhere near its final act.
For his part, Mr Brown insists his only motivation was to get Labour re-elected.
The trouble is, both men have fallen short of offering simple, straightforward denials of the central claims. So they have both been accused of actually making matters worse by feeding the speculation with their own behaviour. The first thing to be said is that these suggestions have not come from nowhere. They started with and are sustained by "friends" of the two men. One only had to listen to the chancellor's friend and former spin chief Charlie Whelan last week to understand that there is a real anger from this camp at the prime minister's apparent attempts to confound Mr Brown's leadership ambitions. But it is not just public pronouncements from ex-aides.
There are whispered briefings to selected journalists from both sides. It is no secret in Westminster, for example, that Downing Street believes the chancellor is indulging in a mammoth sulk and acting in a petty and deliberately provocative manner.
Then there are the actions of the men themselves. Gordon Brown sets out what is seen as a rival manifesto then appears to embark on his own personal campaign. The prime minister responds by scheduling his monthly press conference to clash with a keynote speech by the chancellor. Meanwhile large numbers of backbench MPs insist voters are either entirely uninterested in the chatter, which they believe is a media-only obsession, or that they fear for the efficient running of a government beset by such rivalry. Either way, there is universal agreement that if this goes on through the general election it can only do the Labour party serious damage. There are signs that the two men appreciate the dangers and both want to put a lid on all the speculation. But with probably only four months to the next election, that looks like being a particularly difficult trick to pull off. | politics |
Brown in appeal for Labour unity
Gordon Brown has made an appeal for unity after reports claimed Mr Blair went back on a pledge to stand down before the next general election.
The chancellor would not comment on the reports, but insisted he would not be "diverted or distracted" from tackling the challenges faced by the country. His only "motivation" was to ensure Labour was re-elected, he insisted. Mr Blair earlier dismissed the claim he had reneged on a promise to stand aside for Gordon Brown as old news. According to a new book, Brown's Britain by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston, Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004.
In an interview with BBC One's Breakfast with Frost, Mr Blair said: "I've dealt with this six months ago. I said then you don't do deals over jobs like this - you don't. "What both of us are actually concentrating on are the issues that concern the country."
In a separate interview with BBC political editor Andrew Marr, Mr Brown said: "It's very important that we all do what we can in a unified way to ensure the election of a Labour government. "I think it is very important to stress that that is the motivation that I have. "That is my purpose in politics, and that is what every day I seek to do. And I am not going to be diverted or distracted, nor is Tony Blair, by newspaper stories or books or rumours or gossip. "The only reason why we are in government is to get on with the job in a unified way to deal with the challenges facing this country." Mr Brown also said he had discussed the general election campaign with the prime minister on Saturday and pledged to play his part as he had been asked to do.
But Mr Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other and that Mr Blair had decided in November 2003 he would quit because he felt he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war. He then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, according to the book. Andrew Marr said: "This is enormously damaging. Gordon Brown knows it as well as Tony Blair. "I think the relationship is genuinely, privately, very poor indeed. Things are very difficult." He added: "Lots of ministers believe Tony Blair will attempt to move Gordon Brown out of the Treasury after the election. "That depends on whether there's still a Labour government and their majority."
Senior MPs are expected to raise concerns about the latest reports of infighting at the regular meeting of Labour backbenchers on Monday.
Health Secretary John Reid said those fuelling such reports were damaging Labour's re-election chances and would not be easily forgiven. Fresh speculation of a rift recently followed Mr Blair and Mr Brown's separate responses to the Asian tsunami. These rumours were fuelled by Mr Blair's decision to hold his monthly media conference at the same time as a long-planned speech by Mr Brown on UK plans to tackle global poverty with a new "Marshall Plan" for Africa. There was speculation the pair were trying to outdo each other's response to the disaster. But the prime minister said he had discussed these claims with the chancellor and dismissed them as a "load of nonsense". Tory leader Michael Howard accused the prime minister and Mr Brown of"squabbling like schoolboys". Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said the personal ambition of Mr Blair and Mr Brown was "getting in the way of good government". | politics |
Blair pledges unity to Labour MPs
Tony Blair has sought to reassure Labour backbenchers that nothing will stand in the way of the party's bid for a third term in power.
Mr Blair was speaking to MPs amid fresh rumours of a rift with Gordon Brown. A new book says the prime minister went back on a pledge to Mr Brown to stand down before the next general election. The chancellor has said he is focused on winning the poll and is due to join election supremo Alan Milburn for a Labour poster launch this week. Mr Blair told the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) on Monday: "I know from everyone here, in Cabinet and government, nothing is going to get in the way of a unified Labour Party with a unified position and winning the third term people desperately need." The prime minister and his chancellor arrived within seconds of each other and seemingly in good spirits at the start of the meeting which lasted around an hour. A new book, Brown's Britain by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston, says Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004.
It has caused a new wave of concern among Labour MPs gearing up to defend their seats in an election, widely expected to be held in May, and several members are understood to have lined up to express their discontent at the PLP meeting. Health Secretary John Reid earlier warned that Labour members would not easily forgive anybody fuelling damaging speculation. He told BBC News: "Those who co-operate or inspire these books, in my view, have to know that, whatever the short-term political or personal advantage that they think they might secure, they always do it by damaging the record, the unity and the re-election chances of the Labour Party and the government." Mr Blair on Sunday dismissed claims of broken promises, saying: "I've dealt with this six months ago. I said then you don't do deals over jobs like this - you don't."
In a separate BBC interview, Mr Brown said he and the prime minister would not be distracted by "gossip". "It's very important that we all do what we can in a unified way to ensure the election of a Labour government," he said.
On Monday, Mr Blair's spokesman said: "The prime minister is determined that he will get on with the business of government because he believes that what people want." Mr Brown says he discussed the election campaign with Mr Blair on Saturday and promised to play his part.
Mr Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt". Mr Blair had decided in November 2003 he would quit because he felt he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war.
He had then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from Cabinet allies and suspicion that the chancellor was manoeuvring against him. Mr Brown allegedly said he could no longer believe anything Mr Blair told him. Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox likened the two men to "self-obsessed schoolboys". Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said their personal ambition was "getting in the way of good government". Ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock said Mr Blair and Mr Brown could only deal with the media frenzy by continuing to say they would not allow a row to damage Labour or British interests. He told BBC Radio Five Live that Mr Brown would never encourage any kind of insurrection or coup. | politics |
Blair and Brown criticised by MPs
Labour MPs have angrily criticised Tony Blair and Gordon Brown amid renewed reports of a rift between the two men.
A meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party saw a succession of normally loyal members warn that feuding could jeopardise Labour's election hopes. The PM insisted nothing would derail Labour's campaign, despite a new book saying he has upset his chancellor by backing out of a pledge to stand aside. Mr Brown will again be in the public eye at the party's new poster launch. In what the party had hoped would be perceived as a show of unity, he is due to line up alongside Alan Milburn - the man controversially appointed as the party's election supremo - and deputy leader John Prescott for the event in London on Tuesday. Relations between Mr Brown and Mr Milburn are widely reported to be cool ever since Mr Blair brought the latter back into the Cabinet to run Labour's election campaign, a role successfully carried out by Mr Brown in both 1997 and 2001.
Mr Blair told the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday: "I know from everyone here, in Cabinet and government, nothing is going to get in the way of a unified Labour Party with a unified position and winning the third term people desperately need."
The prime minister and his chancellor arrived within seconds of each other for the meeting of the PLP and were seemingly in good spirits as it started. New speculation about the state of their relationship was sparked by claims in Brown's Britain, by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston, which suggested Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown. Labour's Paul Flynn said Mr Blair and Mr Brown had a "scorching" from MPs adding: "It was a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting like no other."
Backbencher Stephen Pound said some MPs had threatend to expose those fuelling the reports if Mr Blair and Mr Brown did not "stop this nonsense, this poisonous briefing". Lord Campbell-Savours, a former MP, challenged Mr Brown to deny reports that he had told the prime minister he did not believe anything he said. Mr Prescott said MPs were entitled to complain about discipline after reading recent press reports.
"They told us very clearly, it was the troops telling the leaders: get in line," he told BBC Radio 4's Today on Tuesday. Mr Prescott said there were occasional disagreements in any government. But he argued Mr Blair and Mr Brown could work successfully together and had produced a strong economy and better public services.
The new book claims Mr Prescott hosted a dinner in November 2003 where the prime minister told Mr Brown he would stand down before the next election because he had lost trust over the Iraq war. He had then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from Cabinet allies and suspicion that the chancellor was manoeuvring against him, writes Mr Peston. Mr Prescott said there was a dinner but the discussions were confidential. "Of course as a waiter for 10 years I have a professional ability here," he joked. Mr Blair has insisted he has done no deals over the premiership while Mr Brown says he will not let "gossip" distract him from helping a unified election campaign. The Conservatives say the two men are behaving like squabbling schoolboys and the Liberal Democrats claim personal ambition is obstructing good government. | politics |
Labour MPs' fears over squabbling
If there is one thing certain to stiffen the spines of Labour MPs it is the prospect of losing their seats at a general election.
And it was largely that fear that led to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown being read the riot act during a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. The views expressed by both backbenchers and Labour peers over the claimed squabbling between the two men starkly demonstrated the widely-held view within the Labour party that the two most powerful figures in the government are jeopardising the next election. As one hugely-disgruntled backbencher said before the meeting: "It is time they realised it's not just my seat they are threatening but if they go on like this they could put the election in doubt." It is a sentiment that is now running throughout the Labour benches with MPs eager to underline the message to their leaders to stop the squabbling and get on with the job at hand.
As Paul Flynn said: "What has deeply upset the party is in this time of all times, when we wanted to come together, we wanted to lead on the global issues, to change politics for the next decade, the whole thing was wrecked by a piece of childishness by the two main people in the party, two people we greatly respect."
Stephen Pound echoed the message, saying: "We know that the one thing that could entirely jeopardise what we are trying to achieve, not for the Labour Party but for this country, is the appearance of division. We remember the 1980s". They backed the suggestion that unless the squabbling stopped, the people briefing on behalf of the two men would be "named and shamed". The dressing down appears to have done the trick, with Mr Brown joining his alleged rival Alan Milburn - who the prime minister put in charge of election planning in Mr Brown's stead - and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at an election poster launch. But the effect of all this is to have achieved two things. Firstly, nobody is attempting to suggest any more that the stories of the rift between the chancellor and the prime minister are fictions created by the media and authors. Even Mr Prescott admitted that, had he still been a backbencher, he would have been giving Mr Blair and Mr Brown the same message.
Secondly it has also underlined the view that the election campaign has, to all intents and purposes, kicked off. But whether the telling off and the subsequent change in behaviour by the two men will do any good - or can even be sustained through the campaign - remains to be seen.
Even as the MPs were expressing their fears it emerged that, while Mr Brown is in Africa for a week, the prime minister is to deliver a keynote speech on election themes for a third term. And he is expected to repeat his recent insistence that the next manifesto will be "New" Labour through and through. Similarly, some were pointing out that the chancellor, during the election poster launch, once again refused to deny the claim that he told the prime minister he could never trust anything he said. None the less, what some believe now is that the effect of the warnings from the backbenchers will actually be to silence the Brown camp, effectively strengthening the prime minister's hand. For example, will those Brownite briefers suggest their man is unhappy at the prime minister's timing or subject matter, as may have been the case in the past? What all seem agreed on, however, is that this sniping simply cannot be allowed to go on through the election campaign. Mind you, we have heard similar pledges before. | politics |
'Poll Idols' face first hurdles
Vote For Me - ITV1's Pop Idol style talent contest for would-be politicians - finally hits our screens this week.
Over the next four days, hundreds of potential candidates will be whittled down by a panel of experts and public vote. The winner will then be encouraged to stand as an independent at the next general election, which is expected in the spring. But opinion is divided on whether any of the potential candidates unearthed so far have got what it takes to make it in politics. "Any of them would make competent MPs," former independent MP Martin Bell insisted on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Mr Bell, who will be offering his advice to the contestants on Wednesday, argues that Westminster has its share of "odd balls" and the show will engage ordinary voters. "If it gets more people voting and more people interested in politics there is no harm in that," he said. But Sir Bernard Ingham, Margaret Thatcher's former press secretary, took a less charitable view, accusing the programme of "corrupting politics".
He said the producers would not achieve their aim of re-engaging voters "with that bunch of nutters". To give Sir Bernard his dues, Monday evening's opening episode did attract more than a smattering of eccentrics and self-publicists. Among those chancing their arm were a druid priest and a former porn star, who insisted on removing her top to make her point about the legalisation of brothels. Among the more eccentric policy proposals was a public holiday on Bruce Forsyth's birthday and Bill Oddie for prime minister. The show follows the time-honoured Pop Idol format, with queues of nervous hopefuls and a panel of three experts judging their performance.
The contestants were given 60 seconds to present their manifestos. Then the final 25 were tested on their lobbying ability. They were then cross-examined by the panel, which was chaired by ex-ITN political editor John Sergeant, with television host Lorraine Kelly taking the Nicki Chapman role. But the real star of the show is Kelvin MacKenzie, in the Simon Cowell, Mr Nasty seat.
The former Sun editor dispensed a stream of well-crafted insults and one-liners. His advice for one young contestant was to "get a haircut and a brain transplant". Wheelchair user Kevin Donnellon was asked: "Why on earth do you want our elected representatives to be disabled?" "Don't you care about the Inuit?", implored guitar-toting environmental campaigner Barry Lim. "I don't care about them. I care about myself and when the sun's shining I think - fantastic," replied Mr MacKenzie.
Mr Lim later reduced the panel to fits of giggles as he outlined his plan to make people do community service instead of paying taxes. "When the prime minister turns to the chancellor and says how much have we got in the coffers Mr Brown, he says well, prime minister, bad news, all the houses in Britain have been painted but actually nobody has paid any tax," observed Mr MacKenzie. "That was an total disaster. I just couldn't seem to think of things to say," a crestfallen Mr Lim confided in the show's presenter, Jonathan Maitland. Irfan Hanif, a 25-year-old doctor from Bolton, made a good impression, even if he was a little thrown by Mr MacKenzie's suggestion that instead of being treated by the NHS, young drunks should "given a good beating" and left to die. Dominic Carman - son of late libel lawyer George Carman - was voted through to the final 25, on a platform of cutting defence spending to boost education. Opinion was more divided over Rodney Hylton-Potts, a 59-year-old convicted fraudster. Mr MacKenzie thought the smooth-talking former solicitor - with a hardline on crime and immigration - deserved a chance to progress. "He could join the rest of the crooks in the Houses of Parliament." But Ms Kelly said she "would not trust him as far as she could throw him". The series continues throughout the week, with the public given the chance to evict one prospective MP every night. ITV will not fund the election campaign for the eventual winner, but the publicity could give the winner a flying start over other candidates. | politics |
Labour seeks to quell feud talk
Labour's leadership put on a show of unity at a campaign poster launch after MPs criticised Tony Blair and Gordon Brown over reports of their rift.
Mr Brown was joined at the launch by John Prescott and Alan Milburn, the man controversially put in charge of election planning by Mr Blair. A private meeting on Monday saw normally loyal MPs warn that feuding could jeopardise their election hopes. It follows a new book charting disputes between prime minister and chancellor.
The event was the first time Mr Milburn has shared a platform with the chancellor since taking Mr Brown's traditional poll planning role. But the pair chatted amicably and Mr Brown insisted he was happy with his current campaign task. Asked about how he would deal with claims that he did not trust the prime minister, Mr Brown replied: "You can see that our record on the economy is about the British people trusting us to run the economy."
He refused to comment on the new book, saying nobody should be distracted from the business of government. Mr Brown later told reporters: "Of course I trust the prime minister." Downing Street cited that comment when reporters' suggested Mr Brown had pointedly failed to deny claims he had once told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe". Labour's new posters say Britain is enjoying the lowest inflation since the 1960s, lowest unemployment for 29 years and the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years. They urge voters not to let the Tories take things backwards. Mr Milburn promised a poll campaign "which is upbeat, confident and above all else optimistic about the future of our country".
Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox derided the photo call, saying: "The show of unity was the worst acting I have seen since Prisoner Cell Block H." Labour had broken promises by raising taxes 66 times and brought the slowest economic growth in the English-speaking world, he said.
The prime minister and chancellor faced backbench discontent at Monday's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party over claims made in journalist Robert Peston's new book. Mr Blair told MPs and peers: "I know from everyone here, in Cabinet and government, nothing is going to get in the way of a unified Labour Party with a unified position and winning the third term people desperately need." Labour's Paul Flynn said the pair had had a "scorching" from MPs.
On Tuesday, deputy prime minister Mr Prescott told BBC News: "They told us very clearly, it was the troops telling the leaders: get in line." The new book claims Mr Prescott hosted a dinner in November 2003 where the prime minister told Mr Brown he would stand down before the next election because he had lost trust over the Iraq war. Mr Blair then changed his mind in June 2004, after Cabinet allies intervened and amid suspicion the chancellor was manoeuvring against him, writes Mr Peston. Mr Prescott said there was a dinner but the discussions were confidential. "Of course as a waiter for 10 years I have a professional ability here," he joked. | politics |
Labour's election love-in
Peace and love have been in short supply in the Labour party in recent days.
If press reports are to be believed, Alan Milburn and Gordon Brown have been at each other's throats over the contents of Labour's next election manifesto. But the pair were all smiles on Tuesday morning, as they joined John Prescott to unveil Labour's latest poster campaign. The event - at Old Billingsgate Fish Market on the banks of the Thames - was a carefully choreographed show of unity. And the surest sign yet that we are heading for a general election in the next few months. It was also one of the most bizarre photo opportunities of recent years.
The first inkling something slightly odd was afoot was when - in place of the soft rock music normally chosen for such occasions - Labour's speakers crackled to life with the sound of Booker T and the MGs. Then a VW camper van trundled into view, decked out in that most mind-bending of psychedelic messages - "lowest mortgage rate for 40 years". As the side-door slid open, it looked for one glorious moment as if the Cabinet had decided to bury their differences and go on the road together, Scooby Doo-style. But, sadly, it wasn't the Cabinet who had raided the dressing-up box - just six rather ill-at-ease looking Labour students. Two were dressed as Regency dandies - to unveil a poster trumpeting "the longest period of economic growth for 200 years". Another pair of students were in a Beatle wig and Sgt Pepper jacket to highlight the "lowest interest rates since the 1960s".
The remaining two were dressed in a vague approximation of disco chic to demonstrate the "lowest unemployment since the seventies".
The politicians - led out by John Prescott - were soberly-suited as always. The event may have been designed to highlight Labour's economic success under Mr Brown, but there was little doubt who was in charge. The chancellor walked side-by-side with Mr Milburn, pointedly exchanging chit chat, as they approached the microphone. But it was Mr Milburn who took centre stage, speaking of the "positive campaign" the party hoped to stage in the "coming weeks and months".
The mobile poster vans would "let people know Britain is working again". Mr Brown repeated the familiar mantras displayed on the posters and spoke of Labour's "shared purpose" and "united dedication". It was left to Mr Prescott to pay glowing tribute to the chancellor's record and, in a final flourish, to produce his famous pledge card, from 1997, claiming Labour has met all of its promises. The event was carefully stage-managed to underline Cabinet unity. And, more specifically, to demonstrate the "central role" Mr Brown will play in the election campaign, despite being sidelined as campaign chief in favour of Mr Milburn.
But keen students of body language will have had a field day. There was much forced smiling for the cameras, but only Mr Prescott, who revels in such occasions, seemed to be truly enjoying himself. Mr Milburn made a point of turning to face the chancellor, as he spoke, nodding thoughtfully. But it was the former health secretary's final gesture, placing an arm on Mr Brown's back as they walked away from the microphones, which was perhaps the most telling. Thanks for dropping by Gordon, he might have been saying. | politics |
Howard taunts Blair over splits
Tony Blair's feud with Gordon Brown is damaging the way the UK is governed, Tory leader Michael Howard has claimed in a heated prime minister's questions.
Mr Howard asked: "How can they fight crime when they are fighting each other?" That question was later unveiled as the headline for new Tory campaign posters. But Mr Blair dismissed the talk of splits and said people's priorities at the next elections would be on the economic successes achieved by Labour. "He can stick up whatever he likes on billboards about something in a book but what the public will concentrate on are the low mortgages, low inflation, low unemployment that we delivered and that he failed to," he said. The chancellor is currently on a high-profile tour of Africa to highlight new anti-poverty plans. But before doing so, he insisted he still trusted Mr Blair, despite claims to the contrary in a new book.
Brown's Britain, by Robert Peston, says there is mutual animosity between the two men. It claims Mr Blair said in November 2003 he would stand down as prime minister before the next election. But he went back on his pledge after support from Cabinet allies and suspicion that Mr Brown was manoeuvring against him, it says.
Mr Peston's book claimed that Mr Brown told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe." Mr Blair directly denied that quote on Wednesday. He again insisted there could be no deals about the premiership but twice declined directly to say whether or not he had offered to quit.
The Tory leader countered that such agreements had been struck twice at dinners with the chancellor. He declared: "He is the deals on meals prime minister. No wonder the chancellor is not a happy eater." He continued: "How can there be discipline in schools when there is no discipline in government, how can they clean up our hospitals when they don't clean up their act?" Mr Blair said he would not respond to "tittle tattle in books" and promised to hail Labour's record on the economy, waiting lists and law and order "from now until polling day". Later at their poster launch Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said his party would exploit opportunities to show how "juvenile" the prime minister and chancellor were.
Labour staged a show of unity at its own poster launch on Tuesday, where Mr Brown was joined by Alan Milburn, who Mr Blair controversially put in charge of election planning in place of the chancellor. But Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy told BBC News: "The government is clearly split at the top. This kind of cosmetic exercise does not persuade anybody." Later this week Mr Blair is expected to outline the direction of his party's next election manifesto. The prime minister and chancellor faced backbench discontent at Monday's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party over claims made Mr Peston's book. | politics |
How political squabbles snowball
It's become commonplace to argue that Blair and Brown are like squabbling school kids and that they (and their supporters) need to grow up and stop bickering.
But this analysis in fact gets it wrong. It's not just children who fight - adults do too. And there are solid reasons why even a trivial argument between mature protagonists can be hard to stop once its got going. The key feature of an endless feud is that everyone can agree they'd be better off if it ended - but everyone wants to have the last word.
Each participant genuinely wants the row to stop, but thinks it worth prolonging the argument just a tiny bit to ensure their view is heard. Their successive attempts to end the argument with their last word ensure the argument goes on and on and on. (In the case of Mr Blair and Mr Brown, successive books are published, ensuring the issues never die.) Now this isn't because the participants are stupid - it's actually each individual behaving entirely rationally, given the incentives facing them. Indeed, there's even a piece of economic theory that explains all this. Nothing as obscure as "post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory" which the chancellor himself once quoted - but a ubiquitous piece of game theory which all respectable policy wonks are familiar with.
It's often referred to as the "prisoner's dilemma", based on a parable much told in economics degree courses... about a sheriff and two prisoners. The story goes that two prisoners are jointly charged with a heinous crime, and are locked up in separate cells. But the sheriff desperately needs a confession from at least one of them, to provide enough evidence to convict them of the crime. Without a confession, the prisoners will get a minimal sentence on some trumped up charge.
Clearly the prisoners' best strategy is to keep their mouths shut, and take the short sentence, but the clever sheriff has an idea to induce them to talk. He tells each prisoner separately, that if they confess - and they are the only one to confess - they'll be let off their crime. And he tells them that if they don't confess - and they are the only one not to confess - they'll get life. Now, if you are prisoner confronted with this choice, your best bet is to confess. If your partner doesn't confess, you'll get off completely. And if your partner does confess, you'd better confess to ensure you don't get life. The result is of course, both prisoners confess, so the sheriff does not have to let either one off. Both prisoners' individual logic was to behave that way, even though both would have been better if they had somehow agreed to shut up. Don't worry if you don't entirely follow it - you can to look it up on Google, where there are 283,000 entries on it.
The prisoners' dilemma and all its ramifications have truly captured economists in the last couple of decades. It is a parable used to describe any situation where there is an obvious sensible choice to be taken collectively, but where the only rational choice individually is to behave selfishly.
A cold war arms race for example - a classic case where both Russia and America would be better off with just a few arms, rather than a lot of arms. But as long as each wants just a few more arms than the other, an arms race ensues with the results that the individually logical decision to buy more arms, results in arms levels that are too high. What economics tells us is that once you're in a prisoners' dilemma - unless you are repeating the experience many times over - it's hard to escape the perverse logic of it. It's no good just exhorting people to stop buying arms, or to stop arguing when all their incentives encourage them to carry on. Somehow, the incentives have to change.
In the case of the Labour Party, if you believe the rift between Blair and Brown camps is as bad as the reports suggest, Solomon's wisdom needs to be deployed to solve the problem. Every parent knows there are ingenious solutions to arguments, solutions which affect the incentives of the participants. An example, is the famous rule that "one divides, the other chooses" as a way of allocating a piece of cake to be sliced up between greedy children. In the case of an apparently endless argument, if you want it to come to an end, you have to ensure the person who has the last word is one who loses rather than the one who wins the row. The cost of prolonging the row by even one more briefing, or one more book for that matter, has to exceed the benefit of having the last word, and getting your point in. If the rest of the party can enforce that, they'll have the protagonists retreating pretty quickly. | politics |
Blair looks to election campaign
Tony Blair's big speech will be looked back on as the performance that kicked off the election campaign.
That poll may still be about 16 weeks away, but there can be little doubt left that the campaign is now in full swing. The prime minister used his speech to a selected audience in the south east to set out his broad brush election manifesto. There was a detailed account of the government's past record, with a major emphasis on the economy and public services. There was an attempt to draw the line under the gossip surrounding his rift with Chancellor Gordon Brown. And there was an insistence on the importance of the party continuing to operate as unremittingly "New" Labour - although that may continue to irritate his chancellor.
There was little in terms of concrete proposals or what might form manifesto pledges, although the prime minister talked about a "New Labour manifesto that will be aimed at all sections of society". His was more a speech designed to remind people, and some in his own party, precisely what New Labour stood for, and to leave them in no doubt there would not be any shrinking away from that approach. And, for some, that means showing that New Labour actually does stand for something - that it is, as he said, more than "an electoral device".
To that end he set out a broad programme aimed to appeal to both middle England voters who switched to the party in 1997 and stuck with it, possibly through some gritted teeth, in 2001, and to more traditional lower income old Labour supporters. In a key section, he declared: "In our third term we can achieve an unprecedented widening of opportunity and prosperity. "For the first time ever a whole generation growing up with unbroken economic stability. Every family - not just the fortunate few - knowing their children will have an inheritance at adulthood. "Every pupil in every secondary school guaranteed a place in university or a quality apprenticeship. Every adult - including those who missed out at school - able to get the skills then need to advance. "Home ownership extended to its highest ever level and to families who have never before been able to afford it. "The highest ever level of employment with everyone in work guaranteed a decent wage and decent conditions".
Under what is to be the general election slogan "Britain is working", the prime minister time and again insisted the future direction would be unremittingly New Labour. That might get under the skin of Mr Brown, but he also heaped praise on him as the most successful post-war chancellor Britain has had. Probably the greatest ideological divide between the two men, in so far as there is one, is about the degree of private finance allowed into the public services.
An unremittingly "New" Labour manifesto, as the prime minister is happy to make plain, will stress the importance of that - the belief patients and parents, for example, want a choice of good services before they start worrying about who has provided them. The chancellor is said to be far more sceptical about private finance, although there is no suggestion he opposes it in principle. With an election looming the next big speech from Gordon Brown will be closely examined for any signs of divisions and, in particular, the use of that little three letter word. But for now, all eyes have been focused on the next general election. And for many in Westminster, Mr Blair's performance has only succeeded in hardening the belief that will be on 5 May. | politics |
Tories unveil quango blitz plans
Plans to abolish 162 quangos have been unveiled by the Conservatives as part of their effort to show how government red tape can be cut.
Six government units would also be scrapped under proposals which the Tories say would save more than £4.3bn. Among the targets are strategic health authorities and the new fair access regulator for universities. Tory frontbencher John Redwood said Britain needed a slimmer government and lower taxes to be competitive.
The plans would abolish regional assemblies and other regional bodies, such as boards tackling industrial development and housing. Their powers would be returned to elected local councils or national government. The Tories say the strategic health authorities are not needed as it is better that local people, rather than officials, run hospitals and surgeries.
Announcing the plans, Mr Redwood said: "Mr Blair has forgotten the interests of taxpayers, and has broken the pledges he made. "Far from improving public services, spending taxpayers' money on quangos has led only to more bureaucrats, more regulation and higher taxes." His party leader, Michael Howard, argued a change in direction was needed to get a grip on spending. "Labour are creating Two Britains: the Britain of the forgotten majority and bureaucratic Britain," he said. "In the real world, people are working harder just to stand still. They've seen their pensions knocked for six. "They're being squeezed by extra taxes. The forgotten majority are paying the price of bureaucratic Britain."
The government has announced plans to cut 100,000 civil servants as part of its efficiency drive. But Chief Secretary to the Treasury Paul Boateng attacked the Tory plans. "The Conservatives are committed to cutting Labour's public spending plans by a massive £35 billion," he said. "Cuts on this scale cannot be found from cutting 'bureaucracy' but would require massive cuts to front-line public services such as schools, hospitals and the police." The Liberal Democrats have said they would cut the number of Whitehall departments to make sure money reaches frontline services. | politics |
Peers debate Crown succession law
Peers are debating proposals to change the rules governing the succession to the throne.
Labour peer Lord Dubs' Succession to the Crown Bill aims to end the right of male heirs to succeed to the crown even if they have an older sister. The private member's bill would also abolish the ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics. The Fabian Society's Sundar Katwala said the change was "long overdue" and that he expected a "warm response". The political reform group's general secretary told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme there were some "very out-dated features" at the heart of Britain's constitution.
"In 1998 the government said in principle it supported the idea of ending gender discrimination and that it would consult on how to come forward with its own measures. "We hope they are warm towards it and don't say this is the wrong time." He pointed out that it was 30 years since the sex discrimination act and urged politicians on all sides to back the bill. Mr Katwala added: "This is long overdue. Parliament will have to do it eventually, the government, and I hope all of the political parties, might think this is a very simple thing to have in their manifestos."
But he acknowledged that even if the bill did win support, it was unlikely to become law because the legislative programme is likely to be squeezed by the coming general election. He said he hoped the bill would be a "gentle nudge" to the government and suggested it would "demand a response". The bill, which is in the Lords for its second reading, has been adopted by former chief whip Ann Taylor in the Commons. The rule of succession is regulated not only through descent and tradition but also by the Act of Settlement which confirmed in 1701 that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne. | politics |
UKIP's secret weapon?
By any measure, New Yorker Dick Morris is that thing Americans love over everything else - a winner.
This is the man who, some pundits believe, was almost single-handedly responsible for Bill Clinton's sensational 1992 comeback victory. But Morris is no ideologue. He has worked as election strategist for any number of Republicans as well and, more recently, politicians from Mexico to Uruguay. Now he is back in London as the UK Independence Party's not-so-secret electoral weapon after returning from the Ukraine where he helped - you guessed it - opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko. If there is one regular criticism levelled at Morris, it is that he is too ready to switch allegiances. That he enjoys the game more than the politics.
So why Britain and why UKIP which, despite its recent EU election successes, is not likely to pull off a sensational victory in the looming general election. On this subject, Morris appears almost evangelical.
"I was on a cruise in the Mediterranean and, coincidentally, so was UKIP leader Roger Knapman. "I had just written a piece saying how the English Channel was now wider than the Atlantic which he liked and it went from there". But what is it about UKIP that particularly attracts him? Many might think it is simply another chance to practice his art, irrespective of the politics. "I think the greatest threat to democracy in the world is not terrorism but bureaucratism". A great soundbite, but a surprise coming from a New Yorker post 11 September. "It is the growth of these bodies composed of experts who know better, who don't believe in letting democracy govern but believe in letting the correct solution be determined. "That's international bankers, the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and, primarily, the European Union".
So he is out to help UKIP take Britain out of this organisation which he believes is unreformable and inherently undemocratic. And he is scathing of the Tory party which he also appears to believe is unreformable. "The Tory party is schizophrenic about Europe. But until somebody says they are willing to leave the EU they can't possibly re-negotiate anything (as Michael Howard is pledged to do). "It's like walking into a liquor store with a gun to rob it and saying: 'before I can proceed with the robbery I want to make clear I am not going to shoot anybody'". Possibly a very American analogy, but another great soundbite. "The basic point is that the EU seeks political integration to move the entire nexus of decision making away from Britain - and we oppose that and the Tories cannot be trusted to oppose it".
So is UKIP's job to destroy the Tories, as former member Robert Kilroy-Silk once notoriously declared? "No. The aim of UKIP is to withdraw from the EU and if it has any relation to the Tories it is to stiffen the Tories' spine on the issue by having a large enough UKIP vote so that we move the Tories in the direction they are refusing to move.
"But it's not just to shift the Tories. I think UKIP had a huge amount to do with Tony Blair's decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution and I think it had a huge amount to do with his refusal to go into the euro". And, while we are on the subject of Mr Kilroy-Silk, Mr Morris despatches him with another of his neat soundbites. "Robert Kilroy Silk is not a team player - it is a good idea our party stands for some thing and not some one".
So what is the big plan for the general election. How will he achieve the breakthrough? "Look, we are not going to be forming the next government," he said. Neither does UKIP have to fight every seat. As with the 2004 US presidential election, he says, the outcome will be decided by a small number of swing seats - just as he believes it will in Britain. So, with limited resources, the aim is to target those seats and end the day with a significant group in the Commons. He also believes it is possible the internet could have a big part in the poll. "The internet was a decisive factor in the 2004 presidential election - through blogs (individuals posting their views in online diaries). People just did it". "Anything can happen in the next general election. There is an inherent instability at the moment. "Labour and the Tories have drawn the consensus so tightly and to the left there is room for another voice".
That might, he suggests, lead to a hung parliament with UKIP and others holding the balance of power. It is a huge task, surely. But there is undoubtedly a sense that the next general election may indeed produce some surprises - even while most still believe it is Labour's for the taking. UKIP's performance in last year's European elections was just such a shocker and showed that Mr Morris may have a point about the new consensus. And after all, he has a reputation to sustain. | politics |
More reforms ahead says Milburn
Labour will continue to pursue controversial reforms if it wins a third term in power, the party's election chief Alan Milburn has said.
He pledged Labour would encourage more people to achieve their aspirations. "What we want is for more people to earn and own," Mr Milburn told BBC Radio 4's Today show. Tory Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin called Labour "a brilliant machine for talking about things" but said it did not deliver policies the country needs. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats' President Simon Hughes said: "New Labour has lost people's confidence in a way Old Labour never did." Mr Milburn told Today that Labour wanted policies which encouraged increased social mobility in Britain.
Pressed on incapacity benefits, he said the tax and welfare system must "provide the right incentives to people". "No-one is talking about driving people into work but what we do know is there are one million people on incapacity benefit who want the opportunity to work, providing the right level of support is there for them". However, backbench Labour MP Karen Buck warned against proposed changes in such benefits. She told the Today programme: "If the policy is seen as being about how do you make the feckless poor go back to work then it is not going to work, on the one hand. And it is not going to improve our electoral chances on the other." Mr Milburn also sought to draw a line under the controversy about reports of a feud between Gordon Brown and Prime Minister Tony Blair.
He stressed that Mr Brown would play the same role that he did in the last election. Mr Milburn gave more details of planned reforms in a speech to Labour's Fabian Society, in which he also praised Mr Brown as one of the leaders of the party's reform process. In the speech, he backed choice in schools and hospitals, wider home ownership and changes to the welfare system. Mr Milburn insisted that government reform must continue. "Our task is to rebuild the New Labour coalition around 'one nation politics' that recognise, while life is hard for many, all should have the chance to succeed," he said. "There is a glass ceiling on opportunity in this country. In our first two terms we have raised it. In our third term we have to break it." Voters turned on the party when it failed to reform industrial relations in the 1960s, he also told his audience.
Oliver Letwin said the government had failed to deliver in any of the key public services, such as cleaner hospitals, discipline in schools and putting more police on the streets. He said ministers had not delivered cleaner hospitals, with 5,000 people dying from infections last year. New Labour had failed on school discipline because it had not implemented serious reforms so that teachers could run schools, and which would give parents choice, he went on. For the Lib Dems, Simon Hughes said many pensioners are means tested for the money they needed and students who were told there wouldn't be tuition fees and more debt "have been given exactly the opposite". He added: "Under New Labour, all households are still paying unfair council tax rather than a fairer alternative." | politics |
Teens 'know little' of politics
Teenagers questioned for a survey have shown little interest in politics - and have little knowledge.
Only a quarter of 14-16 year olds knew that Labour was the government, the Tories were the official Opposition and the Lib Dems were the third party. Almost all could identify Tony Blair, but only one in six knew who Michael Howard was, and just one in 10 recognised Charles Kennedy. The ICM survey interviewed 110 pupils for education watchdog Ofsted. Nearly half those pupils polled said it was not important for them to know more about what the political parties stand for. And 4% of those questioned thought the Conservatives were in power - while 2% of them believed the Lib Dems were. The survey also looked at issues of nationality. It found the Union flag and fish and chips topped the list of symbols and foods associated with being British. Many of the pupils also looked on themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh, rather than British; while the notion of being European hardly occurred to anyone. | politics |
Defection timed to hit tax pledge
With impeccable and precisely-calculated timing, Tory defector Robert Jackson and his new Labour bosses have attempted to overshadow Michael Howard's latest announcement on taxation and spending.
With just about everyone in Westminster now working towards a May general election, Mr Howard is eager to map out some clear and distinctive policies aimed at finally shifting the Tories' resolutely depressing poll showings. The big idea is his £35bn savings on waste and bureaucracy which Mr Howard has pledged to plough back into public services and tax cuts. And it was virtually certain his pledge on tax cuts was meant to be the core message from his interview on the BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme. He and his shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin have been edging towards an announcement on this front for some months now, but without any concrete pledges. But Mr Howard announced that, of the £35bn he has earmarked from savings, £12bn will be used to plug Labour's claimed financial black hole with any left over going to tax cuts in Mr Letwin's first budget. He would not be precise, but there are already suggestions he is set to announce lifting the threshold on income tax and reforming or abolishing inheritance tax. But he did, for the first time, say there would be such tax cuts.
"At this election, people will have a clear choice between Mr Blair who will waste more and tax more and the Conservative party which will give value for money and tax less". It is the Tories' attempt to open that famed "clear blue water" between them and the Labour party and return to a traditional Tory agenda that will both reassure the middle England voters who have abandoned him and appeal to core Conservative voters. So it is a pretty safe bet to assume that, when Robert Jackson finally decided to jump ship and swim over to the Labour benches, his new masters decided to time the announcement for the greatest possible impact. Mr Howard, however, was dismissive. "These things happen from time to time. There are disagreements between Robert Jackson and me.
"The election is not going to be decided on what Robert Jackson did," he added. And that is certainly true. The election will be decided on "the economy stupid". Other issues like the Iraq war and the "trust" thing will also play a major part. But it is the economy that will probably be the greatest influence over the way people finally vote. And many on the Tory benches have been crying out for Mr Howard to get back onto the old Tory tax cuts agenda. Mr Howard knows that risks accusations that, as a result, he would slash public services, so he has attempted to shoot that fox first. With polls suggesting voters would rather any government cash surpluses were spent on schools and hospitals before tax cuts, he has suggested that is exactly what he will do. Whether this will finally be enough to shift those polls remains to be seen. | politics |
Tory leader unveils spending plan
Tory leader Michael Howard says his party can save £35bn in government spending by tackling waste.
The money would be ploughed back into frontline services like the NHS and schools with the rest used to cut government borrowing and reduce taxes. The Tory leader has also shrugged off the defection of one of his MPs, Robert Jackson, a former minister, to Labour. Mr Howard said that these things happened in politics and it would not affect the outcome of the election. "Let's be realistic - the election is not going to be decided on the basis of what Mr Jackson did", he told BBC 1's Breakfast with Frost programme. However the defection on Saturday has cast a shadow over the launch of the Conservatives' spending plans. Fuller details are due to be unveiled on Monday.
The bulk of the £35bn saved by tackling bureaucracy and inefficient systems will go back into frontline services, Mr Howard said. The £12bn left over would then be spent on reducing government borrowing, he added. However, the remainder would deal with some of the "unfair taxes". "Almost every independent expert says if you get another Labour government you are going to have to pay higher taxes," Mr Howard insisted. "Because borrowing is going up, it is out of control, that is bound to lead to higher taxes or higher interest rates or both. "So part of the £12bn we are going to apply to filling the government's black hole, reducing the borrowing. "The rest will be used to reduce these unfair taxes which are bearing so heavily on the people of our country today."
Mr Howard is expected to say that around £6bn will be available for tax cuts when he makes his announcement on Monday. The cuts will be paid for out of the savings identified by business trouble-shooter David James. Home Office spending could be cut by £1.6bn, according to the final instalment of his year-long review. Savings of £153m at the Foreign Office and £336m at the Department for Culture Media and Sport, have also been identified. In all, almost a quarter of a million jobs and 168 public bodies would go under Mr James' proposals.
Mr Howard said: "All this adds up to a bottom line and the bottom line is at this election people will have a clear choice between Mr Blair, who will waste more and tax more, and a Conservative government that will give them value for money and tax less." However, Chief Treasury Secretary Paul Boateng said: "None of the Tories' figures add up so they can't make these savings and can't pay for any tax cuts, which means the only guaranteed cut from the Tories is £35bn of cuts, hitting frontline public services hard." Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy added: "People will not be taken in by Michael Howard's claims of £35bn worth of savings. "This can't be achieved without drastic cuts in local services in their own communities." A poll for the News of the World newspaper suggests the Conservatives are on course for their worst election defeat in a century. Labour will hold key marginal constituencies, winning a majority of 160, the Populus survey suggests. And the Liberal Democrats will take three key seats from the Conservatives, leaving the Tories with just 163 MPs, two less than they returned atLabour's 1997 landslide and their worst showing since 1906. | politics |
Kennedy looks to election gains
They may not know quite how to describe their position in British politics - the real opposition, the valid opposition, the effective opposition or the authentic opposition.
But the Liberal Democrats are entering the expected 2005 election campaign determined to prove it is they, not the Tories, who are now the real threat to Labour. As Tory leader Michael Howard kicked off his election campaign, the Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy dismissed the Conservatives as a "fading" force. And he insisted there was "no limit" to his party's ambitions in the coming poll. And he can produce some pretty impressive recent election results to back up his optimism for an election which he believes might just see his party doing big things. Sensible third party leaders are usually cautious about making any predictions about how they will do come the big test.
And Mr Kennedy was not falling into that trap when he fired up his campaign from the party's Westminster HQ. He would make no predictions other than that he expected the Lib Dems to increase both their votes and their Commons seats at the election.
The gap between Labour and the Tories was now so narrow - as proved, he claimed, by the defection to Labour of Robert Jackson - that only his party offered a genuine alternative. On the war on Iraq, identity cards, student fees and the council tax, there was nothing to chose between the two big parties whereas the Liberal Democrats offered costed, sensible alternatives. He was also happy to break the two party consensus on taxation by promising to increase income tax on those earning more than £100,000 a year to pay for the scrapping of student fees, the introduction of free personal care for the elderly and replacing the council tax with a local income tax. He was also happy to offer a pledge that he would be doing no deals to "prop up" either of the other big parties after the election.
There was a time when such optimistic sounds coming from the third party could be dismissed as self-delusion. That is no longer the case with the Liberal Democrats. The other parties will still insist that the Lib Dems are no hopers whose greatest effect on the poll will be to boost the hopes of their opponents by denying them otherwise winnable seats.
Labour, in particular, fears that disillusioned supporters may switch to the Lib Dems allowing the Tories to win some seats. But Mr Kennedy is clearly hoping for a more significant outcome than that. He will not talk about the big breakthrough, although there are those who believe this could well be the election that sees his party crossing some sort of symbolic threshold. They would argue that, by the time of the election after next, the Liberal Democrats may genuinely have replaced the Tories as the party challenging Labour for power. The Lib Dems will hope to have made advances because of their consistent stand against the war on Iraq. But Mr Kennedy believes his new manifesto will also offer sensible, costed and achievable policies on things like the council tax, crime and asylum that will underpin his claim that his party really is the only opposition worth the name. | politics |
'Best person' for top legal job
The "best person for the job" should be appointed lord chancellor, and not necessarily a lawyer or MP, the courts minister has told MPs.
Under reforms, the post of lord chancellor is to be stripped of its judicial functions. "The lord chancellor...no more needs to be a lawyer than the Secretary of Health needs to be a doctor," said courts minister Christopher Leslie. The Constitutional Reform Bill was entering its second reading on Monday. Mr Leslie said: "The prime minister should be able to appoint the best person for the job whether they sit in the House of Lords or the House of Commons." Under the reforms, the Law Lords will also be replaced as the UK's highest legal authority by a Supreme Court and judges will be appointed by an independent panel rather than ministers.
In December the Lords rejected a plea by current Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer that the holder of the job should not necessarily be a lawyer or a peer. The peers voted by 229 to 206 to say in law that lord chancellors must also be peers. The debate was carried over from the last Parliamentary session, but with an impending general election time is crucial for the government to get the Bill passed. Mr Leslie said it was irrelevant whether the post was called Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or Lord Chancellor. He said: "What matters most is...whether it is reformed so that the post holder no longer has those conflicting duties. "It is no longer appropriate for a government minister to have such unfettered discretion in the appointment of judges."
Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve criticised the government on its plans to change what he said was an "exceptional institution," providing a "champion of the independence of the judiciary". The government had initially proposed to take this institution and "smash it to pieces," Mr Grieve said. Convention should be "nurtured and celebrated," but the government distrusted and disliked it instead. He warned that unless ministers backed down over the lord chancellor remaining a member of the House of Lords, the government would have "great difficulty" in getting the Bill through Parliament. Former Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg, whose father and grandfather served as lord chancellor, said the Bill was "largely unnecessary, bureaucratic and expensive". But the Tory MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham admitted the lord chancellor's role and office "cannot be frozen in aspic". | politics |
The memory driving Brown's mission
The memory Gordon Brown says keeps returning to him - the one that he says is burnt into him - is that of a 12 year-old girl, whose parents died of Aids, and who is HIV positive herself.
Mr Brown seems haunted by her eyes, desolate of all hope. And then he talks of those eyes that do inspire optimism: an extraordinary performance by schoolgirls of Kenya's largest slum, advancing with crowded menace, flicking their hips in a manner almost as disturbing, before the finale of a clenched fist salute and shout of "free education - free education for all". Mr Brown's message generally, that compassion must become action before that hope is squandered. But he is such a pivotal figure in British politics, it is almost impossible not to ask him why he is doing this. His answer, in part, is because of the missionaries that used to come to his father's church. Ever since, he says, Africa has been important to him.
I've absolutely no doubt whatsoever this is heartfelt. But he also believes it is time for the world to see a new Gordon Brown. Not the dull, reassuring bank manager but a man driven by a moral passion - and it just so happens the Labour Party feels an awful lot happier ridding the world of debt than ridding the world of dictators.
There's also a sense of liberation. If Mr Blair won't allow him to run the election campaign then he can at least pretend it was all getting tedious and he'd much rather be out examining social problems in the raw. It also goes some way to solving one of the overarching problems for all politicians of all parties: scepticism sliding into cynicism about politics itself. If he can help the world's poor just a little, then it shows politics isn't worthless. But is his vision for Africa too grand? Can poverty in the continent really be halved? Brown replies that no one thought the Berlin Wall would ever come down either. He's still got to overcome - not only the reluctance of other finance ministers in the world - but also the cynicism of experts who wonder whether debt relief will just be squandered by governments that just won't in the end spend wisely. | politics |
Howard dismisses Tory tax fears
Michael Howard has dismissed fears from some Conservatives that his plans for £4bn tax cuts are too modest.
He defended the package, saying it was a plan for the Tories' first Budget and he hoped to be able to go further. The Tories on Monday highlighted £35bn in "wasteful" spending they would stop to allow tax cuts, reduced borrowing and more spending on key services. Labour and the Liberal Democrats say the party's sums do not add up and claim it would cut frontline services. The Tory tax plan follows complaints from some of the party's MPs that Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin have taken too long to unveil the proposals. Now they have promised a figure but have yet to reveal which taxes would be targeted.
Tory backbencher Edward Leigh said the proposals were a step in the right direction but he told the Financial Times: "I would come up sooner with much greater tax cuts." Interviewed on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show, Mr Howard said: "It is perfectly true that I am being attacked on one side by people who think we ought to be promising much, much bigger tax cuts and spending cuts.
"On the other side, there are people who say we won't be able to achieve these tax cuts. "I think we have got it about right." Mr Howard said voters faced a clear choice at the next election between more waste and more tax under Labour and Tory value for money and lower taxes. He added: "I would like to be able to do more, and over time I am sure we will be able to do more, but at the start, we have got to recognise there is a limit to what we can do in one go, in our first Budget. "I have got to be responsible about this."
The latest Tory plans came as campaigning for the election - widely expected in May - gathered pace. The Liberal Democrats launched their pre-election platform, with leader Charles Kennedy saying his party was the "authentic opposition", particularly on the Iraq war, council tax and university tuition fees. Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable also branded the Tory plans as "fantasy economics". Labour hit back at the Tory proposals even before their publication with election coordinator Alan Milburn accusing Mr Howard of producing a "fraudulent prospectus". The party on Tuesday challenged the Tories to publish the full report from David James, the trouble-shooter they asked to identify possible savings. But the Tories are in turn demanding that Tony Blair spell out which taxes he would raise if he wins the election. | politics |
Donor attacks Blair-Brown 'feud'
The reported feud between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown has prompted a Labour donor to say he will almost certainly refuse to give more funds.
Duncan Bannatyne also attacked the government over Iraq and its "poor" response to the Asian tsunami crisis. His broadside came as ex-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said he hoped Mr Brown would be premier at some point. Mr Bannatyne has previously given Labour £50,000. He made his fortune from care homes and health clubs.
The 52-year-old on Tuesday said was he was reviewing his donations because of Cabinet disunity and international issues. His spokesman said it was highly unlikely he would give Labour more money, although he would remain a supporter and not fund the Conservatives.
Robert Peston's new book has prompted more speculation about the Blair-Brown rift with its claims that the prime minister broke a promise made in 2003 to stand down. Mr Bannatyne said: "Disunity in the Cabinet has a corrosive effect on the country. "Gordon Brown is a great chancellor who has delivered a stable economy, but business wants that to continue and not be blown off course by petty squabbles based on personal ambition." The businessman, whose latest venture is a casino in Newcastle, also voiced concern about the ongoing violence in Iraq.
And he branded the UK government's response to the tsunami as "piecemeal and poor". "The people there need practical help not just pledges of money," he said. "The US has forces helping on the ground - we can do more." British Navy ships have helped the relief effort and the prime minister has said the government could ultimately give hundreds of millions of pounds in aid. Mr Bannatyne is due to host a new television programme and is also appearing on BBC2 business start-up programme Dragon's Den. But his spokesman insisted his attack on Labour was not a publicity stunt.
In a separate development, Robin Cook gave his support to Mr Brown's prime ministerial ambitions but told a lunch for political journalists winning the election had to be Labour's election. But he insisted the recent squabbles between Mr Blair and Mr Brown were not "perceived as a problem by the voters," adding there was no impression of governmental incompetence. Mr Cook argued that more prominence was given to these matters because there was "not an alternative source of opposition to the government". He warned the "Abstentions Party" was the real challenge to Labour - and they would not be motivated by Mr Blair's promise to produce an "unremittingly New Labour" election manifesto. His comments come after Dave Prentis, the leader of Britain's biggest union Unison, told the Daily Record newspaper he wants a date to be set for Mr Blair to be replaced as Labour leader. | politics |
Howard and Blair tax pledge clash
Tony Blair has said voters will have to wait for Labour's manifesto to see if the party has plans to increase tax.
The premier was responding to a challenge from Tory leader Michael Howard who said Labour would raise taxes in its post-election Budget. Mr Blair derided Tory claims they could cut £35bn in "wasteful spending" saying the party had got its sums wrong. The two political leaders clashed just days after the opening salvoes of the pre-election period. Mr Howard told MPs that "every independent expert" from the International Monetary Fund to the Institute of Fiscal Studies had suggested the "government was spending more than it is raising and a Labour chancellor would have to put up taxes". Mr Blair replied: "I think they are wrong for this very simple reason: that the Treasury forecasts on the economy have been proven right." The Tories on Monday highlighted their plans for tax cuts worth £4bn, although the specific taxes to be cut have not been announced.
They also spelled out their plans for reduced government borrowing and more spending on key services. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have said the party's sums do not add up and claim it would cut frontline services. But Mr Howard said voters faced a clear choice at the next election between more waste and more tax under Labour and Tory value for money and lower taxes. The Liberal Democrats have also launched their pre-election platform, with leader Charles Kennedy saying his party was the "authentic opposition", particularly on the Iraq war, council tax and university tuition fees. Labour hit back at the Tory proposals even before their publication with election coordinator Alan Milburn accusing Mr Howard of producing a "fraudulent prospectus". | politics |
What really divides the parties
So what is the gap between Labour and the Tories nowadays?
One Starbucks, one Rymans and one small Greek cafe as it happens. Both parties have now completed their moves to new headquarters, with Labour creating its election hub just three doors away from the Tories' new headquarters in Victoria Street, just down the road from the Commons. That should make things a little easier if and when the crack-of-dawn election press conferences kick off. Unlike 2001, there should be no need for colleagues to have taxis gunning their engines outside, or to buy scooters, to get themselves between the tightly-timetabled events.
And, to all intents and purposes, we already appear to be in that general election campaign. Certainly the press conference hosted by election co-ordinator Alan Milburn, in the rather compact new conference room - still smelling of new carpet and with the garish New Labour coffee mugs as yet unstained - had all the hallmarks of an election event.
"Welcome to the unremittingly New Labour media centre," he said. And I'll bet he hadn't checked that one with Gordon Brown. Along with Work and Pensions Secretary Alan Johnson and Minister for Work Jane Kennedy, he then went on to tear into the Tory plans to scrap the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme, which they claimed would lead to an increase of almost 300,000 in unemployment. And they ridiculed the claims made on Monday by Michael Howard that he could save £35 billion of Labour waste and inefficiency to spend on public services while also offering £4 billion of tax cuts. Labour has come up with a figure of £22 billions worth of efficiency savings so, understandably perhaps, believe Mr Howard must be planning cuts to squeeze the extra £13 billion. These figures, based on the two parties' own detailed studies, will be battered to within an inch of their lives during the campaign. Wednesday was just the start. | politics |
Amnesty chief laments war failure
The lack of public outrage about the war on terror is a powerful indictment of the failure of human rights groups, Amnesty International's chief has said.
In a lecture at the London School of Economics, Irene Khan said human rights had been flouted in the name of security since 11 September, 2001. She said the human rights movement had to use simpler language both to prevent scepticism and spread a moral message. And it had to fight poverty, not just focus on political rights for elites.
Ms Khan highlighted detentions without trial, including those at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and the abuse of prisoners as evidence of increasing human rights problems. "What's a new challenge is the way in which this age-old debate on security and human rights has been translated into the language of war," she said. "By using the language of war, human rights are being sidelined because we know human rights do not apply in times of war." Ms Khan said such breaches were infectious and were now seen in almost very major country in the world. "The human rights movement faces a crisis of faith in the value of human rights," she said. That was accompanied by a crisis of governance, where the United Nations system did not seem able to hold countries to account.
The Amnesty secretary-general said a growing gap between the perceived influence of human rights group and what they could actually achieve was fuelling scepticism. "Public passivity on the war against terror is the single most powerful indictment on the failures of human rights groups," she said. Ms Khan said the movement had failed to mobilise public outrage about what was happening to the human rights system. There needed to be a drive to use simpler language, talking about the basic morality of the issues rather than the complexity of legal processes. Such efforts could make the issues more relevant to people across the world, she said.
The human rights groups also had to recognise there were new groups which had to be tackled in new ways as power dripped away from state governments. Al-Qaeda, for example, was not going to be impressed by a traditional Amnesty letter writing campaign. More also needed to be done to develop a human rights framework for international business corporations. Amnesty International members voted in 2001 to extend the organisation's work from political and civil rights to cover social and economic rights too. Ms Khan said the human rights movement would make itself irrelevant if it turned away from the suffering caused by economic strife. "We would be an elitist bunch working for the elites, for those who cannot read the newspaper of their choice rather than those who cannot read," she said. Despite her concerns, Ms Khan dubbed herself a "hope-monger", saying she was confident the passions of the human rights movement could overcome the new challenges. | politics |
Blair sees greater Bush consensus
George W Bush will display a more consensual approach to world politics as he begins his second term as US President, Tony Blair has said.
The prime minister said Mr Bush had learned military force was not the only way to fight terrorism. He understood that "the best prospect of peaceful co-existence lies in the spread of democracy and human rights", Mr Blair told the Guardian newspaper. Mr Bush was sworn in at a ceremony in Washington DC on Thursday.
Echoing the new US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the prime minister said there has been a clear evolution of US policy since the war in Afghanistan in 2001. Mr Blair had personally seen the change over time in conversations with Mr Bush. The president understood that while military and security measures were important, there also needed to be a multilateral approach to solving the world's problems.
Turning to critics' fears that the US was poised for further military action, Mr Blair refused to give succour to suggestions it was preparing for strikes against Iran. The prime minister conceded that the US had "what appears to be a harder position" towards the state than Europe. But the prime minister pointed out that until now the US had allowed Britain, France and Germany to take the lead in trying to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. Following claims that US forces had worked inside Iran to identify potential targets, Mr Blair was asked if the SAS had also been in the country. "We never answer questions about special forces, but do not take that as indicating an affirmative," said Mr Blair.
Mr Blair said he believed the president was keen to work with other countries while trying to spread democracy and human rights. "It is significant, in my view, that he is coming to Europe as his first foreign visit," said Mr Blair. Following his inauguration, Mr Bush is due in Europe at the end of January. | politics |
Kilroy-Silk quits 'shameful' UKIP
Ex-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit the UK Independence Party and accused it of betraying its supporters.
The MEP said he was ashamed to have joined the party, which he labelled as a "joke". He plans to stand in the next general election but refused to confirm he is setting up a new political party called Veritas - Latin for truth. UKIP leader Roger Knapman said he would "break open the champagne", adding: "It was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'." However, he did say the ex-chat show host had been "quite useful initially". "He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the (European) election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," Mr Knapman told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Knapman rejected the idea Mr Kilroy-Silk posed a threat to UKIP and queried why he had failed to confirm rumours he was starting a new political party.
Mr Kilroy-Silk explained his reasons to his East Midlands constituents at a meeting in Hinckley, Leicestershire. His decision came as UKIP officials began a process which could have triggered Mr Kilroy-Silk's expulsion. It marks the end of his membership of UKIP after just nine months. It began with a flood of publicity which helped UKIP into third place in last June's European elections but became dominated by rancour as he tried to take over the party leadership.
Mr Kilroy-Silk accused his fellow UKIP MEPs of being content with growing fat "sitting on their backsides" in Brussels. He told BBC News 24: "I tried to change the party, I nagged all the way through the summer to do things, to get moving because I thought it was criminal what they were doing, it was a betrayal." Mr Kilroy-Silk also told Sky News there was "masses of support" for him to form a new party - something he has yet to confirm will happen.
UKIP won 12 seats and 16.1% of the vote at the European elections on the back of its call for the UK to leave the European Union In his speech, Mr Kilroy-Silk says the result offered UKIP an "amazing opportunity" but the party's leadership had done nothing and "gone AWOL". There were no policies, no energy, no vision and no spokespeople, he said. "The party is going nowhere and I'm embarrassed with its allies in Europe and I'm ashamed to be a member of the party," said Mr Kilroy-Silk.
He said his conviction in Britain's right to govern itself had not changed. He would continue that campaign outside UKIP when he contested the general election in an East Midlands constituency. Reports of his new party plans have prompted a formal complaint to UKIP's disciplinary committee for bringing the party into "disrepute". On Thursday, the party challenged Mr Kilroy-Silk to stand down as an MEP so voters can get a genuine UKIP candidate. | politics |
Blair blasts Tory spending plans
Tony Blair has launched an attack on Conservative spending plans, saying they are a "ludicrous improbability".
The prime minister has told a Labour Party gathering that the Tory policies would cause economic failure. Tory leader Michael Howard has said his party would cut £35bn in "wasteful" spending to allow £4bn in tax cuts. On Saturday, Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said the Tories would fund the cuts by removing "inefficiencies" which had "burgeoned" under Labour. In his speech, Mr Blair contrasted a reformed Labour party, which had learned to occupy the political centre ground, with a hidebound Tory party, which he said would turn the clock back with spending cuts. Mr Blair said: "The Conservative tax and spending proposals would put at risk, both Britain's hard-won economic stability - the lowest mortgages, inflation, unemployment, for decades - and the key investment in public services.
"I believe that the Tory plans are as plain a call to return to the past as it's possible to imagine," he said. "It's a recipe for exactly the same boom and bust economics and cuts in public services that were their hallmark in 18 years of Conservative government." Mr Blair added: "They, the Conservatives have learned nothing." By contrast, he said, New Labour had listened to its electorate and changed.
Mr Blair went on to list his government's achievements and to issue a rallying call to the party. "So now we have a choice, we can defend this record and we can build on it and go on and fulfil the promise or give up and go back. And I say we have to fight." In response, David Davis said the Tories would make cuts, such as removing regional assemblies, but would bring in more police officers and match Labour's spending on health and education. "Everybody knows, having lived through this government the last seven years, that they faced lots of stealth tactics, lots of increases in taxes, but no improvement in public services," he said. Mr Davis said Labour had been responsible for "huge waste, huge overspending, not on the frontline at all but on bureaucracy". "The public face a choice between more waste and more taxes with this government, less waste and lower taxes with a Tory government," he concluded.
Gordon Brown has addressed the conference behind closed doors. The Chancellor said the Conservatives' plans would see some £50bn in spending cuts by 2011, which the Tories deny. Mr Brown also issued call for party unity and warn of the dangers of allowing themselves to be "distracted or diverted". According to an advance text released by officials, he told delegates: "We must all show the strength and unity of purpose to take the long-term decisions necessary to meet them."
Mr Brown warned that the Tories were planning "the biggest cuts ever in the history of any election manifesto". Meanwhile, Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin accused Mr Blair of "misrepresenting" the party's proposals and questioned how Labour would fund its own plans. "He still cannot accept the simple truth, which is that we will spend more on what matters to people - schools, hospitals and police - and that we will offer value for money and lower taxes," Mr Letwin said. "Once again Mr Blair and his Chancellor have failed to answer the question that lies at the heart of this election - which taxes will they put up to fill the £8bn shortfall in their plans?" | politics |
Lib Dems' 'bold' election policy
Charles Kennedy has told voters his Liberal Democrats will offer them an "honest choice" at the next general election.
With the other two big parties battling over which will impose the lowest taxes, Mr Kennedy is going into the looming election pledged to increase taxation. It is a bold policy and certainly ensures there is that choice between the Lib Dems and the other two. With his party's previous pledge to increase taxes by one penny in the pound to spend on public services already adopted by the government, he has switched tack. Now he is promising to levy a "modest" increase of the same amount on earnings over £100,000 a year to allow him to finance a series of pledges. They are to scrap student fees, finance free long term care for the elderly and replace the council tax with a local income tax. That last policy will also see about 3% of the most well off paying more while others, pensioners in particular, will pay less.
Labour and the Tories have attacked his policies as both unworkable and not properly costed.
Inevitably they insist there is no need to raise taxes to fund improvements in services. The Tories claim they can improve services AND cut taxes through £35bn efficiency savings, while Labour has offered £22bn savings but has yet to map out precise tax proposals, although there is little chance they will propose increases. In many ways the argument between the Lib Dems and the others over taxation and spending echo the sort of arguments that raged between Labour and the Tories in the 1980s and early 1990s. But, unlike the old Tory-Labour debate, he believes voters are ready to see "modest" tax increases on the well off in order to fund improvements in services. That is a view partly endorsed by recent polls suggesting people would rather have cash spent on public services than tax cuts.
Similarly there is a different tone to the Lib Dem approach to asylum and immigration, with Mr Kennedy stressing politicians should not "foment an artificial debate" about immigration and attacking Michael Howard's proposals for quotas. Once again, with the two other big parties singing similar songs on immigration, Mr Kennedy is stressing the different, more liberal approach of his party. Mr Kennedy was also in buoyant mood over his party's election chances, declaring the Tories were not going to be "significant players" in the poll. He repeated his pledge not to do post-election deals with either party after the election. Mr Kennedy went on to suggest the re-election of a Labour government with a small majority would amount to a "massive vote of no confidence " in Tony Blair's government. That suggests the Lib Dem leader believes he may well find himself in a powerful, even pivotal position in a vastly different House of Commons after the next election. It is a dream the third party has dreamed many times before. | politics |
Kennedy's cautious optimism
Charles Kennedy is far too canny to make any grand claims about how his party may fare at the general election.
In his 22 years in the Commons, he has seen his fair share of such claims dashed on the rocks of bitter experience and, he might say, the UK's political and electoral system. But even his caution cannot hide the fact that this is a party and a leader that believes it may well be on the way to something special in a few months' time. "Look, I have already said I am not going to put any artificial limits on our ambitions this time around," he said. He still seems to accept that the most likely outcome is another Labour victory of some sort. And his general election pitch is designed around the notion of the Lib Dems as the "real" opposition.
But doesn't that lead to the jibe that his is a party actively bidding to come second? He is prepared to go this far: "A clear conclusion has been reached, including by Conservatives, that the Conservatives are not going to win this election. "Therefore the potential is there for the Liberal Democrat advance to be one of the big stories of the election, given that we have the capacity to take on Labour and win as well as take on the Conservatives and win. "This is really going to be the first modern three party UK election that we have all experienced". But haven't we been here before, with suggestions in the 1980s that Labour was finished. Won't voters looking for an alternative to Labour still naturally gravitate to the Conservatives? "The problem is that, geographically, the Conservative party has melted away in about a third of Britain. "We have supplanted them as the main alternative to Labour in whole tracts of mainland Britain. And they are a party with an ageing and declining membership base and they just do not look vibrant or vital or in touch any longer with contemporary Britain".
Mr Kennedy is also eager to dispel any impression his party is the new party of the left and is likely to attract mostly disillusioned Labour voters.
He insists his three headline commitments, to be financed from a 1% tax increase on those earning over £100,000 a year, will appeal right across the political spectrum. They are to replace the council tax with a local income tax, provide free long term care for the elderly and scrap student fees. He also believes being the only major party promising to increases taxes will not land him in the same trouble a similar policy did to Old Labour. "I think the tax argument has moved on a lot in British politics particularly in the context of the forthcoming general election," he said. Under a Labour government the tax burden would have to rise, while the Tories' plans to increase spending in some areas while also reducing taxes is just incredible, he claims.
"We are being straightforward with people, saying you know there is likely to be an increase in the tax burden, we are only recommending one specific tax rise for the top end of income scale earners to fund three specific policies".
"That is a clear cut choice for people, one I am very comfortable with and I think will distinguish us from the others". As to his own future, he is clear. If, as expected, his party increases its showing at the election, he intends to go into the next parliament "on the front foot with a view to leading it right through that parliament into the next election because I see that as the decisive opportunity for us". That last remark reflects a view gaining ground in Westminster that, if the Tories do as badly as some fear, the election after next might really see that historic breakthrough by the third party. Perhaps then Mr Kennedy will be ready to put some of the caution to one side. | politics |
Hague 'given up' his PM ambition
Former Conservative leader William Hague says he will not stand for the leadership again, having given up his ambition to be prime minister.
Mr Hague, 43, told the Daily Telegraph he would now find a life dominated by politics too "boring" and unfulfilling. Mr Hague, who stepped down after his party's 2001 election defeat, does not rule out a return to the front bench. He also told the paper he hopes to remain MP for Richmond, North Yorks, and start a family with wife Ffion. Mr Hague, who recently had published the biography of William Pitt the Younger, also said he wanted to continue writing books and speech-writing.
He told the newspaper: "I don't know whether I will ever go back on to the front, but don't rush me." Asked if he would stand for the leadership again, Mr Hague replied: "No. Definitely not." His determination to stay away from a central role will disappoint some senior Conservative members, who say the party needs him. Tim Collins, the shadow education secretary, said last week it would be a "huge boost" to the party if Mr Hague returned to the front bench. Mr Hague became an MP at 27 and Leader of the Opposition at 36. He said: "I feel fortunate that, by the age of 40, I had crammed in an entire political career. "I had been in the Cabinet and been leader of the party, so now I can branch out into other things...it is a very liberating feeling." Mr Hague added that he may have misjudged his own ambition to be prime minister. "Maybe I wasn't as driven by politics as I thought I was," he said. | politics |
UKIP candidate suspended in probe
Eurosceptic party UKIP have suspended a candidate for allegedly suggesting the criminally insane should be killed.
John Houston, 54, was due to stand in the East Kilbride seat in Lanarkshire at the next election. But he was suspended after his reported views, including the return of the British Empire, were sent to two Scottish newspapers. UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said those who selected Mr Houston knew nothing of his views. The episode comes at a difficult time for UKIP, soon after the high-profile departure of MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk. Mr Houston is alleged to have said that the organs of the criminally insane should be "made available to law-abiding members of the community" and proposed the legalisation of drugs and the sex trade. The document reportedly said: "We're looking for the resurrection of the British Empire. "The problems for the human race - environmental and others - can only be dealt with on a global scale, and that calls for a radical alliance of the English-speaking nations, which they are uniquely able to do." Mr Croucher said the main issue would be that Mr Houston's reported views had been presented as UKIP policy, which they were not. He said they might have been submissions to a committee working on the party's manifesto, but would not have been matched to Mr Houston when he was standing to become a candidate. He told BBC News: "He appears to have said these things. We have suspended him as a member and as a candidate. "By all accounts none of this was mentioned at his selection meeting. "It is simply a distraction from the task in hand, the EU constitution, not individual idiocies." Mr Houston was quoted in the Herald newspaper saying: "I feel UKIP have over-reacted and overshot the runway."
Peter Nielson, who is UKIP Scotland chairman, said he had suspended Mr Houston on Friday night. "He will remain suspended while the matter is being investigated and then we will decide if and what further action will be taken." He said that any evidence would be looked into and Mr Houston may be interviewed by the party. He added: "I can't comment too much at the moment, I have one version from him but I haven't seen the papers yet." | politics |
Boothroyd calls for Lords speaker
Betty Boothroyd has said the House of Lords needs its own Speaker and that peers should lead the way on reforming the upper chamber.
Baroness Boothroyd, who was the first woman to be Commons Speaker, said she believed Tony Blair initiated reforms without a clear outcome in mind. "Now we have to take care of it ourselves and make the best of it," she told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost. In 1999 Labour removed all but 92 of the Lords' 750 hereditary peers. That was billed as the first stage of reform of the institution. The lord chancellor hinted further reforms could be unveiled in the next Labour manifesto.
"I think we need to look very carefully at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons," Lord Falconer told BBC1's Breakfast With Frost. "How it interacts with the Commons is a very, very important issue. "We need to address the issue in the manifesto, but you will have to wait for when the manifesto comes." The lord chancellor currently has the role of House of Lords speaker. He is also head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet as constitutional affairs secretary.
Lady Boothroyd said she believed it was unacceptable for the lord chancellor to have the role of Speaker. "I would really like to see a Speaker of the House of Lords," she said. "I don't go for the idea of somebody - a lord chancellor - who is head of the judiciary, a senior Cabinet minister and Speaker of the Lords. "I want somebody there who is going to look after that House and do a job there. | politics |
New UKIP defection to 'Veritas'
The UK Independence Party has lost one of its two London Assembly members to Robert Kilroy-Silk's new political party, expected to launch on Wednesday.
Damian Hockney said ex-chatshow host Mr Kilroy-Silk would "deliver better" as the leader of a eurosceptic party. He said Mr Kilroy-Silk had made him deputy party leader of Veritas, Latin for truth. Sources close to Mr Hockney said around eight other members of London UKIP were also planning to jump ship.
Details of the coming week's events were hammered out at a meeting at Mr Kilroy-Silk's Buckinghamshire home on Sunday, the BBC News Website was told. The news came after UKIP suspended a candidate for allegedly suggesting the criminally insane should be killed. John Houston, 54, was due to stand in the East Kilbride seat in Lanarkshire at the next election. A spokesman for UKIP called on Mr Hockney to quit the London Assembly. UKIP asserts that Mr Hockney "has a moral obligation, if not a legal one" to stand down. Mr Hockney meanwhile told the BBC: "I believe that Robert Kilroy-Silk can deliver better as a leader of a eurosceptic party than the current leadership of the UK Independence Party."
On the suspension of Mr Houston, UKIP said those who selected him knew nothing of his views. Mr Houston is alleged to have said that the organs of the criminally insane should be "made available to law-abiding members of the community" and proposed the legalisation of drugs and the sex trade.
The document reportedly said: "We're looking for the resurrection of the British Empire. "The problems for the human race - environmental and others - can only be dealt with on a global scale, and that calls for a radical alliance of the English-speaking nations, which they are uniquely able to do." UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said the main issue would be that Mr Houston's reported views had been presented as UKIP policy, which they were not. | politics |
Baron Kinnock makes Lords debut
Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock has officially been made a life peer during a ceremony in the House of Lords.
He will be known Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty - after his former constituency. Lord Kinnock - who led Labour from 1983 until 1992 - was until recently one of Britain's EU commissioners. A former critic of the House of Lords, he has said he will use the Upper House to advocate its reform and to talk on issues like higher education. "I accepted the kind invitation to enter the House of Lords as a working peer for practical political reasons," he said when his peerage was first announced. "It is a good base for campaigning on national issues like education, sustainable transport, industrial change and the ageing society and global concerns, particularly poverty and oppression." During his induction into the Upper House, Lord Kinnock was accompanied by Lords Leader Baroness Amos and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, a former aide to the ex-Labour leader. It has been a long journey for the new Lord Kinnock from his earliest days as a rebellious youngster in the south Wales valleys. Born in 1942 in Tredegar to a miner father and nurse mother, he attended Lewis Boys' School in nearby Pengam, known then as the "Eton of the valleys". From there he went to Cardiff University, where he met his future wife Glenys, now a Labour MEP.
After a brief career as a tutor for the Workers' Educational Association, he became an MP at the age of just 28 for his home seat of Bedwellty (later Islwyn). He gained a reputation as a left-wing firebrand, voting against his own Labour government's spending cuts proposals in 1975, and later rejecting a junior post in James Callaghan's administration. But he joined the shadow cabinet in 1980, and after Labour's heavy defeat in the 1983 he was elected leader. He took on the far-left Militant Tendency and began the long process of returning his party to the centre ground. He was not expected to win the 1987 election, when Margaret Thatcher was still riding high, but was bitterly disappointed to lose the next one in 1992 to John Major, and stepped down. He remained an MP until 1995, when he resigned to become European commission for transport. Four years later he became vice-president of the European Commission, with responsibility for internal reform. As he assumes the title of Lord Kinnock, he has also become chairman of the British Council, which promotes the UK's reputation for arts, science and education. | politics |
Terror powers expose 'tyranny'
The Lord Chancellor has defended government plans to introduce control orders to keep foreign and British terrorist suspects under house arrest, where there isn't enough evidence to put them on trial.
Lord Falconer insists that the proposals do not equate to a police state and strike a balance between protecting the public against the threat of terrorism and upholding civil liberties. But thriller writer Frederick Forsyth tells BBC News of his personal response to the move.
There is a mortal danger aimed at the heart of Britain. Or so says Home Secretary Charles Clarke. My reaction? So what? It is not that I am cynical or just do not care. I care about this country very much.
But in the 66 years that I have been alive, there has not been one hour, of one day, of one month, of one year, when there has not been a threat aimed at us. My point is, the British have always coped without becoming a dictatorship. We have coped with fear without becoming a state based on fear; we have coped with threat without turning our country into a land of state threat. But that is what the Blair government now seeks to do - create a tyranny to defend us from the al-Qaeda tyranny.
I was born on 25 August, 1938. The mortal threat back then was a scruffy little Austrian called Adolf Hitler. A week after my first birthday, the threat had become reality. We were at war. My father wore a uniform for five years. After 1945 we yearned for peace at last. But in 1946 Winston Churchill told us - from the Baltic to the Adriatic an Iron Curtain has descended across Europe. Behind the Iron Curtain, another genocidal psychopath, another threat. Josef Stalin triggered the Cold War, with the Berlin blockade in 1948. My whole generation was blighted by it.
We were threatened by the nuclear holocaust, the nuclear wind, the nuclear winter. We built shelters that would have sheltered nothing. We spent our treasure on weapons instead of hospitals. We took silly precautions. Some fought it; some marched futilely against it. Some pretended it was not there. The Cold War lasted 43 years, but we remained a parliamentary democracy. By the early seventies it was terrorism as well. Al Fatah, Black September, Red Brigades, but most of all for us the IRA and the INLA. Thirty more years; 300 policemen and women, over 600 soldiers, more than 3,000 civilians dead, but we won because even IRA bombs could not force us to become a tyranny. That was why the tyrants lost. Civil rights were infringed as little as humanly possible. Evidence had to be taken in secret to protect covert sources; yes , and one judge, no-jury courts had to be instituted when juries were terrorised. Informants had to be given immunity from their own crimes to win the bigger battle. But habeas corpus did not die; right of appeal was not abolished. Now the threat is Islamic fundamentalism. Its leaders want to destroy our society; so did the IRA.
It is based and funded abroad; so was the IRA. It has sleeper fanatics inside our society; so did the IRA. It is extremely hard to penetrate with our agents; so was the IRA. The prime movers are not easy to bring to trial; neither were the IRA. But we did. And without becoming a tyranny. Now the Blair government proposes the law system of fascism and communism. The citizen can be arrested and held without charge or trial, not even on the careful consideration of an experienced judge, but the whim of a political activist called a government minister. To be protected from terror the government says, we must become a tyranny. But a tyranny is based on the citizen's terror. This is not victory; this is defeat before a shot is fired.
An interesting article - its good to see widening participation in the debate - but I suggest we move one step further. Our own bombs and bullets will can only shatter peace, because invading foreign nations, imprisoning the innocent and 'hunting' in the 'shadows' cannot destroy an evil of the mind, and hatred within the heart. Rather than focusing upon effect, we should consider the cause, because terrorism does not begin with bombs. Why not try a foreign policy of compassion, it can only enhance our democracy, and share our freedom.
I agree with Frederick Forsyth. We really can't deal with terrorism by turning Britain into a fascist state. What we really need is more honesty from our security services and our politicians. If they do not have evidence to bring these people to trial, there probably isn't any. Our security services, behave like the detective who having decided that a certain person is guilty, rakes over all kinds of obscure and flimsy evidence to try and prove it, while the real villain gets away. Remember there were no WMD in Iraq. Just because a person may have made some stupid and naive decisions in life does not make them a terrorist.
In this overly 'politically correct' society, it is good to see someone like Mr. Forsyth speak out. Yes, there has been oppression by the British government in the past, and overstepping the mark in places like Ireland, but yes, we are still a democracy where it is rare to be arrested without charge/trial etc. (apart from a number of prisoners in Belmarsh goal, for example).This country signs up to human rights, and then pretends that they only apply to the people with nothing to fear, the innocent people (defined by whom?). When ID cards become mandatory, the data collected will not be protected by the Data Protection Act, and will be readily available to people like GCHQ, with no control by the person whose ID is being checked.
The threat now is new. You cannot compare the threats of past years with now. Forsyth says 3000 died over 30 years or terrorism; 3000 people died in one morning in NY on September 11th 2001. The threat today is that terrorists will acquire nuclear or biological technology. A Kilo of Semtex will flatten a building, a Kilo of plutonium will flatten a city. You now have a combination of people who will perform terrorist acts with technology that is rapidly becoming accessible. I agree, the government is probably encouraging a degree of mass-hysteria and talking up the threat; but talking-down the threat and doing nothing is unacceptable too.
The problem with this issue is not that it isn't important, but the fact that in general we Brits can be so politically apathetic some times, that we will just let this go without telling the government no. However, as the nation that gave the world the common law and a true sense of the rights of individual liberty I hope this will prove to be one step too far.
As somebody of Chinese origin, I can say that this country used to be a good place to migrate and start a new life. Whilst life wasn't perfect, we could make better for ourselves. Now we are riddled with red tape and be told what we can or cannot do. We have to be politically-correct and we are not allowed to have beliefs or opinions. We have a Prime Minister who spends too much time meddling in US politics and affairs which have little to do with the lives of British Citizens at home or abroad. Mr Forsyth has done a good job in voicing his opinions. Let's hope the BBC doesn't get gagged for letting people express their views. The people have the right to know and the BBC's role is to Inform, Educate and Entertain...
I agree. Terrorists intend to spread fear but in reality it is the government which has spread the fear, by its constant publicising of the this invisible enemy so dangerous that we must allow them to ride roughshod over our rights and liberties. In the end, the very thing we seek to protect is what we are giving up in the name of safety from this invisible enemy. The terrorists have already won.
I absolutely agree with Frederick Forsyth. Yes we have to defend ourselves against terrorism but existing laws seem to be more than adequate. The idea that the "new terrorism" demands new powers is erroneous. The evidence of any real terrorist capability in the UK is scant. Ricin, for example, is a dangerous poison but it is not a weapon of mass destruction. What is really worrying is the enthusiasm of Mr Blair and his government for authoritarian reactions and attempts to manipulate the electorate through fear.
If the government has its way with ID cards, tracking and so on then totalitarianism has won and as such it then matters little whether we give in to the terrorists demands or not. We will have lost the precious freedom which Bush and Blair constantly tells us we have and that they seek to bring to others.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth. I am shocked at the ease with which this government is prepared to wipe out a major portion of the liberties that British people have enjoyed for centuries - the right not to be deprived of our liberty without a trial in open court. That goes right back to Magna Carta, and ordinary people have spilled their blood to enforce that right against governments who thought they "knew best".
When you look at today's Britain, you realise George Orwell was only wrong about one thing: the date.
Frederick Forsyth puts it beautifully. The government is seeking to introduce a police state. The new powers of home internment without trial follow a pattern which includes the introduction of surveillance via compulsory ID cards and the linking of data bases, together with the un-British idea that we will have to swear allegiance to the state at the age of 18 years. We are sleep-walking into this. Wake up!
An interesting view but missing two crucial facts of this new threat: 1) If these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction they WILL use them without fear of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the cold war in a state of tense balance. These people will use devastating force against us without fear of ANY consequence. 2) The terrorists are prepared to use suicide bombers which means they could kill innocent people on the London Underground and we could do very little to stop it. Because these terrorists are potentially SO deadly, we have to come up with new, tougher responses. It will be a little late in the day when people outside London wake up one morning to find out that London has been nuked. We won't have much of a society left to debate !
He's correct in most of what he says. Mind you he does seem to have forgotten that disgraceful internment policy in Northern Ireland which probably caused many idealistic if misguided young Catholics to join the IRA. Administrative detention of Muslims could have a similar effect now.
Surely we the public would be better protected if the security services, rather than alerting a suspect terrorist by placing them under house arrest (and for how long?)They were to place suspect terrorist under surveillance and maybe acquire sufficient evidence to prosecute or even better prevent a terrorist attack.
I don't usually have much time for Mr Forsyth's largely right wing views but this time he has got it spot on. There is no doubt that there are terrorist organisations who would like to do harm to the U.K. but it is very doubtful whether al-Qaeda is a global organisation co-ordinating this. The rise of surveillance cameras, ID cards, the plan to charge for road use by tracking every vehicle at all times, this is the stuff of nightmares. Add to this this new legislation which effectively means that the protection of the law will be removed from anyone at the whim of the Home Secretary, and I genuinely wonder what sort of world my two children will inherit. Where will this end. As it stands terrorists do not need to attack the U.K. it's government will soon have it's people terrorised more that they could very achieve with a few bombs.
Mr Forsyth has expressed exactly what my gut fears and reservations were about this proposed legislation, but could not verbalise. Thank you.
Mr Forsyth seems to forget that killings in the Troubles occurred on both sides of the religious divide and was carried out by killers from both sides. He also forgets basic Human Rights were suspended then as now. Experienced Judges sat over some of the greatest miscarriages of justice during those times. For very little return and maximum alienation. These laws and the emphasis on the Islamic threat will just do the same.
Forsyth is wrong. The nature of the current threat is new. It is no longer to our armed forces, as the Soviet threat in the Eastern bloc was. It is to you and I. The terrorist aim to kill indiscriminately. The best comparison is therefore the blitz, 1941. At this time, let us not forget, suspects (foreign and British were routinely rounded up and interned for the duration of the war, without any complaints from the public. We must not forget we are at war.
I'd say that that the likelihood of an attack by a sleeper cell of fundamentalist lunatics against a major UK target is a "When" not an "If" probability. I'll bet any money you like that the day after any such attack Freddie Forsyth will be saying that the government didn't do enough to protect the UK. People like Forsyth can only see one side of any argument and for him it is the side that is opposite New Labour and Tony Blair.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth. The very reason this country has been such a wonderful place to live, is under attack, not from terrorists, but from this government. The perpetuation of the perceived terrorist threat is not because of what the 'alleged' terrorists are doing, but from our own government. I believe what this government is doing, is, at the very least, highly questionable and at worst, sinister. At what point will they feel they have enough control over every single person in the British Isles; when we are all tagged and monitored constantly? Our freedom is being craftily and surreptitiously whittled away by this government and we are gaining nothing. It should be of great concern to everyone.
I am slightly older than Mr Forsyth and therefore have lived through the same history as him. I am against a police state and would not like to think that I lived in one. I think that the attack on Iraq made the international situation worse and may have provoked further acts of terrorism.
How true. There are extremely worrying parallels between Britain now and Germany during the 30's. I never thought it would be so easy to take over a country from within.
Mr Forsyth has forgotten one key point; the terrorists who threaten Britain today are well aware that Hitler, Stalin, and the IRA all failed. As a result modern day terrorists are willing to do things their predecessors did not. That does not mean that the civil liberties of modern Britain must be eroded to counter the threat; that should always be the absolute last resort. But to meet the new threat, to defeat the sinister fanaticism of today's terrorists, we may need to do things a little differently. Let us hope not.
Frederic Forsythe's comments seem to me to be a well-thought-out analysis of why we (human society as a whole, and Britain in particular) should resist the temptation to over-protect through fear. It is this fear which enables terrorists to succeed in the end, and terrorists can come in all forms, as Mr. Forsythe's opening comments suggest.
I am reminded of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson. "A nation that limits freedom in the name of security will have neither."
The government are faced with an incredibly difficult task, and have made a policy to deal with it. It's all very well criticising that policy, but if Mr Forsythe can't draw on his years of experience to offer an alternative, I say 'So what?' to his opinions.
Frederick Forsyth's rhetoric is absurd and his conclusions laughable. He distorts reality to serve his own prejudice against New Labour. This government seeks to balance protection of our democracy with minimum loss of civil rights. It is Frederick Forsyth who is the extremist, because he does not appreciate the need for balance.
I rarely find myself agreeing with My Forsyth, but in this instance I think he is correct. The rule of law must prevail, civil liberties are worth defending. If the government can hold 'suspects' without charge or trial, what's next?
I agree absolutely. By introducing fascist type laws we loose the moral high ground in our fight against terror. Our democratic system is not perfect, but as Churchill points out it is "better than all the others that have been tried". Terrorist attacks will take place but for many reasons we should take that personal risk in return for personal freedom.
I do not usually agree with Mr. Forsyth, but he is spot on here. The single biggest threat we face is that of a government dedicated to acting illegally and manipulating international and national law to suit its own purpose. Totalitarianism always requires an outside threat, justifying a range of extraordinary powers leaders want. The British government is a far greater threat that and terrorist organisation.
Although, in principle I agree with him, Frederick Forsyth fails to address one key point- al-Qaeda attacks (though obviously there have been none yet in the UK) seek to kill the maximum number of people. The IRA wanted to limit the death toll of their attacks so as to maintain support among the republican movement.
Yes, I agree with Mr. Forsyth's views. I do not believe the government's plans are justified. There is over reaction to and the negative influence of the US President's interpretation of democracy and freedom. He uses the same arguments that were current before the WWII, the Wars to "liberate" Iraq, Afghanistan with Syria and Iran to come. We are leaving a poor inheritance for the future generations.
Mr Forsyth is a wonderful writer and should keep his fiction where it belongs. The British Government is not going down the road that Mr Forsyth suggests. Sadly comments such as his will make a lot of people believe that they are governed by people who are fast becoming tyrants instead of being genuinely committed to stopping tyranny, even if the method employed to do that is at the moment alien to the British people who have lived in a democracy protected by Tony Blair and others of like mind who, Mr. Forsyth seems to be putting along side the 'scruffy little Austrian.'
Thomas Hobbes would be smiling in his grave at Labour's propositions. Like New Labour, he called himself a libertarian. Like New Labour, he believed he was promoting the people's best interests. But as Forsythe criticises this government, Hobbes has been criticised by most subsequent philosophers for arguing his way into the hands of the totalitarians. Simply put, he argued that in favour of the ultimate liberty - the liberty to live - man should be prepared to surrender all other liberties to a supreme sovereign, as protection against his fellow, barbaric, man. Hobbes has been roundly condemned by posterity, and rightly so. I hope New Labour suffers the same treatment.
I agree with Mr Forsyth's views. The governments approach is totally against the spirit of British democracy. They must not be allowed to get away with it.
Of course Frederick is wrong about Britain winning the war against the IRA and he's wrong too about the country not becoming a tyranny. Has he forgotten about shoot to kill, torture, internment without trial, collusion with loyalist death squads etc?
My background is somewhat similar to Freddie's so I am persuaded to agree with many of his sentiments. We can have no moral justification for imposing our system of government on anyone while we are systematically depriving our own citizens of basic individual and collective freedoms.
Whilst the principle of keeping potential terrorists under house arrest might seem superficially attractive, it is, unfortunately, also the first step towards totalitarianism. Who is to decide whom is a suspect? Why should we believe them? Who can have faith in the honesty, integrity, and competence of our intelligence services and politicians in light of the events of recent years? What is to stop false denunciations? What of those falsely accused who will lose their careers? Who will support their families? Will their children still go to school? It smacks to me of the methods of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Ceausescu's Romania - the list goes on. It looks as if a new dark age is coming.
I see that opinion on Mr Forsyth's remarks are divided. The problem I see is that those who support imprisonment without trial believe it will never happen to them or their family, only to people they don't like or are scared of. But history has shown that if you have laws like that, they always get abused by those in power. After all, today you may be scared of the same people as those in power but someday those in power may be scared of you! And that day, you'll be the one imprisoned without the chance of justice. Our laws are such that you cannot just be imprisoned at the whim of our police forces, you have to be shown to be deserving of it. If we imprison people without trial for an indeterminate period, we are no better that those we are fighting.
I never thought it possible for me to agree with a single word uttered by Frederick Forsyth, but I'm in wholehearted agreement with him on this one. We, as a nation are in grave danger of being duped by pro US propaganda, which of course also means we'll inherit most, if not all of their total paranoia, and allow our governments, of any political persuasion incidentally, to gradually, and insidiously, impose a police state by well tried & tested back door methods. I grieve for the future of my children, it's no wonder they're adamant they don't ever want any of their own.
This government, with much fanfare, signs us up to the European Convention on Human Rights but now wants to introduce indefinite house arrest without trial. This puts it on a par with the government of Burma.
Like many of your respondents, I wouldn't usually think of Mr Forsyth as someone whose views I share, but in the instance of opposing Charles Clark's proposals for house arrest, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth/
I agree with Mr Forsyth. Just look at the facts - our government (along with the US) invaded another sovereign country (Iraq) by selecting intelligence that backed it's case based on fear. The facts turned out to be very different. If individuals are treated in the same distorted way, then we've done ourselves more damage than any terrorist organisation could with bombs. We become animals too.
I agree in many ways with what Mr Forsyth has said - if we are to be respected and have influence within the world we must be seen to be walking the walk as well as talking the talk - how can we accuse countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma of human rights abuses when we are locking up people who may be totally innocent, it is hypocrisy of the highest order. Mr Forsyth links "Islamic fundamentalism" to the new "threat". However it appears that he has misunderstood the term "Islamic fundamentalism". It should be pointed out that a Muslim who adheres to the true fundamentals of the Qur'aan and the teachings of the last Prophet Muhammad is an Islamic Fundamentalist. This person does not commit suicide in any shape or form, nor does she/he kill innocent women, men and children. This person is self-reflective and constantly tries to better her/his actions by being good to others. The people who Mr Forsyth labels the new "threat" are those who do not follow the correct teachings of Islam. They have arrived at their own interpretations and assumptions with regards their actions. On top of that, they claim to be following Islam in its true form!
I accept that the intentions of these policies are to make Britain a safer place but I cannot think of a single example from history where doing this sort of thing has ever made any difference - in Northern Ireland internment certainly didn't achieve anything - the bombings didn't stop, and it could be argued that all it achieved was to just supply the IRA with yet more angry and resentful republicans willing to take up arms against the British.
Being eight years older than Frederick Forsyth and a survivor of the Blitz on London, it is easy to agree with him, he is absolutely spot on. During the IRA bombings there were massive explosions in Canary Wharf, to the right of where I write this, and also to the left in the City of London. Notwithstanding these and the attempted and nearly successful assassination attempts on Prime Minister Thatcher in Brighton and on later occupants of 10 Downing Street, there was no retaliatory blitz on Belfast or Dublin as there has been on Afghanistan and Iraq. Even when England was in true peril in 1940 apart from some detentions there were no wholesale derogation of habeas corpus and the like. We have to see off these latest attempts on our liberties including ID cards, which Winston Churchill decided had to go since, he said, the average Bobby on the beat could not be relied on to not be tempted to take undue advantage against the citizen going about their lawful activities (incidentally I can still remember my old ID card number). Hence it is clear that the far too great police state powers set for the statute books have to be resisted and neutered.
What can I add to Mr. Forsyth's eloquently put arguments... except applause! Well done that man for standing up and being counted in the "war against tyranny". | politics |
'Super union' merger plan touted
Two of Britain's big trade unions could merge to form a "super union" of two million members.
The move by Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) would be a seen as a bid to carry more weight with ministers and employers. Amicus has 1.2 million members and the TGWU has 800,000. Any merger would have to be approved by the unions' executives and their membership. It is understood meetings will be held on Wednesday about the proposal. Along with the GMB and Unison, the TGWU and Amicus worked closely together in the last year to hammer out a 56-point deal with Labour's leadership over equality at work, holidays and pensions - the Warwick Agreement. Both unions are remaining tight-lipped about the merger rumours, but one insider pointed out to the BBC News website that "nobody is denying suggestions a merger could be on the agenda" when the two unions' executives hold their meetings on Wednesday. Amicus's executive was due to meet in any case although the TGWU is holding specially scheduled talks. | politics |
UKIP MEP attacked German 'empire'
A UK Independence Party MEP suggested Germany saw the EU as an 'empire' and was cheaper than using tanks, a new documentary has revealed. Mike Nattrass, UKIP's deputy leader, made the comments to an audience at a meeting during last September's Hartlepool by-election campaign. But challenged on the remark, he denied accusing Germany of using the EU as cover for a "4th German Reich". He says he was not "German-bashing" but saying peace was the EU's founding aim. The meeting was shown in a BBC 3 film on ex-UKIP MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk. The former chat show host quit the party earlier this month, calling it a joke.
The documentary showed Mr Nattrass, apparently talking about the EU, telling the meeting: "The Germans are the big losers here but they don't care because to them the project is worthwhile. "It's like an empire for them spreading in all directions away from Germany into Hungary, into what they call the Sudetenland - Czechoslovakia, places like that. "So it's cheaper for them to do it this way than roll the tanks in." On Tuesday, he told the BBC News website he did not think the comments were offensive and worked happily with MEPs of different nationalities in the European Parliament. He argued that peace was the only reason for having the "outdated" EU as there was no economic justification. Pointing to Germany's trade interests as a country in the centre of Europe, Mr Nattrass said: "The fact is that the EU benefits Germany but it does not benefit Britain. "I'm not at all German-bashing. It's the truth." A UKIP spokesman said: "Mike has some passionate beliefs and sometimes uses excessively colourful language with which to express them."
The documentary showed some of the tensions between Mr Kilroy-Silk and his fellow MEPs after UKIP took third place in last year's European elections. He denied wanting to be leader until October 2004, when he told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme he aspired to the job. Asked by the documentary makers why he had lied about his leadership ambitions, Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "There was one thing I said that I shouldn't have said at the time. "I was trying to be helpful to the party and it was the wrong thing to do, I should have told the truth." The film also included footage of a row between Mr Kilroy-Silk, MEP Nigel Farage and party leader Roger Knapman about rumours that he was about to resign the UKIP whip in the European Parliament. Mr Kilroy-Silk told them he had not left the UKIP group - a move he announced shortly after the meeting. He told Mr Farage: "Don't tell lies Nigel, now you've told too many. Most of the trouble had been caused by you." UKIP officials claim it was in fact Mr Kilroy-Silk, not Mr Farage, who briefed newspapers he was leaving the group of MEPs.
Later in unguarded, off-air comments in a television studio, Mr Kilroy-Silk was heard saying he was irritated by "defending some of these right-wing fascist nutters". Mr Kilroy-Silk separately said he had argued against UKIP working with such groups which believed homosexuality was a sin. A UKIP spokesman said there were more than 40 MEPs in the same group in the European Parliament. They were from a broad spectrum - some right-wing, some left-wing - but with a shared belief in the "unfeasibility of the EU as it is now". He did not defend other groups' religious beliefs but argued it was their right to hold such views - just as Mr Kilroy-Silk had a right to criticise Arab states. London UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said: "Robert has made a variety of comments about UKIP and its MEPs. "There are of course two sides to every story. What Robert does not say is that he was offered several positions which would have given him effective control of the party, but not the title of leader." Mr Kilroy-Silk is to launch his own parry, Veritas, in Westminster on Wednesday. | politics |
Kilroy launches 'Veritas' party
Ex-BBC chat show host and East Midlands MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk said he wanted to "change the face of British politics" as he launched his new party. Mr Kilroy-Silk, who recently quit the UK Independence Party, said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration. He told a London news conference that Veritas - Latin for "truth" - would avoid the old parties' "lies and spin". UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.
Mr Kilroy-Silk promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration and said they hoped to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election. He said Veritas would also announce detailed policies on crime, tax, pensions, health and defence over the next few weeks. Labour campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp said Veritas was joining "an already crowded field on the right of British politics". On Thursday Mr Kilroy-Silk is due to announce which constituency he will run in at the next general election - that will come amid speculation he has his sights set on Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's Ashfield seat. He was joined in the new venture by one of UKIP's two London Assembly members, Damien Hockney who is now Veritas' deputy leader. UKIP's chairman Petrina Holdsworth has said the group will just be a parody of the party the men have left.
Mr Kilroy-Silk quit UKIP last week after months of tension as he vied unsuccessfully for the leadership of that party. He said he was ashamed to be a member of a UKIP whose leadership had "gone AWOL" after the great opportunity offered by its third place at last June's European elections. "While UKIP has turned its back on the British people, I shall not," he said. "I will be standing at the next general election. I shall be leading a vigorous campaign for the causes I believe in. "And, unlike the old parties, we shall be honest, open and straight."
Mr Hockney also left UKIP saying Mr Kilroy-Silk would "deliver better" as the leader of a Eurosceptic party. A spokesman for UKIP called on Mr Hockney to quit the London Assembly. The party asserts that Mr Hockney "has a moral obligation, if not a legal one" to stand down. Its leader, Roger Knapman, has said he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk. "He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the [European] election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," he said. UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead.
Veritas? It's the BNP in an expensive suit!
It's all well and good Robert Kilroy-Silk claiming, that 'Veritas' is a party that doesn't believe in "lies and spin", but the truth of the matter is, its completely useless, due to proportional representation, there is no chance that 'Veritas' will have any chance in claiming power, and change the two-horse race trend. In my opinion this is just a publicity stunt which has just been used as a smoke-screen for his anti-Islamism slurs which got him sacked from the television.
I think that his views regarding immigration are shared by many. It really is time that the UK government ceased to be a paper tiger on this issue. In addition as an Ashfield constituent I would be more than interested in Kilroy -Silk opposing Geoff Hoon!!
Good to see the parties of the right splintering in the way the parties of the left have always done. Let's hope Kilroy-Silk, UKIP and the euro-sceptic wing of the Tory Party all fade further into obscurity so we can have some truth in the debate about Europe. We benefit enormously from our membership of the EU, we need to be at the heart of Europe, leading it and driving it to where we as a country want to go, not running away from it.
All mouth and trousers. A clown. Trouble is, any votes he collects may just end up helping New Labour into a third term.
Whatever Kilroy-Silk and UKIP do, none of their anti-European policies have any relevance outside middle England. This new party might gain support from right-wing England, but will have little impact in Wales or Scotland.
Hopefully this all this fighting within euro-sceptic parties will allow them to slip out of the way and get people voting for real political parties which address more than one issue. England needs Europe to survive and as soon as people realise this the better, we can't rely on the USA forever!
At last an impetus for increasing the likely 40% turn out for the election. The electorate is disillusioned with British politics. Kilroy has one agenda - the UK - and I'll be voting for him.
Both UKIP and RK-S are representatives of small-mindedness and a lack of vision for the whole of humankind. The interests of humanity and the world lie so much beyond the scope of these people's bickering that who, in the overall scheme of things, really cares about their petty tiff?
Many people believe you Kilroy. You may even believe yourself but switching horses midstream and then bad mouthing the steed that got you halfway seriously diminishes your credibility.
The very idea of political parties born out of such negative feelings as Euroscepticism or British Supremacy is nauseating. One can only hope the public recognise these extremists for what they are and shun them at the polls.
I've always thought that Kilroy-Silk was a self-publicising, egotist and this news does absolutely nothing to alter my opinion.
Brilliant, about time this country had a plausible party!
Having seen the recent BBC 3 documentary and witnessed the thoroughly disgraceful chauvinistic behaviour of a number of senior UKIP figures I can well understand why Kilroy-Silk feels embarrassed to be associated with such people. Hopefully the UKIP members who are interested in the political debate will support his action.
Fantastic news. Pro-Europeans now have far less to worry about from the right. The Conservatives are as confused as they have been since the mid-1990s, and the extreme anti-Europeans are fracturing themselves into splinter groups that split any votes they might get in local, European and general elections. Robert Kilroy-Silk's ego and vanity are his own (and his supporters') worst enemy.
As a euro-enthusiast I could not be more delighted by Kilroy-Silk's behaviour. He took a party that was just building up a head of steam, and having exposed it to ridicule by attempting a coup-d'etat, he is now setting about the serious business of dividing it in two. The closer to straight-down-the-middle the better, as far as I am concerned, but in any eventuality, the two sceptic parties will exhaust their energies fighting each other.
If every politician with ambitions to lead their party resorted to forming their own for that purpose, we'd have ballot papers a mile long! You've got to hand it to Kilroy-Silk for his sheer arrogance and supreme self-belief.
Whilst not being a great fan of Kilroy I do agree with his comments about the UKIP leadership, and like him I am also leaving UKIP. I believe countless opportunities have been lost to discredit the EU and to show our people what belonging to the EU really means. The EU's comments last week about Michael Howard's plans to reform immigration show how little we govern our own country when they can turn round and say immigration is a matter for the EU and not individual member states. The sooner we leave this corrupt super-state the better
Does anyone else think that it is ironic that Euro-Sceptic Kilroy-Silk has used a Latin name for his new party, rather than a 'good old British' name? Is this indicative of the man - contradictory, vain and pompous?
I think Mr Kilroy-Silk has got a very good point. British politics has become too PC and as a result has no straight talking honest strong politicians. They are all interested in their own careers and not the people who put them in power. As a result I feel our democracy is being abused and I want it stopped. If Mr Kilroy-Silk lives up to half his promises he will get my vote.
Honestly, who really cares? Man with tan leaves party with no plan, to set up party with no idea.
As one of Kilroy-Silk's East Midlands constituents I hope those who voted for him are proud to have been taken in by such charming vacuity. I feel insulted by having him represent me in the European Parliament.
UKIP tried hard to accommodate Robert Kilroy Silk, but he made it clear that only control of it would satisfy him. Someone so keen on complete control was bound to fall foul of UKIP's democratic nature.
Kilroy is an able communicator and a capable politician, in exactly the way those who lead UKIP are not. He tried to make it work, but they didn't seem to want to grow up. He was left in the position of having to defend their gaffes to the media. This new party seems a logical next step for Kilroy. Good luck to the man, I say.
Oh please! This is an amusing irrelevance. There is absolutely no chance of either of these parties communicating a sensible and constructive 'Eurosceptic' argument. They will play a key part in winning the country round to the idea of a reformed, more democratic, more dynamic Europe Union. Future generations will thank him for his ridiculousness.
The refreshing thing about Robert is that he is open, honest and straight. What other politician can claim this. I have a suspicion that he talks for a larger part of the electorate that his critics would like. I shall be voting for him.
The electorate of the East Midlands voted not for Kilroy-Silk but for the UKIP. Kilroy-Silk was made an MEP because of his position on the UKIP's party list. He has no mandate to represent the area and should resign from the European Parliament.
I wouldn't write off Kilroy-Silk. While he's a clown and a one man band at the moment, he's a populist and that's always dangerous.The man clearly has an enormous ego and looking at our current political masters, that seems to be one of the factors in success.
Good luck to Kilroy though I think he is doing more harm than good for both his new party and UKIP because their vote base is not strong enough for both parties to be successful and at the moment UKIP have the upper hand while Veritas are starting from square one and fighting a somewhat uphill battle.
The man I once found cringe worthy on Day time TV, could well turn out to be my country's knight in shining armour. He expresses views which are now more than common amongst society today - but people are almost too scared to express them. Kilroy Silk has secured my vote, and many more like me. What's more, I look forward to the day when he claims victory, wrecks the EU, and rescues my great nation... without a hair out of place and his tan as perfect as ever!
Great Stuff. The longer the UK dithers over Europe, the richer we in Ireland become, as the only English-speaking country fully committed to Europe. Oh and send us over those hard-working immigrants - our economy needs them.
This is just what the Europhiles pray for. As the main Eurosceptic party, UKIP should try to resolve its differences with Kilroy to show a united front and give the UK public a serious political voice against Europe. Having multiple parties with the same view point just splits the vote further.
Thank goodness that Kilroy-Silk has gone - now UKIP at least has a chance in the election!
It is very sad to see the cause of Britain regaining its proper relationship with Europe damaged by this split within UKIP. Robert Kilroy-Silk could have a lot to offer. Instead we have a split party and a damaged cause. Under the present electoral system, people must work together, and small parties have no hope of representation. Last summer, UKIP achieved a major advance, partly and only partly due to Kilroy-Silk. It is a great shame this has been dissipated in in-fighting.
UKIP has a wide platform of policies, not just withdrawal from the EU. This Kilroy-Silk conveniently ignores in the comments surrounding the launch of his own party. Neither the English Democrats nor the New Party were interested in letting him join them and take over their leadership speaks volumes. Veritas is the beginning of the end for Kilroy-Silk.
If he believes in truth and democracy then he and the two assembly members should resign and force a by-elections to stand on their own platform rather than this backdoor approach to politics of being elected for one party then defecting to another.
So UKIP was good enough for him to lead, not good enough for him to follow!
Interesting that a party committed to plain speaking should have a Latin name!
Every opinion poll points to an overwhelming anti-Europe feeling in this country. Kilroy-Silk could be on the verge of something huge if he can broaden his appeal beyond this one issue. He is an extremely able communicator with years of political experience. We wants quality schools, top hospitals, clean and efficient public transport, punishments that fit the crime, limited asylum, a purge on bureaucracy and less taxes. It needs courage and honesty, two qualities sadly lacking in our politicians. Kilroy-Silk may just have those very qualities. Recruit the right colleagues, Robert, and your time may have come!
Well if you cannot get enough limelight being an ordinary MP then go out and start up your own Party. It's all flash and no real policy here
Let's hope this is the start of both UKIP and Kilroy-Silk slipping into obscurity.
Veritas? The name will doom it. But perhaps I am wrong for surely all modern schoolchildren will understand it since they do still learn Latin in the classroom do they not? The whole essence of what RKS represents is Euroscepticism, so explain to me how the too-twee label of Veritas symbolises that? | politics |
Civil servants in strike ballot
The UK's biggest civil service union is to ballot its 290,000 members on strikes in protest at government plans to extend their pension age to 65.
The Public and Commercial Services Union will co-ordinate any action with up to six other public sector unions. Unions have already earmarked 23 March for a one-day strike which could involve up to 1.4 million UK workers. The government says unions will be consulted before any changes are made to the pension system.
PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned there could be further walkouts unless there was a government rethink.
"For a government that lectures everyone on choice - choice on public service, choice on this and choice on that - isn't it ironic that they're saying to public sector workers there is no choice," he said. "If you want the pension you were promised when you started you must work for an extra five years - that is working until people drop. "In the 20th century, it's completely unacceptable." BBC correspondent Stephen Cape said the combined unions represented "a formidable force" which could embarrass the government in the run-up to the General Election. A stoppage involving civil servants, in particular, could seriously disrupt or close government departments, agencies and museums, he said.
Opposition to raising the retirement age is "one thing all the unions are agreed on", our correspondent added. Unison's 800,000 workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union's 70,000 and Amicus' 20,000 are among those being balloted about a 23 March walkout. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott held a private meeting with senior union figures on Thursday night. Our correspondent said that he understood no deal had been offered in that meeting but that there was room for further negotiations. There was "some possibility" of the strike action being avoided, he added. | politics |
Blair Labour's longest-serving PM
Tony Blair has become the Labour Party's longest-serving prime minister.
The 51-year-old premier has marked his 2,838th day in the post, overtaking the combined length of Harold Wilson's two terms during the 1960s and 1970s. If Mr Blair wins the next election and fulfils his promise to serve a full third term, he will surpass Margaret Thatcher's 11 years by the end of 2008. In 1997, Mr Blair became the youngest premier of the 20th century, when he came to power at the age of 43. The last prime minister to be installed at a younger age was Lord Liverpool, who was a year his junior in 1812.
Mr Blair's other political firsts include becoming the first Labour leader to win two successive full terms in power after the 2001 Labour landslide. And the birth of the Blairs' fourth child, Leo, on 20 May, 2000, was the first child born to a serving prime minister in more than 150 years. The last "Downing Street dad" was Lord John Russell in 1848. Labour won a huge majority of 167 over the Conservatives in 2001, but Mr Blair has since been criticised by many in his own party. The war in Iraq and reforms of the health service and education system have provoked dissent from backbenchers.
Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer under Mr Blair, became Britain's longest-serving chancellor of modern times in 2004. Former Labour leader Lord Kinnock said the chancellor would be best placed to take over from Mr Blair. When asked about the future leadership of the party, he told ITV Wales' Waterfront programme: "That contest is a long way away and it will occur only when the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, decides he's subscribed all he can and then wants to go. "I think that the main contender will be Gordon Brown, who is a man of virtually unmatched capability and now great experience." Both Mr Brown and Mr Blair rose to prominence when Lord Kinnock led Labour between 1983 and 1992. | politics |
Tories leave door open for Archer
The Conservative Party would deal "sympathetically" with any application by disgraced peer Lord Archer to rejoin its ranks, its co-chairman has said.
Dr Liam Fox told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme there was no place for "vindictiveness" in politics. Lord Archer spent two years in prison after being convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice. The former Tory deputy chairman's five-year suspension from the party has just elapsed.
A jury ruled that Lord Archer lied during a libel trial against the Daily Star at the High Court in London in 1987.
He won damages after the newspaper printed allegations about involvement with a prostitute. Dr Fox was asked if he would say yes or no if Lord Archer applied to rejoin. "I'm sure that in line with people having served their sentence and having done some reparations for what they did wrong, we would look at that sympathetically. "I don't believe in vindictiveness, I don't think that has any place in politics, unlike the prime minister and Alastair Campbell."
Tory peer Lord Tebbit said he agreed with Dr Fox's view, and said the case should be looked at on its merits. "After all, he is far from being the worst perjurer in the world," he added. Meanwhile, senior Conservative MP Sir Teddy Taylor warned that moves bring Lord Archer back into the fold could be controversial. He said: "I suppose, on a Sunday in particular, we should always make provision for forgiving sinners. But there is no doubt it would be controversial." Lord Archer, who was not available for comment, remains a popular figure among constituency Tory parties and is a successful fundraiser. He has not been seen in the House of Lords since his release from prison in July 2003, although there is nothing in the rules to prevent him from attending. | politics |
Mandelson warns BBC on Campbell
The BBC should steer away from "demonising" ex-Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson has said.
The European commissioner and former Labour minister was speaking amid claims that Mr Campbell is part of a Labour "dirty tricks" campaign. That charge was denied by Mr Mandelson, who said the Tories were afraid of Mr Campbell's campaigning skills. He warned the BBC that attacking Mr Campbell had brought it trouble before. That was a reference to the Hutton inquiry following a BBC story claiming Downing Street "sexed up" Iraq's weapons of mass destruction dossier.
The affair prompted the resignation of BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, director-general Greg Dyke and reporter Andrew Gilligan. Labour has attracted media criticism for using new freedom of information laws to dig up information about Tory leader Michael Howard's past.
Mr Mandelson, a former Labour communications director, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I understand why the Tories will be gunning for Alastair Campbell because they fear his campaigning skills. "What I understand less is why the BBC should be joining with the Tories in driving that agenda. "In my experience of these things, parties which shout about dirty tricks and the like tend to do so because they fear a direct hit in some vulnerable part of their political anatomy. "I suggest the BBC concentrates on the issues and helps the public to understand the policies and the choices that are at stake in the election rather than engages in the process politics, the trivialisation of the campaign. "I think the BBC would be much better advised to leave all this stuff well alone, concentrate on the issues as I say, not resume their demonisation of Alastair Campbell - we all know where that led before."
Mr Campbell is acting as an adviser for Labour, which denies engaging in personal campaigning. Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox said Mr Campbell's return and Labour poster plans attacking Mr Howard - recently withdrawn from the party's website - were a sign of "abusive politics". "The government, despite the fact that they would say want to go forward, not back, seem intent on talking about history rather than their own record or even more importantly, about the future," he said on Sunday. Labour peer Baroness Kennedy, who is chairing the Power Inquiry into political disengagement, said people already thought politicians engaged in dirty tricks. "This feeling of distrust is going to be enlarged if this campaigning on all sides is conducted in the way that it looks as if it just might," she said. | politics |
'Debate needed' on donations cap
A cap on donations to political parties should not be introduced yet, the elections watchdog has said.
Fears that big donors can buy political favours have sparked calls for a limit. In a new report, the Electoral Commission says it is worth debating a £10,000 cap for the future but now is not the right time to introduce it. It also says there should be more state funding for political parties and candidates should be able to spend more on election campaigning.
There were almost £68m in reported donations to political parties in 2001, 2002 and 2003, with nearly £12m of them from individual gifts worth more than £1m. The rules have already been changed so the public can see who gives how much to the parties but the report says there are still public suspicions. The commission says capping donations would mean taxpayers giving parties more cash - something which would first have to be acceptable to the public and shown to work. "While we are not in principle opposed to the introduction of a donation cap, we do not believe that such a major departure from the existing system now would be sensible," says its report. If there was to be a cap, it should be £10,000 - a small enough amount to make a difference but which would have banned £56m in donations between 2001 and 2003.
Even without changes the commission does urge political parties to seek out more small-scale donations and suggests there should be income tax relief for gifts under £200. It also suggests increasing state funding for parties to £3m so help can be extended to all parties with at least two members in the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly. And it suggests new ways of boosting election campaigning, seen as a way of improving voter turnout. All local election candidates should be entitled to a free mailshot for campaign leaflets, says the watchdog. And there should be a shift in the amount of money allowed to be spent at elections from a national level to a local level to help politicians engage better with voters.
The report suggests doubling the money which can be spent by candidates, while cutting national spending limits from £20m to £15m. The commission also says the spending limits for general elections should cover the four months before the poll - as happens with other elections. Electoral Commission chairman Sam Younger said: "There is no doubt that political parties have a vital role to play in maintaining the health of our democracy and for this they need to be adequately resourced. "Our research has shown that people want to be more informed about party politics and that they want politicians to be more visible and accessible. "The public are reluctant for the state to fund parties but at the same time are unhappy with large private donations." He called for a wider public debate on party funding to find the consensus needed for radical changes to the current system. | politics |
Conservative backing for ID cards
The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.
The shadow cabinet revealed its support ahead of next week's Commons vote on a bill to introduce compulsory ID. The decision follows a "tough meeting" where some senior Tories argued vociferously against the move, party sources told the BBC. The bill, which ministers claim will tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, is expected to be opposed by the Liberal Democrats.
They have said the scheme is "deeply flawed" and a waste of money. Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said. Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.
They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. "It will do nothing to solve the immediate problems of rising crime and uncontrolled immigration."
Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards. "The Tories should have the courage to try and change public opinion not follow it." The new chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained." | politics |
Howard denies split over ID cards
Michael Howard has denied his shadow cabinet was split over its decision to back controversial Labour plans to introduce ID cards.
The Tory leader said his front bench team had reached a "collective view" after holding a "good discussion", but admitted it was "not an easy issue". He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration. The Lib Dems have pledged to oppose the bill when it is debated next Monday.
Tory sources say senior party figures had argued vociferously against the ID card scheme. Among those reported to have serious reservations over the strategy were senior shadow cabinet members David Davis, Oliver Letwin and Tim Yeo. But Mr Howard denied Mr Yeo, his transport and environment spokesman, said the plans "stink". He also said he was confident shadow home secretary Mr Davis would "set out the position very clearly" when he stands up to debate the matter next week. Mr Howard said the police had said ID cards could "help them foil a terror bomb plot in which people could lose their lives". He added: "When the police say that you have to take them seriously".
He acknowledged there were "good libertarian arguments" against the cards, but said the shadow Cabinet had weighed up all the "conflicting interests" before reaching its decision. "I don't pretend that it is an easy decision but at the end of the day a decision has to be taken." He also denied he was afraid of looking "soft" on the issue, compared to Labour. The Conservatives announced their support for the government plans on Monday evening.
Sources within the party told the BBC Mr Howard had always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. But the Tories insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.
They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would be able to deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten has branded the ID scheme a waste of money and "deeply flawed". He said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards."
The chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained." Tory ex-minister Douglas Hogg said he opposed the plans for ID cards branding them a "regressive" step which would intrude into the lives of ordinary citizens without any counterbalancing benefits. He predicted ultimately carrying the cards would become compulsory and that would lead to large numbers of Britain's ethnic minorities being stopped by police. | politics |
Taxes must be trusted - Kennedy
Public trust in taxes is breaking down because Labour and Tories are not being straight with people on the issue, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said.
A day ahead of the government's pre-Budget report, Mr Kennedy used a speech to say his party was facing up to "painful economic realities". He said the current level of taxation was about right, although he would put a new 50% tax on top earners. Other parties have accused the Lib Dems of making uncosted promises. Mr Kennedy made it clear he was determined to counter that accusation. The Lib Dems have already published what they say are the full costings for all their plans and Wednesday's speech did not announce new policies.
Speaking at the Commonwealth Club, Mr Kennedy said it was critical for a political party to have economic credibility, both on what it promised and what it was expected to deliver. He said. "Budgets have to add up. Tough choices are needed in public spending." The Lib Dems would cut "low priority" spending, including the government's ID cards scheme and the Child Trust Fund.
Those cutbacks would free up funds for increasing basic state pensions for over-75s, putting more police on the streets and reintroducing fee eye and dental checks, he said. The Lib Dems argue they were honest about taxes in the past by calling for a 1p rise on income tax. Now they say the only simple tax rise they want is a new 50% tax band for top earners to pay for scrapping university tuition fees, providing free personal care for elderly and disabled people and keeping local taxes down. There would also be a local income tax to replace council tax and a number of changes to environmental taxes to ensure it is the "polluter who pays".
The Lib Dems say the Tories have only laid out possible options for cutting taxes to grab headlines while Labour has hidden most of its tax rises. Mr Kennedy said: "That contract with the people - that the government will only tax fairly and will spend their money wisely - can only be sustained if the political parties are straightforward about their plans. "With the stealth tax strategy of Gordon Brown, the obvious unfairness of our current tax system - especially the council tax, and the empty promises of the Conservative party on this issue - it is no wonder that trust in taxation is breaking down." He challenged the Treasury to open up its books so the National Audit Office can report on the government's performance.
Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox said: Liam Fox said "If Charles Kennedy is serious about making his budgets add up he should start by explaining how they would fund their 100 spending commitments. "The reality is, the Lib Dems lack the courage to tackle waste and bureaucracy, and the only people who would face 'tough choices' would be the families who would be £630 worse off a year. " And Chancellor Gordon Brown said the Lib Dem figures did not add up. He accused the party of claiming it would spend less while across the country committing itself to spend more. | politics |
Galloway targets 'New Labour' MP
George Galloway is to stand against pro-Iraq war Labour MP Oona King at the next general election.
Mr Galloway, who on Thursday won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph said he would contest Bethnal Green, in London, for Respect. The Glasgow Kelvin MP, who was expelled from Labour over his anti Iraq war stance, accused Ms King of being a "New Labour stooge". Ms King said she was "delighted" at the chance to take on Mr Galloway.
Mr Galloway's current constituency is set to disappear under planned boundary changes in Scotland.
The 50-year-old MP launched Respect, the Unity Coalition, in January along with 1,000 anti-war activists, and the Muslim Association of Britain. The party's declared aims are an end to the occupation of Iraq, the repeal of anti-union laws and the end of privatisation. Speaking from a cafe in Brick Lane, east London, Mr Galloway said he had accepted the party's invitation to stand with "great honour and pride".
He added: "Here in this constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow there is a New Labour stooge MP. "A stooge who will sing any song, make any speech, do any dance, do anything she is told to by Tony Blair - irrespective of how her constituents are adversely affected or how strongly they feel to the contrary." Ms King has represented the constituency since 1997. She said: "I'm delighted I've been given the chance to finish him (Mr Galloway) off, and believe me I will. "I know many people around the country will be grateful, not least his constituents in Scotland who he has shamelessly abandoned." In June's European Parliament elections, Respect failed to gain enough votes for an MEP but did come first in Tower Hamlets borough, most of which is covered by the Commons constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow.
A month later it gained a council seat in a by-election in St Dunstan's and Stepney Green ward, Tower Hamlets. Mr Galloway said that in next year's expected general election and local elections a year later, the party would "turn the East End of London into a fortress". Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have chosen prospective parliamentary candidates for Bethnal Green and Bow from the Bangladeshi population, which makes up almost half the electorate. The Telegraph was sued for libel by Mr Galloway after the newspaper claimed he received money from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The newspaper said it was in the public interest to publish the claims, based on documents found in Baghdad. Mr Justice Eady said he was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation". | politics |
Election deal faltered over Heath role
The Tories failed to hold onto power in 1974 after Liberals demanded Sir Edward Heath quit in return for co-operation.
Documents released after 30 years reveal the failed negotiations by the then prime minister following the dramatic February general election. Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe appeared willing to form a coalition government. But it partly collapsed over the Conservative leader's own role, prompting the Queen to ask Harold Wilson to form a Labour government. The February 1974 general election surprised the nation when it created a hung parliament with no party in overall control. Sir Edward had gone to the country for a fresh mandate amid the spiralling economic crisis, a miners' strike and the subsequent three-day week. Labour emerged with the most seats - but its 301 MPs were 17 short of the number Mr Wilson needed to form a majority.
Sir Edward, who had received more votes but had fewer MPs, believed he had the authority to remain at Number 10 providing the 14 Liberal MPs would support his government. He said the Liberals could keep out Labour in three ways: lend ad hoc support to his minority government, help draw up the government's programme, or have up to three Cabinet members in a coalition with the Conservatives. According to the documents released at the National Archives, the "friendly and easy" first meeting indicated that both Sir Edward and Mr Thorpe thought they had the makings of a deal. Mr Thorpe was in high spirits, having just led his party to a historic jump in support. He also argued for a grand coalition of all three main parties. But Sir Edward said that was impossible because the Labour left was set against it and the pair settled on trying for a Conservative-Liberal pact.
Hours later Sir Edward's hopes of a deal unravelled as Mr Thorpe's colleagues refused to support him. "Jeremy said he was encountering a rather embarrassing problem with his colleagues about the prime minister personally," reads a telephone memo for Mr Heath.
"They feel they could not agree to serve as long as he is the prime minister. "Asked if this was his own view he said - no it was not, I am very close to Ted and thought he was by far the most able man we had and he would be perfectly happy to serve - it was only some of his colleagues who were being difficult." The following day, the stickling points had clearly become two-fold: Mr Thorpe's colleagues wanted electoral reform and Sir Edward's resignation. Mr Thorpe told Sir Edward: "I am sorry this is obviously hell - a nightmare on stilts for you. "Somehow I personally hope that we can work something out."
Four hours later, Sir Edward called the Liberal leader back to Downing Street in a last attempt at a deal. The minutes of the meeting show how the chance of a coalition government quickly evaporated. "The PM said he was bound to tell Mr Thorpe that his colleagues had told him that they would not agree to serve under any other prime minister. Mr Thorpe was at liberty to verify this by talking to one or two of the prime minister's colleagues." Documents show that Sir Edward mulled over resigning and perhaps returning to coalition government in a Labour-led coalition. But he already knew Mr Wilson would not form a coalition with either the Liberals or the Conservatives because of the opposition of the Labour left. Within hours of his final talks with Mr Thorpe, Sir Edward told the nation he was resigning and the Queen invited Mr Wilson to form a new minority government. | politics |
UKIP outspent Labour on EU poll
The UK Independence Party outspent both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the European elections, new figures show.
UKIP, which campaigned on a slogan of "Say no to Europe", spent £2.36m on the campaign - second only to the Conservatives' £3.13m. The campaign took UKIP into third place with an extra 10 MEPs. Labour's campaign cost £1.7m, the Lib Dems' £1.19m and the Greens' £404,000, according to figures revealed by the Electoral Commission on Wednesday. Much of the UKIP funding came from Yorkshire millionaire Sir Paul Sykes, who helped bankroll the party's billboard campaign. Critics have accused the party of effectively buying votes. But a UKIP spokesman said Labour and the Conservatives had spent £10m between them on the last general election. "With the advantages of public money the others have, the only way the smaller parties can get their message across is by buying the advertising space," he added. | politics |